Literature is dying because the humanities have been severely

*Literature is dying IN PART

art is dying because of the internet

the 90s certified the death throws of art.

it's easier to see this by looking at music than literature.

>>9334125
Because nobody gives a shit about art, why should an artist be made famous and wealthy over someone with an actual job, an actual useful purpose? If art disappeared from the planet, life would go on. Creatives need to accept this

Shhh...
No more memes.
Just art.

>>9334125
Literature is dying because modern literature is bad. Authors nowadays are all upper-middle class hipster types with MFAs, who obviously have nothing interesting to say.

>>9334231
OP here, they shouldn't. Art should in theory not need to be thought of as important or anything to create good art, but I think the increasing tendency to belittle it strikes a nerve in artists, and our innate vanity about ourselves affects us in ways that are hard to control. It's not that art should return to its previous status because it is superior etc. but that the way this loss of status affects us is not all that great.

Literature, just like other art forms from the past are slowly dying because technology and internet have made them as art forms meaningless to younger generations. That is a price of progress, one which we shall pay.

>>9334231
god damn communist.

fuck these people who care nothing for art. i sure hope you guys don't take idiotic plots like this seriously.
>ugh emotions and abstracts are inconvenient, let's get rid of all that because i'm a stumbling nitwit
your world is not all sunshine and daisies, and art is the only nugget of beauty that even begins to justify our repugnant existence in this universe. go worship the rape of children, the death of men en masse, fanine and disease, whatever you like, you nihilistic commie faggot. Art should not and cannot be trampled by the likes of you.

How is any of that "emasculation"? If anything, art just became more irrelevant and obsolete in a way.

bah. art aint dead, only sleepin. wait till the towers crash and the moon glows green and the pen will creep in the night. you'll see.

>>9334231
And those people with an actual job will eventually be replaced by technology in the furure, rendering your 'only useful to society' point nil. If you live in the western hemisphere, and you are not contributing to art, then you are contributing to a dying society.

>>9334125
I think you are talking about literature in terms of revolutionary ideas and new ways of thinking?
I believe this 'death' of literature has come about because we don't wonder about what the sun is anymore, or the stars, or what the desk we are sat at is made of. We have a deeper understanding of our world now in terms of science. We no longer have to ask the deeper questions because the majority of the questions that were asked have been answered. Now we find authors writing in a more introvert way. We are looking within ourselves and trying to explain who we are, and why we think. I think authors now feel more of a need to be understood on a personal level and write from their own experience. Humans now have turned their eyes at understand each other and human nature rather than life's existential questions.

>>9334393
So I don't think art is dead at all it's just becoming a story because we have already solved our reality.

>>9334398
The human eye can't see reality at a quantum level you nonce.

>>9334416
Yes but our brains understand the quantum levels. I'm not saying we have progressed into the atomic matrix.

>>9334125
Literature is dying because all the people with talent are working with newer media that are more financially rewarding. 'Passion' doesn't mean dick if you can't feed yourself.

>>9334422
Regardless, the mechanics of science are only measures to describe the how of reality. It says little about the why or what of reality, which art does.

>>9334398
The reason art is dead is not because we have already solved our reality, but because we believe we have solved it. Art will be born again in a new age of religion.

>>9334442
And my point being that before we understood the how of reality there were more questions to ask, thus creating interesting ideas about that subject. Now the subject has changed and the art is just describing something else.

Art will be that which articulates the feelings and thoughts of spinning energy drinking rotten milk.

>>9334448
Like the bible again you mean?

Empedecoles hypothesised the atomic nature of reality in 600 BC. What does that say about the heavy religious themed art of the renaissance?

>>9334204
I wish young people would stop fetishizing the culture of past decades and find something worthwhile to like now. There's plenty of great music, literature, and visual art coming out today, yet people are somehow still hung up on basically a couple dozen greats from the past in each field. The internet is in many ways an equalizer -- anyone can push their shit to a global audience. It gets hard to sort the wheat from the chaff, but when people say that art died in the 90s, it indicates either a lack of genuine interest in the field, a desire to seem cultured by only consuming works from best-of lists, or a measured cynicism with regards to the arts (also stemming from a desire to seem cultured)

>>9334231
> an actual useful purpose?

what purpose?

>>9334474
This is my point. It was hypothesized. An idea so profound was thought, it's almost like we are supposed to uncover this information over time, like how we use mathematics to explain the universe.
It was an idea then and an incredible one.

>>9334483
good post desu but you're gonna get shit on by pseuds

Literature is dying because it no longer belongs to popular culture. There's no reason to read for enjoyment anymore because superior entertainment platforms came to exist (movies, vidya, drugs etc). Literature is purely niche now.

>>9334483
Exactly. I honestly find a lot of this is a total over complication of subjects in an attempt to appear more intelligent. Like you say, there are some greats works of art being produced to this day just different subject matter.

