Some see the lake and sail across to see the other side, others dive in to see what is under the surface. They all still appreciative for the lake and what it has to share. Same goes for stories. Deep is a very relative term.
2 weeks ago | 80
on one hand, i agree with Amonimmus' second comment, but on the other, consumer manipulation is a thing, and we should be wary of what we're pumping out to the public and we shouldnt blindly just be minmaxing our audience's consumption for profits through our arts. that just means the artist has no respect for the artform to begin with.
2 weeks ago | 52
I believe that even the most vapid and simplistic stories can still provide some insights if broken down and analysed from different viewpoints. Even if author didn't mean to say anything particularly deep, they still put together a story, and choices they did while doing so may tell you a lot of interesting things.
2 weeks ago | 15
Genuine art always has a deeper meaning whether it's intentional or not, the act of creation by anyone puts a meaning into what they create.
2 weeks ago | 32
Yes it is that deep, because whether you like it or not, as an author, the story you write is a reflection of your own internal representation of the world, a story you have been writing since the moment you recognized continuity. So deeply analyzing a story not intended for it, is equivalent to analyzing the authors world.
1 week ago | 5
Art makes you feel emotion. If that emotion is a lighthearted joy, I'd say it's succeeded
2 weeks ago | 4
Depth to me has always had a straightforward meaning. A story's depth is determined by how foundational it is. If the plot, themes, and/or character archetypes are honestly exploring things up on which many other life concepts depend, then it has depth.
1 week ago | 4
What is depth in content? Consider it for a moment. What makes something metaphorically deep? Is it the complexity or quantity of characters in a novel? Is it the weight of the themes or morality in films? Truly, if a story is like a lake, then its size is scope, its color is clarity and its depth is capacity. What does mean for depth of content? Well, like most bodies of water, you can fun with it in a number of ways, choose to admire content on the surface or dive into the depths looking for meaning and treasure. Lakes can be very deep with very little in them.
2 weeks ago | 5
At the end of the day, art is a blank slate for interpretation. What one person finds shallow, another considers deep.
1 week ago | 1
My thoughts on this? Every canon is a headcanon, it's just that the work was developed around one of the headcanons while the rest of the headcanons were developed around the work. It might be cliché, but the real story was the thinking we did along the way.
2 weeks ago | 5
I feel like Danny Phantom is a good example. The actual show as is? Not that deep. But the fandom for it takes that base show and finds really compelling themes in it that most likely weren't intended. And I think that's great!
1 week ago | 1
Without a doubt some “art” just isn’t worth the time. Usually something cynical. I believe in the art of thinking. I believe a good idea can stand on its own terms without some kind of relativistic check from the outside. But I also believe that means the idea is taken in context, with its context. I think the idea is ethically and morally vetted as well. And I think a good idea contains multitudes, not just a prescriptive answer. I think it’s a matter or our conception of how all that can happen and what it means for what and who we are that’s lacking. I am not lesser for enjoying something shallow. I am not allowed to claim some level complexity, however, if all I consume is junk. It should be okay to have a conservation about a show and realize it’s “not that deep.” It’s even okay to be a little sad if that’s true. But conversations themselves are okay to end on a note of no closure. There doesn’t need to be a definitive take. It is okay to be woken up to flaws. Imo, something can be paradoxically deep and absolutely vapid depending on certain assumptions made based on different perspectives, as long as those claims are jusitified. All that said: It matters what we consume intellectually. It does. Idc what anyone says. That’s my hill. That also has to be paired with what the younger folks around me say: touching grass. I recommend a book by Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death, which argues that the issue isn’t content itself but trying to make serious works entertaining at the expense of the art and the medium. His other big thing is the “medium is the metaphor” which I think would be helpful in considering how we deal with media that’s deliberately manipulating us for attentions sake.
1 week ago (edited) | 1
I don’t think that’s for other people to decide. Only you yourself can decide if you want read into a story deeply. But! You should then be aware of two things! 1. Just because a story was written to be deep and introspective, does not mean you can’t read it as a quick fun story. 2. Just because you read into a story very deeply, does not mean it was written to have any depth. You can find that even in a story just for fun or profit. It’s both sides of the coin with the old Jackson Pollock story. Jackson Pollock being a modern art painter and at some point in time he had an exhibit in some museum. At that exhibit an art critic was asked during an interview what he thought a certain piece meant, the piece in question was a white canvas that had just loads of black lines going in no particular direction and two little bits with red paint over the black. That critic answered the question by saying that he thought it was a self portrait of Pollock, after a confusing look he explained that he the blank canvas represented the earth in its natural state, pure and untainted. The chaotic and erratic black lines represented humanity, ruining nature, often overlapping itself to show power struggles through our history, and destructive to all around it. But the two red bits represented people like Pollock that recognize that destruction caused by humanity and stand out to go against the norm and fight against it. When Pollock was asked later what the two red parts of the painting meant, Jackson looked quizzical, walked closer to the painting and exclaimed “ooh I must have splashed it when I was painting that one!” While pointing at another painting in the exhibit.
2 weeks ago | 21
“It’s not that deep bro” is a thought terminating cliche that people use when they feel defensive because you made them think and they didn’t want to.
2 weeks ago | 23
While art is not always deep, the meta-thinking and analysis is another work on its own.
1 week ago | 2
I feel like we’ve been so conditioned to dig deeper into something that we ignore the obvious. The phrase “You were looking too close to see the picture” comes to mind. Sometimes things are exactly what they seem and if you pick at it too much and look too closely at it then you can’t even make out what it is.
1 week ago | 3
People can find meaning in anything, and have since time immemorial. It doesnt matter if its natural causes or manufactured, if there was intent or not behind the thing's existence. As long as people have imagination, interpretation and bias, we'll see whatever we want to see. That said, falsely assigning intent behind a creator's work can be a dangerous pitfall. If you get something out of a work make sure you state that its your interpretation of the work, rather than declaring it as the intended interpretation by thr artist.
1 week ago (edited) | 4
I think everyone has deep reasons for enjoying what they do. But some people are better at articulating their feelings/have a desire to explore their enjoyment more.
2 weeks ago | 3
Well that depends on what we mean by that. Most stories even created for entretainment clearly have underlying themes and messages that we can read, even if sometimes author did it unintentionally. Recent example for me was watching anime Hunter x Hunter, of course it's show for kids about young boy going on an adventure, but it has clear theme of relation of people with nature even though we could just say "it's not that deep" and regard it as a show meant just to entretain kids. However sometimes I see people especially on YouTube that make great leaps and quite often try to find something in work that simply is not there. Of course there is certain room of freedom of interpretation but I'm certainly not advocate for absolutist in that regard. Sometimes someone might just prioritize their own headcanon and very narrow minded interpretation over what actually happens in a story.
2 weeks ago | 6
Tale Foundry
Is every story equally deep? Does it depend on intention? Can art be "not that deep[, bro]"?
Talk to us about it: www.patreon.com/talefoundry
2 weeks ago (edited) | [YT] | 1,013