/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13863330]

Are there any books that talk about the decline of art?

[Anonymous No.13863339]

>>13863330
Interested in this. Also any book recommendations for Wagner and his philosophy?

[Anonymous No.13863387]

Wagner's art is fucking degenerate. Hell, even rap "music" is healthier to society than Wagner.

[Anonymous No.13863398]

>>13863387
Why is it degenerate?

[Anonymous No.13863417]

>>13863398
It just is.

[Anonymous No.13863418]

adorno, duh

[Anonymous No.13863428]

>>13863330
There is no decline.

[Anonymous No.13863429]

>>13863330
Spengler in his Decline of the West has a chapter talking about it.

[Anonymous No.13863432]

Camille Paglia, Sexual Personae

[Anonymous No.13863442]

>>13863428
>There is no decline

[Anonymous No.13863465]

>>13863330
On the Genealogy of "Art Games": A Polemic is about this. It was also written this century, so it's not limited to outdated information regarding what is or isn't art. But the author's conclusions may not be what you want to hear if you're hoping for a more pessimistic work.

[Anonymous No.13863482]

>>13863442
Mozart literally had a song that was all about licking his ass. It was literally called "lick my ass". I doubt you'd call Mozart decadent.

[Anonymous No.13863489]

>>13863482
that was in a private letter. this is a public music video

[Nietzsche's fangirl No.13863499]

>>13863417
>It just is

[Anonymous No.13863501]

>>13863429
What does he say is the reason for decline? When did it start?

[Anonymous No.13863506]

Ortega y Gasset: the dehumanization of art, although he deals with the modern of art 100 years ago and is less critical than you may like itll give you insight to critique the facsimile of creative innovation today. Also read some Roger Scruton

[Anonymous No.13863507]

>>13863482
Sure, let's compare Mozart with this howling nigger.

[Anonymous No.13863514]

>>13863501
It started after Wagner. Wagner was the last great musician according to Spengler. The highlights were Mozart and Beethoven.

There is no specific reason, it is just the evolution of music.

[Anonymous No.13863515]

Decline and Fall of Western Art by Brendan MP Heard

[Anonymous No.13863533]

>>13863501
The potential for art is based on the worldview of the civilization that produces it, but eventually the potential runs out as its actualized, so the possibility for art is finite
>When did it start?
Around 1800, Beethoven was one of the first to start branching off into his own style of art, rather than adhering to common practice rules, so this is the point when art declines from a well defined thing with shared characteristics to being basically random shit. Even the word art today is a minefield

[Anonymous No.13863569]

>>13863428
This. The greatest English language novel of all time is the definitive postmodern novel

[Anonymous No.13863597]

>>13863569
It was written in 1973. The big decline happened in the recent decades.

[Anonymous No.13863605]

>>13863428
Last thread I made that was kinda like this I asked for modern artists from all the mediums that could compare with the greats and there was nothing. You got anything?

[Anonymous No.13863641]

>>13863515
Is this some nazi shit?

[Anonymous No.13863657]

>>13863641
No not really. It's mostly about the rise of relativism, deconstructivism, and the modern derision towards beauty and effort. It's certainly from a conservative angle, but I'd recommend it regardless.

[Anonymous No.13863664]

>>13863657
>Readers who bought this also viewed "The Bell Curve, Revolt Against the Modern World, and Jewish Privilege"

[Anonymous No.13863672]

>>13863514
It started *with* Wagner.

[Anonymous No.13863681]

>>13863597
Against the Day came out in 2006

[Anonymous No.13863689]

>>13863681
Obviously the people who are still alive from back then are going to be making great works.

[Anonymous No.13863704]

>>13863330
spengler

>>13863398
it's not even music. went to an organ concert recently where they played bach and ritter, the difference was so clear.

[Anonymous No.13863711]

>>13863704
>it's not even music. went to an organ concert recently where they played bach and ritter, the difference was so clear.

[Anonymous No.13863716]

>>13863428
>There is no decline.
Look at the #1 music artists and the #1 movies of the last 10 years. Now compare it with how it was 50 years ago.

[Anonymous No.13863734]

>>13863514
read more carefully— spengler says beethoven was the last musician of the grand culture style of the west. listen to his late string quartets, in fact they are the perfect companion to spengler. wagner is the musician of civilisation, doesn't mean he is terrible, parsifal is pretty transcendent music, but wagner is undeniably far inferior a musician to a leonin or a stamitz. 19th music just ceases to be music in form, it becomes pure sound with no barrier >>13863716

[Anonymous No.13863758]

>>13863428
I AGREE, ANON.