>>9334461
Personally, I believe we will, at some point in the far future, reach a new way of seeing the world, a new plateau of being human. From that change onward, a new great religious movement will naturally follow and with it a new art. Most people today, myself included, live their lifes quite passively.
Oh yes, an apple: nice! gulp. What the fuck is a tongue sticking out of infinity? Life is crazy as fuck.
(These are the three opening sentences of the neo bible)

Now it is like this: I'm a human being.
Then it will be like this: I'm a human being.

>>9334492
Atoms aren't that unnatural, imo. The idea of the universe having a minimal building block is not that weird, even though we don't quite know the whole story yet. Quantum mechanics and relativity are way more unnatural.

>>9334515
See that sounds like an interesting sci-fi book that I would read. From my understand of /lit/, anything with a genre is frowned upon and considered less art and made for the masses.

Your idea is new, just like the literature of old and like another person said the atomic nature of reality was being hypothesized as far back as 600BC. Your idea to some may be no less revolutionary than that but in a totally different era.

Write the book, call it sci-fi, and who knows one day it may become reality.

>>9334522
I think though before it was even suggested the idea of an atomic level of life would have baffled people.
I'm sure there will be some great discovery soon, probably something to do with CERN and it will blow our minds. Then in the future people will grow with that knowledge and it won't seem so alien to them, and art will follow them.

>>9334483
I find this post to be very true.

>>9334546
The odds of new physics at CERN are extremely bleak at the moment, so I wouldn't count on that. It is unlikely that we will see anything new in high energy physics for the forseeable future unless the Chinese are willing to drop a ton of money on a collider.

I think developments in artificial intelligence and genetics are more likely to provoke new thought.

>>9334575
Yeah that is true, the AI field is looking very interesting. I was reading Musk now wants to connect the human brain to an AI, after warning us against it. Interesting times.

>>9334585
He's already infected

>>9334398
We haven't solved our reality... what are you on about?

>>9334595
I more mean we have a much deeper understanding of our reality now, so the things that were once hypothesized about have become scientific fact.

>>9334585
I think there are many potentially interesting developments, but they would fall under "science fiction".

For example:
>the human/AI distinction has been treated over and over again in science fiction, but I think this will become blurrier when people come to understand the extent to which genes are human programming.
>how meaningful are works of art when we can create machines to ape (and possibly surpass) the greats?
>the morality of genetic modification of humans more generally

>>9334594
He is. His self driving electric cars are actually his robot army. And when I say 'his' I actually the reptilians.

>>9334610
I think the machines art would have to separated from human art. There may come a time when we have to concede that the machines are just better than us, possibly creating an almost hipster movement again. "I liked human art before the robots, it's more authentic". While others may chose to just accept technology and just appreciate a machine as a human work of art in itself, so the art from the machines is almost human anyway.

I think Musk is heading into implants territory. Like cybernetic arms and robotic eyes.

>>9334637
We don't live with the machines, we become the machines.

>>9334608
Our scientific understanding is purely intellectual. Intellectual understanding means very little in day to day life (read: in reality). Art isn't so much about intellectual understanding (although it can be), but about being conscious, existing, raising awareness of some thing, make you feel. Back in the day, art brought religious ideas into everyday life. Maybe tomorrow, art will bring scientific understanding into reality.
"This is you: an empty mass of energy, changing all the time, intertwining inward and outward, closed but open bodies exchanging into each other, one faceless mass: smelling and breathing; at the same time not smelling and not breathing. blubblubblub

There is literally nothing left to write about.

Art (all art) is dying because of equality and the publicization of the arts.

>>9334648
I agree. Imagine, in a hypothetical world, if some miraculous scientific study found everything there was to know about the human mind, not on a physical level but on a conscious level. Would there still be a need for people to puzzle and question the conscious mind?
My point being that the more science proves, the less questions there are to ask. Then again though that's not to say that art is dying as has been suggested in this thread. I personally believe we just turn our questions elsewhere.

File: c37.png (18KB, 295x310px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 295x310px

>>9334125
I know this isn't what most people on this board want to hear, but art has migrated. Now many artists are moving towards film, video games, TV, and other forms of mass media. I know some games get drummed up in nearly every discussion about games as art, but I would suggest taking a close look at games like Dark Souls or Bloodborne. This new wave of art is -well- new, but that doesn't make it invalid. Check into the music, art, level design, and other parts of modern video games. These games are the beginning phases of much more thoughtful game design and perhaps a more artistic medium. Even shows that I don't cat much for such as Steven Universe are very impressive milestones in artistic design in television. I think you could be right about literature in of itself, but I think that art is also moving in directions that better help artists express their visions.

>>9334649
Look at this moron.

>>9334744
The problem of literature is that it has been perfected over and over again. The sheer amount of written works and the span of time that has been spent writing is just overwhelming. Video games and TV can rehash what would have been stale ideas and present them in a new environment, keeping them fresh for the viewer. They are cookie cutter art forms slowly evolving into real art over the next ten - 300 years. Which is not to say Vidya and TV haven't produced artistic products on their own, but the bar hangs pretty low, to be honest. The 'artistic value', or 'deepness:^)', of a game like Bloodbourne is jack shit in comparison to Finnegans Wake. Art hasn't migrated. Art died and sunk to the bottom of the ocean like a whale's carcass, on which smaller fish feed.

