I'm attempting to describe a phenomenon I see, which pertains to art media and it's place in culture and the world, relating to the manner in which it reflects humanity and the populace for which it's a part and that it's of. The phenomenon is a missalignment in who it's trying to reflect and appeal to and what it actually is supposed to appeal to, were it to appeal to anyone at all. My mind went to the words "aethstetically confused", but the object in question isn't aethstetics, so what might I be trying to articulate?Sorry if that's confusing or sounds like sophistry, feels like mind puke and I feel gay for even typing that but I know I'm on to something.
>>1551909I can't understand what you're saying very well since it's not too well articulated, but the first thing that comes to mind is baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation. Maybe try reading that and see. At least the first chapter or so
>>1551915It's a bit hard to describe. What prompted my thought was the announcement of a game that people are calling woke because of characters and choices around them. "Woke" is obviously a term which points at something but doesn't really define anything, it points but it doesn't explain, and I was trying to find an apt description of the phenomenon people were picking up on when they rush to that term, how to describe what exactly it is that people think is wrong with it. Because I can't think of the word I need I just have to circle around it and hope someone understands. "Archetypally confused" is another thing which comes to mind but while the phenomenon concerns archetypes, that too doesn't work, because the object of the matter isn't archetypes. For all I know, what I'm trying to articulate hasn't even been given a word, and to be fair, a situtation which would promp the need to even think the word up I'm not sure has ever properly occured until recent times because it's something which has been taken for granted. Sorry if this is a bit word salady, but I can't help but make it so in an attempt to explain.Thanks for the recommendation, I'll have a gander at that book, though I don't expect it to have quite what I'm looking for. I might just have to work on inventing a whole new word LOL.
>>1551916I don't necessarily have a word, but I definitely think you should check out the book
>>1551920I'll definitely give it a read. Thank you!
Create some more specific examples, even if fictitious, otherwise it's too abstract to wrap my head around.Thus far, what I would recommend is A piece of work with "confused identity" or "wrong demographics".
>>1551909If you learn other languages, you will find that English is missing words for many things. Despite English having one of the larger vocabularies out of all languages, there are just many many things that lack a word, which exist in other languages, or the word exists in English but describes it quite poorly compared to the word in another language. That is the tragedy of English. Anyway, the word you're searching for may not exist yet.
Perhaps a phenomenological understanding ?
>>1552102misunderstanding ffs
>>1552102>>1552103Sorry for the late reply. That doesn't quite capture what I was thinking of, but maybe I could find a way to incorperate that.>>1552097I suspect this. I know a lot of other languages have words for concepts nothing in english capture, or many words for things English has only one blanket word for, like "love" in Greek.>>1552034I'm not sure I can give anything better than what I did in my first 2 posts, but I can say another thing my mind darts to is "cultural schizophrenia", but that too, I don't think works, and not only does it not work, it kind of doesn't make sense.
>>1551909it sounds like youre describing what might be called cultural anachronism or something like that. marx noticed capitalism tends to produce a 'cultural and intellectual superstructure' which later writers described in nebulous ways for example in society of the spectacle, simulacra and simulation (although this is a great book), and shit like tiqqun prelim materials... they all seem to grapple with an immaterial yet oppressive cultural totalitarianism which ultimately comes from the paradigm of mass production (see: the system of objects also by baudrillard).but your specific term for a sense of misplaced cultural resonance or whatever doesn't really exist, which i guess is why people write books on this shit.
>>1551916intrinsic ideological memetic understanding
>>1551909It sounds like you're trying to articulate a mismatch between what a certain art form or media intends to communicate or appeal to, and the actual reception or impact it has. Are you describing an art form that doesn't align with the cultural or societal context it's trying to reflect or engage with? Or could it be seen as a failure or disruption of its intended purpose or message, either because it overshoots or undershoots the audience expectation in some way?What you call "aesthetically confused", are you suggesting an intentional or unintentional artistic mismatch? Maybe one of these might be more accurate?>Culturally misalignedThe media or art reflects something, but it reflects the wrong thing, or it reflects inappropriately to its audience. This could be about the values, experiences, or expectations of its intended viewers not aligning with what’s being presented.>Cognitive dissonance in artThere's a tension between the purpose or intention behind the art and what it ends up communicating or how it’s interpreted by its audience. The “idea” and “execution” of the art don’t quite match, leaving viewers or audiences confused or disconnected.>Disconnect in purpose and executionThe work might try to reflect one thing (e.g., a certain group, culture, or set of ideals), but it either misinterprets that or doesn't land in the way it was intended to. It doesn’t “fit” the culture it was made for.>Inauthentic or disjointed representationThis could point to an art form or media that attempts to capture something “real” or authentic about culture or society, but the result feels inauthentic or shallow because it misses the nuances or depth of what it's attempting to engage with.