[Anonymous No.13863801]

>>13863429
>a chapter
it's like a quarter of the book lol

[Anonymous No.13863807]

>>13863734
>Look where one will

Yep, this is a German translation alright lmao

[Anonymous No.13863810]

>>13863734
>, it becomes pure sound with no barrier
When I started listening to Wagner, who was my introduction to classical, this was the immediate first thing I noticed. Pop music felt like pure sound, and classical like some abstract structure or narrative that you had to follow. I remember thinking Wagner was a perfect sort of bridge between the two things, especially in his Tristan, Parsifal, and Rheingold overtures

[Anonymous No.13863811]

Read Tolstoy's essay on art

[Anonymous No.13864038]

>>13863810
Then you notice that this "pure sound" is the state of all modern art. Architecture is designed to be as large as possible and cinema has been reduced to CGI explosion shitfests

[Anonymous No.13864062]

>>13863605
Where are you cutting off at? When does modern art begin?

[Anonymous No.13864130]

>>13864062
Depends on the art form but the start of the decline happens in the early 1900s. Basically zero substance at all started in the 1980s.

[Anonymous No.13864584]

>>13864130
Hardcore punk. Metal.

[Anonymous No.13864591]

>>13864130
the decline started in the early 1800s m8

[Anonymous No.13864640]

>>13864584
lol

[Anonymous No.13864704]

>>13864640
The bourgeoisie hates Dionysian music.
But enjoy your night at the symphony.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w59e20ijOpE

[Anonymous No.13864755]

>>13864704
Maybe the bourgeoisie are just that based?

[Anonymous No.13864758]

>>13864584
Music whose sole purpose is to be loud as hell, to be more vulgar than modernity itself. The idea of metal culminated with black metal in the 90s, it was as loud and vulgar as metal was ever going to get, which is why there's barely any good post-90s metal that isn't repetition of stuff that's already been done. Instead you get hipster trash like Myrkur and Liturgy. Metal as a genre is finished.

[Anonymous No.13864766]

>>13864758
what's the most vulgar and loud black metal album

[Anonymous No.13864769]

>>13864758
Maybe that wasn't its purpose.
Plus you're wrong. There have been much heavier forms of music.

[Anonymous No.13864776]

>>13864755
>music is sectioned off to a isolated parasite class who don't appreciate it anyway
>hmmm i wonder why music died
Yeah, enjoy your mall music and retarded people sitting around to theoretical abstractions.

[Anonymous No.13864848]

>>13864766
Your preference. Mine would be one of the unholy trinity albums.
>>13864769
And yet none of them have gained as huge a following as metal. Metal was an artistic movement, one of the last that Western culture was capable of producing. It had a purpose, something to accomplish, or nobody would care about it, like how nobody cares about grindcore or whatever. There's a reason black metal was the last great movement of metal, but what is that reason? I gave my thoughts about that in my other post.

[Anonymous No.13864888]

>>13863339
Wagner and Philosophy by Bryan Magee goes deep into how Schopenhauer influenced him. It's a good book. Also talks about his anarchist early years and that influence on the Ring. It's such a shame Wagner has been memory-holed since WWII. Supposedly, more books have been written about Wagner than of any other person, excluding Jesus Christ.

>>13863387
Nietzsche was full of shit in his public writings on Wagner. It was petty and vindictive. In private letters to friends he remarked how upon hearing Parsifal's prelude "all other music seems like a mistake". He was still madly in love with him.

>>13863428
Stupid. Can you imagine a work of critique like "The Case of Wagner" by Nietzsche being written today? Like, who would you even talk about, let alone write such a profound critique?

[Anonymous No.13864911]

>>13864888
>he's an antisemite
Woah, mind blown.

[Anonymous No.13864919]

>>13864848
Why does a huge following matter? Is justin bieber good because he's popular?

[Anonymous No.13864930]

>>13864888
>more books have been written about Wagner than of any other person,
Where you hear this?

[Anonymous No.13864943]

>>13863330
A must-read.

>>13863387
I assumed OP posted Wagner as an example of degenerate art.

[Anonymous No.13864946]

>>13863330
Postmodernism: Or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism

[Anonymous No.13864970]

>>13864930
Bryan Magee mentions it in 'Aspects of Wagner' and Owen Lee mentions it as well in Wagner: The Terrible Man and His Truthful Art. Although there is some debate whether Wagner is the second most written about, or is actually third after Napoleon. Not sure how you would even quantify this, but you have to keep in mind how absolutely insane Wagner's fame and popularity was at the time. It's hard to imagine nowadays, to have one person just dominate entire fields of art.

[Anonymous No.13864978]

>>13864970
>Aspects of Wagner'
great book

[Anonymous No.13864990]

>>13864978
Yeah, it does a very good job of conveying the scope of his fame and influence, from opera to literature to theatrics. Absolutely recommended since Wagner is being forgotten in the mainstream because of Hitler's fanboyism.

