What say you Veeky Forums? Do you agree? I especially agree with the poetry...

El em ay oh. Muh "famous linguist agrees with a pathetically uninformed opinion I developed at the age of 18."

I bet you unironically worship chomsky too. Keep memeing the good meme, goy

>spending my summer shitposting on lit about how postmodernism is the source of our problems

End me

I don't know why you're gonna talk about poetry if you haven't even read stevens. God you are such a poser.

What always makes me laugh are plebs on Veeky Forums who think that art works in some sort of homogeneous way. They'll see a silly piece of modern art and they'll start sperging out, as if the reptilian elite arranged that gallery for that piece to be there, instead it was most likely an art student who got lucky and did not really think that he was somehow going to represent contemporary art at large.

Basically these plebs are completely removed from the contemporary art scene, wether it's literature, music, visual, whatever, yet they have no real familiarity with classical art either. Since they've never experienced and atudied it, they
1) can't conjure their opinion
2) figure out that they know shit about how the art discourse works: casually
Since they can't imagine a multitude of point of views, the mere existence of these pieces of art, that defy those classical standards that even they know fucking nothing about, is enough to trigger them, as though if they don't get enraged all art will be one day statues of female SWAT agents pissing while squatting.

Has Stephen "ASS" Pinker ever been right about anything?

I agree completely because that's what post-mod is by definition. If everything is subjective then I can bend the preset standards to whatever I please to make myself seem deep and insightful. When really I'm just a faggoty 19 yr old with no real knowledge of literature or philosophy that lives in Austin and does shrooms on the weekend.

It has nothing to do with moping about muh generation, it's about objective reality that tradition is superior to these rebellious and worthless derivatives and some of them are not even derivatives

>tries to dismiss intellectuals
>immediatly resort to stereotypes as his main argument

Give it a try

hey now, there's nothing wrong with doing shrooms

>superior
Justify this claim.

I never said poetry that doesn't have meter or rhyme is invalid you fucking faggot. I said I dislike it. Period. It may be in fact very good. But good prose to me should be a monologue or a diary or something. I know there is a lot of good modern art, but there is an overwhelmingly fervent focus on the massive amount of shit art primarily.

Why the fuck do you think people still consider pieces from eons ago as CLASSICS and most modern work have the life expectancy of a house fly. The modern works that are acknowledged as quality are in fact DEEPLY rooted in tradition. It's impossible to neglect tradition. There is no modern without tradition. There is no new without old. There is no novelty without consistency. Babbling buffoon you are. Imagine eating crickets instead of listening to therefor special effects. You ruin natures mise en scene.

What's it like knowing what modern works will be considered classics centuries from now? I wish I could have that kind of insight.

There's some serious sampling bias here. We remember only the fantastic literature from the past because only the good stuff has survived. It's easy to perceive current stuff as bad because we see the stuff no one will care about 100 years down the line

Well rhyme is just the invention of a barbarous age used to off set wretched matter and lame meter.
And he's just flat out wrong about the last point, other than maybe clarity being sacrificed.

Did you even read what I wrote you fucking mongoloid. Try again poo lapper

Dip shit, there was a adherence to structure and thought and not an “anything goes” mentality. Obviously Im not saying anything rooted in tradition is gold but it will have structural integrity.

This crictism is an example from Judith so and so who was or is a literary professor/critic at berklee.

>wtf is she saying

It sounds like when that kid who just learned some big words starts using them to impress his friends. This is the link to the whole talk

youtu.be/CuQHSKLXu2c

Have you read any, for example pre-Marlowe English drama? Like the really awful shit like Robyn Hod and the Shryff off Notyngham? I encourage you to look that stuff up.

Even if you accept aesthetic criteria of "structural integrity" = good, everything else = bad, literature way more complicated than "old stuff had structural integrity, new stuff doesn't"

Dood. Your not saying anything. If I need you to validate why I should be impressed with your product. It's most likely a piece of shit. Understanding is different. Understanding and still not being impressed becuase the products is in need of an attachment like someone's explanation and context is more proof to the matter.

You're a clueless retard.

>m-muh ad hominem
If you're not going to argue your points, I won't either.

funny when someone like a.r ammons engages with tradition, very erudite, and people consider it shit because he wasn't writing in interwar period. traditionalists have no taste and rely on a canon to prop up their opinion because of it.

>complains about ad hominem
>uses ad faggetium again
Did you read my original paragraph you mindless cuckadoodledoo

Basically just saying a nominalist ontology was one of the major theoretical shifts between structuralism and post-structuralism.

I mean. Do you really not understand what she's saying? Are you not familiar with why Althusser was an important theorist of ideology and hegemony who made theoretical advances that were important for post-structuralist conceptions of culture, power, ideology, subjectivity, and agency?

>architecture without ornament
>MUH MARBLE GARGOYLES
What a tasteless faggot.

>music without melody, rhythm
I'm honestly fucking mad here desu. This guy is legitimately an idiot.

Most pissy traditionalists would have fucking hated the majority of well regarded classic pieces at the time as well. They have no concept of what they're bullshiting on about.

Yes I agree.

Continental philosophy is a disease which has mutated into many others.