The Dangers of Romanticizing The Liberal Arts - Problems with Dark Academia and Aesthetics
A video essay about the problems of aesthetics and dark academia, and how they're discouraging students from receiving the real values of studying the liberal arts.
Companion Article: / the-dangers-of-romanti...
A few sources on Jacques Derrida:
An event, Perhaps (Peter Salmon's biography on Jacques Derrida, which is also a brilliant introduction to his philosophy): www.versobooks.com/books/3916...
Derrida for Beginners by Jim Powell: www.forbeginnersbooks.com/der...
The 2002 documentary on Derrida:
• Derrida Belgeseli (2002)
Lovers of Philosophy by Warren Ward (the last chapter): warrenkward.com/
If you enjoyed this video essay, consider supporting me on Buy Me A Coffee where I'll publish weekly newsletters on book recommendations, tips on reading and updates: www.buymeacoffee.com/rcwaldun
Other Resources:
My course on writing essays in the humanities: skl.sh/3ow0m2G
My new course on keeping a writer's diary:
skl.sh/3qHJKYg
The Scrapbook Project (Insights on creativity, art, reading):
rcwaldun.com/
My Essays:
/ rcwaldun
My playlist on Storytelling:
/ watch
v=LiQltdrm698&list=PLAyKE2GAVBOJreusJxK0bBErWBzXY5IKz
My collaborative novel about Melbourne: There's A Tale To This City:
rcwaldun.com/tale
My short story collection Passing Tales: rcwaldun.com/publication
My Instagram page: / r.c.waldun
Chapters:
1: Introduction: 00:00
2: What Derrida had against Seinfeld: 01:17
3: Expectations vs reality of studying the Liberal Arts: 04:02
4: Influencers are not professors: 08:51
5: Conclusion: finding joy in the Liberal Arts: 16:00
From now on all of my video essays will have a companion article with further readings. Check out the article for this video here: medium.com/the-collector/the-dangers-of-romanticizing-the-liberal-arts-d900684e5581
First time on your channel. You have a striking voice. You could do audiobooks as a side hustle forrealz.
@@lisettegarcia So striking that it makes my ears bleed and his frothing mouth makes me nauseate.
A.G.I Will be man's last invention
cannot find anything on the dictionary of inherited ideas... The article is gone from the website :((
Article is gone :(
I was going to write a mini comment essay about how aesthetics became popular during quarantine, as many of us were longing for stability and certainty. Aesthetics gave us a checklist of how to live our lives down to how we speak to how to dress. Oh my gosh I would write more but I have 4 essays and 3 documentaries to watch by Sunday 😭 I WILL RETURN
please do! I'm very curious to read what you have to say
please do too, the pitch is already interesting !
please ping me when you do, thanks
please do return! i'm so curious now
.
On top of that as a huge fan of Donna tartt, her book the secret history explicitly states and shows that romanticising and following an aesthetic literally turns u into a corrupt very unlikeable person and how privilege changes you and yet no one seems to get that when they use it in the aesthetic of dark academia.
What might be an interesting consideration .. from what I've observed, many followers of aesthetics like academia tend to specifically lack that privilege that would've slotted them into the things being idolised more naturally. It feels like emulating that privilege without (or before?) having it might have an interesting impact on outcomes from it
the irony is that her writing is very "aesthetic". she has been criticized as being a show off, and while i haven't read enough of her work to have a strong opinion, it's ironic to see that criticism come from someone with her background and writing style. i have to wonder how subversive she actually is, or if the fault is with her audience and not her. similar to how american psycho became an aesthetic among yuppie types when it was a satirical condemnation of those people.
@@raisinbranturtle5364 I think it’s a mixture honestly
@@raisinbranturtle5364 I mean, for example the Secret History is written from Richard’s POV, who had admitted to wanting to see beauty in literally everything (even murderers)… the writing style makes sense
I don't understand how people miss this message when one of the first lines is “Does such a thing as 'the fatal flaw,' that showy dark crack running down the middle of a life, exist outside literature? I used to think it didn't. Now I think it does. And I think that mine is this: a morbid longing for the picturesque at all costs.” She literally outright says that admiration for this kind of aesthetic is the main flaw of the main character and everyone just goes "yessss same"
There's nothing fundamentally wrong with being interested in Humanities and Liberal art's because of the aesthetics attached to them. Now, it wouldn't be sensible to engage in those studies just because of the visual appeal of them.
Yes, but this video's point is that people fall in love with a caricature of the field because of mainstream media, and a lot of them fail to realize that these false portrayals do not accurately represent what goes on in the field. It goes with any profession, to be honest. But from what I've personally seen around me, the kids in high school who romanticize Dark Academia struggle in university because of the unexpected workload that gets put on them. They believed that taking up stuff like Philosophy would just be you reading one book per week, moving into the big city, and cafe-hopping like some idealized Pinterest life.
it's odd nobody mentioned media and cultural studies. if someone wanted to study visual media such as film in a critical way, i'd imagine that would be a major that makes more sense than going into something like philosophy. obviously it would still entail dense reading but it's odd thinking someone actually studies english thinking they'll transform into a brooding intellectual who looks like a vampire, or whatever they saw on pinterest. furthermore any high school level class they took would be simpler than a full undergraduate course list, if those courses were at all worth the tuition.
@@raisinbranturtle5364 Well, I doubt it, I'm a composer, it's different, but has a lot in common with most fields like that. If you go into any course romanticizing and falling in love with the caricature and superficiality of it you will not like it, if you are going to study film you need to learn the history of cinema, you need to watch a lot of movies, you need to pay attention and hopefully be truly interested in them, every day, same with painting, you'll have to look at all types of works in a variety of styles, learn about their lives, their techniques, you need to look at tons of paintings. In composition you should read scores everyday. I was never into those "aesthetics" things, and I still lowkey struggled at times and lost myself, because I just wasn't in the right mindset, I wouldn't possibly make it through if the whole reason I got into composition was because I thought about looking like Beethoven and locking myself in a room or something. You need to have the right mindset and real interest. These fields are often perhaps the toughest of them all, because of the creative aspect and what you are expected to invest. If you want to go to a degree because aesthetics, go into science, cause those are usually easy, you just need to study and pay attention. Half my colleagues lost their mind halfway through senior year.
@@raisinbranturtle5364 I'm studying Cultural studies 💀
@@raisinbranturtle5364 I'm in Media Studies! Highly recommend it if you're considering getting into university because you like the aesthetic of "dark academia"... 'cause then you can just dive deep into studying the aesthetic itself 😉
I‘m a literature student (done with my first year in 3 weeks) and my professor in my first literature lecture began the lecture by clearing up the common misconceptions about the field. Studying literature isn‘t reading an interesting book, curled up by the fireplace with a cup of tea. It can be that sometimes but most of the time it‘s reading a book that you might find less than interesting on the commute to university because it‘s what is gonna be discussed in class. It‘s rereading parts and reading a lot of secondary literature to get a better understanding and getting to know how to spot reputable sources. It‘s a lot of writing about your thoughts because learning to put them into words is one of the most important things you will learn while going to university. I understand that leaning into the aesthetic side of liberal arts gets a lot of us through rough times (like studying for my upcoming exams) but it‘s important to understand that reduction to just the aesthetics misses the point and keeps a lot of us from diving deeper into the field. It also costs productivity. I have started to focus on how I need to study to get a deeper understanding and leave out anything that doesn‘t add to that, even if it would be more „dark academia“. I don‘t rewrite notes and I don‘t have one notetaking system that I enforce on all my lectures. I adapt to each lecture. To some I simply don‘t go because I can do it more efficiently on my own (bad prof) and my notes often don‘t seem to have a clear structure. You‘re way more free, adaptive and proficient once you drop the need to always do something according to artificial standards.
I am old. I did my literature degrees in the 80s and 90s (BA in English, MA in Spanish language and literature).There weren't as many distractions because we had no internet. I took notes in lectures basically word for word so I could reconstruct the whole thing when I was studying for the exam. Some fellow grad students often asked me for copies of my notes because it was the most helpful format. I never had any of the kinds of note taking techniques popularized on social media or study tube these days. I just had a method that worked for me and my classmates.
@@lex6819 in my first literature seminar we had no PowerPoint slides or anything to look at after the course was over so I‘m glad I had a friend like you that wrote down everything and was kind enough to share her notes with me. I was completely new to Uni and had no idea how to write things down proficiently so I would have definitely failed without her haha
Yes, like, normalize having different notes for different classes and actually adapting! For example, my Biology notebook is downright pretty. It has pretty drawings, always neat writing, never over-explained things, just a basic structure meant to help me studying. But my Chemistry and Math notebooks are messy. You’ve gotta take notes fast, and I have just some empty spots meant to be filled in from a friend’s notes because we were rushing. My Psychology notes are often messy as well, liberal. There are a lot of arrows, quotes and stuff, hardly any structure at all, just a headline and a date to separate them. Normalize not having the time, energy and motivation to copy your notes at home for a prettier look.
There seems to be two parts to this issue. First, media (influencers) paints an idealized/romanticized picture of many liberal arts subjects. Therefore, college students end up disappointed because of the difference in expectation versus reality. Personally, it seems apparent that no one should choose to study something for an education that costs as much as a house on something as shallow as liking a social media aesthetic, such as dark academia, but rather a genuine enjoyment and dedication. Your point about various media watering down ideas is not new or exclusive to academia. I think it also routinely occurs between the American government and news media. People don't feel like or read primary sources anymore and so, with that, how could an individual make any true opinion or assessment if they never really dive deep for themselves? The same tension exists between the romanticization of the liberal arts and the reality of studying rigorous subjects like english or philosophy at college/university. I have recently graduated high school, and I am entering college this fall. Currently, I'm planning to study English, and it's not because I have a large aesthetic bookshelf in my room filled with classic Western literature. While I'm not going to love every course, professor, or reading, I will be able to understand those ideas, and as a result challenge or debate them once I get to a position of authority or when doing research. Many of my former classmates who chose stem subject such as biology or physics don't understand why I would pick this subject because of all of the reading, but every subject at the college level requires rigorous writing and reading. English is more than dark academia, and STEM subjects are more than colorfully highlighted notes. After watching your channel for two years, I think that you do a good job on your of making it clear that you're documenting your journey of learning and understanding and are not an authority on anything. All in all, people still have the choice to research outside of a singular post or video no matter what the influencer might link or share. At the root of all of this, generally people do not do the hard work or are not willing to participate in these rigorous subjects themselves because that actual process of reading, writing, being confused, and asking questions is not glamorous enough for a KZhead video or an Instagram post.
i love your comment!