>>9334744
maybe someone should write an aesthetic manifesto for them, so they get their shit together and leave behind the amusement park tier antics.

The dominant ideology pretty much ensures that anything popular or critically acclaimed will be extremely dull, and the people that oppose it aren't really capable of producing a good work of art.

I'm sure there's still good stuff being produced, but it's probably hard to find.

>>9334744
>Now many artists are moving towards film, video games, TV, and other forms of mass media.
What great works of film have been produced recently?
> Even shows that I don't cat much for such as Steven Universe are very impressive milestones in artistic design in television.
What milestones are those?

>>9334880
>What milestones are those?

Smash Bros Melee streams and Game of Thrones.

>>9334291
> communists hate artistic endeavors.


Millennial barbarians have no ideology apart from consumerism and Facebook. It is them that have oiled the machinery of the great cultural leveling process.....our is because of them, not the limp wristed faggots of academia that we no longer have great men of literature

Video games and comic books are as good as books

>>9334789
You answered yourself there. Video games, TV, ect. don't have thousands of years of tradition backing them. I don't expect there to be REALLY quality forms of these mediums for at least a hundred years, if not more.

>>9334809
This. So much this. If we want to see any movement towards refinement in the field then we need more talk about it. I do think that YouTube is doing a great job of allowing people to get their critiques out there.

>>9334880
>What great works of film have been produced recently?

That depends on how you define recently. Seeing as film isnt even 200 years old, I would say quite a bit in the last 200 years (considering that this would encompass the entire medium).

>And what milestones would that be?
In the case of Steven Universe, that show has set the bar very high for cohesion between music and set pieces. It also has a higher overall quality than many movies of years past (barring its complexity [or lack thereof] of subject depth). Listen to some of the background soundtrack and look at some of the background sets; they are very fine achievements in their own regard, not to mention how well they mesh together. My point being that these parts have elevated the genre to new realms of idiosyncracity and refinement.

>>9334231
I wonder what you do when you don't work


beside being here sharing your view through those words

File: 1484331123001.jpg (35KB, 640x516px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 640x516px

>>9334231
Its funny because actually many people still like art.

>>9334125
We consume art like we never have, that's dumb, littérature is not dead, there are writers everywhere now because people want to be entertained each seconds of their life

>>9334461
>>9334422
>>9334398
>>9334393
This is really really cringing

>>9334231
>Average right wing wage slave

>>9335178
Nah, it's you.

oh cool. another death of art rant. you have a long and storied history. cicero would be proud.

Have you noticed that every new endeavour (even art form) is dismissed by supporters of previous and similar endeavours as first irrelevant, then nerdy / neckbeardy / childish, and is then criticised using the same criteria used for previous endeavours (or art forms)?

Have you noticed that after many years, many academics (containing a strangely disproportionate amount of women, in contrast with the endeavour's early days) swoop in to try to become the supreme authority on how this endeavour is to be appreciated and enjoyed?

Have you noticed that as every previously popular endeavour goes out of fashion it is marketed less on its merit of potential for enjoyment and more on its alleged "moral" or "spiritual" improving properties?

Have you noticed the cycle always starts again and is always ongoing?

>>9335341
give examples

File: image.png (213KB, 277x250px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 277x250px

>>9334125
>mfw all these pseuds who don't even appreciate the Pipe Strip

>>9334483
I wish people would stop nlrmalizjng music that is just "good" or "moving" and proceed to throw in the trash everything that came out from the XX century and start again from the classical/romantic period.

The absolute best albums that came out from jazz, rock, hip hop and all of their derivatives are (maybe) as sophisticated, moving and well crafted as the most boring and simple Beethoven's piano sonata. The best /mu/core albums are as good as a collection of minuets written by Mozart. Should we really care about the best music made by dumb people? Or should we immediatly strive for the top?


Feeling is not enough, we should look for talent once again, collectively.

>>9335563
You are entirely wrong. It would, however, be advisable to slowly influence mainstream taste towards refinement in their respective genres, which is to say destroy the hedonistic drug abusing youth death cult that has lost its productive soul, hence producing nothing and consuming only.

>>9334125
humanities lost all intellectual rigor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

Do you ever feel there's a certain level of anti intellectualism where you live?
I once used the phrase "comment on" as and got laughed at.

>>9335598
>You are entirely wrong.
I'm talking from experience: I have spent the first 25 years of my life listening avidly to all the music I could find, always focusing on post 1950 music, in all its form.
At 26 I listened once to Bach, and then 20 times more, and at the end of it I was fully aware that most of the music I did listen up to this day was deeply formulaic, unoriginal (even when you take the most original reveered works that came put of rock the scope of the deviation from the norm is always laughable), and basically empty

Now, you can link to me many good albums, stuff that made you cry, think and wonder about music, but for everyone of those albums there is a minor work composed by a minor composer that already magnify what that piece of music was about. The only thing that changes is the timbre palette (and to this day I've never found a timbre combo that pleased me more than a string quartet, or a piano, but this is subjective) and the post-african rythms, which more often than not are completely wasted by mediocre composers (virtually all of them).