[Anonymous No.13865003]

>>13864888
Hi je

[Anonymous No.13865126]

>>13864919
Justin Bieber is plebeian. All good art is aristocratic. I probably don't need to tell you how elitist metal fans are, second only to classical fans.

[Anonymous No.13865163]

>>13865126
>All good art is aristocratic
What do you mean by the aristocracy?
Bieber is the aristocracy of our time, if you mean it generally, so you just contradicted yourself.
Your arguments on metal don't make sense here, non sequitur, and your definition of metal and its relevance suggest you don't understand what art is.

[Anonymous No.13865165]

>>13865126
Metal fans are way worse than classical fans. Classical fans tend to welcome newcomers. Metal has this cringy awful aesthetic of skulls and unreadable logos specifically to keep outsiders out and be as uninviting as possible.

[Anonymous No.13865167]

>>13865163
rich celebrities aren't aristocrats, they have no political power except to influence democratic or republican outcomes, which systems of government preclude any real aristocracy.

[Anonymous No.13865168]

>>13865165
How is that any different from the Bachliebers who say how Bach is God and charge hundreds of dollars for their larp shows?

[Anonymous No.13865176]

>>13865167
Okay, Trump eats McDonalds and doesn't even listen to music.
Nice aristocracy, retard.

[Anonymous No.13865178]

>>13865176
What are you babbling about, in what way did I imply Trump is an aristocrat? I just said that a republic or democracy can't really have one.

[Anonymous No.13865179]

>>13865167
What's a real aristocracy? And how do you reconcile this with the fact that much of the best art is created by commoners and outsiders?

[Anonymous No.13865185]

>>13863428
Well engineered bait post.

[Anonymous No.13865189]

>>13863507
Just need everyone to know how hard I lol'd at this post.

[Anonymous No.13865193]

>>13865179
Mostly it's a blood nobility that has a lot of influence on the society it's in. England was more lax about letting people join.

The commoners and outsiders that create good art do so within the cultural/social context created by the aristocracy, and it is by that aristocracy that their art was mostly judged, though the public's opinion did matter as well.

[Anonymous No.13865200]

>>13863507
Mozart was a nigger though.

[Anonymous No.13865203]

>>13865185
It's not bait. Academia and it's followers are filled with post modern retards.

[Anonymous No.13865208]

>>13865193
>blood nobility
What does this mean?

[Anonymous No.13865209]

>>13865203
its

[Anonymous No.13865210]

Anyone got some more books

[Anonymous No.13865213]

>>13865168
It's different because these people are also heavy proselytisers which is the opposite of being elitist. As for shows being expensive, well, classical fans just tend to have more money on average.

[Anonymous No.13865217]

>>13865208
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobility
a class just below royalty that recognizes bloodlines as giving special rights

[Anonymous No.13865223]

>>13863442
There is no decline.

[Anonymous No.13865229]

>>13865223
coming back to prehistorical times? yes, that is decline

[Anonymous No.13865237]

>>13865223
wow fucking btfoed

[Anonymous No.13865238]

>>13865217
So a blood democracy?
That's not what a nobility is, so your position isn't really any better than democrats. WHy do you think drag queens are true art if they have some inbred blood?

[Anonymous No.13865245]

>>13865229
>prehistorical
Look at this fucking dude.

[Anonymous No.13865247]

>>13865238
The nobility don't vote on who is king, how is it democracy?

[Anonymous No.13865257]

>>13865203
You mean people like Jordan Peterson?

[Anonymous No.13865258]

>>13865213
So you just make shit up as you go along.
I already knew that.

[Anonymous No.13865265]

>>13865257
wat

[Anonymous No.13865271]

>>13865247
The blood votes...
Answer the other question. Why do you like drag queens if some leper king says its cool?

[Anonymous No.13865272]

>>13865245
yes, that period when history wasn't recorded

[Anonymous No.13865278]

>>13865271
I wouldn't like that. I was just explaining what a nobility is.

>the blood votes
I sincerely have no idea what this means

[Anonymous No.13865291]

>>13865163
Aristocratic in that a small minority understands the movement and drives it forward. I don't mean politically aristocratic or whatever you misconstrued that as. Mass produced factory art like pop music has no message or purpose (other than making money); as music it is intended to be nothing more than background noise. There is absolutely nothing that differentiates one of these "artists" from another, there's no movement, no form, no point. That is plebeian.

