The physiognomy of a film connoisseur is indicative not only of the connoisseur's character but the art of film as a...

>The physiognomy of a film connoisseur is indicative not only of the connoisseur's character but the art of film as a whole. When I say connoisseur, I don't mean people that like films- no. Everyone watches a movie every now and then, that's normal. I'm talking about the obsessive. The type of person who makes their love for film a self-defining characteristic. These people are the most vile human beings on earth in every sense of the word. Show me a self-proclaimed film-buff or cinephile (Oh how I dread these terms!) that's in good financial and physical shape. No one has ever been able to answer this question and that should tell you something. When you look at someone like a Roger Ebert you immediately recoil into a fit of pity and disgust. What a sad fate that old man endured but it's just nature and biology taking its course. It applies even to this new wave of YouTube 'critics' who purport to be connoisseurs despite never having heard of Peter Greenaway or Jean Renoir. They will all share Ebert's fate. It's built into their molecular structure. Do you know a single CEO of a fortune 500 company who is into film? What about successful politicians? This is biodeterminism taking its course. Film as an art appeals to the weak, the ostracized, those that are desperately trying to make use of the dysgenic cards they were dealt at birth. They have nothing else going for them. It's a coping mechanism. There's a reason why a connoisseur of the arts is not appealing to the opposite sex. It's nature ensuring the strong that only they will survive.

Is he right?

He never said that you fucking hack

I'm not sure if he's bitching about people who care too much about film or not enough. I mean, on one hand he seems to be angry at film enthusiasts, on the other hand he's going on about people who don't know who Peter Greenaway is.

Yes, summed up all the pseudo patricians on Sup Forums

>The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as “the greatest or most significant or most influential” rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved.

He did check the stream he posted last night

I like the thread concept but you did a terrible job trying to emulate Armond's writing style. Work on it and repost this in like a month.

fpbp
watch Sup Forums bite nevertheless

>king of Sup Forums is a black guy
Will Sup Forumstards ever recover?

Black Gay Christian Conservative Armond White is the bane to shill critics and SJWs

Armond never said that but it's 100% true and applies to even legitimate connoisseurs who watch avant garde kinos

Scaruffi is a better critic than Hackmond by far

Is there a more smug face than this?

T L D R
L
D
R

the only reason people get into film is because they're not chads who have to woo stacys and take the to clubs and parties all the time

Still TLDR
L
D
R

art is for betas

>pleb so BTFO by Armond he even avoids fake quotes

Op is right but it's never too late to start lifting and become Chad then just watch kino in secret while Stacy believes you're into capeshit and got

Being a Chad is a state of mind that you have to be born with. It's the harshest lesson of all.

This. Have you ever noticed how many people on /fit/ are insecure betas? While being in shape is a good thing and going from fat to fit is admirable, people who do so never truly become alpha. They will always remain the insecure pushovers they were as fatties, only bitter at how people treat them differently now that they're attractive. Chads tend to be muscular and attractive, true, but a true chad can be a fat loser and still get laid.

DELETE THIS RIGHT FUCKING NOW

Not the guy you're responding , and i agree with everything you said but people who are betas should still lift and become aware about nutrition and health etc.. It's a much more fulfilling life to be a beta who is in good health and shape than a beta who stays up watching kieslowski's decalogue because he thinks it will make him more patrician than people on an anonymous image board. Also it's much easier to get beta pussy by being a /fit/ beta than getting beta pussy by just being a beta.

Oh absolutely. Gotta do the best you can and not give in to the depression.

Probably because "Chads" all come from rich influential families

Turns out tvs most patrician cinephiles are also built like Greek Gods

That explains Zack Snyder

This is all true. Diogenes was a Chad despite being an unwashed hobo, while Plato was the true beta.

Not necessarily. Like that other user said, a lot of us here on Sup Forums went from fat to fit. We enjoy exercising and eating healthy now but it's something we had to struggle with and learn as opposed to it just coming naturally to a true Chad.

You mean 'the bane of', not 'to'.

for you

Poignant review of the medium in his likeness.

I am working on something similar to unmeme Bertrand Russell.

...

Nah the OP is still more smug but that one is pretty smug as well. It's something about his jaw in the first one.

SHUTE UD!!!

>(Oh how I dread these terms!)
This gives it away

You'd be smug too if you were the undisputed King of Sup Forums

>The value of art depends on the values of the art critic.
>Most art is born as imitation, not innovation.
>The critic, not the artist, is the one who defines innovation, and rates it.
>The artist is merely a vehicle for the aesthetic/ideology of the critic.
>The critic is the real artist.

Plato was a pankration champion

>>The critic is the real artist.
you almost got me lad, but thats plain retard

>The value of art depends on the values of the art critic.

Most of the best movies had a bad critical reception when they came out, and they were only reevaluated because these movies still had a lot of impact on people, directors and the industry itself.

Not anymore. I present to you Armond Black.

Yes. Look at this dude. He's probably one of the most self-confessed "film buff".