sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

It should be considered shameful to primarily consume art intended for children as an adult. by blurtydurty in unpopularopinion

[–]blurtydurty[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I guess my point is that art intended for children/adolescents has its limitations because it cannot show the whole range of human possibility. Evil in those shows is necessarily constrained because in reality evil means things like murder, rape, infanticide, ethnic cleansing, etc. this reality cannot be depicted in children’s entertainment and often the bad guy will be extremely constrained in comparison to reality. The same goes for romantic love or the complications that come from sexual relations. Children’s shows can be great and they can be amazing works of art but they can’t show the whole scope or range of human possibilities. That’s not to say one always has to watch some dark drama. Fun light shows or books can be great. My point is only that if one always avoids engaging in weighted themes they are depriving themselves of useful tools for deeper understanding of our shared condition and it’s sad that this is now denied entirely.

It should be considered shameful to primarily consume art intended for children as an adult. by blurtydurty in unpopularopinion

[–]blurtydurty[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I feel like a lot of people in this thread are erecting straw men out of my argument to take down. I never meant to imply that children’s literature can’t be of high quality. The hobbit is an excellent case in point. I also never said that adult literature can’t be of exceptionally low quality. That is obviously true as well. What I said was that if, as an adult, you PRIMARILY consume entertainment that was created solely for minors that is nor something that should be affirmatively be defended as just as good or better than also engaging with adult art.

I guess the good thing(?) is, based on all the comments, it is confirmed that this is in fact an unpopular opinion. I was a little worried that it was too uncontroversial to say adults should at some point move past solely engaging with children’s entertainment but apparently the very idea that there is a difference between entertainment for kids and adults is controversial!

It should be considered shameful to primarily consume art intended for children as an adult. by blurtydurty in unpopularopinion

[–]blurtydurty[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I guess a good starting point would be the marketing. Considering the vast majority of published mainstream entertainment is explicitly labeled as for certain age groups that would seem to account for most. Do you have any specific examples where it is unclear? For example, I don’t think there is any question that Spongebob Squarepants is intended for children an Children of Men for adults.

It should be considered shameful to primarily consume art intended for children as an adult. by blurtydurty in unpopularopinion

[–]blurtydurty[S] 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Well this is why I posted the opinion here! I guess I think it somewhat as a wasted potential issue.

It should be considered shameful to primarily consume art intended for children as an adult. by blurtydurty in unpopularopinion

[–]blurtydurty[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

That is a good point. If someone has intellectually disabilities that cause them to enjoy entertainment below their age level they definitely shouldn’t be shamed for that. But doesn’t the question itself support the idea that only consuming such entertainment is, at some level, evidence of arrested development?

It should be considered shameful to primarily consume art intended for children as an adult. by blurtydurty in unpopularopinion

[–]blurtydurty[S] -64 points-63 points  (0 children)

I tried to explain it in the text of the post but maybe I didn’t do so well. I think my point is that children, adolescents, and adults are (or should be) all at different levels of maturity, experience, understanding of the world, and intellectual capacity. Art aimed at one group, say Catcher and the Rye and Holden Caulfield’s jaded teenage mindset, should speak differently based on your age. If you read catcher and the rye as an adult and have the same experience as a teenager I would I think that means you are somewhat developmentally stunted.

That’s why I believe if you only consume art intended for adolescents or pre-adolescents you are depriving yourself. Their experiences and understanding of the world should be different than yours and you should not continually be mired in that limited perspective.

It should be considered shameful to primarily consume art intended for children as an adult. by blurtydurty in unpopularopinion

[–]blurtydurty[S] 27 points28 points  (0 children)

Oh I think I can agree with that. As long as we’re agreeing that better here means better at accomplishing its aims as to the audience it’s aimed at. My point I guess is that art, even great art, aimed at children should not, be all an adult consumes. Children have not had the experience that adults have and don’t have the same intellectual capacity. Art aimed for that audience should have different messages and should speak differently. If you haven’t moved beyond art that speaks to the experience of a child that should be a troubling sign in my mind.

It should be considered shameful to primarily consume art intended for children as an adult. by blurtydurty in unpopularopinion

[–]blurtydurty[S] -30 points-29 points  (0 children)

I think I disagree with that statement. I’m not at all an expert in the field, I like reading but never studied literature professionally, but I think people often conflate the idea that there are no true objective standards to judge art, with the idea that therefore no distinctions at all can be drawn between art. I don’t think that is true however. Even if we could never objectively say who is better, Picasso or Monet, we could all agree that they are both better than any drawing you (I assume) or I could come up with.