For someone who has just graduated high school you are able to Articulate your thoughts remarkably well!
"English is more than dark academia, and STEM subjects are more than colorfully highlighted notes." This is precisely what I have been telling many juniors around me. I have graduated high school and would probably be joining a college in September but it does terrify me that people pursue Arts or STEM for very shallow reason. They are of course a bit misguided by their peers and/or their parents, but it's concerning when the entire reason a student wants to study a field in college boils down to aesthetics. As an aspiring CompSci student, I have seen similarities when people think that studying the major in college means playing PC games and RGB lights all over their desks or hacking into Pentagon or something on free time. Game dev takes ages, any sort of working program which isn't just terminals displaying data takes ages, and it pains me to see people choosing the course they are not emotionally prepare to take burden of.
Hey, your comment is very interesting and you are bringig some new points to this discussion. However, what's the matter with people wanting to study English because you have a bookshelves filled with classic Western literature? For me it's a very "pure", clear reason to wanting to study English and it's nothing like "I'm studying English so I can be dark academia". I mean I like DA because romanticized learning and studying but I guess when you are deciding on what you're going to study in college you kinda know that there's going to be more than aesthethics. Also, I don't get what you're saying about being able to debate certain ideas, I'm genuinely asking, is just a way of saying "I want to be an expert on this subject" or is about debating and challenging some common ideas in those subject? Anyway I agree with some of your points, in particular the tension of the romanticization of study and the reality of it, but I feel like I'm a bit more optimistic than you (jk)
@@betta634 I think that having and liking lots of classic western literature is a perfectly fine reason to *want* to study English, but I think op is trying to say that if your main or only reason for wanting to pursue English is because you like to read or enjoy the aesthetic, you will be in for an unpleasant surprise; and should think deeper on why you think you should *act* on your interest in studying English. The bachelors degree alone is much more involved than reading and discussing books and then writing essays about them. I am not an English major so I don't know too much about the specifics (I'd recommend KZhead videos like this one for more details: kzhead.info/sun/mt6edLV8mXyDdI0/bejne.html) but I am an art history major so I think I can speak from that experience since there is some overlap/similarities. many have the misconception that art history is just looking at artwork and writing papers about them, but it is so much more complex than that! I could go on and on haha but I'll be concise here. my point is, you do so much work for 4 years and you come out the other side with a wide array of knowledge about many things, but not a deep knowledge in few things (I hope u get what im trying to say). you can discuss lots of things but you don't know enough to challenge the preexisting ideas in your field like you end up wanting to. so then you get a masters and focus on few things to build a deeper knowledge on. and then sometimes you get a phd too, and do research of your own to learn even more so you can have enough credibility and experience to draw on to challenge ideas and discuss them at a high level. so to tie it all back together, if I only chose art history because I think art is pretty (or in your case English because you like literature), I'd be very upset that I spent so much money and time on something that won't take me where I want to go in the way I want to get there. you have to have a passion in there. a goal to work towards. and always remember that once you have the education, you get a career for technically the rest of your life, so you need to have an idea going into it all of what you want to do with your life and know what you want your life to look like in the big picture - which is where liking literature won't take you very far since everyone else with English degrees likes literature too, you'll need a different motivator to really find success in the long term. overall, you may be optimistic which is great but based on your comment you are just a touch naive about the realities of education in the modern world (by no fault of your own which is why im commenting this whole blurb). I hope my comment gives you some clarity!! best of luck
I think it happens the same thing with psychology. I’ve found several posts, videos and wrong information that’s taken as a truth and disregard the hours we put into studying. It indeed is frustrating to see how easily social media rips off the big work professionals have put into their work.
As a psychology student, I feel the same.
I majored in psych in undergrad, for what that's worth, and I get that. I don't know which is worse - the totally ridiculous made up "PSYCHOLOGY TEST - CHOOSE FROM THESE COLORS TO FIND OUT YOUR PERSONALITY TYPE!" things, or the stuff that is only tangentially based in the field and/or heavily misinterpreted and which has gained widespread acceptance as "official" (Stanford prison study, MBTI, etc).
@@isnotmimi well said.
Dang, I know so many people who are pretty complacent with themselves after obtaining a bachelors and they act like they're, if not an expert, at least very knowledgeable about their major. When you say here that you're winding up your undergraduate studies and you know almost nothing about your major, that's powerful. That's intellectual integrity. NOTHING can be mastered in only four years, even under ideal conditions. Nothing. And your honesty about that is so refreshing. Thanks for this.
Honestly, hearing that made me realize that maybe I'm not wasting my money. I've felt for the past year that I have learned nothing, nothing in the sense that as time goes on I can only feel the gap between myself and the authors I read grow rather than shrink.
@@cevcena6692 Yes, the more we learn, the better aware we are of the gaps in our knowledge. It's humbling but much better than holding on to an illusion.
@@EyeLean5280 when I was a kid I thought being in college would automatically make you an expert, but I've only actually learned the basics needed to become an expert years down the line. It kinda sucks but it's good to know that there's so much more to the world
This is a super good point. I learned the very hard way that my education doesn't end with graduation or just graduation in itself feels useless because I'm still a beginner when it comes to writing and art and I still need to study like I did in university if I want to get anywhere. University taught me how to learn well and deeply, but I don't think it was supposed to be like a check off some list of excellence. I graduated at the top of my class but I'm trying to become a published writer in a foreign country in a foreign language and I literally feel like a baby.
I can testify to that, I was an extremely hard working student; I sacrificed all my time and attention for the sake of my degree. I graduated with a first class honors with distinction, yet I still don’t feel like I can open my own brand. Now I’m doing many supplementary short courses. Seems like the journey just began by the end of my degree.
I think this is why I'm struggling so much with study. The attempt to reconcile what it is with what I want it to be has taken away so much from just experiencing study. It leads to a peculiar form of frustration not just academically but within my own mind.
It's interesting to consider how things have changed in the last decade. I graduated with my BA in History a decade ago. The Dark Academia aesthetic didn't exist like it does today and honestly the liberal arts weren't glorified. It was very much the sense of, "oh liberal arts students are weird because they don't care about whether their degree will be "useful" to their future career." I didn't go in with preconceived notions that glorified the course of study. Fascinating to see how much social media has changed things.
@@isawhat8712 I think you got a better deal honestly. Studying for studyings sake. Im trying really hard to deprogram myself.
i love rigour, i love solitude, i love critical thinking, i swear nothing makes me more excited than the pursuit of knowledge, it is so pleasing to see someone enjoy the process of academia as well
Beautifully worded! I love academia for the same reasons, and I also think the contributions one can make to a field in pursuit of greater knowledge and understanding are just wonderful.
Studying something for fun just hits different. Like, sorry, Mrs, but I don’t really study Chemistry all that much. I just do my throughout research about my skincare ingredients: what they are, how they are extracted, concentration, basic uses in everyday life, and which products they react well and badly to. Learning something just because it’s fun>>>>>
@@silvia6790 is this a joke or are you just stupid?
@@silvia6790 Ugghh that's so right,it really be do hitting different
Why does he assume the girl he got coffee with wanted to leave college because it didn't live up to her romanticized expectations? She gave a specific reason - that she doesn't think formal education is the best way to get the understanding of literature that she is after, which I think is a very valid reason and has nothing to do with the romanticization of liberal arts
Was thinking exactly this She didn’t even say she didn’t want to work hard/commit to learning literature, just that she didn’t want to do it through university. Considering her individual learning style and the quality and/or style of the teaching at her uni, she may very well be perfectly right, that university isn’t the right avenue (for her) to optimally learn literature. I agree with most of the video but he really did her dirty there
@@alexmarian4642 To be fair, this is a good take, but at the same time as someone that does exactly this (I work in STEM, I like to read/study literature on my own), there is a difference between doing it in an academic enviroment and doing it on your own.
@@alexmarian4642 Yea fr some people just prefer to learn on their own. They want self directed and free study at their own pace
@@Hyperversum3 yea that what they saying
You’ve literally deconstructed how he got there, he says “it’s the first year of studying” he says. I think that has a lot to do with the point he’s making
I love Dark Academia, but only in a fashion sense. My daily clothing style is inspired by the late Victorian and the Edwardian era, which can be combined with this dark academia aesthetic very easily. I never knew that people actually think that studying liberal arts is the way this aesthetic is often presented. I always thought it was "just" a fashion inspiration, an idea for day-dreaming and romanticizing your own personal life, but it's baffling to me that some would think that's what studying is like. Maybe because I know university life as a psychology student, I'm a bit older than the high school graduates who start studying now, maybe even because this isn't such a big thing here in Germany, but I never thought some would actively pursue a field to study out of an aesthetic style. Well, the more you know...
My feelings toward this are similar to yours. I appreciate the whole “academia aesthetic,” and this is coming from someone who actually lived that private school, plaid skirt, and long study hours kind of life. I still have my old kilts from that era of my life. I don’t wear them often, but the aesthetic is still fashionable. The problem that I truly have with it is that people are obsessed with it. Like it’s kinda shocking to see that people are romanticizing something that so many of my classmates (and myself) can tell you were some of the most stressful days of our lives. However this is something that applies to any aesthetic, not just dark academia.