[Anonymous No.13865297]

>>13865278
Look at the image I posted...
Where is the merit in a line of succession based on a family in power staying in power? It is simply the blood voting in the next power rather than an authority with any command over the metaphysical.
And if they have no real ability to judge what can this false nobility say of an age or its art? it is no better than a democracy, perhaps worse because of the automatic fallacy from authority.

[Anonymous No.13865301]

>>13865258
You're a retard, stop shitting up the thread with your inane nonsense.

[Anonymous No.13865308]

>>13865297
You can argue it's not meritocratic, but it isn't voting. Like it is just factually not voting.

Right wing arguments for those kinds of societies have two main types, 1. that genetic inheritance, 'breeding', will create a new capable generation of upper class meant to govern, 2. That it is more stable/efficient to have a fixed authority structure and prevents all the chaos of democracy.

[Anonymous No.13865314]

>>13865291
Okay, this is a better definition. However, what do you mean by understanding the movement? Art as its own medium? The spirit of the age and art's relation to it?
And from this point of view why would metal not be capable of being aristocratic art?
And as a correction, while I may agree that most mass art is bad, you are overstating it by suggesting that it is simply meaningless background noise. This obscures the problem of art and our relation to it today.
I would say there is definitely a movement, form, and point, even if we don't agree with it.

[Anonymous No.13865322]

>>13865301
>can't follow basic logic
>calling anyone a retard
Do you happen to like jazz, anon?

[Anonymous No.13865332]

>>13865308
It's a metaphor, like Chesterton's tradition as the democracy of the dead...

[Anonymous No.13865349]

>>13865308
I don't care what modern NuRight argues, spirit and blood are two different things. There is no automated Darwinistic mechanism that will maintain an aristocracy through blood alone. That is already a degeneration of a nation's spirit.

[Anonymous No.13865375]

>>13865322
I GLARE AND NOD LIKE THE CHARACTER GOD

[Anonymous No.13865397]

>>13863657
And I bet the "author" doesn't even understand what Derrida was doing. Conservatives truly are retarded.

[Anonymous No.13865400]

>>13865375
That explains a lot.
You guys should offer up examples of the great aristocratic works before proceeding.

[Anonymous No.13865409]

>>13865400
what i havent read any of the comments i just saw waifu

[Anonymous No.13865421]

>>13865349
The idea that blood matters is a lot more prominent among the Right of 300-400 years ago then it is among the NuRight who usually talk about stuff like IQ.

[Anonymous No.13865472]

>>13865397
Im sure your analysis of Derrida would be breathtaking in its sophistication and profundity

[Anonymous No.13865512]

>>13864130
Cinema began in the early 1900s, and can think of several modernist composers who made works of exceptional quality (Schoenberg and Webern in particular). I can certainly understand your sentiment though. Ultimately, it depends on how amenable you find modernism/post-modernism to your personal philosophy regarding art. I certainly think its worthwhile to embrace elements of both, so I find things to appreciate in some contemporary art.

[Anonymous No.13865523]

>>13865512
>Cinema began in the early 1900s,
>Depends on the art form

>and can think of several modernist composers who made works of exceptional quality (Schoenberg and Webern in particular).
>Basically zero substance at all started in the 1980s.

[Anonymous No.13865625]

>>13865421
Same shit, they're larping as those retards.

[Anonymous No.13865633]

>>13865625
It is not the same shit, they are different concepts

[Anonymous No.13865637]

>>13863330
Hans Jurgen Syberberg wrote one on art within the post war German/Europe dynamic.

[Anonymous No.13865658]

>implying this isn't the greatest work of all time
https://youtu.be/XR9d4ESlpHY

[Anonymous No.13865703]

>>13863605
https://youtu.be/w6Q3mHyzn78

[Anonymous No.13865730]

>>13863429
https://web.archive.org/web/20190117075946/http://avery.morrow.name/blog/2014/10/oswald-spenglers-decline-of-the-west-the-100th-anniversary-update/

[Anonymous No.13865751]

>>13863330
define art

[Anonymous No.13865774]

>>13865730
Should post everything he was wrong about.

[Anonymous No.13865910]

>>13863605
>I asked for modern artists from all the mediums that could compare with the greats and there was nothing

[Anonymous No.13866071]

>>13865523
>Depends on the art form
You made a blanket statement about the decline of all art beginning in the early 1900s, so was perfectly fair to raise the counter-example of cinema. Cinema is also an inherently modernist medium, so worthy of being included in the discussion.
>Basically zero substance at all started in the 1980s.
I wasn't disputing this at any point in what I said. I assumed from your post that you believed all modern (by which you mean early 1900 onwards) artists to be inferior to the masters, and I would argue Schoenberg and Webern have created pieces worthy of comparison to them.

