Is art supposed to be enjoyed?

>I read it. It changed my life. I'm here.
so Jung was right, again.

Attached: 1613576759242.jpg (739x415, 28.27K)

Art is supposed to be enjoyed, but enjoyment can take many forms and what Ulysses offers is only one form.

Man, Jung is so fucking based. Ulysses is the equivalent of some fat neckbearded manchild sitting around for 2 years building a huge random construction out of legos.

Sure, you spent a lot of time and effort making this huge ugly thing...but at the end of the day you can fuck off.

filtered

Filtered by what? What is it that you desperately cling to with this book?

The unintelligent way in which you described the book shows that you have no clue what you're talking about. You're unable to appreciate good literature of this kind.

You do realize that I'm asking you to bring forth some substantive reason why the book is good...and yet your reply is just continued personal attacks? Do you think that your posts here are going to compel anyone to do anything with Ulysses other than wipe their asses with the paper?

Nta but there are different kinds of literature that are enjoyed in different ways. Ulysses appeals to a certain type of reader. The sincere Ulysses fans I’ve talked to understand why someone wouldn’t like it. And why do you want everyone to like what you do? I thought we were contrarians here?

>ESL fags know it deep down
Does esl stand for English second language? If it does, why do they know it deep down?

It isn't anyone's job to tell you why it's 'good'. You either know/appreciate the context within which Joyce was working/developing/revolutionizing or you don't. And if you don't know it's probably because you're a low IQ faggot who reads genre fiction kek. If you read Molly's chapter and had no reaction it unironically means you're too braindead for the book. Seethe.

Because they compare Joyce's experimentation and revitalization of the English language to their own pathetic mother tongues and realize theirs will always be second-rate from now until the end of our species.

Sorry but your definition isn't exhaustive. When I read the hunger games I felt boredom and that's a feeling. Does that mean that the hunger games is good? No, it doesn't

agreed, asking if people genuinely enjoy ulysses is like asking if people genuinely enjoy sour foods. No way, things have to be sweet to be enjoyable, duh.

only for people who view art as fashion

Okay so you're on a literature board, talking about one of the most (in)famous books of the twentieth century, and you can't name a single thing about the book which makes it "good" except this:
> It isn't anyone's job to tell you why it's 'good'. You either know/appreciate the context within which Joyce was working/developing/revolutionizing or you don't. And if you don't know it's probably because you're a low IQ faggot who reads genre fiction kek. If you read Molly's chapter and had no reaction it unironically means you're too braindead for the book. Seethe.
So not only are you living proof that (probably even against the intent of Joyce) Ulysses is propped up as nothing more than a "long and exhaustive hurdle" which is for "high IQ readers only". Is Ulysses the Elden Ring of books? Are you speed running it now? If I read Molly's chapter and my reaction is that it was overwrought garbage, would it still appease your requirement of "being able to understand the book"?

Ulysses was written as an academic trap, those who approach it on that level will never get out or be hopelessly filtered. Joyce said it himself
>I put in so many enigmas and puzzles that it will keep the professors busy for centuries arguing over what I meant
If you just read the book as you would any other than it is very enjoyable and not needlessly dense. Let life provide the clues naturally instead of myopically trying to solve it.

Okay but you could explain that guy instead of saying you don't get it, which is why he didn't like it. I liked it but I don't defend the "you don't like it, you're a faggot", I prefer to explain things or give clues

It's just more proof of post-modernism as being nothing more than self-referential, directionless and self-aggrandizing.

yes so hunger games gave you a lack of feeling, a lack of interest and you felt bored. maybe i should have mentioned that I don't finish any book i find uninteresting or engaging. but thank you for clarifying, i agree with you.

I'm the guy asking him to explain it...I was memed into reading it in college just like everyone else was. I know full well what its contents are, its impact as a "stream of consciousness" work and Joyce's rule breaking and word games.
My intent with asking the "you're a faggot" user to formulate in words what makes Ulysses a good book, is to prove that most people who talk about it too much or act like they "get it" are just try hards who use it as some kind of intellectual bench press weight.