>advisable to slowly influence mainstream taste
There is no mainstream taste, and the musicians that are drawned by this music (virtually all of it) are not musically and artistically competent enough to do anything worth taking on a desert island.

What should people do is to stop normalizing both mediocrity and "just being good". There are already extremely high standards of sophistication in the Western canon (mainly in classical music) and we should hold them when jusdging new musicians, while still keeping in mind that they're probably doing something different. If you think that this is a contradiction just keepin mind that Mozart started from minuets in galant style, and did what he ended up doing, Beethoven started from popular German songs, Wagner started with marches and inauguration tunes. What they ended up achieving, in their own, personal, groundbreaking way, was a direct consequence of that first impulse, that is even less complex and sophisticated than the starting point of virtually every major rock and jazz musician: blues impovisations.

>>9335690
People mostly know that what they consume is mediocre, though, that it's normal music and nothing special (although special to them). They know Bach is in another 'realm' of joy and uncontested, if they think about it which they often dont. You can talk all day about the fullness of classical music: It does not mean anything to anybody except you and people like you (in this regard). You are an aristocrat frowning upon a peasant dance. Mediocraty is normalcy. Most people are pretty normal (normal being a wide margin).

https://youtu.be/6w2ABeV8lRQ?t=21

File: Untitled.png (61KB, 945x513px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 945x513px

>>9335391
Look at critically acclaimed contemporary artistic works in any era. Then look at the same era in the context of hindsight.

A good means to do this is with early Nobel Prize winners, who are mostly not acclaimed as classics. Pic related is the first 10 years of the man booker.

As with these examples, the hidden literary jewels of this era will be found after decades of academic assessment.

>>9335690
>The only thing that changes is the timbre palette
This is just silly. Every genre, every artist, every song has it's own unique emotional space. It is not a different timbre palette, it is a completely different experience. I guess what you wanted to say is: 'this rock song evokes anger, but this classical piece magnifies the same emotion much better'. As I said: 'just silly'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZHTebd56cU

>>9334649
fuck off postmodernist shill
you have to be a literal retard to believe that.

>>9335674
it seems to me people literally don't give a shit about anything except their little bubble but i'm sure the majority of people has always been retarded anyway.

>>9335674
I live in a small NH town with 7% doctoral population. Everyone is at least well read re: contemporary novels, and public theater and folk music are huge draws. Our "coloured" population are all Indian and Arab doctors who are on H1-B Visas. The cops harass anyone who doesnt look like they belong. Pretty much paradise.

File: image.jpg (26KB, 220x300px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 220x300px

>>9335954
This song confirms virtually everything I've said. Formulaic, repetitive and unoriginal.
You're probably not enlightened yet, at least the other anon that responded to me was able to see the limits of this music.

>>9335879
>Mediocraty is normalcy
That was precisely my point.

>Most people are pretty normal (normal being a wide margin).
most people are just oblivious. Look at the anon above, he's completely clueless about why would I ever criticize such music. I'm pretty sure that by making him listening high music while explaining to him the greatness (both in sentiment, originality and craft) would be enough for him to reevaluate all the music he has listened so far.

>>9335127
>That depends on how you define recently. Seeing as film isnt even 200 years old, I would say quite a bit in the last 200 years (considering that this would encompass the entire medium).
What great films were made after 1999? I can only think of three or four.

>>9334483
>There's plenty of great music, literature, and visual art coming out today
Like what?

>>9336164
>This song confirms virtually everything I've said.
That's why I posted it. I'm a degenerate, you are a patrician. Monteverdi makes my ears bleed. Dj Skinhead gives me hard ons. I'm the only one talking to you. I wonder why. Your path leads to loneliness, which you love, and then you die, what do you get? Don't hate on peoples tastes a dingus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSgGNd6thrc

>>9336263
In my opinion the pianist Dustin O'Halloran have made some beautiful piano pieces, at least, for my taste. I'll share some.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dcefk91YhKQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgiQtmszK5w

Hope you enjoy it.

>>9334125
ITT

pretentious waffle

>>9336183
Yi yi, In Vanda's Room, Platform, Unknown Pleasures, Pulse, Millenium Mambo, Tie Xi Qu: West of the Tracks, Come and Go, Miami Vice, Colossal Youth, Don't Touch The Axe, Star Wars Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith, A.I Articificial Intelligence, Tokyo Sonata, A History of Violence, Zodiac, Syndromes and a Century, He Fengming.

Among others, that's just off the top of my head.

>>9334125
Well how the hell do you overcome nihilism then? I can't and won't force myself to believe in a god, either the spiritual (Allah or Yahweh) or the material (cult of personality ala Hitler or Mussolini, monarchism or fascism). So how do you get over the chaotic, random nature of the universe and the relative pointlessness of life in comparison? Please tell me.

>>9335563
>>9335690
>

>>9334125
Almost, but 'the humanities have been severely emasculated' has a cause as well.

>no ... attempt to convey an important message

Untrue. Hint: art isn't its object.

>>9334125
Your two points have always existed.