[Anonymous No.13866106]

>>13863330
I like how you can instantly tell if someone's a rightwinger (read: brainlet) if they ask this question or talk about "the decline of art".

[Anonymous No.13866122]

>>13866106
>everything is alright! everything is progress!

[Anonymous No.13866123]

>>13863605

[Anonymous No.13866126]

>>13866106
There are a large number of historical right-wing modernists. Adorno was also a radical leftist who believed that art has been in decline, specifically music.

[Anonymous No.13866160]

>>13866106
Let's take a look at how pop culture is doing:

Top movies 40 years ago:
1970: Love Story
1971: Fiddler on the Roof
1972: The Godfather
1973: The Sting
1974: Blazing Saddles
1975: Jaws
1976: Rocky
1977: Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope
1978: Grease
1979: Kramer vs. Kramer

Top movies this decade
2010: Toy Story 3
2011: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2
2012: Marvel's The Avengers
2013: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
2014: American Sniper
2015: Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens
2016: Rogue One: A Star Wars Story
2017: Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi
2018: Black Panther
2019: Avengers: Endgame

This is a huge decline.

[Anonymous No.13866175]

>>13866160
Is American Sniper the only original movie on that list?

[Anonymous No.13866190]

>>13866175
In the 2010's, I think so, but it is kind of based on a book.

[Anonymous No.13866241]

>>13866160
i am actually loling at that 2010s list

[Anonymous No.13866496]

the social history of art by arnold hauser is a real eye opener into the history of art.
I'm gonna ignore the fact that you probably want some shitty book that reaffirms your beliefs about le degenerate lgbt shit and whatever and gonna give you an actually interesting account of the political history of art which you probably won't read.
and yes it's written by a marxist

[Anonymous No.13866518]

>>13866496
you could have just posted a picture of you sucking a dick

[Anonymous No.13866531]

>>13864038
> Architecture is designed to be as large as possible
i love when people who are in no way even interested, let alone qualified, in a subject give some extremely broadstroke analysis of it

[Anonymous No.13866547]

>>13866122
for the right to mature they need to abandon childish (modernist) nonsense about "progress" and "decline"

[Anonymous No.13866555]

>>13866518
I would've gotten banned, and also I don't suck dick, actually.

[Anonymous No.13866558]

>>13866160
Top movies based on what metric? Box office sales?

Some of my favorite movies are from the 2010s—Edge of Tomorrow, Dredd, Bone Tomahawk, Mad Max: Fury Road, Train to Busan just to name a small few. I've enjoyed many more. I also don't see what's so horrible about the movies you listed from this decade when we're talking about pop culture and necessarily taking into consideration the increase in population since 40 years ago. So whatever your metric is, it seems stupid to me.

[Anonymous No.13866567]

>>13866547
pretty much everything that exists progresses and then declines

[Anonymous No.13866588]

>>13866531
kek. this. this is all of 4chan in all of their takes, especially when it comes to "degeneracy of art" and similarly related "muh past is better" trash. yeah dude, wagner was the last good musician of all time. there's no other good musician, and he was the last good one because you know, spirit of the civilization and ciclycal ages and so on...

[Anonymous No.13866613]

>>13866588
nobody gives a shit about most of the art from the last couple centuries of the roman empire. But yeah sure nothing ever declines, youre a genius.

[Anonymous No.13866650]

>>13866567
please come to a definition of what is "progress"
>>13866613
this guy apparently thinks that progress is determined by whether the typical 21st century middle-class person cares about it or not

[Anonymous No.13866663]

>>13866613
Things do decline, but not everything is in decline. See >>13863465

[Anonymous No.13866681]

>>13864704
Lol I just went to a concert there last night

[Anonymous No.13866691]

>>13866613
yeah man, and it declined because of the roman spirit diluted with the intermingling with germanic tribes and north african peoples which marked the end of the classical cyclical age, and the beginning of the western age..

[Anonymous No.13866786]

>>13863339
you'll probably find that in the fantasy general

[Anonymous No.13867491]

>>13863387
amazing how many nietzsche fanboy faggots we have on this board

[Anonymous No.13867529]

>>13865126
>. All good art is aristocratic
more nietzsche platitudes
Shakespeare and Marlowe wrote when it was low class to be a writer. Mozart wasn't an aristocrat. Wagner was of bourgeois family, as were Orson Welles, James Joyce, Michelangelo etc

[Anonymous No.13867731]

A telling one.

[Anonymous No.13867847]

>>13865910
lol

[Anonymous No.13867855]

>>13863387
based retard

[Anonymous No.13867856]

>>13866071
>You made a blanket statement about the decline of all art beginning in the early 1900s, so was perfectly fair to raise the counter-example of cinema. Cinema is also an inherently modernist medium, so worthy of being included in the discussion.
Why do you think I wrote depends on the art form? I was talking about cinema there.

