I watch films for entertainment

>I watch films for entertainment

Best way to tell you're speaking to a disgusting plebeian. Since the Kulturindustrie exists, art should be purposely unentertaining, boring. When a film is uninteresting, it only means that it is efficiently avoiding the structures of perception capitalism created in order to control and standardize artistical manifestations. Films should not be what you see to forget your daily problems, to forget your daily life for a few minutes. Life and art should be integrated, since art is basically an elaborated form of work, and Marx has already explained us how work is a fundamental part of human essence.

Learn to be bored. Watch Tarr. Be better, educate yourself. Is up to you.

Or keep ruining art discussing your retarded capeshit films.

>Amusement under late capitalism is the prolongation of work. It is sought after as an escape from the mechanised work process, and to recruit strength in order to be able to cope with it again. But at the same time mechanisation has such power over a man’s leisure and happiness, and so profoundly determines the manufacture of amusement goods, that his experiences are inevitably after-images of the work process itself. The ostensible content is merely a faded foreground; what sinks in is the automatic succession of standardised operations. What happens at work, in the factory, or in the office can only be escaped from by approximation to it in one’s leisure time.

~Theodor W. Adorno

>making adorno threads on Cred Forums to try and lecture the locals

is this a pasta or are you actually this pseud?

You never know where and when you're going to enlighten someone.

U need some friends bro

Might as well kill myself if I can't enjoy something.

/leftypol/ here. Adorno was a reactionary idiot.

I have plenty.
Pleasure =/= enjoyment. There is a specific distintion in Adorno's philosophy.

Can you elaborate on that distinction?

don't harass the locals, mate.

it's a cunt move. just leave them be.

Adorno's only mistake was to exclude the proletariat as a revolutionary agent from his theory.
Yes, the distinction in German is actually different, but what I meant to explain is that refusing amusement is not the same as refusing happiness or pleasure. The cultural industry sells amusement, which falsely translates to happines. I say "falsely" becuase happiness implies a state mantained in time, while amusement is conceived as a momentary escape from work. An idea of true pleasure should integrate work and art, otherwise is just entertainment.
We're just talking here, man.

Lol, I agree dude.

*tips*

Great argument.

>The cultural industry sells amusement, which falsely translates to happines.
Oh, you're talking about true happiness. Well, I am looking for amusement because I like being amused. I don't see anything inherently wrong with that, especially considering I only work one day a week and it's easy work.

Argument, bro? What do you mean? I'm agreeing with your deep post. Hey dude, I know this awesome website. It's called reddit. You should check it out.

*tips*

I know you like amusement, I also like amusement. That is the point of amusement, it is meant to be liked. Not a problem if you're confortable not questioning why you're amused by some things and bored by others, but if you care about art I suggest you do. I'm glad that you're priviliged enough just to work one day a week btw, unless you're exploiting people.
You seem to be familiar with that website, right?

And so how does that tie in with watching "boring" films and Bela Tarr?

I don't quite understand what you're trying to get at. I also don't think you understood the above quote "What happens at work, in the factory..." He's being critical here, saying that the entertainment created for the working man is basically an "approximation" of the work he does. Think of a cop watching a cop film. It's not an escape as you seem to describe it, it's basically "the prolongation of work."

Of course, dude. Us redditors have to stick together!

And people wonder why Cred Forums keeps shitting up threads outside of their containment board.

>And so how does that tie in with watching "boring" films and Bela Tarr?

Tarr is just an example on how we are so used to, for instance, fast montage, that something as simple as a 10 minutes shot with no cuts seems incredibly boring. It is good to illustrate how perception is not natural but manufactured, and I think it is healthy to question our common ways of seeing.

>e's being critical here, saying that the entertainment created for the working man is basically an "approximation" of the work he does

Not incorrect but not accurate enough. You can't read Adorno without remembering the marxist background present at all times. When he says amusement is a "prolongation of work" he is refering to alienated work. Then, what it is sold as an escape from it is nothing but it's prolongation. The problem of amusement is not really being amusing, but promising more than what it actually is. Think of any advertisement when in order to sell you, say, a car, they portrait also the incredible type of life you would have. That is similar to the logic described by Adorno: the illusion of prolongated pleasure that ends when the cultural product ends, so that then you're ready to go back to your alienated work.

