Thread 283132183

>"It's fun."
>"as long as it's entertaining, it's good."
These opinions are absolute dogshit. They show a lack of media literacy as well as help to kill art and intellectualism in general.

No one cares

>>283132197
>>283132183 (OP)

Fun things are fun.

>>283132183 (OP)
suck your dick, pseudo-elitist troon

>NOOOO YOU HAVE TO CARE ABOUT JOURNALISM OPINIONS YOU KILLER OF ART AND INTELLECTUALISM
>STOOOP HAVING YOUR OWN OPINION AND FOLLOW THE JEW CODEEEEEE

>There're no boys in main cast
>Means the main cast are all dykes
These opinions are absolute dogshit. They show a lack of media literacy as well as help to kill art and intellectualism in general.

>>283132183 (OP)
These opinions are correct. You are a faggot.

>>283132183 (OP)
>media literacy
Stopped reading right there

>>283132183 (OP)
Once you develop an aesthetic sense, you will learn that entertainment is part of the craft.

>>283132183 (OP)
Early life?
was OP molested as a child?

>>283132183 (OP)
You're underage

>>283132183 (OP)
>if you don't agree with me you're stupid
And yet you're accusing other people of being intellectually lazy.8wd4g

>>283132215
tpbp

>>283132183 (OP)
but picrel is the symbol of anti-intellectualism

>>283132183 (OP)
and yet you hate kill la kill

>>283132183 (OP)
The phrase "media literacy" typically means you're an idiot who's just following a program
That being said, you're right
Lots of things I enjoyed are objectively dogshit and I'm not afraid to admit it

>>283132183 (OP)
Entertainment is made for entertainment purposes. People who need "themes" or "messages" in everything aren't intellectuals, they're midwits who think they're smarter than they are. 90% of the time the curtains are just fucking blue.

>>283133166
I think you misunderstand the point
Of course the curtains are blue
But should the author have mentioned the curtains?

>>283133166
>90% of the time the curtains are just fucking blue.
teen alert

>>283132183 (OP)
Great art comes from making things "for fun", art that tries to be intellectual and/or appeals solely to critics end up forgotten. Pseudo-intellectual think otherwise because old art is unpopular and only studied by modern intellectuals; but when that old art came out, it was appealing to the average person of that time and sometimes rejected by the elite of that period.

Fun is important. If the story has plot holes or lacks satisfying payoff or the characters are annoying, it's not fun. If it's well written but a pointless miserable ordeal, that's not fun either.

>intellectualism
If the author is making references to poetry or obscure symbolism, that's just pretentious, not insightful. I'm not reading the entire works of Robbie Burns just so your story makes sense.

It's also not insightful to write yet another novel about how greed is bad and poor people are miserable. People were saying that in the middle ages.

>>283133428
>If the author is making references to poetry or obscure symbolism, that's just pretentious, not insightful
you watch without subs, right anon?

>>283133428
>If the author is making references to poetry or obscure symbolism, that's just pretentious, not insightful. I'm not reading the entire works of Robbie Burns just so your story makes sense.
bro's going to be filtered by dante and milton

>>283132183 (OP)
>"It's deep."
>"as long as it's intellectual, it's good."
These opinions are absolute dogshit. They show a lack of media literacy as well as help to kill art and entertainment in general.

>>283133428
I wonder if you and OP are working with the same definition of intellectualism

it's true, intellectuals only watch shows that are neither fun nor entertaining

>>283132183 (OP)
>media literacy
>art
>intellectualism
Fun things are fun. Faggot.

>>283133136
It's just not a good show.

>>283132253
This but unironically

>>283132183 (OP)
Kill yourself, retarded artfaggot.

>>283133187
You would expect that the author brought attention to the curtains for a purpose; to create a picture in the reader's mind and/or as symbolism.

>>283133166
>90% of the time the curtains are just fucking blue.
The curtains are never just blue.
There is always a reason why the curtains are relevant at all and why they may be blue.
Also it is important to note that there is inherent significance to blue drapery, as the blue dye was historically very expensive and limited to certain social classes.
After the development of synthetic dyes it still retained that meaning for a long time and only fairly recently has blue become a more common color. However this trend was largely limited to clothing and immitation of military uniforms which used the newly available cheap blue dyes to signal (often royal) authority.

The curtains are never just blue.

>>283133874
And if they didn't they suck at writing
And if they did they still might suck at writing

>>283132183 (OP)
If cartoons are where you're going to learn philosophy, intellectualism is already dead to you.

>>283132183 (OP)
However, due to my superior taste, most things that are fun to me, are also deep and intellectual, which has lead me to trust my intuition that fun = good.

