Women are more emotional, no? How come men are better at expressing

>>37893021

Because women are expected and encouraged to vent their emotions while men are told to repress them in lieu of logical, decisive action. They can then express them through art.

Basically women are encouraged to be big petty children

File: 1489075154460.jpg (58KB, 605x694px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 605x694px

I heard wing chun kung fu was invented by a woman

>>37893021
Because most (good) art is actually about intellect and not emotion, contrary to popular rumor.

And the male intelligence distribution curve skews more to the extremes than the female.

There just aren't enough really smart women for women to achieve anything notable in any artistic field that isn't glorified handicrafts.

>>37893104
Yeah men repress their feelings which leaves them unadulterated so I guess men contemplate about them and it creates an ability to transform them into something else. Women have intense feelings but they're not as absolute.

Do you think that abstinence from sex makes men more passionate and creative?

>>37893133
Wing chun's complicated and demands self control. You never know with chinks though.

I don't care about things like gender or race when it comes to art. Literally anyone can do it. Most of the greats are men sure, but there are far more shitty things being produced by men than women. I hate Taylor Swift but I could easily find music made by men that's worse than anything she ever made. It's the cultural environment more than anything. Look at the 70s, incredible music made by women and men, the singer songwriter golden age. There was so much cheesy trash even then but there was an environment for quality things to develop. Everything is disposable now though. Music, movies, video games, it all has an expiration date now. Art is dated before a decade even wraps up and it's hard to keep up.

File: bd3467a61b825c51464cd65fd6c58c8a.png (1004KB, 881x1209px) Image search: [Google]

1004KB, 881x1209px

>>37893571
Pretty much this
It's not just women's art that's trash nowadays. It's e v e r y t h i n g

>>37893571
>>37893688
Not everything. Obscure stuff can still be great. I dunno what's with normos liking shit.

File: armee4.jpg (71KB, 912x653px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 912x653px

>>37893133

Wing chun focuses on cheap shots and avoiding/ redirecting blows. unlike systema (brute force type fighting style- focus on absorbing and deflecting blows) wing chun focuses on eliminating all of the factors that make brute force effective- moving in too close for swinging range and bitch slapping someone to distract them until you can get them on the ground with groin kicks and kick them into submission


>>37893021

women do not focus so much on deep intellectual emotion, just surface level emotion. those who do focus on deep introspection are outcast for being creepy or weired

Because men invented music and art to get pussy.

File: garden.jpg (849KB, 2000x1120px) Image search: [Google]

849KB, 2000x1120px

>>37893571

There is a reason for that

in the past
>art required skill and years of mastery
>the only people who could afford the schooling were rich or died poor "starving artists"
>in order to be successful, you had to work your way up from the bottom. Only certain genres were socially acceptable, anything else meant you would die an leave it in your closet or it was trash
> the supplies to make art were not easy to come by, you had to either make them, or buy them from artisans, who once again made then costly since they were hard to make

now
>people can learn fundamentals of art from the interwebs
>music can be auto created using computer programs
>we have autotune, skill is no longer needed to "sound good"
>art supplies are cheap and mass produced using synthetic materials, expensive natural materials are hipster memes
>you can literally play off anything as art (look at these cuts on my wrist, im not suicidal, its "art")
>"meme" pictures can be made with microsoft paint

in short:
>the internet and globalized industry has allowed so many people to make "art" and expose so many people to it, that the few good artists are overwhelmingly crowded out by thousands of similar but les talented artists, so we have volume over quality of art

modern pop and rap music is a great example of this. I can do what it took thousands of dollars and hours of practice to do in a matter of minutes to release a new album about my penis complete with a home made cover art, look how great of an artist i am

>>37894155
Good post. But why do people like this shit so much? Some would say they don't know any better but when introduced to some good music, they say it's shit.

I think a woman is directing the new Godzilla movie that's set to come out in 2019. I don't know how true that is, though. I heard it on /m/.

Any movie directed by a women, you can almost always tell it was a female director except for maybe Hurt Locker

File: bale.gif (549KB, 500x283px) Image search: [Google]

549KB, 500x283px

>>37894387
Also American Psycho. I was sorta shocked to learn that.

