/hobby/ - Hobby

i think good media according to me is something that i enjoy, something that makes me feel things that i want to feel and i want to keep engaging with it

that's good

There's no such thing as a general "good" in the sense you are asking for. First you have to define a metric.

Is it good entertainment?
Does it have good politics?
Is the skill of the creator(s) put on good display?
Is it good at making you think?
etc

"media", "the arts" "entertainment"or whatever are emotions, ideas, desires made into commodities. You consume media not because of what it is but because of what you desire.
I feel we should not treat entertainment different from other commodities, people needs to be entertain in the same way they need a blanket or a chair.
I also feel consumption of entertainment should be measured like diets, like there is junk food and healthy food there is junk entertainment and healthy entertainment, cheesy movies and self indulgent YA novels against realistic dramas and long form journalism.

pull back the curtain and look beyond media to the medium. (which may also just be "media". that's how McLuhan says it. words!)
Independent of whether they're good or bad, different mediums shape human interaction in very different ways. It's tempting to say, for example, that watching old soviet documentary films is good media use, while sitting on ancap Twitter is bad media use, but in those cases you'll get bogged down in their good politics vs bad politics, their vintage production versus contemporary nature, their high-brow vs low brow appeal, in short their content, and you'll miss the big gap - which is between the film and the character-restricted written word. the gap between their mediums. The counterintuitive result is anti-communist propaganda films have more in common with Soviet documentaries than they do with anti-communist Twitter, and vice versa for ancap twitter and left-twitter.
Which would imply that the big gaps we should find are between people who enjoy different mediums, more than between different media within those mediums. Only online there's the wonderful confounding point that a lot of how we see this will itself be mediated by a medium of its own.
i.e. if you look at the difference between book twitter and film twitter, you've the problem that they're both primarily twitter. like trying to find elevated background radiation levels from the boiling middle of the reactor core.

If that all seems vague, I am working in my own way towards a sort of point. I imagine the stereotypical communist to be a sort of literary elitist. "Read a fucking book". I don't really, in that I know nobody reads, but it's helpful to imagine, so let's do it. The result is that when looking at new mediums, they tend to scorn them as stupid, low brow, unintelectual, a waste of time and so on, and then leave the matter at that. As a result they miss the chance for a dispassionate analysis of (for want of a better phrase) the politics of that medium. How will it reshape human relations, and who will win and lose from the change? (and, of course, to what degree can it be turned to our purposes?) Whether we like it or not, Twitter and Tiktok are here and they're bending the world to their whim. If that's for the worse and it puts up yet another insurmountable barrier to the left, that's all the more reason to understand them. It does nobody any good to plug their ears and imagine that with a printing press and enough unpaid student labour, you'll have a literary revolution in a post-literary society.

The irony is that, in taking this position, it's hard to actually say what makes good content, since content is by far secondary in its impacts. I'm left with far less exciting answers: it's good if its entertaining, it's fine for things to be idealist and un-marxist, a line has should be drawn between high brow content and "prestige media" content", and all mediums puppet us in ways which are philosophically unnerving and politically questionable. with all that said, then, it's easiest to just say: have fun and don't be too defensive about anything.

the objective valuation of cultural products is untenable on a materialist epistemology. in bourgeois society the subjective valuation of cultural products is stratified by social class and educational background. read Bourdieu's Distinction for more information.

>>30289
what about something that makes you feel: melancholy, anger, maybe even rage, something that reminds you of past heartbreaks.

Are these things you necessarily want to feel?

What if the purpose of the piece of media is specifically to make you uncomfortable, to have and contend with negative thoughts and perhaps even your own toxic or sociopathic character traits.

Thinking about stuff like, transgressive fiction here. Last Exit To Brooklyn, Irvine Welsh, that kind of stuff.

what of revulsion, the saw movies and so on? Is it good to feel revulsion at simulated violence, is it good or bad that you see this and similar things?

Further, what about interactive media like video games, can somebody learn about morality by playing as an immoral character in GTA, or do they unlearn morality?

I realise I'm talking about morality like its fixed or something, assume I am referring to some vaguely defined notion of "proletarian morality" whatever that may be, but we can say, it is a set of values which seek to elevate the working class from their current condition.

>>30291
>Is it good entertainment?
a gladiator fight? Surely yes. But is it GOOD according to a sense of proletarian morality?
>Does it have good politics?
does it need to in order to be valuable watching?
>Is the skill of the creator(s) put on good display?
So this is a purely aesthetic question or a question about the construction of the media itself? In which case, aren't films basically a practice of illusion, and you don't necessarily want to see the skills that went into it, rather the seamless product in front of you?
>Is it good at making you think?
think about what and why and how are you thinking about it?

