A city for someone into literature should be a place with culture...

>Communities of writers, artists
Hasn't existed since the propagation of the internet. There is no "it" city like Paris of the 20s anymore.

I didn't say it was like paris in the 20s but it does exist.

what worth have you produced, user?

He isn't right, but what he says is true.

It's not true. He is just baiting.
>Mostly selling dogshit, and probably you can buy everything you need from Amazon.
You can buy books cheaper in bookstores than you can on amazon and you don't get the community aspect. Also it's fun to look through old used books.
>Bunch of beta cucks, unable to produce even the slightest hint of worth.
Most likely any respectable artist from our times is going to be living in NYC (or some other big city) and they are going to have a community of like minded friends. So factually he is wrong.
>Mostly playing dogshit.
Film Forum is playing The Cranes are Flying. Anthology Film Archives is playing Bresson and Jonas Mekas. Metropolitan Opera is playing Mozart and Wagner. I don't know shit about theatre or concert halls but I'm sure you can find good stuff playing too.

Not a single bookstore in America sells books cheaper than Abe. Your idea of a community of writers of high quality is pure fantasy. The art films coming out these days are shit. I can listen to Mozart in the comfort of my own home without paying $75 for it.

Attached: eCwMAkG.jpg (385x256, 31K)

But 99% of the books being sold in both chain and independent bookstores is rubbish. It is almost only the used books which are of any value, and as much as I like supporting local stores, there is a greater selection of these online.

That you offer respectability as an essential criteria for evaluating art is precisely why most art today is shit. The entire market for art is driven not by any particular beliefs about life and meaning, but primarily by novelty and class associations. The "respectable" artists do have to spend some time in NYC because that is where "respectable" galleries are and where "respectable" shows happen, and that's because the "respectable" buyers are there. Of course, the "respectable" buyer is just a rich person, who today has no real philosophy or concern for cultural values, and they invest in art primarily for the clout they get among their fellow "respectable" friends for having art from the "right" artists. The "right" artists are whoever a very small selection of critics consider to be "right", which at this point has more to do with political arguments than aesthetic.
It is true that in large cities like NYC and London, you will have the only meaningful access to great works like Bresson and Mozart and so on and so forth; however, these are not reason enough to live in these god-forsaken cities. It would be easier and better to work in some other community to make these works accessible, than to move to a place like NYC just because it's already there. Anyways, life itself offers more variety and value than any work of art.

are you ok user? do you need a hug?

People on here hate metropolitan cities because 4channers are far-right. The idolisation of rural living and vilification of "bugmen" on here isn't because of any objective judgement of city life; it's because diverse metropolitan places tend to be left-leaning and rural places tend to be far-right.

Read Tarr by Wyndham Lewis, and you will realise the charlatanry that goes on amongst the bourgeois-bohemia.

You are baiting too hard.. I know you aren't serious but I enjoy it anyways.
>Not a single bookstore in America sells books cheaper than Abe
Where can you get large leather books and obscure academic books for 50 cents-1$?
>Your idea of a community of writers of high quality is pure fantasy.
So when the respectable artists/writers of our times get together for a meal. This isn't real. They are lying to us.
>The art films coming out these days are shit.
I didn't say modern films. I said art house cinemas. Hence bringing up Kalatozov.
> I can listen to Mozart in the comfort of my own home without paying $75 for it.
Really. On your apple headphones? It's just like having an opera singer in your room! Who needs to ride a roller coaster when I can pull up the videos on youtube?

>no u
>who hurt you

Fuck off, reddit. You can't name a single counterpoint, you good-for-nothing cunts.

Bookstores are just as expensive as Amazon, if not more so because of the rent they need to pay. I have no idea where you find these cheap places.

>Most likely any respectable artist from our times is going to be living in NYC (or some other big city) and they are going to have a community of like minded friends.

Define "respectable". And conformity & circlejerks are known for producing good art, right?

>left-leaning
>far-right
The rural mindset is the starting point. All people shared it. It fundamental to civilization. It is only in cities that new ideas can exist without having to be tried. The cities came second. The economy of a city only works on top of the economy of what's rural. Rural communities lean right, and cities are far left. If you travel somewhere, it is not where you are coming from that has moved far away, but you. It is not an exaggeration to say that 90% of our nation's problems come from cities.