@@jennahilton8259 Ditto.
I like the look and I like the playlists I see for dark academia. For me it's like I'm taking on the energy of someone very committed to their craft, trying to find some meaning or answer while others think they're mad, and finding secrets that are possibley so dark they can only tell it in a whisper. It's really great for story writing or making art because that is such a clear picture.
I feel like I fell in love with the dark academia in an opposite way. For primary, middle, and highschool, I attended a very academic and challenging private school. So I already understood the hardship and the boring parts of attending an academic school. In early high school ,when I discovered the dark academia aesthetic, it made me enjoy the work that I was already doing and I was able to romanticize it. For example, in order to graduate you must present a major thesis. Mine was on theological aesthetics and the necessity of Beauty. Romanticizing it helped me get through months of reading and writing (which i was very passionate about but was boring and hard at times) and connect with teachers who also shard a similar passion for Beauty.
if your thesis is online anywhere, would love to read it. it sounds incredible; congrats on finishing something so huge:)
This is so true, I'm not studying literature, I studied art but I've noticed when people see me reading a boring and heavy history book for my projects are surprised and wonder why do I read books instead of just drawing..... People tend to imagine artists busy on their canvases or spraying paint like a mad genius, there is this idea very common of the impulsivity of the artist or that art should come from inside and all this nonsense. We can see in the history artists like Leonardo da Vinci were the total opposite and much more similar to a scientist in a laboratory.
What sucks is that as someone with pretty severe ADHD, I would love to learn true critical thinking, but I realistically can't, not in the way of studying, and engaging with difficult to learn things. I bounce off them and it would be great if I didn't but I just... don't get to engage with things because there's this learning barrier that is put in front of me, and I can't talk to anyone about anything because I can't read whatever it is they say I have to read to engage with a topic.
I just went back to school in my mid-30s to get my master's in philosophy and theology, after getting a bachelor's in digital media and video game design. Building a video game is much easier than trying to understand Augustine. But as an 11-year martial artist, I think I've developed a love for discipline within pain because the results are much more gratifying than the results of idealistic, romantic pleasure. Both pain and pleasure have their place, but they don't always overlap. Sometimes it's just pain. But the results of discipline within pain are longer lasting than pleasure.
How did you go from game design to philosophy? I mean, how did you fill in the requirements from your university?
@@alenkavenx2056 I graduated with my bachelor's in game design in 2008, and then I worked in various fields for ten years, including church media, Christian publishing, and then teaching English in Korea. I also published 2 books. My school is a private Christian school, so in my application, I spoke about my work experience and my plans to use philosophy as a teacher, author, and leader. I also had good references. To be fair, a lot of colleges have a high acceptance rate. (Because money.) Regardless, if you apply with good writing and good reason, it's not so difficult to do anything you want. :)
@@DeidreaDeWitt thank you very much for respondind to my message ! Your journey seems very interesting and your answer is going to be very useful to me :D
@@alenkavenx2056 No problem! Just remember that you don't have to decide your future all at once. I change jobs and/or fields every four years to challenge myself. I also have a wide range of random certifications from forensic science to cake decorating. Life is for exploring, so don't worry too much about available paths, but rather, how to make the path you want. ^^
@@DeidreaDeWitt you are so inspiring and your answer is really reassuring to hear as well. I'm becoming a senior in high school soon and I constantly feel lost when it comes to choosing majors in colleges :( also, your videos are so cool!
Great video! I'm a 3rd year philosophy student and a physics dropout. I want to add that this romantization also happens for scientific subjects. Tumblr, youtube videos, just midia in general portrays Physics as something where you study the night sky, observe planets and understand interesting concepts and theories, when in reality... it's 90% Maths. I only realized it when I got into college. I dropped out of Physics a couple of months before finishing my first year, as I realized that the idea I had of the world of physics was very far from the actual thing. I do like maths, though, but i prefer the IDEA of physics and maths that I had in high school. When I changed to Philosophy, I was already prepared to see the real thing and not expecting the romanticized view of it. And I'm loving it. What I want to say is: studying physics is actually about spending 24/7 on maths. Studying philosophy is not at all about wondering what's the meaning of life; it's rigorous thinking, extremely organized arguments, a lot and a lot of fun AND BORING reading. Studying literature is not only reading english and french classics, it's reading and re-reading complicated and boring analysis of language. But if you understand that not everything is going to be fun and easy and still decides to keep on that path, you will reach a point where things are GREAT, and it changes you in a wonderful way.
Hi, I have an Master’s in physics and am currently on year 2 of my PhD. Physics is a subject that you can only appreciate the wonder of after you’ve put in years of incredibly dry work. You were under the impression physics is mostly maths because you only did your first year, actually there is a whole world of theory underpinning this maths and the two are very intricately connected in a way you can’t grasp until one day it hits you 5 years into your studies. The reason you did so much maths is because you have to build this foundation or you’ll have no hope of understanding anything on a higher level. But physics is not about doing maths 24/7, it is very far from that. In fact, depending on your specialism you can easily build a career doing only very basic maths and as such lots of physicists are very bad at it. However, I would like to make the case that a career as a theorist is the most rewarding type of physics you can do: (cue an extremely long comment, feel free not to read if you don’t care, but it’s there for other people if they’re interested) Although it requires the most maths of probably any STEM field excluding mathematics, the way that maths and physics are so connected to each other is a fascinating, almost philosophical insight into our universe (and of course physics and philosophy have always historically been linked). Take the following equation: e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0, where e is the constant 2.718… , i is the square root of negative one (imaginary number) and ofc pi is the circle constant. This is known as Euler’s identity. One might be tempted to instead take the 1 over to the other side and have e^(i*pi) = -1 but then some of the beauty is lost. Now this identity is used all the time in physics in multiple disciplines so safe to say it has physical meaning. What’s beautiful about it is that it relates 5 fundamental constants (e, i, pi, 0 and 1) in such a simplistic way. They are the building blocks of math and now relate to nature through one short line. Shapes, electronics, the electromagnetic spectrum (light, radiation ect.), music, signal analysis and transmissions, quantum mechanics; all of these things include or can make use of this relationship and they do so with so little mess that if I wasn’t such a firm atheist I would be tempted to call it intelligent design; a true interception of maths and reality. For this reason lots of people call it the most beautiful relation in mathematics but personally I believe there’s better, it’s just this is the easiest for non-theorists to understand. The truth is, behind the symbols it takes admittedly years to understand, there is immense beauty and the more you look the more you see. Particularly beautiful to me is the world of general relativity. I did a basic course on it in my final year, the type of course where one derivation could span a couple of lectures to complete which may sound unappealing to lots of people. However, the result of a simple looking matrix can tell you the behaviour of a black hole and of course it should be obvious to you that a lot of our knowledge in astrophysics and cosmology came first from theory and then supported by experimental evidence. The reason we have special (time travel) and general (gravity bends things) relativity is because Einstein and others combined novel concepts and mathematics to form a theory and were able to interpret lines of maths to have physical meaning. So to a theorist, physics and maths are entangled in a very fundamental way and using maths well is like having a window into the secrets of physics. That being said, it was very possible for you to have a career in physics almost completely free of complicated maths, you just needed to get through undergrad.
And people romanticizing Medicine. My aunt is in her last year of studying for a nurse, and it’s nothing like those videos portray it. They show you pretty notes with cartoonish drawings of the human body with highlighted organs and stuff. But they don’t show you the endless PDF files you’ve got to stare at in order to study, the unpaid internship, and even if it’s paid, you get next to nothing. Like, my aunt worked so much at that damn hospital, and she was constantly studying. It’s not cutesy like they show you. I want to study for a dermatologist and that includes the basic 6 years of Med school. And I’m making an informed choice, and I’m aware that I’m going to hate myself for choosing the healthcare field, but I’m not giving up my dream.
Makes me think back to my idea of being a fashion designer before I did my degree in it .. definitely not a glamorous process, very arduous and lonely experience 😂 but I’ve learnt to find long lasting pleasure from the pain somehow
This is suspect lol. How do you get into a physics major without great aptitude for math? Hell, even for my compsci degree nearly a decade ago, I had to be on point for the math requirements.
