Is there anything wrong with cultural elitism?

Is there anything wrong with cultural elitism?

Time is limited, so we should read and listen to and watch only the best that art gives us. What's wrong with that?

Nothing wrong with that whatsoever.

>"Is there anything wrong with cultural elitism?" he asked the cultural elitists.
>"Nothing at all" they answered.

What's wrong is that you believe an educated taste makes you like only what's best.

Not only there is anything wrong with that, but it is actually the best action for the informed reader.

Nowdays is it hard to read someone getting called 'pleb' in this board. What's going on?

All is vanity

only normies don't like like it, because
>muh manga/graphic novel/ya is art too!

>best
>art
I'll decide what's best for myself before buying tickets to that objectivist circus

You need to hear the voices of unprivileged and oppressed all the time etc etc

Are you high?

K I L L A L L F R O G S

Beyond that you are absolutely right. So get off Veeky Forums, dumb frogposter.

You have to read works that are shit but are produced by someone who is a member of an oppressed group, that's what my prof told us. Is that clearer?

What is clear is that you are neither insightful or funny. You should read better books.

If you've ever been pissed off while reading this board because someone called you a pseud, you may have a problem with cultural elitism.

To be clear, I think that people should pursue the "best" books and use literature as a way to see the best that humanity has to offer, etc. Reading books that just confirm your own worldview, give you an immediate rush, or whatever is not valuable to the reader in the long run.

Having said that, going "full elitist" is hard to get on board with because there will never be full agreement on what those elite works or ideas are. As soon as you think you got to the top of the pack by reading every Greek ever you'll have some dude claiming he's even more elite because he read the Mesopotamians and then another guy claiming that he licked a sanskrit tablet and so on. Even if agreement is reached, though, that leads to dogma and a lack of genuine dialog. It massively turns people off to becoming part of the dialog when you demand that they "catch up" by reading a list of 80 books before saying anything. To be sure there should be some standards ("I read John Green and this Plato guy sucks" is bad, for example) but going full elitist is only going to enshrine the "most learned" people and shut everyone else out to the benefit of nobody.

tl;dr Don't go full elitist but do have standards

Good art by itself is useless.

Cultural elitism for the sake of cultural elitism is backwards. Things can only be good by the ongoing study of history, theory, other works not necessarily deemed good.

A survey course of things considered good in your short life will not give you any great insight. It will make you feel sophisticated which is generally not the purpose of art.

Because artistic elitism implies objectivity, and art is anything but objective.

Nothing, but the vast majority of people do not possess the ability to comprehend the narrow window of culture that is actually useful and good so they still need something to entertain themselves with and that's fine as long as its not degenerate

Oh, I'm sure you're the king of insight and comedy, fuckface

Cultural Elitism is fine so long as you are right. Problem is most people think so.

nice bait btw

I'd say there's a political problem underneath it but not definitely. You can have a problem with it but its not a problem itself.

Sound argument, user. Thanks for sharing

>Is there anything wrong with cultural elitism?

No. There is nothing wrong with elitism to begin with, because if everything is the same, it means nothing has value.

>Is there anything wrong with cultural elitism?
being obnoxious about it is wrong

Ya seethin

Because there is no real line determining what is good and what is not.

So you spend your life searching for what is good and worthwhile.

Nothing at all.

See pic related. Harold Bloom makes a similar argument in the Western Canon.

>The Mahabharata
Isn't the Mahabharata notorious for being extremely long?

Who defines what's best?

Because it's popular and well known? Very definition of a pleb.

>The Mahabharata is the longest known epic poem and has been described as "the longest poem ever written".[7][8] Its longest version consists of over 100,000 shloka or over 200,000 individual verse lines (each shloka is a couplet), and long prose passages. About 1.8 million words in total, the Mahabharata is roughly ten times the length of the Iliad and the Odyssey combined

>1.8 million words
The entire ASoIaF series is 1.7 million words.

This.

Everyone on here acts like they do or should only read the highest of literature, as determined by fellow pseudo-intellectuals and sperglords.

The fact is, the average American watches television for 5 hours a day. Five fucking hours every single day. Some choose to replace some of those hours with reading YA shit and whatnot. And we sit here on our little imageboard saying they are wrong, we know better. Reading this is a far better use of your time.

We each waste plenty of time every day. Read the western canon. Read YA shit. Read nonfiction. Read philosophy. At least you're not watching TV for 5 hours a day.

Or watch TV. It doesn't matter. Life's too short to spend of all it worried you're wasting it.