This is so profoundly stupid that it's been transcended by its own movement.
There is now postcapitalist art that continues to entertain, while also informing.
Furthermore, not all entertainment is escapism. This is just the pseudoontellectual version of
>"NO FUN ALLOWED!!!"

>unless you're exploiting people.
I'm a former neet turned custodian. Don't worry, I'm not exploiting anyone. If anything, I'm trying to get my life straight before I end up homeless.

>This is so profoundly stupid that it's been transcended by its own movement.
I present you dialectics.
>There is now postcapitalist art that continues to entertain, while also informing
There probably is, yes. Doesn't change the way amusement in the cultural industry works though.
>Furthermore, not all entertainment is escapism
I'd agree just adding that amusement, in the particular sense Adorno employs it, is.

I suggest Jameson's Late Marxism: Adorno, Or, The Persistence of the Dialectic to further information on how Adorno's theory can and can not still work today.

I wish you the best then.

>normies ask what you like to do
>say you like to watch movies
>they think you watch pleb trash or watch it like the average viewer without analyzing and dissecting every bit of information out of it no matter how bad the flick is
>they think you're just your average moviegoer who sits down and watches it

These fucking morons have no idea the time I put into them, the literature I read up on, the psychological aspects of kino, the emotion it evokes, the narrative it drives, the feelings you let yourself succumb to. They think your like them, but you aren't; you're more and better and live in a world of the utmost beauty, taking your love of cinema beyond a mere screen and enjoy the aesthetic beauty of the real world. Positioning and moving throughout the world to get the best visual experience you can possibly get out of this life, sitting still in a park and letting the sounds run through your vivid imagination as you transcendent while watching the sun set.

I don't watch movies, I experience them.

ikr

Hey cool somebody actually discussing something reasonably here and not just posting a copypasta or excerpt from something he's reading without understanding its context.
I jumped on you assuming you were one of the above, but good on you for actually trying to raise the level of discussion here.
In principal, I disagree that watching films "for entertainment" is a pleb filter, but I actually do know a little bit about the philosophy of art (though I've never gotten into the philosophy of film, specifically) and I can certainly appreciate the fact that without critically examining art, it's hard to understand it or get anything out of it. It can also negate the purpose of the art. It's also easy for art to get lost in product, if I can extrapolate from my decade old memories of Marx and Hegel and try to apply what I know to your excerpt of Adorno.
You've given me something to add to my reading list though, and it would be cool to see more discussion like this here.
Cheers user.

(For the record, I'm a nationalist statist pig, but I still love discussing this stuff civilly)

The fuck you thinking OP?! We want memes, not fucking mutual understanding!

I'll have to check out that reading, sounds good.

I get where you're coming from and I agree to a extent but
>Learn to be bored
I hope you're saying to learn to like what is perceived to be boring by the common industry standards. I honestly don't get bored at all with Tarr's films, isn't that the case with everyone that watches them? otherwise you're not getting pleasure out of it, it just comes across as forcing yourself onto it for the sake of saying you have good taste.

wtf i hate fun now

No, let's be honest, you get bored as part of learning how not to be. Learning what to do with that boredom, how to detach from it and understand it in aid of the experience rather than simply hold it against the experience, is part of getting into art cinema.

...

>I jumped on you assuming you were one of the above
I know, I was being purposely provocative on the OP, but if there is an opportunity for actual discussion, why not. Of course just dismissing "entertainment" as a whole with no distinctions is not the wisest thing you can do, but again: i think the point is to question why are some things "naturally" amusing and others aren't. If you plan to actually read some Adorno, I can't recommend Buck-Morss' Origin of Negative Dialectics enough. It is quite a difficult writer to just go ahead and read, and there is no better introduction to him that Buck-Morss that I know of. Hope you do find time to check it out.
>I hope you're saying to learn to like what is perceived to be boring by the common industry standards.
Right, that I tried to explain in a few other posts.
> otherwise you're not getting pleasure out of it, it just comes across as forcing yourself onto it for the sake of saying you have good taste.
This I don't agree, I'm rather with . If you legitimately are amused by Tarr's films, great for you, but I think that it is not common, and saying that is not a bad thing. People are used to other paces and takes in film, because most of what their watch is different from Tarr. How could they not be bored by it? Forcing it is not wrong, is making an effort to detach yourself from what you're used to, to make an intellectual attempt to go further than what you consider confortable.

I would gladly talk to you about kino on the cinema showers any day senpai