@@loissmith7418 "they do so with so little mess that if I wasn’t such a firm atheist I would be tempted to call it intelligent design" The absolute hilarity of this statement
i read the title and was really confused, i was sat there thinking 'who wouldn't romanticise studying the liberal arts', but when i think of the liberal arts i think of reading and studying for hours and being alone for hours while listening to those lofi playlists 😭 and that's what i always romanticised, i did philosophy in college and it was the best experience of my life i think, i loved the lessons, the material, the different arguments and the reading. i love all of it and its such a huge shock to me that people aren't romanticising that aspect. i didnt think that dark academics or whatever they're called, wouldn't love the idea of studying constantly, i thought that was the whole point of the aesthetic
I love this video and the message you're conveying. I studied Literature and liberal arts for four years in my bachelor's because I loved to read, plain and simple. I still do, but the classes don't actually require reading one book to discuss themes and motifs, they require reading critics and secondary opinions on the texts, and at the end of the day, it leaves you with a sense of uselessness that is inexplicable - you worked so hard and so rigourously for something with little to no practical application. What do you do with your opinions? You cannot save someone's life, or change a tire, or repair anything. What do you do with all your aesthetically pleasing notes? Where do the words go? Literature, as is taught now (at least where I studied) seems to be ceasing to exist as a field of study. Sure there are jobs but they're scarce, and it started to seem to me that the more we glorify reading the less we actually read. I began to hate reading, I still struggle with it now even after changing my major. What did I change my major to, you ask? Linguistics. I guess I just never learned. I don't know if I'm more useless than when I was studying literature. XD
I found when I studied music that the question of worth and value came from the feeling that it all needed to be easily monetised, and the work needed to be practical in a readily visible sense. It took just a second to consider a world without music to realise what rubbish that thinking was and that there's a tangible reason these fields exist both within and outside academia. For me, the answer to the question of practical skill is about where you place your value. If you love reading, the value of literature is clear! Entertainment, creativity and critical thinking are necessary to existence. If you don't so much enjoy the research component of the field, that's okay! Linguistics and literature studies regardless both have great value to society overall, academically and also historically/contextually. It's too easy to feel devalued in your education when the resulting benefits aren't so readily seen. P.S I always think that as long as you love to pursue knowledge, no matter how niche, the value in your education is clear and the pathways are greater than we often think 😊
I was really lucky to have a very different experience. I studied Liberal Arts at King's College London, and the department was extremely hot on teaching us where the literature we were reading could be applied to real life. My lectures on Marx were always linked to the UCU strikes, CLR James to the BLM movement and racism in the university etc. It was full of independent research projects that forced us to *make* new knowledge - diving into archives and applying what we were reading to write new popular and academic texts. I think the defining factor was that all of the department heads were very early career; most had only gotten their PhD's a few years prior, and so came at setting the curriculum with a mindset not that far removed from the bachelor's students they were teaching. They knew what we needed, so they gave it to us, and I'm very grateful for it
Starting my master's degree next year, and this is exactly what I feel. I chose French literature because I loved it and because I was praised for my work. It felt like the only thing I could do, the only thing I could scrape some praise from. To say I hit a wall was an understatement. I loved the classes but God it wasn't worth the money and classes were full of elitists rich kids that thought themselves Donna Tartt's characters. The majority were all into this weird I must look like I'm suffering scholar. It was never about understanding the work or listening to different ideas. No, it's all about worshipping every piece of French literature as if their life depended on it. I'm still thankful for the experience I got. That slap forced me out of my bubble. Good luck with linguistics!
I just have to say, this is the case for literally every discipline, career, job, hobby, etc. Everything! There is always so much more to it and do much more work than might be shown in popular depictions. I'm pretty old in comparison and I've had careers as a research engineer, a design engineer in industry, a math and science teacher, and now a dog trainer. I can tell you in every single single profession, you must dive in if you want to actually understand, no matter if it's training dogs or researching ways to control for boat sway with ship-mounted boats. In all cases, I was getting into the literature of the field and going out and doing it. Also... A reminder that professors aren't infallible. The good ones know that and are open to it. The bad ones aren't.
I feel like separation of the aesthetic from the reality of perusing higher education is really difficult because college is often advertised as a way to make what you love into a career. You must love every part of the process and the reputation that comes from it. These sentiments are really far from the truth. One, because most people have several interests. Two, because people don’t critically think about why they love what they are doing. And three, revolving your career around what you love the most will most likely ruin what made that interest enjoyable in the first place. I love arts, literature, and science because I like understanding different perspectives, processes, and stories. Arts and literature pathways would force me to do my job even if I didn’t want to at that moment and my inspirations were often irregular in timing. The stress from producing anything alone would make me hate that altogether. Science however is all about understanding and not much else and so I chose that as my education pathway. There’s not enough consulting that happens when people choose their majors, and it’s not really anyones fault here. The most important part is to dissect what exactly your interests have in common and which one of those interests align perfectly with that factor. To only choose based on the fantasy of achievement alone isn’t really thinking for the future.
There is a core issue with turning your "passion" into your career to begin with. Anyone that actually worked long enough would tell you that it's not the greatest idea.
As someone who’s recently left academia after Masters, this is a great and well thought through video. I loved my study but it was very unglamorous: from ugly buildings, to cuts to the humanities, awful administration, and bullying. The “aestheticisation” is a somewhat cheapened and false representation of a modern institution. And as a Roman historian of colour, it was frustrating to see the glamorisation of the colonial Western academy when we our discipline was right in the middle of a conversation about the imperialist legacy of our field.
i'm so sorry that you had that experience :\ it breaks my heart to think that there are many people dedicating so much time, energy, & money (esp in the USA) to pursue higher education & the institutions that they're studying at fail to reciprocate 🤷♀️ i hope you're finding success in your life & career!
Your videos remind me of how much I used to love learning. The fact you understand the importance of critically engaging with content (even your own), really shows your maturity and intelligence. Thank you for putting the hard work into making these videos. 📚💡
I just graduated with a Bachelors in English and I can honestly say it flew by fast as I thoroughly enjoyed my courses. I didn’t like every single professor, or curriculum but I enjoyed it nonetheless. I like the dark academia aesthetic, but I certainly do not live the aesthetic.
Hi, I've stumbled across this video because I'd been searching some dark academia music to study/work to. I've struggled with my bachelor paper for years now, due to anxiety/depression issues and unability to sit still and just read and then write in my document. Lately I've been diagnosed with ADHD and it made ever more sense to me that I struggle so much with reading or writing - activities that I love anyway (I loved reading and writing as a child until high school, when my symptoms intensified and I everything started to distract me greatly). Other than that I have also started a full time responsible job a month ago that requires learning a lot on a subject I'm working with on my project. It's been really hard for me to focus and find joy in doing simple tasks in these two big projects in my life. I'm writing all this because I wanted to point out that I'm trying to romanticize and lighten my responsibilities so they become bearable for me. That's why I've searched for dark academia music. So in my case it was the other way around, I try to make it "dark, exciting knowledge", make me feel like I'm a character searching for the answers in an old book sipping my tea - anything that will spark an excitement in me, because often I feel desperate when sitting in front of my laptop and trying to work. But maybe as you say, I will just disappoint myself in the process with this attitude. I'm going to see if it works. I will check your other videos for sure, as I can see you've covered the topic of losing joy of learning (but I'm aware in case of mental health problems as mine it's more complicated and requires solid therapy and medications (I have both or working on it but still struggling). Have a great weekend everybody!
This has put to words exactly what I've been thinking. As a history major, I've noticed this amongst my peers. There is no rigor. And without rigor, everything is permissible. When everything is permissible, truth becomes a matter of feeling and mood instead of objectivity. I think that the popularization of postmodernism is partially to blame. While the original postmodernists presented unique and insightful ideas, their ideas have been inevitably incompletely understood by the masses. When one is introduced to the humanities through postmodernist ideas, they are predisposed to not take texts seriously on the simple grounds that they do not represent objective truth. Those opinions are well and good when they are well-informed. But when they are held by undergraduate students, they simply make them less willing to be rigorous in their studies and make our institutions produce less productive intellects.
I just like seeing this guy talk
I appreciate this. I am an academic but in STEM (had a LA minor though and plenty of exposure to that side), but I also love DA aesthetic. I'm first gen and I think pretty aware of at least some of the problems with DA. Like it's a little funny to me to see "annotation" presented as circling a romantic bit of dialogue. I was just thinking this morning about how a lot of video essays do a decent job of social and historical context, but drop the ball on scientific studies even where it makes obvious sense. I do think though that along with being kinda cute, some healthy romanization of academia can be good. For me it feels entwined with how I envisioned my life even though no one in my family had gone to college. I'd only ever met a couple of people in my life who romanticised it but seen plenty of movies. And although there were some negatives in that (like being a bit of a snob), I liked to know that there were circles where wanting to learn nonstop would be praised. Not like DA aesthetic is required for appreciating intellectualism or academia but I get the feeling for a lot of folks like me those are the emotions it's evoking.
Thank you for this video! I rarely see people get into this topic. On my university and in my studies, which was Comparative literature, you see so many people drop out in the second semester because it turns out they had a romantizised idea of literary studies. They expected to enjoy literature, not theoretical text upon theoretical text and skipping quickly from one book to the next. They expected to be able to sit with a book for hrs at a time enjoing it. Not skimming through a 300 page horribly boring book and 5 text written in 1850 about said book. During my studies I barely had time to actually read books I wanted to. For many of these 20 dropouts out of 60 students on the BA it began ruining their interest in literature. But as someone who decided to stick around, even though it also wasn't exactly what I expected, and have now finished my MA, it really is a lot more about learning to think critically. Learning to learn basically. And as you say, that is really lacking in many ways today.
the incessant urge we human beings have to be a part of something (conforming to the 'rules' of certain aesthetics to embody ithem being an example) is limiting us so much; it was so liberating to see myself as a human being with various interests after desperately trying to 'find my aesthetic' throughout the pandemic due to lonliness
I just simply love so much your channel, thanks for giving us the opportunity to consume this type of content
It’s a huge pleasure to listen to you. Thanks!
I'm a biology major, not studying liberal arts, but I was very into aesthetics and romanticized biology/academia in general. I definitely felt disappointed and betrayed when the reality wasn't like my romantic dream of being like a 19th century scientist. I did lose my motivation for a while.
Been there! Working in a lab is more like being a bar tender
@@cindyo6298 Yeah, and so much of academia is just office work on a computer. Reading and writing papers, Excel, email. And applying for grants, though I don't know if that is as common in Finland as it's apparently in USA. I just want to be a old-timey naturalist, chilling out on a field with Darwin, travel on the Beagle and do pea experiments with Mendel. Of course with long walks, dinner parties and letters from other genius gentlemen. Or to live inside a David Attenborough documentary
Absolutely loved this video. It always fascinates me how people miss the point of The Secret History. I love the book and the aesthetic too but try to always be aware of everything that comes with it.
I love this and thank you for making this video! I'm currently at the end of my art history studies, I have one exam until I finish my degree. I often get asked by younger students about my experience, and I always try to open their eyes and tell them that art history is not just about Van Gogh, Monet, Da Vinci etc. as many people think. Because, in reality, it's so much more - from ancient Mesopotamia to early Christianity, to extensive studying and understanding of The Bible, the middle ages and many other things. It took me three years to get to my modern art courses, where I decided to ultimately major, even though I thought I would go into renaissance studies when I first started university. When I started my uni journey in 2018. Instagram was full of these aesthetic profiles and even I got the wrong idea, but ultimately I fell in love with what I was studying because now I have this extensive knowledge of history, art and the world in general.
