Is it new media to blame that there is no great contemporary

>>8942635
We can rise again while they're unaware by their distraction.

>>8942635
no its terrorism

t. delillo

>>8942635
>Is it new media to blame
No. It's capitalism.

>>8942638
Good lit rises and only a few will notices

>>8942670
Capitalism isn't to blame. It's greed. The shift from capitalism to a strictly consumerist based economy under a corporatist rule.

Capitalism without senseless advertising would be wonderful.

I dont see any great painters or sculptors either.

>>8942731
You aren't thinking clearly or you're joking.

>>8942765
Probably because your tastes are geared towards the past.

>>8942635
It's the education system. Not that they're educating them the wrong way, it's that their doing it at all. People who could have been among the greatest writers are turned off of it, annoyed at teachers telling them what to read in write, and how to do it. And stooges go through it just fine.

>>8942635
The visual and auditory was always prevalent. Greek plays weren't read, neither was Homer. People in the middle ages didn't read the Bible, it was preached to them. Shakespeare acted in his own plays. Literature came from performing arts, mostly music. Reading only became cool with 19th century realism, up until that point, only scholars would read. So media is just that - a medium for the masses.

File: IMG_0300.jpg (99KB, 540x532px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 540x532px

>>8943858
I like this answer a lot. That said, do you still think there's a future for more Miltons and Joyces and Pynchons to find a place in the literature of the future?

>>8942635
I honestly think memes are art. They match all the criteria being both emotionally evocative and expressive. In 20 years after some reflection i'm sure more people will agree with me.

Here's the thing:

The problem with contemporary media is that the overwhelming majority of stuff sucks. This has *always* been true -- for instance, many notable figures throughout history have decried new works for such and such reason, and just as many figures have pointed out the "pseudness" of only seeking out older/acclaimed works and refusing to express your individuality by consuming and liking something new, without anyone's prior approval.

This isn't to say that I agree with those claims: just that "contemporary [insert form of media here]" always sucks, and people always are hesitant to try them.

The *real* problem nowadays, though, is that we don't have enough manpower (and/or perhaps general interest) in trying to find the gems hidden in the piles of shit of the last 5-10 years. At best, across the board, we have year-end lists and decade-end lists from major publications, which are almost always terrible. Instead, there needs to be a more consistent effort put towards talking things after the initial hype wave has died down.

Reflection is what creates the atmosphere for masterpieces, but how is that possible if you're always moving forward?

File: 1481307910379.jpg (205KB, 1600x1598px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 1600x1598px

>>8944782
i think some tweets are art

File: 1483225804104.jpg (57KB, 576x436px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 576x436px

>>8943858
The problem today is that our modern day "scholars" aren't being taught Homer, the Bible, or Shakespeare.

OP has kind of touched on what I'm grooming as my own literary theory. It's not just that new media is bad because generational fallacies, but more specifically that mass dispersion of media has removed the critical value of individual expression while simultaneously extolling the virtue of mediocrity. At the same time parallel advancements in technology and social structuring have eliminated, at least in the West, most of the base life experiences which humans have sought to externalize through creativity (i.e. death, true suffering, true ostracization, etc)
I would contend that modernism was an attempt to reclaim some hold on this comfortable reality by possibly the last generation of those who truly experienced base human experiences, but that its roots in emergent media sensibilities instead created a slippery slope of inevitable imitation that ushered in post-modernism, and then metamodernism and the death of meaningful expression.

ironically the one true glimmer of hope I see is relegated to genre fiction, especially science fiction in that we can now only hope to artificially generate true expression by projecting our tenuous connection with reality onto a foreign canvas - this will be backed by the progression of technology beyond the threshold of what is currently predictable sometime in the next 100 years.

>>8944821
this anon has the right general idea

>>8942731
the burden of moderation in a capitalist system rests solely on the shoulders of the consumer though. It is not the producer's job to do anything but generate economic momentum, and the government's job to do nothing but protect the property used in this economic transaction from threats foreign and domestic. if the consumers are unhappy with the work of the producers they are free to consume elsewhere and let the fat blokes starve. But the consumers have traded this simple responsibility away in pieces to the government (who have found in it an easy substitute for civil altruism) and the producers (who have no interest outside self-preservation) and have suffered at their own hands.

better had the economy fallen apart and the population dwindled significantly such that those who survived would appreciate their place within the market

its because of immigrants. immigrants from africa and the middle east are flooding across the border. whats left in their wake is a low iq culture. where people worship rappers mumbling over beats and talking about killing white people

good valid art will return once the world resets

>>8944782
I agree with this. There was an art movement in early 20th century europe called dadaism that's essentially a parallel to what memes are today.