WHY IS ART SHIT?

SOCIAL MEDIA
O
C
I
A
L

M
E
D
I
A

>>9334125
Literature is dying because it couldn't successfully transition to the 'new realism' of postmodernism. The rest of the arts thrived.

>>9335690
>Sophistication

So what

>>9335690
This reaction has existed for at least a century

It's a stupid nostalgic argument for pseuds

>>9337982
>It's a stupid nostalgic argument for pseuds
Not really. The reaction pseuds is to defend whatever mediocrity we celebrate today.

>>9338000
There are pseuds on both sides. Non-pseuds don't compare different music produced by different means for different audiences. They are historically and contextually aware.

File: image.jpg (38KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 320x320px

>>9337982
Not really, you're just putting arbitrarily a continuum between popular music and classical music, and this is not the case.
It would make more sense to do it when talking about contemporary art music, but even then, most of the post-50 post-Webern contemporary music has nothing to share with classical music, it's a clear cut from the Western tradition.

>>9338022
>Non-pseuds don't compare different music produced by different means for different audiences.
This is what teachers teach to children in order to avoid hearing all day long dumb ideas about why this and that sucks. Once you get accostumed to the medium doing comparative judgement is not only allowed, but even productive. Of course a simple-minded brute like you will just think that I hate modern band X because they're counterpoint game is weak. The truth is that you're too stupid to see the parameters of excellence in every genre and artistic voice.
In the same way I can compare Mozart and Chopin, even if their starting point is different (galant style vs salone music) and so is their goal (apollonian aesthetic vs sentimental romanticism).
Basically you are a absolute relativist when it comes to aesthetic, and an absolute ignorant when it comes to art critique.

>They are historically and contextually aware.
Had you been historically aware you would have put a continuum between lieders/folk musicand modern popular music. You didn't, because obviously you're not familiar enough with the historic canon and its influences.

>>9338114
>the parameters of excellence in every genre and artistic voice.

That's what relativism is.

>You didn't, because obviously you're not familiar enough with the historic canon and its influences.

I did, just not overtly.

A for effort though.

>>9337900
You don't get over the pointlessness unless your will flows strong enough to take from you all idle time. Now you're not a nihilist yet. You're still looking for something, happiness, fulfillment, whatever. those are the ends. the means people tend to confuse the ends with, which is an alright enough mistake, as long as you just enjoy the ride and cultivate your body and mind.

Don't be a little bitch anon. Nihilism is for the slothful and the uninspired

>>9338143
>Nihilism is for the slothful and the uninspired
What's the point of being active and inspired?

>>9338141
>That's what relativism is.

Not really, this is just saying that most pieces of art are different. Relativism is saying that they're all equal, at least in this context.

>I did, just not overtly.
You actually did the opposite, read your post again.
If you meant something else, state it.

>>9338156
To either produce or experience great art.
if you're a nihilist be aware that all the major nihilist thinkers got to the same conclusion.

>>9334125

>literature is dying

name 10 books you've read from the 21st century

File: photo.gif (21KB, 354x354px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 354x354px

>>9335563
>classical music is the best, no other music holds a candle to it. i love classical music and it is the absolute epitome of music because it's what i like and i'm smart. also other music sounds like shit. this is not a subjective opinion, this is objective FACT. checkmate

>>9338176
>you can't hold strong opinions
>beethoven is as good as dj skinhead man, they're toooo diffeeeeereeeent to bee compareeed

You fucking untermensch

>>9338160
>most pieces of art are different.

They're produced in different socio-historical and theoretical contexts. Artworks can be judged on their achievement in these contexts, as there is weak and strong art -- at least that is how I judge art. I don't think all artworks are of equal quality. It also means I don't think something being formulaic is necessarily a negative quality, and I don't think sophistication is necessarily positive.

>You actually did the opposite

I don't see how you could have come to that conclusion. If I'm talking about different music, means, audiences, there is still the possibility that I am making a distinction between folk/pop and 'art music', and it was my intention before just replying in a more general sense; something I think you were aware of hence your assertion, "you will just think that I hate modern band X because they're counterpoint game is weak." It didn't seem overly relevant to spell it out specifically.

>>9338181
>using a borrowed insult from 19th century wank philosophy, revealing yourself to be a fucking sophist

i don't care my man. eat a dick

>>9334483
so it's not dead it's just buried?
it's hard to find, with all the dirt
it might as well be dead.

>>9338114
>muh transparent traditionalism

>>9338114
chopin is better than mozart

File: dostovesky.jpg (49KB, 305x385px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 305x385px

>>9334231
Hmm is someone a certain character from demons?

>>9338468
Chopin is better than Chopin. Mozart is worse than Morzat.

>>9336293
For you this is more about acceptance than music or art itself. See? That's the problem.

>>9339208
No, it's about the fact that he genuinely doesn't enjoy tonal western art music.

>>9339586
Would you excuse someone for hating Shakespeare while being a sucked for JK Rowling?
And someone who likes Marvel movies way more than Bergman movies?
And someone who likes One Piece voers way more than anything Raffaello ever did?