>artists to be inferior to the masters, and I would argue Schoenberg and Webern have created pieces worthy of comparison to them.
That's obviously not what I mean't. I'm saying the number of works of substance is whats lower.

[Anonymous No.13867865]

>>13866106
I'm a socialist lol.

[Anonymous No.13868128]

The Death of Art by Arthur Danto

>>13865126
/metal/ resident here, you're being a cringe faggot from youtube comments under iron maiden song

[Anonymous No.13868142]

>>13867865
National socialist, right?

[Anonymous No.13868166]

>>13868142
No

[Anonymous No.13868176]

>>13868166
If you're a libertarian socialist or a communalist, you don't believe in the "fall of art". If you do, you're probably just in a bad mood and are angryposting. Take a deep breath, go read some Dickinson, ground yourself. Art hasn't fallen, it never has. It hasn't even slumped.

[Anonymous No.13868185]

>>13868176
Tell me comrade why does being left wing mean shit art is good art?

[Anonymous No.13868212]

>>13868185
I typically expect leftists to have a better understanding of how subjectivity works and why it is pretty meaningless to call any art "shit art".

[Anonymous No.13868231]

>>13868212
Subjectivity doesn't mean you can't critique art.

[Anonymous No.13868365]

>>13866496
>I'm gonna ignore the fact that you probably want some shitty book that reaffirms your beliefs

>Here's a book that reaffirms MY beliefs instead

GTAB.

[Anonymous No.13868369]

>>13866588
Which discord did you guys crawl out from?

[Anonymous No.13868378]

Relevant video to this thread:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNmta1gFjxU
Explains why art, specifically music, is NOT in decline.

[Anonymous No.13868393]

>>13868378
Nice bait lol

[Anonymous No.13868409]

>>13867529
Nietzsche (and presumably that poster) don't use the word "aristocratic" to literally mean "a member of aristocracy/nobility" lol. They mean it in the true sense of the word, noble as in "alone", like chemical "noble gases" that don't react with other particles. Shakespeare is noble because he was a great genius in an entire league of his own, as was Goethe, Napoleon, etc. Despite not being from noble families by heritage.

[Anonymous No.13868421]

Art history PhD here. It's not "in decline". Good night.

[Anonymous No.13868422]

>>13868378
>shitty music has existed forever
>therefore there is no decline
>besides, you can always go find some obscure albums or artists with an audience of 1000 people that make very good music in today's age
Just lol. It's very apparent pop music just gets worse, quasi-ironic recent hipster-appreciation of bland pop of recent years included. Yeah people are still making good music somewhere deep down in obscure parts of the internet, the point is they can't reach a mass audience like formerly great artists could, because pop music, by virtue of being "pop" needs to serve to lowest common denominator. It's an objective fact that pop, musically, has become more repetitive as time goes on.

[Anonymous No.13868436]

>>13868421
Your entire field consists of masturbating yourself over your own perceived superiority because unlike the unwashed masses, you can see how modern degenerate art is actually very deep and stuff while you pretend that Bernini and Michelangelo statues, that actually evoke a sense of awe and wonder in most people, weren't actually a high point in art, unsurpassed today.

[Anonymous No.13868444]

Unsure if anyone has posted it, but this is an interesting aesthetical work that essentially shits on anything that isn’t classical. Easy to read and well-done, though I disagree with many of his points overall.

[Anonymous No.13868453]

>>13868212
>Any ‘art’
Well as long as you’re positing subjective frameworks as the only lens through which to judge art, you may as well go all the way and say that ‘art’, or what defines it, is in itself is subjective. Then, of course, the conversation is meaningless.

OR you could posit that there are objective standards for art, albeit ill-defined, and then we could at least have a conversation about what these objective standards could be.

[Anonymous No.13868474]

Jesus can the /pol/tards please fuck off

[Anonymous No.13868492]

>"there is no decline" babbies have posted not a single argument or counter-example
Do you realize that just shouting "/pol/ go away" or bluntly asserting "there is no decline" without argument just makes the other side more sure of its own views? All you're doing is communicating to your "opponent" you don't have a good argument

[Anonymous No.13868503]

>>13868492
>"There is a decline" babies have posted not a single argument
>I-its becoming degenerate!!!
Retards have been complaining about degeneracy literally every. Single. Generation. Did you know that non-choral music in churches was considered heresy once? Thus literally invalidating like 80% of Bach's work
Just look at the quote related poltard >>13868474

[Anonymous No.13868516]

>>13868503
>old people complain about new things therefore music hasn't gotten progressively shittier