>>37894155
I'm a rapfag and this is a good and bad thing. The music's mother was poverty and father was technology. They went from juggling records with a mixer to loop them in a crude way to being able to loop them with samplers. As technology progressed the quality and the quantity of the music increased. Somewhere along the way shit went by the wayside and now absolute garbage made by people with minimal lyrical talent became popular. Instead of dusty samples you get chintzy synth beats that don't require royalty payments. All these faggots with dyed hair wearing leggings are destroying the culture quickly.

But real rappers can turn around quality albums and have them on the internet for everyone to listen to for free in less than a month. They can use any samples they want without giving a single fuck about copyright. Then they can go on tour and have people like me drop $150 at their merch table (I did that last night, Griselda on steroids tour)

It's a double edged sword

File: music personality.png (68KB, 888x648px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 888x648px

>>37894345

Musical taste deals with many factors, including social exposure, intelligence level, and emotion characteristics

There is still some debate aout wthe connection , if music affectsemotion or if emotion affects music.

I listen to all genres in different settings for example, but it really depends on the mood I'm in. Most people will only listen to a single genre and are either afraid or have no interest in expanding themselves intellectually

>>37893133
invented for women not by
also men are better at that
ironic

>>37894471

I totally agree, traditionally, rap was about social commentary, relaying the events and social effects of life as seen by individuals of society.

But the themes got misinterpreted my the youth, who thought "oh wow, this has some good rhythm" and decided to make it a commentary about how awesome he/she is. Its the complete opposite of what rap was about.

most rappers wanted to do it for the music and the message (the money was nice)

but nowadays, meming yourself to the top is the fastest way to fame (nicky minaj, iggy azelia, etc.)

>>37894623
Yeah man, the way I look at it is there's nothing wrong with rapping about gang banging, selling drugs, money and bitches. It's a valid topic for art, for the same reason Scarface or The Wire would be. But the rappers of today don't truly have any experience with that shit, they want to talk about it because they think it looks cool so they have no actual stories to tell, nothing to express. So you end up with some vapid product that glorifies the lifestyle without any commentary on it.

These rappers want to be thugs without any visible scars to display. They haven't been to fucking prison. They haven't even been in the vicinity of gun shots let alone been shot. They want that image without actually having lived that life.

File: image.jpg (455KB, 1600x1032px) Image search: [Google]

455KB, 1600x1032px

>>37894729

THere is alwas a debate about wheter art imitates life, or life imitates art. Look at fashion, people use things like the military to make completely ridiculours cammo otfits. Practical wear becomes mainstream and the cycle repeats itself, jeans that cost $2000 were inspired by pleb clothes used by workers, clothing worn by poor people who could only afford hand-me-downs from bigger siblings or poor fitting clothing from thrift stores inspire designers to create over priced clothes designed to fit poorly. On the other hand, people want to look like sculpted models (makeup and aribrushing platic surgery are self expression/modification in a creative format that require skill and practice to create and cost lots of money, but are misused for social gain)

The best part about a communities art is it demonstrates exactly what the society values (no matter what the people say)

but the context matters too in determining what art is to a people, is the art used as a warning, or for enjoyment or to inspire certain feelings (hope, dread, happiness, sadness, propaganda)

>>37894565
Wrong. Wing Chun system was CREATED by a roastie. Her name was Ng Mui, a female shaolin monk.

It wasn't made specifically for women, though.

>>37894968

>the princes was told to go to an arranged marriage, and the monk told the guy if the princess could defeat him in 3 moves she would not have to marry him form what I recall of the legend

>she used wing chun to defeat the price, and was not forced to marry him

File: 6464635442.jpg (198KB, 519x640px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 519x640px

>>37894968
BJJ/Judo is a much better martial art for roasties. Wing Chun sucks.

File: IMG_1605.png (686KB, 1136x640px) Image search: [Google]

686KB, 1136x640px

>>37893133
wing chun?! WING CHUN?!
REEEEEE