What divides aesthetic sense and cultural sophistication from pretentiousness?

What divides aesthetic sense and cultural sophistication from pretentiousness?

I am pretty good at identifying sophistry in philosophy, and bullshit in other fields is rooted out through empirical testing, but I find it hard to discern when reviewers and critics are grasping for straws in cinema and literature.

I can discern the extreme end of artistic pretentiousness, the often disparaged examples are famous to even the average person, like the discarding of exhibits in a gallery because the art was mistaken for literal trash.

I've noticed Freudism is huge in the critics I discern as being pretentious across all fields of art. I don't mean to imply that sex doesn't play a big deal in symbolism and thematic significance, but almost everything is reduced down to MUH VAGINA. It may have to do with the fact that Freud himself was a charlatan himself, who knows. This is a big identifying sign for me.

It's subjective

There are some standards but it's purely technical

A good movie does not means technically good as in had good shots and images simply because movies incorporate visual, audio, and storytelling realms of art. This is why it's hard to execute a good movie, you need please three senses at once.

>almost everything is reduced down to MUH VAGINA

but Freud was all about the penis, he didn't care about women or even really talk about them

regardless its all subjective, Freud just provides a tool for reading the symbols in a work of art.

you mean what divides bullshit from knowing what you're talking about?

uh, how about knowing what you're talking about?

you're a fucking retard also, Freud was right about everything.

A bullshit meter is innate. It's like the "uncanny valley" effect.

>why are you always wearing that hat bro?

Source?

Freud was an angry virgin that threw shit at the wall.

well regardless, he was right about his philosophy

A pretentious person repeats or rephrases conclusions that other people have come to, a sophisticated person has a strong base of cultural knowledge but ultimately comes to conclusions on their own. The easiest way to realize which you are talking to is to start asking questions about why they believe what they are saying. If you're talking to a pretentious asshole they'll get confused or shoot off some more buzzwords, if you're talking to a sophisticated intelligent person then they'll explain themselves easily and you'll have an interesting conversation.

you don't really believe that? he was wrong. He is useless in modern psychiatry. He is only used in the arts for symbolism.

>tfw you can't call people pretentious because ur pretentious
nice tits though. tfw when asian women are too pornographic for american cinema.

that's because modern psychiatry is pseudoscience. freud was right because he was a thinker. he wasn't foolish enough to think psychology could be reduced to 1's and 0's.

e n l i g h t e n e d

aren't fedora memes for atheists and stem maniacs? do you even know what you're talking about?

Who is this wang chung?

>that's because modern psychiatry is pseudoscience

Freud was not a psychiatrists, psychiatry deals in proven theories, medicine and research this is real world shit which is why different fields psychiatry exist for every level.

Freud came to conclusions and went out of his way to prove them even if they were false, this is pseudo scientific.

I think this is a good question, but the answer is probably as simple as learning more. You can't tell if somebody else is talking out of their ass unless you have a really strong base of knowledge on the subject matter to begin with.

A big part of the process of gaining your knowledge, by the way, is making stupid arguments and having people correct you. The next time you have an opinion about a film or book, post it on Sup Forums and see the kinds of arguments you can get into. You'll learn a lot.

p l e b e i a n

sauce on pic?

damn girls like that
were bred to fuck

you know there are words other than discern

modern psychology deals in psychotropics and neural measurement

neither of those things are anywhere near scientifically proven, so it's laughable for you to claim they have rational footing.

You're telling me all these psychotropic drugs were put out for no reason with no studies, no observations and no basis on anything?

Also Neuroscience doesn't exist?

>What divides aesthetic sense and cultural sophistication from pretentiousness?
Being rich.

no, there is some basis for using psychotropics, but it isn't scientifically proven that they achieve their intended effect

neuroscience exists, but similarly, there isn't basis for dismissing psychoanalysis vis a vis jung and freud and replacing exclusively with presumed objective analysis such as neuro analysis

/thread