I love you, thank you for existing. Love your work, expression, the corners of your mind and how you put everything on it, the back and forth. Intellectualism is not really it, yet you expand and comprehend the point where you clearly direct the theme in a contemporary force to guide us into a journey back in time. How this marvellous writers were, composed, thought, fought, forgot what's not necessarily to deep that ink further beyond madness to many, to others that returning home and around. Some time, I'd like to ask you something, mean while thank you as a listener.
great video!! i've always been fascinated by those academia aesthetics, especially dark and chaotic academia, and i never really wondered about how representative of the truth those asthetics were. watching your video, i couldn't stop thinking about my last trimester of philosophy classes in highschool, in which we analyzed plato's allegory of the cave and started to think about the differences between the truth and the representations and how education works, as a tough (in your words, "rigorous") process that lets us discern real things from its shadows. we spent about two months trying to dissecate, like, four pages of text, but it was really exciting. its not like if i was a phiosophy expert by now, but it really changed how i see things and now i apply what i've learnt to literally everthing, lol. i cant picture myself doing all this work of reading and interpretating difficult texts by myself but i really hope i manage to develop this hability over time... anyways, you brought up a really important subject and also showed some kind of self-criticism (can i even call it that way? doesn't seem the right term) when abording it... im glad to have met your channel. oh, and sorry if it (the comment) has english mistakes... i'm not a native.
I'm not particularly into philosophy, but it's amazing how easily this video could be about art. Artsy aesthetics vs actually making art - that it's in the same time less and more exciting, how much boring work it is, how little glamour - and how absolutely worth it. Great video!
You're such a unique creator. I will be looking forward to your videos
Simply an amazing explanation. Well done R.C.
Your videos are so good! Your psychological and philosophical explorations are great! Listening to you is great because I too love reading classics and challenging myself with meaningful and thoughtful literature! Would be awesome to have a conversation with you! Keep up the good work!
just found my new fav youtuber. these vids are so good
Thank you for this video! I’m exhausted explaining these topics to people; my patience has worn thin convincing folks regarding what you are sharing with such beautiful nuances and are so kind enough to elaborate with great simplicity and flourish. My master’s thesis supervisor told me many years ago the true testament of clear understanding by a student of a body of knowledge is the ability to explain said complex material in concise, compelling, and cohesive terms to people and is relatable to academics and nonacademics alike. Fantastic job. PD I am sending people here when they want to “pick my brain” on their TikToktizing of philosophers, liberal arts, literature, etc. Additionally, I disagree with quickly discounting your conversation because you are also an “influencer,” you are actually in the kismet of the moment; you should be taking notes. If you were philosophically motivated, you might be no different than Foucault being able to correlate philosophy, prisons, insane asylums, and power structures. You are in a position of knowledge of being in the ingroup. That position is invaluable. Stupidity and foolishness are not mutually exclusive to a Ph.D. I have found. Being an undergrad doesn’t make you any less intellectual or insightful.
Adding this video to my “life gems” playlist. As a philosophy grad student I fully approve of this message 👍
please make it public and post the linl, it sounds like real gems are in it
I want to agree with everything you have to say, I think its your classy color palate, lol. But has there always been a discord between the structure of academia and the freedom of the reading public to develop their own ideas? What about the impressionist artists who rejected the salon to pursue their own path? Don't movements sometimes come from people who "read" texts a slightly different way?
I’m not even in the literature field but I couldn’t help but sit through the whole video. This was very interesting and insightful.
I've been going through some significant changes lately. After having been pursuing a 7-years, costly degree I found myself not only unable to work in the profession, but also totally forgotten how to think, and, most importantly, study. I've found that education is not a matter of simply memorising the correct answers for the upcoming tests but going deep into studying and understanding the given problem. Unfortunately, I wasn't taught that before, and I was too ignorant to understand it myself. Luckily, I've been given a second chance in my life including educationally wise. I decided to study liberal arts, the very degree I've been despising for so long, not understanding why would anyone spend their precious time on something so easy and "nonexistent". I can't wait to begin my journey this autumn and I hope to gain all the knowledge and skills there are. And Thank you for this video
You've already made videos on allllll of my questions! Hell!
I really appreciate the nuance of this video. I graduated college a year ago with two degrees and they’ve really led me to the conclusion that I know very little. I think English, academic language, and internet culture all encourage to differing levels an assertive tone which when joined together benefit the speaker to act, or maybe even believe, that what they are saying is truth and how they are saying it is gospel. Pair that with financial motivation (influencer jobs) in a time with little social safety nets, widespread weak media literacy, and corporate culture which pours exorbitant amounts of funding and research into the psychology/tech/business models of how to get people to pay as much of their attention to things for as long as possible for the purpose of buying them or subliminally seeing the advertising, and we have I think a pretty text book clusterfuck
Amazing stuff, thank you for this, it gives me lots of hope and motivation!
i like your content a lot! thank goodness I found your channel!
The transparency is great!!
Hiya! Really enjoyed the video! I do have a couple of comments, though. Firstly, as long as influencers/people on screens flag their opinions as personal opinions, I don't see a problem. In fact, that's also information (e.g. perception of idea x at a certain point in time/in a certain group, etc.), and is valuable as such. What I also wish was emphasized more often is how consumers of these kinds of videos are rarely encouraged to turn to primary sources and explore them for themselves. Very often it all comes down to somebody's regurgitation of ideas (even at uni it's sometimes more important to cite other academics to show that you've 'explored the field'), so you end up discussing the perception of an idea rather than the idea itself (again, not saying that's bad, but I think you need a solid foundation before engaging in that kind of work/for that to really have a point). Secondly, I find that a big part of the problem is romaticisation itself (the OED uses words like 'idealized' and 'unrealistic' in the definition, for example). Surely, that goes against academic and intellectual work, which boils down to logic, i.e. not seeing things how you like them to be, but rather how they are. It's one thing to be thankful for and enjoy reading a book (and notice the tactile and olfactory experiences of the moment, say) and having it on your bookshelf when you need to look something up, and another thing entirely to pile books on your bookshelves because, you know, esthetics. Romanticising the intellect and academia just leads to people getting high on the idea(s) of 'academic-ness' and 'intellectual-ness', and not really caring their own intellect. Anyway, in a world of stoic bros and sleep-deprived people who care more about what a stack of book looks like rather than which books are stacked, content like yours is very welcome. So thank you for putting in the work!
I'm a mechanical engineering student and I really feel like this applies to STEM as well. amazing video essay, really got me to think about why I'm studying what I'm studying :)
I think one of the biggest problems with the dark academia following is the intense idealisation of western history and art and the inherent classism and elitism that's found within its followers. There's a lot of disregard for other cultures and honestly feels like some sort of weird colonist cult in some circles, not to mention the way that in its desire for exclusivity, it facilitates the active marginalisation of people who could not receive a similar level of education or simply don't have the time to immerse themselves in typical dark academia hobbies or interests. Obviously this is a generalisation but it's so easy to come across entitled, classist white people who actively pursue this type of casual doscrimation in the name of some dark academia fantasy and the most ridiculous part is that they really hold onto that delusion that they are a part of an elite group that is superior to literally anyone just trying to make ends meet and live thier lives
This was randomly recommended to me, and I stayed because your voice is so soothing. I could listen to you talk the whole day. 🤤
From my college experience (BS Biology), I didn't really learn a lot about specific plants or animals, but more broad strokes about how things tend to operate and how to find the answers to things. If iodine turns it blue it's got a starch, which can be used to test something for quality control or unknowns, those kinds of things. I feel like I came into it expecting to know more details, but you learn those through experience putting your degree to use. They're more focused on giving you a framework and teaching you how to use it. I would guess other degree programs are similar.
I say, you're quite influencer. For, as you said, you're not feeding truth, but rather carrying a conversation. Of which I value highly. Thank you for sharing your ideas.
These videos are absolutely fantastic!
Thanks for this! Great work
6:50 Sounds more like the death of thought to me. Great thinkers who bring new ideas to the table rarely do so by referencing another author every 2 to 3 lines. This process is demanded by universities to keep universities relevant. Not that you shouldn't acquire some knowledge and build upon the ideas of others, but this rigorous research and endless referencing you speak of sounds like intellectual posturing to me.
Thank you for this comment. I completely agree, and I should've clarified the point in the video. While I am saying a rigorous study is important, it should be done with the end of learning how to think, not with the aim of puffing up an article with hundreds of sources. In that sense, the content of what we're learning is only a vehicle for us to learn "what's out there" before we can critically assess our own thoughts on a topic. And from that place, though we're standing on the shoulders of giants, we're free to exercise our own thoughts. Cheers. :)
@@RCWaldun I see where you're coming from and I do agree that learning from great ideas that have already been thought can help us develop our own thought patterns. Where I think that universities are majorly lacking, is that they sequence acquiring knowledge and the development of your own thought, as if the former is a prerequisite of the latter, when both are very different skills that should be developed in parallel. You can pretty much go through a bachelors in literature without ever producing much of an original thought, maybe linking preexisting ideas together. It's therefore not surprising to see memoirs and thesises that get bogged down in references and metalanguage, to ultimately bring almost nothing new to the table. That's what I find deplorable.
Sorry it's very ironic that I'm gonna comment this: What you're describing reminds me of what John Keats called a writer's "negative capability"
thank you for this :) . this was really a reminder for me that not everything we see is what it seems to be, especially on mainstream media. and may i recall, i can't remember what video of yours specifically, but it was about this: love the work, not the idea [that has been given to you] of it (not sure if this is right, but something like that).
Interesting take, Robin. Great idea to link further readings with your videos. It may wet the appetite more for those who are on the borderline of pursuing a degree in the liberal arts. I hope you are doing well, my friend.