>their own pathetic mother tongues and realize theirs will always be second-rate
Honestly that's bullshit. Yeah, there aren't a non-english writer who had done the same as Joyce did with Ulysses though that doesn't demonstrate anything about English but about Joyce (ie he is a genius, which has nothing to do with the language he speaks). Tomorrow any non-english speaker could release a book which revolutionizes its language (probably not at the same level as Joyce did, but at some lower-but-respectable level)

Not the same guy you replied but isn't boredom a feeling itself?

>No way, things have to be sweet to be enjoyable, duh.
Based. Most people are narrow minded, nothing new though

>OMG a hundred page long sentence!! He's so based!! I love this book!!

>I personally had the best reading experience of my life with the book over the course of a semester-long seminar. However, I've been afraid my attachment to it makes me a pseud.
oh no, some frogs on a mongolian basket weaving forum are gonna tell you you're dumb for liking something, what now?

Ignore that type of guys, bro

I'm not a fan of Ulysses, but I would say yes. The majority of art depends on evoking emotion or revealing our own personal authenticity (however you choose to express yourself, either relating to real-personally lived experience or thru fiction)

Personally, art doesn't need any justification. Art should simply be for its own sake and self expression. I enjoy well-made art and I spend a lot of time refining my own techniques, but I don't think any art really needs a reason for its existence. That would just seem insincere to me trying to classify reasons for art or justifications - people can enjoy any art they choose.

Unfortunately I also see some with a shallow view or conception of art, acting like art itself was made solely for attention or fashion statements

Fuck those kinds of people

>everything I dislike or don't understand is pomo
Nah, you are just retarded.

Yes. I don't know what is up with this wave of autists I see here who act like you aren't supposed to enjoy or be entertained by art, like that is mutually exclusive and not allowed.

Keep coping. The very logic of English lends itself to experimentation and boundary pushing. The Romance languages are incapable of this.

>to prove that most people who talk about it too much or act like they "get it" are just try hards who use it as some kind of intellectual bench press weight
Well that doesn't need to be prove, is self-evident

Kek, the based come from that not every enjoyable feelings are comfortable ones. One could enjoy cold, pain and sadness. If you can't, I encourage you to try it.
And you would make a favor to yourself if you try to understand what people mean instead of have a preconceived answer even before have read the message

I think those quotes might be out of context? Or he changed his mind. Jung also said
>
What is so staggering about Ulysses is the fact that behind a thousand veils nothing lies hidden; that it turns neither toward the mind nor toward the world, but, as cold as the moon looking on from cosmic space, allows the drama of growth, being, and decay to pursue its course.

>Keep coping
Not coping at all, English doesn't have anything especial. Every language has its exploitable features

>The Romance languages are incapable of this.
There are hundreds of languages, not just English and romance ones

You missed the green-texting, sad

I compared to the Romance languages because their development is as old as English and yet nobody from those respective areas did anything half as inventive as Joyce or Woolf or Faulkner. Seriously. Hell, none of those fuckers even if have their own Shakespeare. There's something either exceptional about English or exceptionally pathetic about the Romance languages.

jungcurrents.com/jungs-essay-on-ulysses
Jung said he spent 3 years reading Ulysses until finally writing about it.
>Ulysses’ is the creator-god in Joyce, a true demiurge who has freed himself from entanglement in the physical and mental world and contemplates them with detached consciousness. He is for Joyce what Faust was for Goethe, or Zarathustra for Nietzsche. He is the higher self who returns to his divine home after blind entanglement in samsara. In the whole book no Ulysses appears; the book itself is Ulysses, a microcosm of James Joyce, the world of the self and the self of the world in one. Ulysses can return home only when he has turned his back on the world of mind and matter. This is surely the message underlying that sixteenth day of June, 1904, the everyday of everyman, on which persons of no importance restlessly do and say things without beginning or aim–a shadowy picture, dreamlike, infernal, sardonic, negative, ugly, devilish, but true. A picture that could give one bad dreams or induce the mood of a cosmic Ash Wednesday, such as the Creator might have felt on August 1, 1914. After the optimism of the seventh day of creation the demiurge must have found it pretty difficult in 1914 to identify himself with his handiwork…

