Anon 03/13/2021 (Sat) 23:53:41 No.7341 del
>>7339
>you ... know you're effectively agreeing with me here, right?
as a standalone phrase, I agree. Within the context that was said here, I don´t share it.

>Maybe it's just the impetuousness of youth that insists the art and the artist can be taken separately. Or maybe that was a postmodernism that I never actually ascribed to

actually, no. The theory of this comes from a teacher who is specialized in literature and it deals with the roots of what´s literature (both the theory and its criticism)

Perhaps this discussion stems from the theory itself. Because for judging properly a work, the interpreter should be qualified enough in order to judge scientifically a piece of work without entering into doxology, moral or ideological territories...that is to say, said interpreter would have to study quite a lot for avoiding those traps and the scientific research of a creative work requires a systematical organization in terms of form and matter, connecting all the elements that come into play.

Literature doesn´t exist within the postmodern world because everything for a postmodern interpreter has to be related with phenomenology and psychology which prevent the interpreter to see any form of literature, therefore, the philosophical materialism theory considers that postmodern literature is an oxymoron by itself.

Now, what you´ve referred to the rest of your post means that...

>Not disagreeing. Or at least, the unicorns in the audience would know you're faking it.
>It's like writing about dreams -- it exposes your subconscious, which is unfamiliar with/bad-at lying.
>Being 45 might affect this conversation.

Message too long. Click here to view full text.