No, you would nkt excuse such a person, instead you would pity and insult him for being so devoid of artistic sense.

This is why I'm fine with that guy sperging out when someone trashes all classical music for underground DJs and laughable /mu/ bands
It seems only fair to me

>Would you excuse someone for hating Shakespeare while being a sucked for JK Rowling?
>And someone who likes Marvel movies way more than Bergman movies?
>And someone who likes One Piece voers way more than anything Raffaello ever did?

Yes, I would excuse him (like any decent human being would). Muh art muh art. Yaddayadda what good does art do if you are a total fuck in life? Accepting one persons likes and dislikes is worth more than LITERALLY EVERY ART THAT WAS, IS AND WILL BE. You pleb read the bible gosh.

https://youtu.be/N0MQ2YwrF4k?t=63
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqoOWQsPCY8

>>9339642
>Would you excuse someone for hating Shakespeare while being a sucked for JK Rowling?

Yes, I hated Shakespeare right up until last year and had completely reasonable reasons to. Now I understand and appreciate his merits and unparalleled density of poetic effect.

>This is why I'm fine with that guy sperging out when someone trashes all classical music for underground DJs

Also something I find completely understandable. I was likewise in that same position before and understand perfectly why a given person would enjoy techno but find classical in all forms unbearable.

THE WRONG GENERATION

OP is a fag.

>>9339684
>Yes, I would excuse him

lol, look at this pathetic loser

Every generation ever has said the ones before them were better and that all there is now is degeneracy and idiocy.

It happened in the 20th century, it is happening now, it will happen in the 22nd century and if /lit/ still exists then they will be championing new classics written sometime in this century and saying all the same things said ITT about their century.

>inb4 "b-but it's actually TRUE this time, this generation is DIFFERENT!!"

no, shut the fuck up, most of you weren't even teenagers yet in the end of the 20th century. you have no idea what you are talking about. time will sort out what books are actually worthy of being called classics.

>>9340196
Post anything that is good as Beethoven that came out after the '20s.

>thinking that actual traditionalist are just like those edgy teenagers who think that MTV sucks and ACDC were the best

You're the naive one here.

>>9340372
I'd argue that SAW by Aphex Twin is as good as Beethoven, although in a much different way.

>>9340372
>Post anything that is good as Beethoven that came out after the '20s.
regarding technical knowledge?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQJFNbL8-SA

File: image.png (8KB, 253x199px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 253x199px

>>9340406
I'd love to laugh at you, but that's just sad.

>>9340421
>regarding technical knowledge?

That's not the only aspect of Beethoven's music, also per se technical and theoretical virtuosity is worthless, if that was the case I would have praised prog bands earlier.

>the black page
I guess you've never experienced the trascendental sublime.

>>9340406
lol

>>9340372
>not realizing that beethoven is not inherently great and all your feelings play themself out in your personal emotional space
>not realizing that every human being has his own emotional space in which the world can resonate
>trying to impose your own emotional space onto the emotional space of others
>rationalizing your aggression with personal anecdotes and muh tradition muh bourgeois sentiment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSbZgIA-XkE > everything beethoven ever accomplished (in my humble opinion)

>>9340497
>r-respect my f-feelings...
>beethoven is as good as Digested Flesh! i swear!
>dude it's all relative lol

Sure thing.

File: Photobucket1.gif (12KB, 640x403px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 640x403px

>>9340497
nice

File: image.jpg (78KB, 707x500px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 707x500px

>>9340497
>le beethoven was angry
>le beethoven was 19th century metal
>le this piece of shit is as good as the hammerklavier sonata, the missa solemnis, the grosse fugue, the 9th symphony, the 14th string quartet

File: kant.jpg (118KB, 294x371px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 294x371px

>>9340497
>not realizing one can form a general consensus about artistic value
>declaring everyone an oppressor for having general ideas outside science

>>9340507
>>9340568
>>9340569

muh muh MUH MUHMUHMIALETMEGO

>>9340432
looking for modern composers who try to imitate beethoven will be futile. modern composers write for modern audiences, and the sublime (here defining it as meaning; as purpose) is nowhere to be found in our nihilistic environment.

but how does this makes, say, john adams (the composer) necessarily inferior to tchaikovsky simply for being around an entirely different culture?

>>9340606
I haven't asked for Beethoven imitators, just for masterpieces of the scope of Beethovenian music.
That said, I already know that there is none (being a performer I'm already more knowledgeable than you about contemporary music, and having studied the scores I can clearly see the limits of our contemporary composers education: I'm not just using stereotypes).
That said, I don't think that the sublime is inherent to tonal music, and more specifically common practice and baroque music, nor I expect from contemporary composers to blindly follow the instructions of our predecessors, so please, stop implying that I'm doing that.