Hey David! It’s been a while! Everything’s well, shoot me an email and let’s talk. :)
Honestly, I just finiched reading your article before watching the video because the anxiety in my mind was building up from what you said in the beginning of the video. For context, I'm from Argentina (yes, it is important) I am studying Literature and Linguistics and the introduction catched me off guard. I was thinking "How can this person say that? Who is doing such thing?". But then it clicked me. My brain was constantly flooded with USA's "social culture" when I was younger, it was my own way of learning English and keeping up with my level. I remembered this aesthetics, how people pursued this dumb dream of studying Philosophy because it's mysterious, and captivating. I was just not remembering I was thinking in my own culture, forgetting the country you are from, and I laughed so hard at my stupidity. Definitely, you gave me a lot to think about, I loved your article so much.
I would really like to see more of an effort to separate liberal arts like English, from behavioural and social sciences, and a greater focus on incorporating scientific methods into the social sciences.
most liberal arts institutions separate humanities (literature, philosophy, classics, etc) from social sciences (sociology, anthropology, political science, etc)
I like the way you approached this topic! Often times, I think passion is seen transforming 'work' and making it entirely enjoyable. Rather, its more realistic to say that our passions will have much suffering aligned with it, and that is okay. It is the 10% of the time that we are pleasantly surprised by a new breakthrough, and will ultimately make that 90% of hard work worth it
If that is how you choose to approach it, and I say it as a lecturer in my alma mater. Both alma maters, actually, I get to run between the two different campuses a lot during the semester. I fundamentally disagree with it, and I view it as a romanticisation of your own suffering to the point where you think that 'hard work and suffering' has inherent value. It does not. Nobody is going to write 'here lies d3rpii, they worked very hard' on your headstone when you die, and you WILL die and you WILL NOT be able to take any of your life's work with you. The quality and cleverness of your work is not measured by how much it hurt to get there by anybody but yourself and others who mistake brilliance for pain. I can't do 'hard work' the way the author said proper academic process should look like, I have ADHD. It's not gonna happen, and if I try to make it happen, I will produce sub-par results. I can genuinely say this that my grades weren't spectacular, but I made enough a splash in both of my fields that I have an actual profile and some renown where I'm at for the results of my work. And I can also say that because I had to study smart, not hard (again. ADHD has some unique perks, but in the stuffy old mothball-stanky academia here, it's generally a severe hindrance). I didn't suffer once I figured out that I don't have to walk the expected path, but I don't have to leave it entirely, either. I can pick and choose and do so with wisdom, cleverness, and leave my pride and hurt feelings behind the door because that's just asking to fail at everything you start. And experience says that people who do have 'passion' really are the visionaries. 'Suffer the hard work 90% of the time for 10% of 'worth it' is what people without both the spark and the cunning say to themselves to make it feel like it was all worth it, when 10% return for 90% of suffering is a bargain so bad, you'd be better off buying that imaginary bridge in New York City, you'll get more out of it. So I repeat to you. You will die. How do you want to spend your life before you do? Do you want to work hard until you die? Do you want 'worked really hard' on your tombstone? Especially since odds are that you and I are neither lucky nor smart nor connected enough with the true high fliers and rockstars of global academia for our 90% of hard work and 10% breakthrough to even remotely matter. Perhaps this is the right, fulfilling path for you. But especially now as a lecturer I've really come to realise that time's running out for us all, and if the classic 'work hard for 10%' academic path isn't working out for us, that doesn't necessarily mean that the one that supposedly 'gave up' was wrong. You can tie that millstone around your neck and hope it'll slow you down on the way to the grave, but it'll only get you there faster, and you will not go to your grave a happy academic superstar, you'll go there as someone who lugged around a millstone and called it an achievement. Or all in all you're just another brick in the wall, like the boys of the Pink sang. If that is what you want then be the best brick there ever was, that is admirable too, but never forget that 'hard work' is considered a virtue at school and at work, but in the end only the results matter.
Oh My gosh love this video! I am listening to this while feverishly typing out my Masters thesis (Ancient History) and it is definitely NOT glamorous! The fear, the doubt, the loneliness, the hopelessness, the depression... these are things that a lot of people who focus only on the aesthetic appeal of academia are unable to cope with. While I enjoy content that is curated well and looks 'seductive' I think it would also be nice to see an academic influencer who shows the realities of academic life. I personally feel very intimidated while I watch them talking about their organisation methods and reading schedules, and what not, but I do have to stop and remind myself that reality is so different, especially for those of us also working full time while studying.
I'm in the same position except with my bachelors thesis. I love all my courses and the information I've had the opportunity to learn, but the work is hard and anything but glamorous. I've been fortunate to have great professors for most of my studies, but I had one horrible vindictive elitist History professor who almost drove me to quit my studies. I think the cruelty of some members of the academic community is often understated.
@@noxmtg7017 omg yes the cruel professor! I had one who gave me feedback on my first essay in my MA program who said my grammar was not good! I’m an English teacher so that really hit hard and the only issue was that I had to adapt more to a postgraduate level of writing since I was used to working with secondary education level grammar. Since then I’ve never had any issues, in fact that’s the section I get marked the highest.
Thanks so much. I'm in sophomore year rn and looking forward to pursuing literature. It was utterly informative:)
I loved the message that we in the end need to do the actual thing and not just idealize the thing. I dont quite agree with your take on professors though, that is hearsay too. I am sure you have heard some of your professors say things that are factually wrong and/if not then you might retroactively realize of their shortcomings afterwards. When you come to learn something into an institution is when you are the least able to critize a teacher and you are the most dependant on them. If you ever had the experience of trying to put forward a formal complain in your institution then you would know that even if your criticism holds weight it takes year for meaningful change to happen.
Honestly I’ve been following this channel for a while. You have inspired me to have passion in what I learn at school. My family had ideas for I had to major in but this channel has helped me convince them and now I have never had more fun reading and writing for school. I would like hear about your thoughts on learning literature at a secondary school/ high school level. Teachers tend to give you the “right” analysis and points to write about in your exams for marks (at least that’s how it is here in Singapore). Do you think this pushes young people away from reading, like when it feels like a chore or something that is shoved down their throats? I only started to love reading again and appreciating literature after graduation when I found your channel and learnt to read for myself.
I'll make a separate video on this topic because it's super important. The 2-minute version is this: teachers can only provide you with a temporary perspective/interpretation, and this is useful when the student doesn't really have a perspective of their own. But at some point, the student has to turn around and doubt that perspective/interpretation after they have learned how to evaluate the validity of different readings. And this process will build up that critical thinking ability. Hope it helped. :)
@@RCWaldun it did thank you 🙏
@@RCWaldun To add to what Robin said, I feel that it around be brought up that teachers giving you the "right" analysis and points to write about in your exam for marks (which I have some experience with in a boarding school in India for a few years) comes from the struggle in trying to measure and quantify the qualitative, especially when it comes to intersubjective fields like the humanities and liberal arts. In high school especially, literature teachers have severe time constraints, where they have to teach their material that competes for their students' attention along with their other subjects and homework. Because of that, high school literature classes can't really go super deep into the material because they just don't have the time and they need some way of providing measurements of a student's learning and progress. Standardized exams with the "right" analysis and points to write about comes as a direct consequence of this, which is understandable in a sense. You can't really spend a whole semester reading and analyzing just 1 book and it makes sense that people want some indication or measurement of them getting something out of what they learn. Part of it is a consequence of living in a capitalist system where anything that can't be quantified, measured, and profited from is considered "useless". Just look at the contempt that certain STEM or Business majors tend to reserve for Humanities and Liberal Arts majors. In the end, it's a rather difficult issue and question to try to solve. I don't have answers but I do sympathize with how the teachers have to do the best with what they've got. Do you get what I mean , Neeharika?
Now that I think about it every good educational creator always gave reading recommendation which helped me understand their arguments and make my own mind
Fascinating. When I started stumbling across these tagged playlists on KZhead and looking into their music choices, I had no idea I was just touching the surface of a new movement [albeit with some old takes] loosely comparable to romanticism or Victorian sentimentalism in its broad coverage and [to me] peculiar integration of [to me] disparate concepts. When I hear the phrase Liberal Arts I either think historically of the trivium and quadrivium or more broadly of the subjects encompassed by the humanities and arts. When I studied history decades ago and tacked on elements from other humanities and social sciences whether in coursework or personal enthusiasm, I did not have either this new approach or a critique of this new approach at all on the horizon. Still struggling to conceptualize them in this more targeted way.
Dear overthinking nerds, there is no way around this, but the problem with Aesthetics and Liberal arts is that most who are into it are soft, oversocialised, weak. You will have a sense of rejection, but to be able to resist most of the dangers in the video - you have to become strong, you have to rigorously apply yourself to chiselling your body out of the rough hewn marble into something true and actual. And through such a process you will bridge the inward crevice, becoming something more beautiful and truly human.
👏👏👏Love your content! ♥
I think you're such an interesting and honestly impressive person. I really wonder what Lady Dakota would have to say about this topic. I love both of your channels!
What's the other one?
@@jimenadelaluz1446 theyre talking abt dakota warren
@@catboy9945 yep exactly
dakota warren is the biggest litterature larper
@@benjaminjordman6272 you do know she actually studies literature though, do you? and she reads tons. yes, she built an online persona around romanticising literature but that doesn’t mean that she doesn’t actually have a passion for it
Your conclusion! My major required a lot of reading, so naturally I spent a lot of time alone as well. Luckily with my other major, we were all struggling a bit and were willing to help each other so I made a few acquaintances, but for the most part I was studying alone. I did enjoy it at the time, but uni it got hard sometimes since I was so stressed about the things I had to do and couldn't keep up with a social life.