>>283134192
Are you me?

>>283133976
They're just blue.

>>283133976
>>283132183 (OP)
Fun things are fun. Any deeper meaning you garner is purely your own personal interpretation of the work.
If you are using simple book descriptions then you have a shallow grasp on the material and have litte life experience.

>>283133976
Of course the drapery is blue you idiot it is a painting of a castle. Your meandering ling winded description did nothing but point out the historical most obvious conclusion.

The Royalty are rich.
Therefore the drapes are blue.
Because blue drapes were historically expensive.
Meaning there was no deeper thought or consideration put into it the blue drapes are simply blue. Everyone would have considered that an obvious fact.
The fact being the drapes are just blue.

>>283132183 (OP)
rape Yui

>>283134358
>it is a painting of a castle
it is not a "painting of a castle", it is a painting of King George IV's throne room in his personal villa. It is from the 18th century, far prior to the advent of color photography. Is a descriptive painting that serves to show you what the room looks like.
This is another example of how a lack of education breeds ignorance.

>Everyone would have considered that an obvious fact.
Except today, this is no longer obvious, because blue dye is cheap now. Today, blue fabric is widely available.
So a group of retarded highschoolers would not be able to understand the idea that the curtains being blue would singnify status.
This is something the people of 200 years ago would've been able to parse immediately, and without thinking. To them the meaning would be obvious, as you pointed out.

>>283132183 (OP)
You know what's really fun(ny)? People like you tend to lack the intellectual capacity for meaningful critique. Someone should make a bell curve meme for this. Half the time someone like you claims anti intellectualism you're simply not smart or educated enough to see all the layers there are to the audio visual components. The things smart people feel/see (beide their inner eye), so see little need to articulate.

>>283133976
Saddest part of this post is that you don't even get how every single line makes you look dumber than the last.

>>283134729
Saddest part of your post is that you are making zero arguments.

>>283134742
Yes, cause you're neither intelligent nor interesting enough to warrant effort. You don't understand that in consumerist, audio visual media elements are included not for subtextual multilayered means, but because it's a necessity to include them. The room isn't filled with objects cause the objects mean something, but because it would look retarded without a bed. Stop trying to apply literary criticism, something built atop the idea that the author deliberately tells you what color something has and it thereby carrying meaning, to audio visual media where countless elements automatically end up being shown despite them not having such. They exist to make what you're looking at normal. For there to be pictorial balance and aesthetic cohesion. Not at all comparable. You're not smart. Stop fucking acting, you underbaked cretin.

>>283134457
They didn't paint it for today. They didn't paint it for you.

>>283134742
Shut up nerd. Tired of you pseudointellectual renditions. That's right I called you a name go cry about it.

>>283132183 (OP)
itt. retards biting the bait

>>283134825
You fail to understand two things are distinct and one of them is much worse than the other:
First off, the mise en scene is deliberate. People just fill up the scene with random garbage, especially when the scene is animated. Everything is there because some decided that it is there. And even if the finest details of the mise en scene are arbitray, the broad strokes are always highly intentional. You can now bicker about what a detail is or how much of a given mise en scene is relevant, if you want.
Yes bedrooms tend to have beds, but where the bed is in relation to other things, what is on the bed what other things are in the room, these things establish character. If a character lives in a barren empty room, that says something about that character. That is meaning that is being conveyed.

But, of course, all this nonsense about how much mise en scene is relevant or isn't relevant doesn't even apply to the given example of "the curtains are blue" as this specifically references a highschool level literature class and I don't know if you know, but books are not anime.

>>283132183 (OP)
>>"as long as it's entertaining, it's good."
The only problem with that statement is just the sheer amount of people that watch objectively bad media for the entertainment value.

>>283132183 (OP)
100% agreed.
This kind of thinking is why isekai got big.
It's gotten to the point where young creators get actively and explicitly taught to make shit without substance, because shit without substance sells, because people say "as long as it's entertaining, it's good.".
"Killing art and intellectualism in general" indeed.

>>283132183 (OP)
This thread is neither good nor fun

>>283132183 (OP)
I have no media literacy, and yet somehow all the anime I like because they're fun and entertaining also end up intellectually analyzed and critically praised.
So where does that put me?

>>283135134
Above OP but below me.

>>283135149
Are we having a threesome?

I'm an intellectual btw

>>283132215
>Fun things are fun.
and yet the people who say this always watch unfun garbage

>>283135344
K-on is fun

>>283132183 (OP)
Everything you like is shit and everything I like is great.
That's just how things go, anon.

>>283132183 (OP)
Fun, good, intellectual, and entertaining are one and the same to me because I am based.