[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Free Show | Home]

Is anyone else sad the way that art and literature seems to be

This is a blue board which means that it's for everybody (Safe For Work content only). If you see any adult content, please report it.

Thread replies: 133
Thread images: 6

File: hunger_kafka.jpg (212KB, 417x498px) Image search: [Google]
hunger_kafka.jpg
212KB, 417x498px
Is anyone else sad the way that art and literature seems to be progressing? I'm not going to be the guy who says that "art is dying" or whatever. But, there seems to be a sort of purity, sanctity to previous works of art, like the works of Shakespeare or Chaucer, or even the KJV that is impossible to recapture in the modern age. Literature has become so self-conscious and ironic over time, and it seems impossible to navigate the literary waters of the time and to still come out with a work of art of the same kind as the ones I just mentioned. I'm not saying that art is worse, though some might argue it might be. I'm just saying that there's this tone of almost divine sincerity that seems to be missing nowadays, and I really find it to be a shame. Because, of course, to try to write like Shakespeare right now would also be to make a work of art that is antiquated and out of date. It's almost like I wish I could travel back in time to when literature was first starting in order to avoid the restrictions/requirements/standards of the modern literary environment.
Anyone else have this feeling occasionally?
>>
>>9549712
New Sincerity
>>
>>9549712
Every literature tended to be revolutionnary. Against the order.
>>
>>9549712
John Gardneer gets into that ith his book On Moral Fiction, I think you'll like it

And I definitely agree. I really don't care for all the bitter, ironic, and decadent wankery
>>
>>9549712
Blame the screen (both cinematic and internet social media) for dumbing everyone down. It's now universal that everyone has low critical reading skills and even lower attention spans.

We're in a new technocratic age where reading for pleasure and appreciating its aesthetic values will number just as how many people were studying and appreciating Latin a few decades ago. Now stories and entertainment is transmitted through the screen, as opposed to the text. Welcome to a brave new world.

We're not going to get a Shakespeare, Chaucer let alone a Nabokov or even a Burgess for quite some time.
>>
>>9549742
Screen was invented in 2010
>>
>>9549719
New Sincerity is a meme and so is your writing, John Green.
>>
File: 1495427679855.jpg (214KB, 1600x978px) Image search: [Google]
1495427679855.jpg
214KB, 1600x978px
All things are nothing to me. My novel is a physical adventure, men fighting and travelling in a realistic yet imaginative setting. Or at least that's what I want to write. Manly men doing manly things, and then making a spiritual judgement of their actions. That's what I want to write, I don't give a shit if it feels out of date, desu.
>>
>>9549772
sounds gay
>>
>>9549789
that's the point you fucking pleb
>>
>>9549772
Sounds good senpai. Keep up the good work.
>>
>>9549712
I misread the first sentence as "Is anyone else sad that art and literature seems to be progressing?" and thought "Huh, now that's an original opinion." Disappointment followed
>>
>muh greeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeks!
>>
Yes OP postmodernism happened. You can either be a fag crying in a gallery over a Duchamp toilet, or mentally unfuck yourself and accept that all the genuineness you desire in your artwork is preserved and still perfectly accessible even as the ancestors of the ancestors of postmodernism continue to spiral into obscurity and regression (AKA everything becomes TLoTiaT)

Besides, New Sincerity or something very similar to it is beginning to appear, as a series of false starts if nothing else. It's hard to conceptualize a return to Modernistic principles predicated on the aesthetic possibility of postmodernist expression in the 2D arts, if only because photography has superseded Realism and rendered it obsolete.
>>
>>9549712
It is time for man to fix his goal. It is time for man to plant the seed of his highest hope.
His soil is still rich enough for it. But that soil will one day be poor and exhausted, and no lofty tree will any longer be able to grow there.
Alas! there comes the time when man will no longer launch the arrow of his longing beyond man -- and the string of his bow will have unlearned to whiz!
I tell you: one must still have chaos in oneself, to give birth to a dancing star. I tell you: you have still chaos in yourselves.
Alas! There comes the time when man will no longer give birth to any star. Alas! There comes the time of the most despicable man, who can no longer despise himself.
Lo! I show you the Last Man.
"What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?" -- so asks the Last Man, and blinks.
The earth has become small, and on it hops the Last Man, who makes everything small. His species is ineradicable as the flea; the Last Man lives longest.
"We have discovered happiness" -- say the Last Men, and they blink.