I'm not trying to be all fedora lord and aggressive btw just stimulating discussion

>>30296
>I also feel consumption of entertainment should be measured like diets, like there is junk food and healthy food there is junk entertainment and healthy entertainment
I agree, but I am asking doctor, what should my diet be?
>>30299
>hello yes, this is socdem media support
>oh I see, you're having content issues?
>yes and which medium was that?
>uhu, yeh
>did you check to see if your medium was mediated?
>okay sure, yup I got that uhu
>so, looks like the problem is with your medium
>gonna have to have somebody come out and look at how its mediated
>mhmmm yes often the medium can affect the message, anyway, yes. Yes that is correct. No, there is no deductible. No. Yes. Anyway, we can have somebody out Monday, how does 10.30am sound?

In seriousness though, does the medium shape the message, necessarily, I think we can safely say with twitter, there are other forces at work than simply the functory realities of the platform itself, its userbase, who they are, create a lot of the content. There are also blocks of users, formed offline, away from the medium, or y'know, NAFO troll farms and so on.

>>30301
got an links or key quotes?

>>30306
i think it is good still, one of my fav movies always makes me cry

it doesn't always have to be a positive emotion
recently i had this experience with HOTD, it deals with very vile and cruel matters but at first I decided to not watch the show any further, but I realized the show was very addicting and it was still on my mind, not a forbidden fruit way, I just really enjoyed all the lore building

I have abandoned puritan ideals because they are an extension of my intrusive thoughts were everything has to be clean and pure, it's not possible or real

About repulsive or media that's supposed to make you uncomfortable, As I said, if it approaches or makes me feel these things in a manner yes even the uncomfortable in a decently comfortable manner, I'm okay with it

I don't know if it's good or not to feel revulsion at violence because honestly some people watch movies with a different lens, would you say a mother who overworks and feeds her 10 children and relaxes by watching fake blood spew out is a bad person? I wouldn't

People are their actions more than they are what they speak or consume

I don't know what kind of morality can elevate the working class out of it's working condition

It would have to be anti-exploitation, helping those who cannot be helped, it would be against selfish accumulation, superhero movies kinda fit this morality, but i would say so do most of media produced, it's very left and as they say "reality and human nature has a communist bias"

People like People and like to help each other, only when the conditions are forced upon them to fight against each other for resources does the ugly get created which the capitalists laud over as "hoooman nature"


So I would say proletarian morality media would be something that's not cynical, something that believes and brightens the spirit that things can be better and can be done better and by the people, something that's not reactionary in its beliefs and messages

>>30306
>I agree, but I am asking doctor, what should my diet be?
What is your diet like at the moment?

Should I read Guy?

>>30421
I don't know, should you, my guy?

>>30421
Debord? You should but he did not write about media.
> The empty debate on the spectacle – that is, on the activities of the world's owners – is thus organized by the spectacle itself: everything is said about the extensive means at its disposal, to ensure that nothing is said about their extensive deployment. Rather than talk of the spectacle, people often prefer to use the term 'media.' And by this they mean to describe a mere instrument, a kind of public service which with impartial 'professionalism' would facilitate the new wealth of mass communication through mass media [English in original] – a form of communication which has at last attained a unilateral purity, whereby decisions already taken are presented for peaceful admiration. For what is communicated are orders; and with great harmony, those who give them are also those who tell us what they think of them.
> The power of the spectacle, which is so fundamentally unitary, a centralizer by the very weight of things, and entirely despotic in spirit, frequently rails at seeing the constitution under its rule of a politics-spectacle, a justice-spectacle, a medicine-spectacle and all the other similarly surprising examples of "mediatic excess." Thus the spectacle would be nothing other than the excesses of the mediatic,[5] whose nature, unquestionably good since it facilitates communication, is sometimes driven to extremes. Often enough society's bosses declare themselves ill-served by their media employees: more often they blame the plebian spectators for the common, almost bestial manner in which they indulge in mediatic pleasures. A virtually infinite number of supposed mediatic differences thus serve to dissimulate what is, on the contrary, the result of a spectacular convergence, pursued with remarkable tenacity. Just as the logic of the commodity reigns over capitalists' competing ambitions, or the logic of war always dominates the frequent modifications in weaponry, so the harsh logic of the spectacle controls the abundant diversity of mediatic extravagances.
http://www.notbored.org/commentaires.html

>>30449
interdasting, thanks…

Those are some awful questions, but I'm still gonna plug Verso which has some good reads on this
https://www.versobooks.com/books/subjects/27-film-amp-media