This is a great video. I’m a literature student and I went into the program to improve my writing and reading skills. I never had romanticized views on what my school experience would be like, but if I had I would have been let down for sure. There are highs and lows to everything and sometimes I wonder if I have even absorbed anything after rigorous studying or taking a class that I hated. I know I have improved but literature and liberal arts is definitely not as whimsical as it seems in titles that courses may have or on the surface level online.
I think this is part of a much bigger problem - I don't have the eloquency to explain my thoughts, but it's something I noticed in people/society in general.
Mind blowing! 🤯
So... was all this based on one girl deciding to drop out? It is actually possible to start an education and realize it's not for you, without it meaning you're not ready to work hard and go through periods of boring work to reach your goal. It's also completely fine to enjoy literature and liberal arts without taking it too seriously. It can be a hobby or an aesthetic just fine. And what exactly is the danger? Pursuing a career in liberal arts can absolutely result in difficulties to get jobs, but they're not nonexistent. It's repeated over and over, "the DANGER...". It comes off as if people would die as a result of romanticizing liberal arts/dark academia.
i think the danger is that liberal arts studies at university level are misrepresented and lead people into them without being prepared for academic discipline, no one will die over the romanticisation you're being over dramatic... its just about how univeristy level people feel about their degree that they have put YEARS of hard work and effort into being simplified into an aesthetic, when most people in that aesthetic would never want an actual degree
@@MoonHowler21 My point was that the video is overly dramatic to make it sound like that way. I don't see how someone quitting because it wasn't like they thought affects anyone else, it's their problem and misfortune. It's good that they tried. Everyone is free to love any subject for its aesthetics too. The people who work really hard at their degree can just mind their own business.
I don't think he's saying that there is anything morally wrong with liking how something looks, and it's true that "danger" has a stronger valence than seems necessary here. However, the points made about critical thinking and false impressions of authority on social media are pretty valid - there is, at least, "risk".
perhaps "risk" would be a more measured word to use, but to me he has a somewhat bland, semi casual yet reserved way of speaking. i don't think he is being dramatic, but how someone is read is quite subjective. he talks the way someone who is in college and likely trying to break into academia or a white collar job speaks. even the gestures he does with his hands, or his brief pauses in speech, reminds me of my old professor. someone who really is serious about liberal arts at the point in life they are currently in, isn't going to drop the subject because of one guy saying negative things about idealization of a field of study. personally, i think some people would actually be better off mentally and financially choosing a more pragmatic area of study, and engaging in literature on their terms in their leisure time. particularly given the student debt bubble that is looming. some of the famous authors whose work gets studied in college, such as james baldwin or haruki murakami, either didn't study literature in undergraduate (or never even went to college), or did something very unrelated to humanities for decades. perhaps that sounds anti intellectual, however. or it can be construed as discouraging people from their passions. there is a life after racking up four years of debt, and not everyone will become a journalist, academic, novelist, or direct films that transform society. but perhaps that risk is worth it if people are genuinely interested in changing their culture or have some other objective that makes this video feel like nothing to their plans.
@@raisinbranturtle5364 depends what country you're in, there's no uni debt in Australia, you pay it through tax. no shame in him having a passion for his degree
This is a bit off topic but i love the way you styled your hair, it looks very good on you.
Hello R.C. A pleasure meeting you through this video. I’m studying Liberal Arts & Sciences. I am at the end stretch of getting my BA too. Do you have a desire to be a professor? I can see your artistic flair in what you do, look at that back drop. Wow, many are challenging me this year on truth, illusion, Ideas, and so much more. I agree, life changing. Thank you for your post. Tootle loo
Great video, from somebody that has a degree in liberal arts. It's very perceptive to notice how American culture reduces the humanities to shallow aesthetics, and that leads to alot of misunderstandings and misrepresentations.
I love how you deconstructed your whole video inside the video.
I think this is a very well made and insightful video, but it does bring to my mind an argument that I’ve been having within myself (and a discussion I’ve had with plenty of my peers) about the preference for either perfect accuracy or accessibility. From the way I understand your video, you’re advocating reliance on primary sources and experts, which of course is advice I think “the academy” at large would agree with. However, as someone who has years of humanities experience at the undergraduate and graduate level, I know just how difficult and frankly, impossible some of these texts can be, especially if you don’t have the proper training. I understand the importance of intellectual rigor, but I think outside of university it isn’t particularly attractive. Though personally, I would rather someone interact with the ideas that I find so fascinating in whatever capacity they can rather than to try and tackle it themselves and feel like they’re drowning. So, I wonder if there is a middle ground somewhere. I’m thinking along the lines of things that science educators do to make nearly incomprehensible topics accessible to the average viewer. I feel like the humanities have failed at this approach and I think that’s almost entirely by design. There’s a certain level of gatekeeping involved in humanities that I just don’t think we’ve gotten past yet. I don’t have an answer to the problem and I’m certainly not accusing you of doing the gatekeeping by any means. I think the kinds of videos you put out are a step in the right direction, but I hope we can see more academics turned influencers in the humanities in the coming years so we can find that balance between accurate depictions of texts and ideas and digestibility.
I just want to throw credit your way for a commentary without the jump cuts. So many presenters snippet together individual sentences in a video editor to get their point across. Not you. This video was a continuous and informed commentary. I appreciate your points as well made - I especially enjoyed the section on received knowledge. Cheers.
This applies to pretty much anything you want to get truly good at and truly want to understand. It's not glamourous, it's hard work. And it won't be fun unless you truly love the discipline or the craft.
That's a millstone you hang around your neck voluntarily because someone somewhere told you that hard work has inherent virtue. You can keep drilling your way through the wall while scoffing at those who walk through the open door right next to it, but it's not going to automatically result in greater result, only a lot of labour. You're a human being with a problem-solving mind, you're not a draught cow pulling the plough. And I am always incredibly wary of people who say with confidence that there is only one way to truly love something, and to be truly good at it. It's an isolationist, elitist way of thinking, it seeks to shut people out, and it seeks to justify, if not romanticise unnecessary pain and wasted labour. But then I do have ADHD so I've always had to find alternative paths to understanding, and sometimes understanding involves realising that I was chasing the question, not the answer, and the question was: "Will I achieve anything worthwhile toiling away at the library, making flawed statements and interpretations on my peers' flawed statements and interpretations of their peers who made flawed statements and int---". You're only free when you mind your own business, and do not presume that everybody follows the same path as you with the same goal, that your goal is better, or that the path to your goal is only the one you follow. Your second statement is technically correct, but how do you think people find out if they even love the discipline or the craft? And should their discovery that they don't be chalked up to 'dangers of romanticising the dark academia aesthetic on tiktok' or some shite? How do you know anything if you go and check out for yourself? I think the author kind of shoved the girl in his example under the bus to make a point that didn't need to be made. Classic humanities huffing of one's own farts, trust me, we do it, we do it a lot, and I in my time did it more than most because I was an insufferable humanities smartass-dumbass. In any case, to be truly good at it? Even the sky isn't your limit, and most standard ways of study, the most commonly lauded ways of achieving success are lauded as such more out of convention and justifying the existences of universities and their uniformities, than because they are actually tried, true and universal ways of becoming a Great.
Same happens in Computer Science. Every year thousands of people start to become game devs or hackers only to realize they basically signed up for math. I think the quota to bachelor at my uni was somewhere around 30%.
I know this i know this, a lot of my friends who are also in CompSci who arr also dissatisfied with their expectations oh i know this very long time & math is not my strongest suit, hence why i decided pick Industrial Engineering which is less math less calculations and a lot mixing with social & basic engineering. Haha.
I'm starting at a school this fall (for an advanced degree) that is known for its look in the "dark academia" community. But truthfully, if you are trying to study a liberal arts degree of any sort at this school purely for aesthetics, good luck getting in. Schools that are known for liberal arts are not easy to get into. I don't think there's anyone that fully takes these aesthetics that seriously, to the point that they are making major life decisions. If they are, they are in for a pretty rude awakening. Liberal arts degrees are not easy.
Excellent!
Don't let them get to you. You are smart, and I have enjoyed your content for a long time. These disclaimer videos I'm seeing around Dark Academia are disconcerting to me. And when I search the aesthetic, the disclaimer videos are chiefly The first ones I encounter. The aesthetic has the potential to undermine those men in power who have an agenda all of their own, and I can see that they've exerted various forms of pressure on those, such as yourself, who've grown to considerable influence. Your stuff is great, but something like this veritably undermines the value in what you create and what you've created. There is in fact a plot by the rich men of the earth to stupefy the masses. You can verify it, if you care to, in your own research; to my mind, nothing more important could be studied as it influences just about everything, and the pursuit leads into the most fascinating array of different things, such as secret societies, the world's fairs, orphanages, revolutions, intrigues, energy, finance, literature and philosophy, etc, etc. What is being unwittingly condoned here is what I call authoritarianism, a slightly different use on the general use; it's a more general version of credentialism. Think for yourself. When you have questions or you wish to talk about something to better work it out in your mind, you may seek out a professor or a professional, or perhaps a sibling or a friend. Professors carry agendas, too, and faculty work for someone else. You have to realize this. We need to be promoting thinking critically and for oneself! I'm not suggesting you don't agree with much of what I've said and believe me I do enjoy your content and I appreciate your manner and your mind and your style and I think you're a good guy. Don't let them get to you. Your legacy is too important to sell out to their bullshit, it's not worth it.
This! As a student studying to be a librarian, I am doing much much more of what aspiring Literature students think they will be doing than the literature students are.