[Anonymous No.13868520]

>>13868503
>Did you know that non-choral music in churches was considered heresy once?
it still is in some circles. some denominations of christianity only allow music that jesus could conceivably have heard to be played as part of a church service (this covers instrumentation and lyrics also)

[Anonymous No.13868540]

>>13868516
>therefore music hasn't gotten progressively shittier
But it hasn't Anon. Just because there has been a genre explosion doesn't mean music has become shitty simply because you don't like pop.
Jazz still exists, classical music still exists, you can still compose a baroque or romantic piece of you want to
Rachmaninov died 90 years ago and he wrote some of the best romantic music in history. Shostskovich died 44 years ago, but I bet you consider "music from the 70s" retarded hippie shit, amirite?
Please draw me a graph of the progression of music shittiness (x is time, y is shiftiness), faggot.
I'm like 99% sure it's going to be absolutely retarded.

[Anonymous No.13868550]

i don't give a shit about decline but im sick of all this fetishization of past for "retro" feel aesthetics.
mark fisher was right. its just repackaging of same old bullshite.
there is no decline but now art just like most of things is meaningless.

>Now the banal reality has become aestheticized, all reality is trans-aestheticized, and that is the very problem. Art was a form, and then it became more and more no more a form but a value, an aesthetic value, and so we come from art to aesthetics… And as art becomes aesthetics it joins with reality, it joins with the banality of reality. Because all reality becomes aesthetical, too, then it’s a total confusion between art and reality, and the result of this confusion is hyperreality. But, in this sense, there is no more radical difference between art and realism. And this is the very end of art. As form.
–Jean Baudrillard, 2005

[Anonymous No.13868844]

>>13868550
>art just like most of things is meaningless.
"Hurr I saw malevich once and think it's retarded so now all contemporary art is meaningless"

[Anonymous No.13868882]

>>13868421
nothing makes me lol like academic hoop jumpers trying to stand on their credentials anonymously online

go logon to your twitter account if you want to flex that shit mj

[Anonymous No.13868936]

>>13868540
>Jazz still exists, classical music still exists, you can still compose a baroque or romantic piece of you want to

yeah rock music still exists too and lots of bands are playing it but everything they do sounds like something that was already done 20-50 years ago, you've already heard all the songs if you've done your homework. rock is DEAD, it declined and now it's DEAD. how have you maneuvered yourself into claiming that modes of expression do not decline or become obsolete this is so so stupid, you're trying to make the other guy look stupid by swearing at him but your position makes no sense at all it's invalidated by looking at the progress and decline of ANY aesthetic movement

[Anonymous No.13868938]

>>13868540
>jazz
>not decline
Literally the only thing you should read by Adorno.

[Anonymous No.13868958]

>>13868936
I thought we were arguing about the decline of music, not art forms dying out retard. Gregorian chanting is also dead lmao
>>13868938
>I don't like jazz so I'll just claim it's the same tarded cookie cutter shit as mainstream pop

[Anonymous No.13868966]

>>13868936
Why is it dead? Why must it be reinventing itself or even becoming something else to stay alive?

[Anonymous No.13868967]

>>13868958
Nah it's far worse than pop.

[Anonymous No.13868980]

>>13868967
>T. I have absolutely no music credentials but read it on /pol/ once so it must be true

[Anonymous No.13868985]

>>13868966
Yeah I'm with this guy Greta Van Fleet is comparable with the greats.

[Anonymous No.13869010]

>>13866558
cringe taste dude

[Anonymous No.13869016]

>>13868985
Yikes

[Anonymous No.13869025]

>>13868844
why are you taking my sentence out of context?
also thanks for proving my point for being stuck in the past

[Anonymous No.13869035]

Depends on what art form. Everyone can make art now so I guess there is less experience and skill required. One Halloween there was a block party at my college and there were two bands on both ends of the street. One was playing music off of his MacBook and the crowd was fucking huge. The guy obviously made the mixes beforehand so all he did was jump around on stage to get people hyped. The other end had an actual band. A skilled violinist, a brass player whom could switch between trumpet and sax, a bass player, a drummer, and a lead singer and guitarist who was also able to play the drums simultaneously with the drummer for one song. Only had a small crowd of hipsters. People just don't value skill anymore. YouTube is the most watched platform and any retard with a camera and internet service can make a channel. Now even celebrities have channels for what was once cringe video central. People want what is new and not necessarily what is skilled. They need to be wowed. Other art forms have reached their peak or have remained stagnant. Memes can be rehashed and made fresh all the time. How many new wojaks and pepe variations or Chad and Virgin memes? Everything can last awhile before it is raped of all the magic. People tend to move on and never look back.