>>9549772
Best of luck. I hope that against all odds you do have the character and experience it takes to write this in a genuine manner.
>>
>>9549789
Does this character profile suit you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_obeR1OIm8
>>
I am more annoyed at people that dismiss things, honestly.

Reminds me of a conversation I had a few weeks ago about adult colouring books. The person I was talking to said that colouring books are for children and that only "snowflakes" needed that kind of stuff. I don't use them because I never liked colouring but I can see their use as a sort of meditation thing or an anxiety reducer. It's no different from playing video games or watching television (which he does both).
>>
>>9549712
the only people who hate the time they live in are people who don't get it or in the case of art, capture it.
>>9550213
the only people who cry about "MUH POSTMODERNISM" are people too stupid to get it.
>>
>>9550492
That's some of the dumbest shit I've ever heard. Creative energy is directly derived from conflict, which looking at history is over and over again derived from conflict with the time they artist lives in. Whether the artist is expressing so called progressive or regressive thoughts, complacency creates nothing but a warm feeling in your belly.
>>
>>9550572
Yes to be in conflict with it you'd have to get it first you stupid fuck.
>>
File: harold-bloom_300x304.jpg (21KB, 300x304px) Image search: [Google]
harold-bloom_300x304.jpg
21KB, 300x304px
>>9550584
>what's a strong misreading
>>
>>9550584
Oh and everyone who doesn't agree with you on postmodernism objectively doesn't "get it" and therefore is in no place to criticise what they subjectively perceive?
>>
>>9550587
>Posts dumbfuck response
>Claims other person misreads
cool
>>
>>9550599
>doesn't understand a post
>replies to it anyway
>embarrasses himself even further
cool
>>
>>9550599
weak misreading
>>
>>9550597
If you got it you wouldn't be attacking it wholesale. Of course there's shitty postmodern art which runs on the spirit of postmodernism and nothing more but to criticize the entire thing is just the sign of an idiot.
>subjectively perceive
That's what I always find funny. People who shit on postmodernists claiming their subjective perspective matters as an attack on postmodernism.
>>9550600
>doesn't understand a reply
>angrily responds to it
>makes himself look like a dumbfuck
>claims other person is misreading
okay
>>
>>9549728
Against the day.
>>
>>9550584
>being THIS triggered

Lel, I hate those board tourists. This is not /b/, kid. Arguments are mandatory around here.
>>
>>9549772
I back you
>>
>>9549712
Have you read Pierre Ménard, author of the Quixote? It's a Borges short story, right about what you're saying.
>>
>>9549742
you need to look up the word technocratic desu
>>
Kids now can't get through 20 minutes of tv without spazzing out, never mind a long, difficult work of art. Literature is on its way to the status of classical music. It still exists and will be preserved in the academy, but its so far outside of the culture its eesntially dead.
>>
>>9551148
No, I don't
>>
>>9550492
That's a very reductive statement. You can 'get' postmodernism while still realising that it's a desperately sad consequence of the failure of humanity to elevate ourselves beyond barbarity
>>
>>9551134
Yes, I did. What is about that story that is related with the original post?
>>
>>9551069
People who use "lel" are 16 and/or friendless.
>>9551190
You obviously don't get it also your statement on it is retarded garbage but is probably enough to convince morons who don't get post modernism.
>>
>>9551231
>ad hominem instead of arguments

You should get the fuck out of here pal.
>>
OP, stop using the word that. You don't need it as much as you think you do. Go back and reread your post without them.
>>
>>9551236
Where was your argument? Didn't see anything but some pseud version of saying "i totally definitely get postmodernism and it's shit lol"
>>
>>9551249
that
>>
>>9551249
I agree with that desu.
>>
im starting to suspect that the malaise affecting literature in the last several decades ("wahhhh where are all the great writers") is only partly based on genre trends and 'standards' or 'restrictions' as you put it

the real problem is twofold, and has to do with how people are spending their youth.