>The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely.
>All art is quite useless.

here, boredom could be defined as: the feeling of a lack of feeling.
unless you know a better word that more accurately describes what I'm trying to say.

More
>“It seems to me now that all that is negative in Joyce’s work, all that is cold-blooded, bizarre and banal, grotesque and devilish, is a positive virtue for which it deserves praise. Joyce’s inexpressibly rich and myriad-faceted language unfolds itself in passages that creep along tapeworm fashion, terribly boring and monotonous, but the very boredom and monotony of it attain an epic grandeur that makes the book a ‘Mahabharata’ of the world’s futility and squalour…the truth of Tertullian’s dictum: ‘anima naturaliter christiana’. Ulysses shows himself a conscientious Antichrist and thereby proves that his Catholicism still holds together. He is not only a Christian but–still higher title to fame–a Buddhist, Shivaist, and a Gnostic .

>However, I've been afraid my attachment to it makes me a pseud.
Things only pseuds say

So the OP quotes are lacking context and not black and white as they are represented. Thanks. Will give Jung's essays a read after I finish the reread of Ulysses which I started last night.

Yeah, seems to me that the OP context is a little off. Jung even wrote a letter to Joyce saying that he spent 3 years reading Ulysses over and over trying to figure it out.
jungcurrents.com/carl-jungs-letters-to-james-joyce-after-reading-ulysses
That said though...Jung congratulated Joyce for writing this big tough "nut to crack" (Jung's metaphor), but at the end of the day Jung seems to find it completely pointless to waste your time on something which is just a distillation of every day life on earth. Essentially Jung says there's nothing to be gained from reading it, and that Joyce's "detachment of consciousness" is what merits discussion.

>There's something either exceptional about English or exceptionally pathetic about the Romance languages
Idk I'll study it, I'm pretty interested. If someday you see a thread about it, you'll know you inspired it

>Essentially Jung says there's nothing to be gained from reading it, and that Joyce's "detachment of consciousness" is what merits discussion.
kek. That is about where I would expect Jung to end up at. Looking forward to reading them.

Based user. Have a Joyce sentence, on me:
>"His soul swooned slowly as he heard the snow falling faintly through the universe and faintly falling, like the descent of their last end, upon all the living and the dead."

My fart frankly frightened my cat as he heard the brown burble through the pants.

>boredom could be defined as: the feeling of a lack of feeling
That is impossible because that would imply that if you feel boredom you don't feel it because it is a feeling, according to your definition. Also from my life experience, there is something like not feeling anything and I can guarantee it is totally different from boredom

I suggest that definition (I'm improvising so, probably, it is wrong): the feeling of mental uncomfort caused by lack of excitement

I honestly feel like it is a standard sentence, a long one but not a particularly strange one

People take Joyce too seriously. He’s having a laugh at academics and pseuds

You think that is a long sentence? What sort of stuff do you read?

Yea Forums

That explains it. Also explains why the sentence is lost on you.

ITT, typical Joyce pseuds comparing their "long sentences"

Suck on this big thicc sentence, pseuds:
>I walked down the street and then I walked down the street and then I walked down the street and then I walked down the street and then I walked down the street and then I walked down the street and then I walked down the street and then I walked down the street and then I walked down the street and then I walked down the street and then I walked down the street and then I walked down the street and then I walked down the street and then I walked down the street and then I walked down the street.

ennui (noun): a feeling of listlessness and dissatisfaction arising from a lack of occupation or excitement.