[Anonymous No.13869041]

>>13869025
I'm not, your statement is just retarded either way.
Revivalism is a thing and has existed since basically the beginning of art history. And there's nothing bad about this. The "retro" you are talking about is mostly cultural revivalism of the 80s lifestyle.

[Anonymous No.13869076]

>>13869041
my argument is that it's just fetishization of past every fucking where. it's dominating from mainstream to underground.
like people have accepted this dead. in past times people use to rebel against for an alternative future for betterment of their lives. but now people riot to protect what they have, not to change anything. they're not evening rebelling for any other alternatives.

also name a single new major boundary pushing art movement that is blowing up right now and which not based on past aesthetics?

[Anonymous No.13869115]

>>13869041
It is though, many of these places that are considered non-degenerate look just as bad because the soul is stripped out of them. They're a plastic reconstruction, a sanitised hospital setting so that tourists can experience the surface of opposing cultures without any friction.

[Anonymous No.13869117]

>>13869115

[Anonymous No.13869126]

>>13868444
Definitely interested since it's similar to my own views. What does he say? Any summary or quotes?

[Anonymous No.13869159]

>>13868365
I mean to the point that I always wanted to see how historical materialism looks like in action, sure, but I always kind of bought into the whole "modernist decline" narrative and the book really changed my perspective instead of reaffirming it. Also it backs up its claims really neatly. The chapters on the paleolithic and neolithic (the first 2) are so mindblowing that I think everybody should read at least those before judging it.

[Anonymous No.13869242]

>>13868369
As the anon that other guy replied to, I feel the need to clarify that while I think that saying art is in "decline" is flat-out wrong (at most you can say that the brand of western art that began in the middle ages is in decline, as in, falling out of fashion), I think that contemporary art is an expression of mass-consumerism and cancerous capitalism. It's low-brow, insulting to its public, used as a tool of control (as most if not all art has throught history), and it reaffirms the values of our time (or lack of, in our case).
I mainly object to the moralistic label of "degenerate". I think the conservative right is right in a lot of things, and it spots problems that the left just refuses to see since morer than 100 years ago, but it's still childish in it's description of it, and in its proposed alternatives.
I think culture cannot go backwards, and instead of romantizicing the past we should identify the causes of our unhealthy culture and undermine its foundations, so that newer, perhaps more stable values can emerge.
There needs to be some sort of approach between the conservative right's identification of the necessity of rooted values deeper than money, and marxist historical materialism's understanding of the process that produce values and cultures in the first place.
I think some sort of anticapitalist right is forming, though, which I'm glad of. Right now it's mainly ecofash memers and some timid comments by Tucker Carlson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXGoWtK1NnY but this could get bigger hopefully

[Anonymous No.13869247]

>>13869242
Clarification: I am also not saying that whatever post-capitalist future we should be working towards would look anything like "socialism". I honestly have no fucking clue what it could be.

[Anonymous No.13869698]

>>13863330
Christopher Alexander talks about it in his books, e.g. in The Nature of Order, Book 1: The Phenomenon of Life

[Anonymous No.13869732]

>>13868422
Interesting points. You should consider making videos like Fantano.

[Anonymous No.13870513]

>>13868503
There are 60 million literate British today. How many were there when they produced Dickens, Tennyson, Browning, Carlyle, Stevenson, etc? Not to mention politicians like Gladstone, Disraeli, Palmerston, etc. Is there anyone like them today, with our massive literate populations in all of the developed countries and our freely available stores of information?

[Anonymous No.13871143]

>>13865193
>England was more lax about letting people join.

Not really. In fact, people with surnames from the conquest by Norman lords (in 1066) are still hugely overrepresented at our top private schools. Which must mean the upper echelons are colossally exclusive. Either that, or the old blood endures somehow.

[Anonymous No.13871532]

>>13866160
I haven’t seen any of those 70s movies but they all sound like edgelord tier shit

[Anonymous No.13871847]

>>13871532
Excellent bait

[Anonymous No.13872614]

>>13871532
Most of them don't have the same effect today, or they're just gay, like Grease.

[Anonymous No.13873036]

My own position on this is not really that we are in decline, nor the denial of this, but that we have lost the very sense of what art is. Even the beautiful works of form fall to this.

Great works can still rise, however they tend towards an accidental appearance. I suppose, in relation to the Baudrillard quote above, it is an attempt to go beyond form.
If anyone is interested I can post the notes I wrote yesterday, it is a political-philosophical perspective more than a direct discussion of art, but it identifies, I think, a significant problem in decline and perhaps reveals something of the spirit of our age in relation to art.

I would use this as a perfect example of great art in our time.
https://youtu.be/sT8WenpR8NI