42

art must not be separated from the artist
but this has nothing to do with how people usually mean it

dial 8

hitchhiker's guide was big like 40 years ago what the fuck are you on

Actually, there was a movie that came out maybe ten years ago and that ignited some interest in the novel again. Also, the secret of life being 42 is a pretty well-known reference, I don’t know what to tell you.

This. Try talking to one about Updike or Woody Allen and they explode at you

God forbid you bring up Polanski, Last Tango in Paris, or Jodorowsky

He's talking about fucking Dante, you retard. Fucking /pol/tards.

What's going on there, big guy, you just used a semicolon?

...who is talking about Dante?

almost exactly
the original radio series was aired in 1978
the first book came out in 1979

>he’s talking about Dante
OP’s strawman? Regardless, advocating for the separation of art and the artist (outside of an aesthetical discussion about art requiring an artist, which is a different conversation) isn’t a /pol/ position. In fact, both the generalized far right and far left have trouble drawing distinction between art and artist.
>Woody Allen was a degenerate, Jewish pedophile, I’m not watching that
>Jodorowsky was a misogynistic rapist, I’m not watching that

He is talking about the relevance of theology to Dante, not the relevance of biography to some retard cinematographer.

The inability to separate art from the artist is the biggest sign of a pleb, as far as I’m concerned.

I don’t think people realise just how many artists do things or hold opinions that they wouldn’t like.

Art is what is plebeian. A very recent idea, which has unfortunately gathered momentum amongst the charlatans.

Who is ‘he’? user who the FUCK are you talking about? It says ORWELL not VIRGIL, god fucking dammit. Is that where you’re getting this ‘Dante’ nonsense from?

Dante is the most obvious example of a versifier whose "art" should NEVER be demarcated from its theology.

Oh, so we are just talking about OP’s strawman after all.

So where do you draw the line in terms of reading the author’s biography into the text (dante’s religious affiliation as part of his biography, obviously)? In less obvious examples, doesn’t that just lead to assumption, or reading authorial intent into a work where it doesn’t exist? I’m not saying that we shouldn’t, necessarily, for it can definitely enrich the text (the divine comedy being a good example), but doesn’t it set a poor precedent for criticism in general?

There is no line, as far as I am concerned. Verse should not be evaluated based on how virtuous it is, within the context of some emotional reaction, but how virtuous it is, within the context of logical teleology.

So you evaluate works based on their ‘virtue’ and how they well they achieve their aims? You read works through an ethical lens, always?

Harry Potter

No. But when they are wilfully sinful, that is, wilfully anti-teleological, then I have a problem. Alice's adventures in Wonderland, for instance, is whimsical, and fun, so I enjoy it on some level, and it deals with mathematics and something utterly non-teleological, such as chess, which I also enjoy. I guess you have a point. But those verses which are non-teleological should be valued on a lower level than those which are teleological, and they should never be taught seriously at university, or school.

Have a Xie as an apology for the misunderstanding.

Attached: 1.jpg (432x477, 73K)

Hmm, certainly an interesting take on criticism. No worries, this board is mostly one large misunderstanding

I unironically believe that having convictions is the single most obvious pleb marker

Attached: 1569156931763.png (900x676, 410K)