A) the most obvious problem: with modern tech, even the most bookish kids spend a lot of their free time playing vidya, shitposting, internet surfing etc instead of reading. The same people if born in 1850 would have read another 2 or 300 books by the time they turned 18, if only because there was nothing better to do - huge difference at a crucial formative age. developing the erudition to become a good artist is a matter of brute time investment and very few people have the wherewithal to do it in their formative years

B) corollary problem: our abandonment of classical education.

not because "starting with the Greeks" is necessarily so important in of itself, but because training your mind to memorize long poems in foreign languages from an early age will train the mind's verbal facility and ability to appreciate the nuances of language. your average 20 year old educated upper class person (re: education and living standards, we are all upper class by 19th century standards) could speak spontaneously in fluent paragraphs - now people stumble for words, say "like" and "um" all the time because we never practiced rhetoric or poetry memorization. Nowadays we are impressed when some 25 year old gets a wad of cash to publish their debut novel (which is usually ho-hum), but it was normal for twentysomethings to publish unsurpassable masterpieces before the mid 20th century - before the rise in distraction devices and the decline of classical education.

a last problem i'd point out that's unrelated to the previous two, is that by the mere passage of time the canon has become way too large for any artist to absorb and transcend. a few early 20th century guys like Borges and Joyce came impressively close to doing this but realistically the last person to do it (and the last time it was possible) was Goethe in the early 19th c. great hero-artists who completely transform the culture simply aren't possible anymore, too much has already been said and done
>>
>>9551294
>corollary problem: our abandonment of classical education.

And here comes the shit...
>>
>>9551303
you didn't read anything after that, did you?

the point is not that we 'lost touch with the classics' or something liek that, its that we stopped training the minds of young people in the way that they were trained by classical education. the ways in which the brain is exercised from childhood to late adolescence define who you are and what you're capable of for the rest of your life. it's common sense and basic developmental neuropsychology
>>
>>9551316
I blame internet desu.
>>
Hey OP, why did you repost this post that I made from like a year ago? It wasn't funny or copy pasta worthy, so are you just trying to get (You)s?
>>
>>9551319
You changed your vision?
>>
>>9551324
what
>>
>>9551341
Your glasses m8
>>
>>9551342
what the fuck r u saying to me right now
>>
>>9551352
I beg your pardon...
>>
>>9551369
what the fuck r u saying to me right now
>>
>>9551388
what the fuck r U saying to me right now
>>
In my opinion, a great book expects a lot from its audience. Specifically, it requires them to have read the relevant canon.

Between antiquity and the 19th century, the world's population grew from 100 million to 1 billion.
It hit 5 billion in the 1980s. Now it's 7.5 billion, and most of us can read at least one language into which everything gets translated.

Never have more people with more diverse experiences competed for space in a more unified market. The great works of the past still have momentum in literary fields because they are taught to every student of literature, and as a group they preserve intertextuality. Contemporary great works are harder to come by, because there can be no expectation about what the average reader has read.
>>
>>9549712
truly powerful art came along just as often hundreds of years ago as it does now

and of course since the introduction of the internet there's more shite to sift through
>>
>>9551443
I've said that once before, ppl just replied muh why even
>>
>>9549712

just because you're a plebeian doesn't mean there isn't great art
>>
>>9551524
What a low bait.
>>
Name several books published after 2000 that will be considered the masterpieces of our era in 100 years.

No ironic answers please.
>>
>>9551620

how would we know? i fully expect society in 2037 to be unrecognizable to todays man. so many social paradigms are changing
>>
>>9551620
Name several books published after 1980 that will be considered the masterpieces of our era in 100 years.

No ironic answers please.
>>
>>9551620
Name one (just one) book published after 2000 that will be considered the masterpieces of our era in 100 years.

No ironic answers please.
>>
>>9551644
It's way easier with 1980:

>Perfume
>The Name of the Rose
>The Unbearable Lightness of Being
>>
>>9551661
2666?
>>
>>9549712

You're only referring to masterpieces. Literature has always been self-conscious, at least since the Greeks.
>>
File: kc.jpg (78KB, 534x712px) Image search: [Google]
kc.jpg
78KB, 534x712px
>>9551673
>Perfume
>masterpiece
>>
>>9551661
2666
>>
>>9551738
>>9551705

i love bolano but people are already forgetting about him. his heyday is a few years gone.

i would be surprised if any book without an accompanying movie or tv show will survive this early half of the twenty first century
>>
>>9551673
>>9551705
Both answers are from XX century authors who were already distinguished at the time. Eco was almost 50, Kundera was way past 50, etc.

Name one novel from one new author. Can you do it?
>>
>>9551744
>i would be surprised if any book without an accompanying movie or tv show will survive this early half of the twenty first century

This.
>>
>>9551744
The books that will survive are those who can't be adapted on screen. Think about it.

>>9551748
>inb4 INFINITE JEST
>>
>>9551778
>The books that will survive are those who can't be adapted on screen. Think about it.

