When you want to discuss complex issues such as the societal effects of a phenomenon you need to possess a deep understanding of the material and a vast general knowledge of fields related to it. That's just one man's opinion.
´´that's just one man's opinion``, now that i value a lot. very nice statement. well, that's where we lose track. what you think is what most people think, and they might be right. we're talking about phenomenons and peoples. i believe to do something on both fields you should look more inside than outside. if you look outside you'll see how other people behave. if you look inside you'll understand why. because there's more of that in you that you can admit.
have a tendency to filter out anything that might contrast a cultivated notion of "I am awesome. You don't know better than I", which combined with the contemporary fad of self-promotion and fame for the sake of fame, have created the "youtuber" phenomenon (a term I personally find amusing).
i don't even know them. that's the amount of importance i give them. some friends of mine (not much) talk about this or that youtuber. i don't know them. that's unusual nowadays, to do not know these people. my colleges were having a discussion the other day while i was writing on this very topic about how there young kids only watch youtuber's without a single brain cell. the thing i'm more against, and by against i mean not against anyone, just against any type of notion i might have on myself, is self promotion, cultivation for any sake. i know, it's dumb. i'm like a monk on that aspect. i'll put it like this: what i read, what i listen, i don't listen to improve anything, i don't have any goal, i don't need to spread it, but i actually do in here, but, i do it because it makes me fell better about myself. that's what art is to me. and if the author is not honest about himself, i won't fell that connection. those youtuber's intellectually, culturally or artistically don't worth a single thing, because there's no honesty in what they do. but i'm not sure if that's what the op wants to do.
Social media have given everyone a voice, which might be great in theory but in practice, at least in my opinion, not everyone deserves a voice because not everyone has something useful to say.
and what would be useful to say? that obviously depends, and i believe ultimately nothing is important to say or do. ´´in the process of growth, the oak is not better than the acorn; because what does it do? it produces acorns! or you could say that a chicken is one egg’s way of becoming others. so an oak is an acorn’s way of becoming other acorns. where is the point of superiority?``
The problem with this is that if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem because what you are putting out there will most likely than not, be unimportant trite for your own gratification (as is the vast majority of youtube channels) and leave even less room for those individuals with something worthwhile to say. Which is exactly why I posed certain questions to Ami for her own introspection.
yes. but take it from this angle. people search for what they need. is like
charlie kaufman said about love: ´´people search for the love they think they deserve``. i give importance to same thing you do, i can tell that by what you wrote, but there are people that might not give that importance. so, now what do we do? we remain honest to ourselves about what we do, without expecting anything in return. i have a strong notion, that the return is the most dangerous thing to any artistically form of creation.
I hope this little wall of text gives better context and helps you understand that I am in no way saying what your father said, i.e. "i shouldn't make a point to him because i'm young". As I said, age is just an indicator. Your reaction of "f*ck experience" though is part of what I was describing above. Something goes contrary to the bubble we create around ourselves and makes waves on our echo chamber of patting ourselves on the back, so we immediately disregard the whole notion of it (in your case experience). It's a defense mechanism which sometimes might prohibit us from seeing our flaws and opening ourselves up to new opinions. These are my two bits on the subject.
i agree, age is an indicator. the younger you are the better you understand how to live in this world. after that, the conventions, the ideas, the "knowledge" comes. the next thing you know you're trying to analyse, label and pack everything together to make a meaning out of it. old people have nothing to teach me. that's honesty, you might think it's arrogance. and oh boy, i've listened to them, a lot, what they've thought me, and they've thought me a lot is how to live to the expectation of others, how to read people and anticipate there behavior and ultimately don't trust them. that was a good advice's actually, i thank them. if i'd choose to live life to there standards? if i think a old man because he have gray hair is a well of knowledge? no, i don't.
PS. I heavily resent this quote: "don't you listen to old people, and listen even less to those who've pilled books inside there heads, they're dangerous". I would argue that listening to someone never hurts, on the contrary it is the only way to put your ideas and views to the test. I would also add that reading literature or "pilling books inside your head" is a great thing (should I bother pointing out the irony of you quoting a book right after saying this?). Actively seeking knowledge is incredibly useful. I am not sure how the opposite is anything more than rewarding ignorance. If anything is "dangerous" it is rigid minds who do not want to listen to other ideas or acquire more knowledge. That is why I ended my previous comment saying that I would follow the early work of Ami irregardless of what I wrote and if she decides to go through with it I honestly hope she proves me wrong on every point I have made in this thread.
for you to listen is like listening to the car radio song, even so you don't like it, but you're too tired to lift your hand and turn it off. that's not listening to me. oh yes, i take two steps back when i see someone that says that reads i don't know how many books. they're dangerous, like
bukowski said it in the
poem the genius of the crowd. if you've read what i've been saying on this forum (and i hope you've not), you'll see i quote a awful amount of people. i have the notion i don't have any original though or anything interesting to say. now, the old people though me to give two steps back when i see someone with a full library on there head. i honestly don't read much, when i do read i never make a distinction between the author and the work, and i do thinks the other way around, i first author and then the work. that's why i read
bukowski or
william blake. if you're not honest about why do you do the things you do, why do you want to write, why do you seek knowledge-- is a cultivation, what they'll have to say have no importance to me. but my importance is the least important thing, i don't have any illusions about that.
Reply to Topic