>>9334125
>Literature is dying because the humanities have been severely emasculated
projecting this much can't be good for you

>>9340569
This, also
>still not realizing that a positive judgement is as violent and arbitrary as a negative one

>>9340679
>being a performer I'm already more knowledgeable than you about contemporary music, and having studied the scores I can clearly see the limits of our contemporary composers education
which are?
(note, I'm not provoking anything; I'm just curious as I study music theory as a hobby)

>>9340679
>That said, I already know that there is none

>who is Ryuichi Sakamoto

>>9340679

>being a performer I'm already more knowledgeable than you about contemporary music, and having studied the scores I can clearly see the limits of our contemporary composers

if this was actually true, you would know that contemporary classical music (or really art music since the birth of serialism) is/has been more complex than ever, far more complex than Beethoven from a purely compositional standpoint.

if complexity is all you're going by, then the shit that Schoenberg, Stockhausen, Xenakis, and their disciples today are doing blows Beethoven to smitherines.

also there's a whole genre called stochasticism where literally the whole point of the music is to be as complex as possible. then you have shit like spectralism that takes compositional complexity to levels that were literally not possible in Beethoven's time.

I have not explored many 21st-century composers simply because there are so many of them, and I only have so much time. there will always be endless music worth listening to made constantly, same with literature, film, any other art form. as technology continues to evolve it is inevitable that artists will continue to innovate in exciting and unique ways.

tl;dr: get your head out of your ass, you're gonna suffocate.

>>9341229
>if complexity is all you're going by
I've actually stated multiple times that this is not the case. This makes the rest of your post inherently worthless.

>>9341534

But you keep bringing up composition as a metric for quality. And you think the guy who mentioned Aphex Twin is a total joke, but why? Why can't it be said that an artist like Aphex Twin can rival or at least equal Beethoven, if we are going by pure beauty and not compositional complexity? It is entirely possible for someone to find Aphex Twin more beautiful then Beethoven. Does that mean they are objectively wrong? How do you measure such a thing?

and "muh counterpoint" isn't an argument because that's just part of composition and now it seems you have established that that isn't really what matters, so that only leaves the subjective beauty/"purity" of either artist.

how can you prove that Beethoven is objectively more beautiful than Aphex Twin?

>>9341612
Not that anin, but do you think that, for example, John Green's books can be considered equal in value to the best Shakespeare plays only because
a)they are using different mediums (novel and theater)
b) someone may like Green more than Shakespeare
c) you can't prove objectively that Shakespeare is better than Green?

Because if that's the case there is no point in talking about art at all, if not just to either describe it or say how does it make you feel, which is, arguably, a pretty limited vision on art criticism.

>>9341807

>you can't prove objectively that Shakespeare is better than Green?

I mean can you? I would imagine you can but music is a lot different than literature. In literature/writing, it is extremely easy to identify flaws or shitty things. With music, it's not quite the same. With music, a person who isn't very good at their instrument can still make a really good album if they have interesting ideas. But you can't write a good book if you aren't good at writing, that's just fact.

and with Beethoven and Aphex Twin, those are both primarily instrumental/electronic artists. there are no actual tangible themes to analyze besides the subjective emotion you feel while listening. with Shakespeare and John Green, you can take a ton of the actual content of their books and analyze them and describe why one is superior to the other.

with music, you can definitely analyze, as we have been saying, the complexity of the composition, but that's completely different than measuring the philosophical or political or social etc. themes of The Fault In Our Stars or Hamlet or whatever. The mediums are so different that the comparison just doesn't work.

>>9341807
another anon
>do you think that, for example, John Green's books can be considered equal in value to the best Shakespeare plays
Yes, absolutely. I'd argue, from an ontological standpoint, every existing art piece is of equal value. The 'value' you talk about is only your imagining. When you die, Shakespeare and Green will once more become equal. Fundamentally, their are exactly equal, 100%. If you say no!, then that is your personal taste and completly subjective and etheral. You could say Shakespeare is a master of the english language whereas John Green is not, this does not matter though: a word has no value, a combination of words has no value. You think it has value, you think logical structure has value, you think a symbol has value: It has no value, it is your thinking mind that creates this value.

So art has no inherent value. This is the foundation. On this you can build your school of criticism that does exactly what criticism does now. The differents being: there are no art fascists that will kill you

>>9341906
Traditionalists seem to talk more about the person consuming the art than the art piece itself. 'Beethoven is sublime' is not a statement about Beethoven but rather a statement about the person feeling 'the sublime quality of Beethoven' .

/mu/ get the fuck out

>>9341906
>from an ontological standpoint, every existing art piece is of equal value
0 =/= { }

>>9334231
The irony is that most people working aren't doing anything with an "actual useful purpose", these jobs will all eventually be done by robots. And even if that didn't happen:
>he actually wants mankind to devolve into primitive animals just working, sleeping, and procreating
really makes ones brain bubble.

>>9334744
>Dark Souls or Bloodborne
Reddit, I...

>>9341906

Nice. Take notice that literally no one in the academia holds your opinion.

>>9342150

>appeal to authority

>>9341906
>every existing art piece is of equal value.

The problem with your argument is this sentence, since the 'art piece' needs to be qualified as such in order to be considered a distinct being. When you introduce 'art' qualities to the argument, you introduce different degrees of that quality on a continuum from 'art' to 'not art', and you have to contend with the idea that some cultural production is not art, some is intended to be art but is not considered as such, and some is not intended but is considered art. Also in terms of ontology, is art really just its object? What is the 'being' of a John Green novel, i.e. where do you draw the line between Green and non-Green.