Examples.
>>
>>9551845
>The Man Without Qualities
>In Search of Lost Time
>Ulysses
>Journey to the End of the Night
>The Master and Margarita

A reason why these are literary masterpieces is that no other medium than literature can properly convey what they convey, so they've never even been adapted for cinema (or not successfully). That's why someone like Kundera writes his novels in such a way they can't be filmed: because the point is not in the plot or in the characters alone.
>>
>>9552412
Proust has a movie adaptation. Bulgákov & Kundera, idem.
>>
>>9553201
Adapting these is possible (although it may imply serious butchering of the plot), but it's meaningless. Literature brings the superior experience in all these cases.
>>
>>9549712
I think a lot of this has to do with distance. Old works come from some alien literary world because you're not familiar with the conventions of day in day out of that time, so even what may have seemed bland to someone in that age is completely fresh to you.
>>
File: 1490216152743.jpg (94KB, 1440x900px) Image search: [Google]
1490216152743.jpg
94KB, 1440x900px
there are likely correlations with amount/quality of art and population numbers. a larger world population produces a larger amount of art, there is a larger consumer base to support artists of lesser quality.

on top of this, we live in a world driven by corporations and capitalism, and the greatest artisans often become arms of these machines these days. today's mc escher might be drawing storyboards in hollywood making more money than escher ever did and you'll maybe see his name in credits somewhere but never pay any mind to him.

art isn't weakening. there is simply large amounts of supported mediocrity that obfuscates who the masters are.

leo brouwer is one of the greatest classical guitar composers to ever exist and he lives today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBt9oJYyFn8
>>
>>9549712
>there seems to be a sort of purity, sanctity to previous works of art, like the works of Shakespeare or Chaucer, or even the KJV that is impossible to recapture in the modern age. Literature has become so self-conscious and ironic over time

read Hegel's lectures on aesthetics.
>>
>>9551778
infinite jest is pre-2000 but it will obviously be remembered for a long time.
>>
>>9553245
No, adopting them would just require the removal of industry standards regarding time frame, marketability, etc.
Except for those works where etymology contributes to the structure of the work (so, Joyce), a proper auteur visionary given enough resources could adapt any literary work to film.
>>
In 100 years people will be functionally illiterate. It will be like in medieval times when people were amazed that monks could actually read without speaking aloud.
>>
>>9549712
>puritity, santity
>Shakespeare

Choose one.
>>
>>9553245
>but it's meaningless

Fuck, I though you had a good point. Now I'm a bit disappointed tbqh.
>>
>Chaucer
>Shakespeare
>unironic
>unselfconscious

Nope nope nope.
>>
>>9549712
How do you post this with a Kafka pic and not have your question answered?
>>
>implying sincere works aren't written anymore

Just avoid works praised by ivory tower academics and bourgeoise book clubbers.
>>
>>9551164
most people 200 years ago didn't read literature either

complex literature is a niche genre and will remain so as long as we desire art. it will not fade away, just evolve
>>
>>9550600
objective third party is on this guy's side here
>>
>>9549772

Godspeed.
>>
>>9553437
>100 years
try 50
https://thewalrus.ca/the-rising-tide-of-educated-aliteracy/
>>
>>9553437
>reading without speaking aloud
>>
>>9553682
Yeah I know I just didn't want to sound too alarmist but it's already in the process of taking place right now. I took a community college class in history recently and out of 30 people myself and 2 others were the only ones who did the reading. The other people in the class complained how they physically struggled to read for any extended length of time, it was just too demanding on their attention span. I believe that monks used to have to physically train themselves to be able to read in the old days, to have their eyes be able to follow the lines from left to right. This physical/neurological component behind reading is underrated and it's an ability people are beginning to lose.
>>
>>9553437
>when people were amazed that monks could actually read without speaking aloud.

source of this
>>
>>9553810
I'm not really educated on the matter but you can try this book: http://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=683
>>
>>9553810
Augustine's Confessions, of course.

>>9553452
I'm phoneposting, so I'm somewhat forced to give the short version for my opinion. I'll try to be longer here.

Why do I think it's meaningless to adapt many masterpieces of literature? Because cinema can only capture "external" things from a fiction like plot, speech, descriptions... And these masterpieces don't always have the best plot, nor the most suitable elements for a successful graphic recreation. Their merit is elsewhere: in their style, their psychology, the illusion of reality they can create, the point of view of the narrator, the pure verbal firepower, the intertextual references, even in a masterful use of italics or punctuation... all the things that can't be shown with pretty images. That is the way for literature to compete against cinema: by using the weapons cinema cannot use to make an impact.

