3 ms·
It's slightly different, because at least things like books and newspapers carry a tiny bit of intellectualism. You at least need to be able to read and compreh
by brndnmtthws 9y ago
It's slightly different, because at least things like books and newspapers carry a tiny bit of intellectualism. You at least need to be able to read and comprehend language. IG, on the other hand, is literally just pictures: you don't even need to be able to comprehend any language to use it.
- fvrghl 9y agoIt seems like you think art has no "intellectualism". IG is a great way to see contemporary fashion and art around the world in real time.
- brndnmtthws 9y agoPictures of food, dogs, and people lounging on some old guy's yacht who they met through tinder doesn't really count as intellectual art. Also merely photographing someone else's art doesn't quite count as being an artist. That's just cheap mimicry.
- watwut 9y agoBack at the time when people read books and journals, they read junk books (dime novels) and junk journals mostly. And a lot of socializing was drinking beer and having empty talk about football and that girl.
- saagarjha 9y agoHow about movies and television, then? You don't need to be able to read to enjoy those, and they've been significantly vilified as well.
- SolaceQuantum 9y agoAnd I disagree that everyone you see with a phone is guaranteed to be doing things on IG. For example I am on HN, a friend of mine reads fanfiction, others message their friends about their eta, catch up on Facebook, etc.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]