>>1552864This is a grok response, I already asked grok, none of these are what I'm looking for, they are sort of related to the issue but not getting at what I'm trying to get at.>>1552501This isn't quite quite I'm looking for, as the cause for missalignment isn't the thing having ceased to be relivant for it's time, but it's the CLOSEST response I've gotten so far. It's also interesting. I'll look more into it.>but your specific term for a sense of misplaced cultural resonance or whatever doesn't really exist, which i guess is why people write books on this shit.Yep lol. I might even have to put more thought into it and do that myself.>>1552701Doesn't describe it.
>>1551916Semantic flattening.
Bump
I haven't yet thought of anything, but I have found utilty for what this Anon suggested >>1552501 "cultural anachronism", though altered, "pseudo cultural anachronim". It sounds a bit wordy and thus it becomes a barrier to people understanding what you mean without describing it. To define it, a "pseudo cultural anachronism" is effectively the same exact thing as a plain cultural anachronism, but with a major difference; there was never a point in time that it was ever actually reasonable, justified, or relevant. As all things eventually become entrenched in history the lines between truth and falsehood become blured and then you have odd "cultural anomolies" if you will, that pear up, and this is how you get vain concepts that insist upon meaning like the often invoked (fuck I need ANOTHER word so I'll just use platitudes) platitudes like "modern audiences" in media. Forgive me I'm especially retarded today.
I'm sort of thinking out loud with that last post LOLGod help me.
>>1551909>>1551916>Sorry if that's confusing or sounds like sophistryYes, it is literally sophistry and I don't understand what you're trying to say. In fact, I have a feeling that neither do you.Your daddy Peterson is as close to a textbook example of a charlatan as you can get--sorry to break it to you. He's the one who speaks like this.You need to stop sniffing your own farts and learn to explain your ideas so other people can understand you. Consider what information a complete stranger would need to know, do not assume your listener has any previous knowledge, and use simple words whenever you can. An idiot admires complexity, a genius admires simplicity.
>>1553485Oh and there are lots of phenomena that can't be expressed by a single expression. If you have a hard time making up a single expression to describe something, chances are your listeners aren't going to get it either.
>>1553485You are a presumptuous and tremendous faggot, you are not remotely helpful and you pulled your baseless assumptions out of your asshole. >You need to stop sniffing your own farts and learn to explain your ideas so other people can understand you.Not once when I typed any of that out did I think to myself "how do I make this as needlessly word salady as possible?", and I knew well that it wouldn't be obvious to every reader what I was trying to get at. Not everything should be caitered to the lowest common denominator, but even so, because I actually DID have a concept in my mind that I was trying to articulate, that was my aim and my words followed suite, and my hope was whatever I'm circling around, at least somone might be able to get a glimmer of. I wasn't oblivious to the platitude you invoked when I made the post and I know that fact well. It's ironic you accuse me of "fart sniffing" because it seems to me that's all your post amounts to, you're appealing to incredulity at best.
>>1553491>>1553485Sorry for calling you a faggot, I've just seen this kind of thing before and it doesn't seem like an honest engagement, and being so confident in baseless presumptions without even givning the person you are communicating with a chance to even show you if your suspicion is right is retarded.
>>1553491>>1553492Alright, I shouldn't have implied you were trying to be disingenuous with your speech because that was not actually my impression. Do keep in mind though that people will assume that without even listening to your stuff if presented as a hard-to-follow word salad, but I suppose you realize that.>Not everything should be caitered to the lowest common denominatorThis is not what I meant. I'm not telling you to actually cater to the lowest common denominator, but it is a good strategy to try to pretend you are talking to someone with no background knowledge beyond the basics when explaining difficult concepts. In my experience, people who think things like "well, I don't care if retards understand it" or "you already know this" are often extremely bad at explaining things without ever realizing it, so it's a pretty bad attitude. I regularly have to stop people at work in the middle of their rambling and ask them to start from the beginning.
>>1553503Yeah I know, but given the nature of my question being an attempt to find a word to term that probably doesn't exist in the English language, it kind of had to be confusing and risk being unclear, it wasn't out of ignorance and it proffits me nothing to get into mentally masturbatory semantical arguments.