>>9342164
Is there a 'not understanding how to apply a fallacy' fallacy?

>An argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam or argumentum ad auctoritatem), also called an appeal to authority, is a common type of argument which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise or when the authority cited is not a true expert.

>>9342150
Actually, it's the prevailing view. There's a reason why art galleries and museums have sections with literal trash and shit on a canvas while having a little description nailed up next to it describing it as as "meaningful", "impactful", and "thought provoking". Literature is in a similar boat. Think about how many people in academia are on the politically correct kool-aid and picking out trash literature over good literature for their students. Another thing about literature is that there's more people than ever publishing books, and there's a market for it(see: women), but the vast majority of these books still can't even hold a candle to the greatest.

>>9342210
Academia isn't art galleries, and the vast majority of galleries and museums don't display art of low quality. And even if 'shit on a canvas' (never actually done) is displayed, the wall text will explain how it is meaningful, rather than say it is meaningful.

I got baited didn't I?

>>9342202
postmodernists already tried to destroy this distinction with their cult of camp.
as soon as there was an ontology, one could make a science out of art, so kant and even adorno postulated an excessive value "recognition" that was subjective and universal at the same time. traditionalists dont even want to return to pre-kantian aesthetics where beauty = good. the sublime is interesting precisely because of evil beauty.

>>9334291
>you nihilistic commie faggot. Art should not and cannot be trampled by the likes of you.

Comunnism isn't anti-art at all, though. Mindless consumerism can be said to be.

>>9342247

>where beauty = good

But beauty is subjective.

>>9342247
By the way the sublime does not have to be beautiful, it only have to be trascendental.

>>9342247
>tried to destroy this distinction

I think specifically the postmodernists were showing that there was viable art practice outside academic formalism, since their practice marks a shift away from the dominance of Abstract Expressionism. That art practice still requires a qualification, just that they didn't want to make claims to that qualification because it is what Greenberg tried to do, and ultimately it became inadequate at describing contemporary 'innovations' which in part recovered ground that once served as a basis of Abstract Expressionism, like surrealism, expressionism, Dada, but not cubism since the primary mode of pomo art wasn't the art object (since there was more emphasis on the process of making art rather than the finished product). It's no coincidence that their art still required the art institutions such as the gallery to function (even though, and especially, for the work of institutional critique) -- it forms the 'space' of their art, in the absence of a priori space of the frame in modernist painting that precedes depiction.

>>9342345
That said, this is still not absolute relativism. For every new art current there is always a standard to identify mediocrity, this guy >>9342202 already questioned it.

>>9342345
To tidy this up a bit:

That art practice still requires a qualification, just that they didn't want to make claims to that qualification because it is what Greenberg tried to do, and ultimately it became inadequate at describing contemporary 'innovations' because it was a sort of imposition on the art world.

There was greater emphasis on the process of making art rather than the finished art object, through recovering ground that once served as a basis of Abstract Expressionism, like surrealism, expressionism, and Dada that were excluded from Greenberg's canon. The exception was Cubism, since its formalism and draftsmanship depended on art being an object -- it was an innovation in Academic art since the Renaissance.

Process-as-art is why photography starts to take over painting as a dominant form of art in this period such as by documenting performances, serial photography, the advent of 'deadpan' photography.

>>9334291
>communism is anti art
"men will till the field at dawn, go fishing in the afternoon, read/critique poetry and literature at evening"
Or something to that effect

>>9342357
I am that guy. I'm saying that the qualification (that requirement of the gallery for the art to function meaningfully) is what separates art from non-art, and to qualify something as art we need to understand why that is -- namely context and theory. Postmodernism had a teleology, the same of the modernist avant-garde. Just the avant-garde of AbEx became the dominant ideology (thus no longer avant-garde, according to Greenberg's earlier arguments), and its qualifying theory was shown to be insubstantial (for reasons outlined by postmodernists)

>>9342368
yeah i think i see what you mean, but i havent read greenberg yet.

>>9334899
WOMBO
COMBO
More entertaining than anything pomo lit has produced so far

>>9342395
I'm kind of rambling but I'll try sum it up:

Greenberg, cubism, Abstract Expressionism belong to one 'camp' that, through exposure to primitivism, believed in a universal absolute of art present in all cultures, based on the production of the expressive (and spiritual) art object concerned with its own material conditions and not concerned with the intention of the artist.

Anything described as 'postmodernism' tends to believe that the quality of art is dependent on its (social, historical, political and theoretical) context, and the conditions it tries to fulfill are relative to that context (including the artist's intentions and the interaction with the work).

At least these are the things that 'qualify' something as art, since this was originally a question of ontology. I guess my point is that there are different degrees of 'art'ness depending on how well they fulfill contextual conditions, so we can judge whether art is good by how successful it is on these terms.

File: alexcoolbutstillangry.png (335KB, 439x525px) Image search: [Google]

335KB, 439x525px

>>9340587