In an interview in 1991 (I will share the relevant excerpt translated/transcribed in this post), the Greek-French philosopher Cornelius Castoriadis pointed out a sobering fact: We live in an era characterized by the collapse of criteria and the prostitution of art.
That is to say, Castoriadis argued, we live in an era with no criteria by which to gauge art. As a result, art prostitutes itself and loses its true meaning. It becomes industrialized.
There are two important elements in this very short excerpt I will discuss in this post:
Castoriadis naturally spoke before the internet and – especially – social media. I wonder what he would think about them.
Importantly, Castoriadis argues that art should create its own criteria.
If art should create its own criteria, and we observe a collapse of criteria today, what does that tell us?
The Acropolis of Athens, Greece. Each era creates its own criteria. Parthenon still stands, 2500 years later(more…)
Goodreads has been around for quite some time, and a lot, a lot of writers and readers are there. It feels like it would be a great platform for a writer to promote their books, receive feedback and reviews, and all that. And yet, my experience has been such that I’ll have to say, no, I don’t think Goodreads is worth my time.
Don’t get me wrong, I can’t say I haven’t benefitted from it. I’ve made some good friends and I’ve read some great books thanks to Goodreads. But the overall time I’ve had to invest, plus the way certain things function make me think that Goodreads is worth less than the overall effort and time you put in it.
This is tricky to quantify and explain, which makes the whole process rather insidious. To put it this way, it did take me some time to realize it. It’s also the reason why I bother talking about it; in an effort to help others.
So, let’s take a deeper look at all this. I’ll talk about my experiences with the platform, and why I think Goodreads isn’t worth my time. Your mileage may vary, of course.
Come to think of it, your mileage will very likely vary. But the reasons are still important.
Judging the Goodreads worth factor involves understanding how much you’ve got to dig through dirt to find traces of gold.(more…)
Today’s post “The Problematic Allure of Social Media Aesthetics” is authored by Binati Sheth. She’s a writer, a gardener, and an amateur artist. Check out her blogs and essays. You can find her living her writerly life on LinkedIn, YouTube, and Instagram.
When do you want to live? The past? The future? The present? If I were to give you a choice right now, what would you choose? Ideally, we want everyone to say the present. “I want to live in the present” should be the healthy choice. Sadly though, many people on social media are choosing not to. Enter, social media aesthetics.
Aesthetics is classified as a branch of philosophy (of beautiful things). These things could be natural, artificial, or hybrid. We all love beautiful things, and we all have unique definitions of beauty. Social media aesthetics are no different. A social media user creates or takes photos with a particular aesthetic framework in mind, to establish a brand identity, tone, and personality. It all sounds like harmless fun.
But, as they often do, humans end up ruining things.
During the pandemic, cottagecore, dark academia, and Y2K aesthetics trended globally. It began as a love for warm colors, rustic life, and a fondness for knowledge and nostalgia. I personally dabbled in dark academia while turning a blind eye to some of its problematic aspects. I wrote Victorian era letters to my pen pals while spinning a pirouette around all the oppression, instead focusing only on the opulence. As I was not alone in doing this, I noticed the problematic allure of chasing aesthetics. There’s an incredibly literal problem with aesthetics – it is not about impact; it is about beauty.
Social media aesthetics – such as cottagecore, dark academia, and Y2K aesthetics – can be alluring, but also very problematic(more…)