Inversely, have you noticed how often the best movies were adaptations from mediocre or unremarkable novels? (The Godfather, Shining, etc.) That is because these novels are like movies without pictures--they're novels begging to become movies, novels shaped by non-literary aesthetics. It is more interesting for a filmmaker to use these novels as their screenplay material, rather than wasting their efforts by trying to fit Joyce or Proust into two hours of animated pictures. It's almost like trying to convert Mozart's operas into architecture. Hence my "meaningless" comment.
>>
Art, by definition, can never die. Unless there are no more humans.
>>
>>9549712
People aren't dumb enough to be sincere anymore.

Self-awareness is a good thing.
>>
>>9549772
I'd consider giving that a read - if you're Canadian, I would read it in a heartbeat.
>>
>>9551257
Anon was clearly pointing out that you were making a false distinction.

You claimed that the only people that cry about PoMo is people that don't get it. The point is that one can both get it and cry about it.
>>
>>9551303
He made good points though.
>>
>>9553845
Thanks a bunch for this. I saw a tidbit about this on a trivia game way back and have been meaning to read more about it.
>>
>>9549719
that only works provided that it's in context within itself, which is also ironic in it's own (although with lots of layers) and hence would never capture the "divine sincerity" OP yearns for.
>>
>>9555515
I want to agree but find myself feeling very troubled about this.
>>
>>9549712
Bruh, shakespeare's plays were super self-conscious and aware.
>>
>Compare modern literature to the best works ever made after thousands of years
>Modern literature doesn't seem as good

WTF I hate modern literature now!
>>
>>9551294
>normal for twentysomething to make unsurpassable masterpieces

This sounds like an exaggeration. And isn't there a survivorship bias here? You're looking at the books that survived, and comparing to all the books you see now, without looking at the crap from before. Plus, more people are able to make books now than before, even if they aren't as educated as the gentry, so by definition, the books produced may not be as erudite. On the other hand, more viewpoints are being considered, and more people are writing than ever before.
>>
>>9555705
And wasn't a good portion of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales satirical sex jokes?
>>
>>9555904
Even middle-brow novels of the 19th century (say, stuff by Pierre Loti) are better than most of today's best.
>>
>>9555974
>more people are writing than ever before

But that is exactly the problem. You can be as good as you want, you won't attract attention in the middle of 10,000 other new books. In the end, greatness goes unnoticed and mediocrity (think Rupi Kaur, etc.) is rewarded.
>>
>>9556028
Greatness has always gone unnoticed. For every Shakespeare, there are certainly several great authors who were forgotten. And there are mediocre authors currently, who will certainly be forgotten in 10 years.

Many of the storytellers of today aren't writing books, but if the technology to make movies or video games had existed back then, Shakespeare and Chaucer would probably have done that as well. So, perhaps that's a loss. Although, many people still write nowadays, so maybe not. (And for the person who complained "Escher would be corporate", art has always struggled with corporate.)

You're point seems to be that it's harder to get noticed. Probably, but that's life. Being a writer is hard. And I was quibbling about the "unsurpassable masterpiece" part--that feeds into the idea that this generation is a bunch of uneducated idiots, as opposed to the cultured elite of yesteryears. That's just nostalgia.

OP seems to be talking about a problem of style--how it's impossible to be sincere without at least winking at irony. I'm not so sure. I think maybe it's being accessibly innovative that gets you popular...but is that what OP is talking about? Is he talking about the sincerity of Shakespeare and Chaucer (who were often tongue-in-cheek and only seem sincere because we don't know their references. Isn't the whole joke of Romeo and Juliette that Shakespeare is making tragic humor at their simple infatuation that they think is love?) Or is OP saying that modern literature isn't at the same level of craft as Shakespeare and Chaucer's, which has nothing to do with sincerity?
>>
>>9551744
>Already forgetting about him
I don't know how it goes in the anglosphere (or the rest of the world, for that matter), but at least in Brazil (and as far as I know, other "rising" south american countries, Argentina, Uruguay, etc.) interest in him grows by the day, in academia and out of it (as far as you can claim Bolaño readers are non-academics).
>>
>>9556202
I have the same feeling here in Yurop (non-Anglo).
>>
I think it's more to do with lack of talent than anything. All of the good writers we have are leftovers- Banville, Edmund White, Harold Bloom, Pynchon, Ashbury Wilbur, etc