>cities are far left.
ah yes i remember seeing the hammer and sickle flag fly true from the windows of apple HQ. what are u talking about faggot? cities are capitalist hubs. they're liberal left-leaning.

>Most likely any respectable artist from our times is going to be living in NYC
This is the misconception that makes it more likely that they will not. Every mediocre journalist, "activist" artist, and diversity novelist flocks to Brooklyn, thinking this is where respectable artists go. Respectable artists are consequently pushed out and alienated.
>Film Forum is playing The Cranes are Flying. Anthology Film Archives is playing Bresson and Jonas Mekas. Metropolitan Opera is playing Mozart and Wagner.
Going to the Met or Film Forum is a status symbol for a majority of the people who go, whether they know it or not. What is playing, and its significance, doesn't matter. Considering Shakespeare in the park or any other Shakespeare production in the city, for just one example, is nothing more than a struggle session in which King Lear is bravely performed by a trans latinx actor, there's really very little to say for culture.

Fuck yea baby

If you are inoculated to the city, it is very difficult to see. But you probably don't realize the rainbow flag is more extreme than the hammer and sickle. The thing about cities is that people don't really talk to each other much. You only see the surface of other people's thoughts. If you think they're bastions of democracy and open conversation, you clearly haven't bother to read the books your peers base their lives on.

The entire south

>Rainbow flag
Yeah? Recognising the existence of LGBT people is not a far-left position. You need to clean the mud off your overton window.

Your language gives you away. We have always known gay people existed. It is not a new phenomenon. Don't pretend that it is only recognition. Or do you honestly still think it is?

Based and 100% correct

Attached: 1559866844867.jpg (736x563, 172K)

Even if someone finds issue with this style, I do not understand how someone can look at this and not think that something has been lost. There is a craftsmanship and a complexity which seems to have been erased from contemporary life. Maybe you find this architecture overbearing, but at least it isn't mundane.

Fair enough. Making sure LGBT people feel welcomed in your city and supporting their movement by putting flags up is not a far-left position either.

>supporting their movement
What is their movement? Why should acts like that be welcomed, let alone tolerated?

>What is their movement?
Pride parades (also known as pride marches, pride events, and pride festivals) are outdoor events celebrating lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) social and self acceptance, achievements, legal rights and pride. The events also at times serve as demonstrations for legal rights such as same-sex marriage. Most pride events occur annually, and many take place around June to commemorate the 1969 Stonewall riots in New York City, a pivotal moment in modern LGBTQ social movements.[4] In 2019, New York and the world celebrated the largest international Pride celebration in history: Stonewall 50 - WorldPride NYC 2019, produced by Heritage of Pride commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, with five million spectators attending in Manhattan alone.[5]
>Why should acts like that be welcomed, let alone tolerated?
That's funny; I would have thought that tolerating comes before welcoming but nevermind. Why should they be tolerated? Because they're causing no harm to anybody and they can't help their sexual orientation any more than you can help yours.

St Louis Missouri

See, you began in the shortened version saying it was about making people feel welcome. But as you explain their movement, you reveal that it is really much more. It is not merely making them feel welcome, but celebrating them, as if they are civic heroes. It also pushes for various legal and political changes, which inherently contradicts with the notion that they are minding their own business. Marriage, for example, used to be something which governments had no say over--it only had religious meaning. This, of course, is only the most prominent of the positions. As to the issue of tolerance, they are hurting people--primarily themselves, but also culture itself. Homosexuality changes the dynamic between men and women, influences masculinity incredibly, and in very harmful ways, and it confuses the order of society. Case in point--you, in your last line, conflate sexual desire with sexual activity. That is a catastrophic idea which is an explicit aim of far-left philosophy, of extreme liberality. You believe, because I am against homosexuality, that I must hate gay people, which could not be further from the truth. This stems for your core misunderstanding that sex itself is fine, and even between a straight couple it should be free and without consequence. So you then think, if it's okay for straight people, what's so bad about gay people having sex. It then reinforces your destructive misconception. They may not be able to help their orientation, but the activity itself is damaging; we should not be encouraging sexual liberality by anyone. I am sure you will find this opinion shocking and retrograde, which will only demonstrate how far left you are, because you can't even see the extremity of your idea. Sexual liberation is extreme left, and no society which has adopted it has survived.