And you, of course, know exactly what they think they will be doing, and thus base the degree of your smugness and self-importance off of your perception of them. Yeah. Every humanities class has a kid like you. They're all very serious, very elitist, and by the end of their final year, very burned out and pretty disliked by their peers who, despite your previous assessment, have lasted until the end, and go on to eclipse you professionally and personally because somewhere along the way you made your future career and your oh so very hard work and elitism your entire identity, effectively putting yourself in a tight box that nobody wants to get in with you because you're stinking up the room. We had those like you. The most successful ones of us all today are the ones who your types thought would drop out before the end of year 1. I suggest you concern yourself with your path and yours alone, you seem to be spending too much time on masturbating over how much much much more of what aspiring Literature students think they will be doing. Jesus Christ you took me back into my university years. Ah, to be a young smartarse who nobody likes again.
I know that this channel has some really smart people watching the videos, but for me - a person soon to choose their major, the video was actually eye-opening, getting ready for the real world. I feel like I truly forgot to believe in the power of hard work and tried to ride the gifted kid-wave which isn't even a virtual thing. I just come from an underachiving school, family. It inherently led me to feeling sick in my stomach when stuff wasn't working out with me putting minimal effort. I don't remember anyone telling me to sit down and learn, evolve, try. Because of that I could have been that drop-out girl. It's kind of silly, but thank you for saving me, I really needed to hear those words, fishing me out of the dissonance!
this video appeared in my feed while i was trying to recover from a breakdown bc i have a final this friday and i feel like reality is falling apart
Aesthetics are simply a label. I have been living the academia aesthetic for quite a while now. My career is in academia, in scientific research
I won't hide the truth, at the end of 2019, and the beginning of the pandemic in the U.S., I swept away into the idea of living like a "dark academic" while pursuing my pure mathematics undergraduate degree. While I was in the opposite form of study as liberal arts, a lot of this video rang surprisingly familiar. I was there for the "pretty notes and symbols" and being that person who could explain the weirdest details about mathematics that frankly, no one cared about. I have come to many of these same realizations from the video and looking back now and rewatching this after graduating only has opened my eyes further to how truly beautiful the knowledge I gained is.
Philosophy masters student and as a TA I’ve noticed this as well in some of our first and second years
Though I think you made very good points and generally applaud this video, something I'd like to isolate and challenge is your understanding of popular culture. Note, I hope you'll forgive me for not reading or being familiar with Derrida prior to writing this comment. Chapter four is a great discussion of why what I'm about to do is not to be emulated. However, I'm a little less concerned with whether deconstructionism applies to Seinfeld and more with what attitudes you, and others, may be holding about the value in television shows such as Seinfeld. You claimed deconstructionism couldn't be attributed to Seinfeld, as did the philosopher who coined it, but I'd like to understand where exactly you draw a differentiation between 'popular' content and literature. I am an English Literature major, and studying a Master's in Screenwriting. My stream is television writing. I'm an aspiring comedy writer and particularly wish to write sitcoms. I will admit I have never sat down and watched Seinfeld, but I'm aware that the consensus is that it's well written. Is it that television in general cannot be considered literature? Well, what about plays, those are literature. So films must be literature also, as they too involve a script, and just happen to be filmed rather than acted in reality. So, why is television not considered literature, if I'm understanding your point here (real or implied)? Why is there a line to be drawn? Would you turn your nose up at someone applying deconstructionism to a show like Breaking Bad, or The Queen's Gambit, or Black Mirror? These are complex, intelligently written shows. How about a show such as Barry? It's also incredibly complex and intelligently written. There are also moments when the comedy is so absolutely fucking absurd that you lose brain cells watching it, like the episode dedicated to a little girl beating the shit out of Barry. Is the problem that Seinfeld is a comedy? Well, Shakespeare dealt quite heavily in comedy, including dirty jokes and toilet humor. I'm a published writer, I've written novels, I write (dense and unnecessarily grandiloquent) poetry inspired heavily by the 17th and 18th centuries, and I still believe that the two hardest things in the world to write are comedy, and television scripts. I can churn out 10 pages of a novel in twenty minutes, yet it sometimes takes me ten minutes just to move onto the next line of dialogue in a TV script. Is the problem the popularity of the work? That television is for 'the masses'? If so, to bring up Shakespeare again, if popularity and obscurity was the differentiation between high art and pop culture, wouldn't Shakespeare's work be used as toilet paper by any self-respecting literary critic? So, what exactly removes Seinfeld from the field of literature? Is it because we look down on a Seinfeld as compared to an Orwell, an Austen, a Faulkner? Well, I look down on Juvenal (or at the very least, the 'mask' his satires were portraying, which may well be very different from what he actually believed). I think he was perhaps the most bitter old man in all of Rome, I assure you I did not get through all Sixteen Satires when I tried to read that snoozefest. Still, Juvenal is an important Roman figure, and should be analyzed as anything else is, particularly for the very reason that it could be a meta-satire which is presenting (and satirizing) the very views it disagrees with. Nothing should be tossed out or devalued based on one opinion or interpretation, is what I'm saying, though you seem to have views which align with this understanding (so I won't lecture you lol!). If I understand deconstructionism as focused primarily on language, rather than something such as plot structure (which did seem to be genuinely erroneously associated with the narrative structure of Seinfeld), it doesn't make the process of analyzing scripts and dialogues any less valid. (Once again, my apologies for my overtly shallow understanding of Derrida, but once again, this isn't really about Derrida/deconstructionism, but rather what works we consider as being 'worth' analyzing.) Dialogue is the heart of television (and don't you ever forget it!), the words the characters say are the poetry, the narrative, the character, the theme, everything. A television script is like 80% dialogue, 20% black print (description). The only thing that matters in writing television is, quite literally, the words. That's why you have to choose them so damn carefully, pausing for a very long time between lines to think. In television, every word is time. When I write novels, sometimes part of my characterization involves a tangent. One of my characters is a grandiose, eccentric musician, who finds fascination in everything from wrong chords to the fibers of a rug. I have to write that fascination. Therefore, pages of (thematically significant mind you) thoughts about rugs. Yes, I'm a rat bastard of an author and I function only to wind up my reader, but let's not talk about me. You cannot write pages about rugs in television (if you want to keep your job). Television is refined, everything counts. You have to somehow thread the needle of capturing attention, generating compelling characters, incorporating humor and theme, making a sensical narrative, and do this all under massive time constraints where sometimes the story is being made up week-by-week by a team of very different writers, and on top of that, are being controlled and puppeteered by your producer(s), who is often being puppeteered by investors and corporations. It's an absolutely brutal scape, and it's no wonder so much television is garbage when its writers are forced to create it in some genuinely insane conditions for making art. It's like throwing 10 painters in a room, having them sketch ferociously all day, then throwing the best sketches at one artist and telling them they need to combine all those sketches together to have an entire painting done by next Monday, and if some completely irrelevant fat cat doesn't agree with any aspect of the painting, you have to trash it and do it again. Also, you might get sued, randomly, for something you've painted, at literally any time, even years after you've painted it. My apologies again if I've misconstrued a point of yours and run with it. I do think, however, that looking down on television as an illegitimate form of literature is actually a very real epidemic. If we had been allowed to study television in high school English, for example, I would have taken my passion for television far more seriously. I would have felt secure knowing that pursuing television was a legitimate career path, and that my work would be valuable and significant. Film writers and playwrights get aestheticized and romanticized a lot, too, which I think is an interesting side point to this. Television writers absolutely are not romanticized, and they are often completely forgotten at award ceremonies. TV writers can be some of the most unfashionable, self-effacing, and generally nervous people you'll ever meet. Of course there's different personalities in every discipline, but there's not much to romanticize about someone in an old plaid shirt, loose fit jeans, and New Balance sneakers pacing in circles around a musty-carpeted room. In summation, we have to be very careful when we discuss the idea of popular culture. I'm a Media Studies minor, so I also studied popular culture, and came away with the understanding that it's pretty much a classist, farcical differentiation. There is no high or low art, only accessibility and imaginary boundaries. If you've considered what I've said I much appreciate your time. I'd love for more people to have a dialogue about the meaning of television, as despite only growing in popularity and significance (it used to be 'did you see that movie called _____', now it's far more about 'have you been watching _____?'), its inner workings are still mostly unknown to those outside of it and shrouded in misunderstandings.
This is an excellent video essay!! I’ve been wondering what other people think of these trends. I think it rlly is human nature to romanticize everything, to find beauty and meaning every where we can. This instinct can be wonderful, but it’s easily bastardized, and social media takes it to such an extreme, it turns everything into a commodity, endlessly replicated, an aesthetic to be sold. I’m less worried about how dark academia changes the perception of what the real workload is like, and more about how it flattens the ability and desire to engage with media beyond a surface level. There’s a concerning amount of anti-intellectual discourse online, often spread by the same people with dark academia aesthetic blogs. People want simple black and white interpretations of stories - they want a good guy and a bad guy, a straight forward moral they can take away. They want their taste in media to be a representation of who they are as person. There’s a very popular narrative online that reading any book with “problematic” aspects makes you problematic too, that it means you agree with whatever problematic elements are there. It creates an environment where people are scared to engage with any media on a deeper level for fear they might be perceived as morally inept for it. The idea that engaging with something simply for the sake of trying to understand it, the idea that you can appreciate and analyze something, even resonate with some aspects, and also recognize it’s problems, is seen as impossible. Instead of being an intellectual exercise, the act of analysis itself becomes a judgement of who you are. It’s depressing to see these attitudes form bc I think discussing the more pernicious aspects of a book usually lead to the most interesting conversations. They make you question your own world view, your way of thinking. It makes you uncomfortable, and you have to sit in that discomfort and figure out why and how a piece of writing can make you feel that way. That is my favorite part of academia. Being made uncomfortable by a work and having to dig inside myself to figure out why. Really being forced to think. But social media bookfluencers and their followers can’t grapple with this - nuance doesn’t get clicks. I’m sorry for this ramble, I know it’s only tangentially related, but I can’t stop thinking about it.
It's similar to the situation learning programming 101 for Game Develpoment in Computer Science. Most classmates of mine have this expectation similar to "gaming" during the study; when in fact it's mostly study on logic and math.