I'm optimistic, though. There'll be a lot of talent in the next few generations, I think.
>>
>>9549712
That's how it always feels in the present. The greatness you're talking about is manufactured by other people years after the apparently great person is dead and gone.
>>
>>9557887
So no one thought Victor Hugo, Tolstoy, Goethe or Cervantes were great during their lifetimes?
>>
>>9557887
Bullshit
>>
>>9558134
>>9558206
One has to remember that FAR fewer works total were being produced during the time of Cervantes, Goethe, etc.
And Dostoevsky et al were largely censored and considered trash by many of the cultural elite of their day.
>>
>>9549712
Your problem is that you're blind to the world around you. You're too absorbed in the past. I love exploring history, studying philosophy, reading old literature, seeing antique art etc. as well, but you have to know when to distance yourself and look at your surroundings again.

Literature is not what it used to be. Paintings certainly aren't. The reason for this is because we have new forms of art. The works of art of the 20th century were not in any museums. They were movies, illustrations, comics, and now video games.
>>
>>9558325
>and now video games.

I won't bite.
>>
>>9553560
unobjective 4th party is pointing out this obviously unobjective third party's unobjectivity
>>
Bumping an actual quality thread
>>
OP, writers who are genuinely talented and genuinely ambitious will always produce great work that lasts for centuries, or at least they will until the end of time when Christ comes again in glory. The current preponderance of mediocrities won't change the grandeur of those who are truly great.
>>
The reality is that the world is much more multipolar now and lit won't accept that. A painting made in 100 AD is a detailed work of genius. A video game made today is "immature and meaningless", according to you guys.

Also literature is deluding itself by associating itself with intellectualism. You could get away with that back before people gave a shit about the scientific method and also before most of the population was literate. But now it is fucking pathetic to see litizens claiming that the commas in Shakespeare are giving you mystic visions, or whatever bullshit way you want to put it.

What you are mourning is a quirk of history where your favoured artistic medium was strongly associated with intelligence, religion, mysticism, and so on. That's no longer the case.
>>
>>9551294
I also think that because everyone and their mother now has a voice through the internet, and various forms of social media, that the plebeian masses are starting to have an unprecedented influence on culture. Whereas in times past in order to have your work published one had to go through academies, publishing agencies, and have governments or private individuals commission the piece. If one didn't go through these avenues the artwork would most likely be posthumously recognized and not culturally relevant in the artist's lifetime.
>>
>>9553289
This
>>
>>9558337
But you did. And that's not an argument. Your post is more bait than the one you replied to.
>>
>>9549712
>though some might argue it might be. I'm just saying that there's this
How fucking ugly is the English language.
>>
>>9549712
Chaucer and Shakespeare are filled with self-conscious irony what are you on about
>>
>>9559578
He's just a kid who doesn't know much about the world
>>
Internet and the strive to be D I V E R S E has done a number on everything.
>>
>>9549712
Because art is inherently hedonistic and degenerate. Art only had purity when every single bit of its content was controlled by the Church. Gone are those days. And all that is left is modern degeneracy that will lead to ruin.
>>
>>9549712
>there seems to be a sort of purity, sanctity to previous works of art
Purity or sanctity in works of art is derived from purity or sanctity of the mind. Both of these qualities are directly opposed to liberalism. The mind of a liberal author is changing, open to a variety of influences and suggestions. The liberal author does not know clear direction, rules or regulations and such the art produced by that kind of artist is lacking in these qualities. Today's insincere art is simply a reflection of an insincere character and time. If some counter revolution or foreign aggression doesn't interfere, this process will continue into a state of complete loss of purpose and identity.
>>
>>9549712
literature hasn't changed. in those times Shakespeare and Chaucer were the top 1% of everything that was written in those times you don't see the other 99%. now in the present though its the opposite we have so much access the 99% of shit makes it much harder to find that 1%
Thread posts: 133
Thread images: 6


[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Top | Home]

I'm aware that Imgur.com will stop allowing adult images since 15th of May. I'm taking actions to backup as much data as possible.
Read more on this topic here - https://archived.moe/talk/thread/1694/


If you need a post removed click on it's [Report] button and follow the instruction.
DMCA Content Takedown via dmca.com
All images are hosted on imgur.com.
If you like this website please support us by donating with Bitcoins at 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties.
Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site.
This means that RandomArchive shows their content, archived.
If you need information for a Poster - contact them.