Sincerity or irony, which is more pleb?

sincerity is no longer possible

>>8227673
arent you being sincere right now?

new sincerity and unironically being ironic is the hip thing

>>8227682
No.

>>8227673

it never was, always an ideological mirage.

authenticity, however, is still with us—however faint, its cry may still be heard from across the gulf of ironic detachment which today separates the subject from others, the community, and even its own certitude of self. but this cry is quickly becoming elegiac, mourning its own death by the time we hear it, like a star whose last lights left it long ago.

>>8227682
the fact that you asked proves my point

>>8227683
"it was culturally popularized in the 1990s by American author David Foster Wallace"

That's 20 years ago. I feel skeptical that it is really hip.

>>8227698
New sincerity, that is.

File: 1467049108267.png (891KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

891KB, 900x900px

>>8227698
get into post modernism

>>8227696
There was an always has been possible doubt over the sincerity of a statement. True sincerity, in the sense that people will always accept everything said as 100 percent genuine has never existed.

>>8227706

who are the right side?

File: 1463076991772.png (5KB, 360x331px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 360x331px

>>8227673
>a new literary movement which would espouse something like the New Sincerity ethos:[1]"The next real literary “rebels” in this country might well emerge as some weird bunch of anti-rebels, born oglers who dare somehow to back away from ironic watching, who have the childish gall actually to endorse and instantiate single-entendre principles. Who treat of plain old untrendy human troubles and emotions in U.S. life with reverence and conviction. Who eschew self-consciousness and hip fatigue. These anti-rebels would be outdated, of course, before they even started. Dead on the page. Too sincere. Clearly repressed. Backward, quaint, naive, anachronistic. Maybe that’ll be the point. Maybe that’s why they’ll be the next real rebels. Real rebels, as far as I can see, risk disapproval. The old postmodern insurgents risked the gasp and squeal: shock, disgust, outrage, censorship, accusations of socialism, anarchism, nihilism. Today’s risks are different. The new rebels might be artists willing to risk the yawn, the rolled eyes, the cool smile, the nudged ribs, the parody of gifted ironists, the “Oh how banal”. To risk accusations of sentimentality, melodrama. Of overcredulity. Of softness. Of willingness to be suckered by a world of lurkers and starers who fear gaze and ridicule above imprisonment without law. Who knows

>>8227713
Dean Blunt (top) and Arca

>>8227683
whats the difference between sincerity and new sincerity?
and isnt being unironically ironic just being ironic?

none of those things are even real

File: 1467057612947.jpg (120KB, 593x843px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 593x843px

>>8227714
Post-irony seen recently in film and this thing are awfully similar. See Zack Snyder and Harmony Korine.

>It's difficult to find a movie that feels true to itself. You feel the hand of Hollywood, the moviemaking by committee, on everything.
>[on Man of Steel (2013)] I think it's drawing on all mythology; comic book, religion, ancient, philosophical.
>
>[on the Superman character] All the movies I've made, I've made with a slight bit of irony. Not even a slight bit. A fair amount. But the ironic part of [ 'Man of Steel'] is that it's not ironic. You know what I mean? No tongue in cheek, no winking at the camera, no apologies. It's Superman. He deserves that. In my mind, we really had to act as if no films had been made. It's like we just found this comic book lying on the ground under a bed, and we were like, This would be a cool movie.
>
>[For me] Superman is this adopted son, this immigrant story, this guy trying to find his place in the world. What's his purpose, what is he supposed to do, how is he supposed to be?
>[promoting Watchmen (2009) and before he was hired for Man of Steel (2013)] In this world, if Superman really existed, he'd grab all the world leaders together in a room and say, 'Behave or I'll kill you.'
>
>[on presenting his male protagonists with superhuman physiques] I have always been influenced by the fantasy art of Frank Frazetta and obsessed with the potential of humanity's physicality.

>>8227722
new sincerity is old sincerity. there's nothing new about it, it's just DFW's idea of post-irony. anti-irony, essentially going against the grain of irony, which originally went against the grain of (old) sincerity.

Yes it's still ironic. it's is the height of irony, sincerity not for sincerity's sake, but for the sake of not being insincere. I looks and sounds and smells like sincerity, but it's founded on countering irony, which is effectively just adding another layer of irony.

>>8227710
>There was an always has been possible
what?

>>8227683
Ironic use of irony has always and will always be the hippest. And when I say has always, I mean as far back as prehistory...

All literature is fundamentally a kind of meta-irony.

>>8227750
Yeah it's funny he was considered a founder of New Sincerity when he was one of the most ironic authors. By the way In The Aeroplane over the Sea is the New Sincerity of music.

>>8227665
They both get pleb if you only do one of them. The right balance is to be sincere sometimes and ironic some others.

>>8227926
>new sincerity of music

dude just shut the fuck up

>>8227665
irony and sincerity have their place each, its important to know when and why to deploy each. overall in the majority of situations

i believe it is important to be sincere however, when dealing with the vast majority of situations you find yourself in. using irony as an escape mechanism, a way of detaching yourself to the current situation is, in the short term, a coping mechanism and in the long term, a way to avoid any real change in your life.

a book i liked that dealt with this line between sincerity, irony, and post-ironic sincerity is Escape Attempts by stanley cohen and laurie taylor. interesting little text.

>>8227665
You do irony when you want to show a way of thinking is wrong, and you do sincerity when you want to show the path is right.

In a nexus of a dozen paths, its easier to know a particular road is bad than to know the right road to take. And so its also more common for people to use irony to show a path is wrong than espouse that another is better. The right road is hard to know and easy to disprove if its wrong, and people are scared of being called out for their ignorance; its an exposed position. But only those sincere gestures let us progress, so I suggest when you can find the right path you say so.