Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 17:08:34 No. 646839
In the 19th century we had Dostoevsky, Balzac, Tolstoy, Flaubert, Turgenev, Maupassant, Chekov, Zola, Dickens, Dumas, Goethe, Hugo, Lermontov, Melville, Keats, Proust, Stendhal. In music there was Beethoven, Wagner, Haydn, Mahler, Bizet, Brahms, Chopin, Schubert, Lizst, Mendelssohn, Berlioz, Bellini, Prokofiev, Puccini, Bruckner. In the 21st century we have nothing comparable. These guys were world famous in their own times and still are world famous for being geniuses, Who do we have? Why doesn't genius exist in art anymore? Surely the people capable still exist.
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 17:18:38 No. 646848
We do you retard they just don't put out the same art that the guys you mentioned did
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 17:29:44 No. 646858
>Why doesn't genius exist in art anymore?
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 17:30:37 No. 646859
Didn't we had this thread before?
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 17:32:05 No. 646862
>>646851 Tarantino, Scorsese, Fincher, Lynch, Anderson. Adele, Amy Winehouse, Kanye.
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 17:35:40 No. 646869
>>646862 OP seems to not understand that by definition it's impossible for a contemporary classic to exist, the entire concept requires that something remain popular and relevant after decades or centuries or more have passed. It's basically like lamenting the fact that there are no playwrights of Shakespeare's quality anymore, and the proof of this is the fact that nobody has in the last 20 years written any plays that are appreciated 400 years later. If in 400 years nobody has any interest in any cultural products from our era, only then will it be appropriate to say that it was truly deficient.
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 17:36:30 No. 646872
>>646859 Maybe I don't remember
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 17:39:22 No. 646875
>>646869 Those people are considered classic because of how utterly influential their art was, Shakespeare is still known today because he laid out fundamental story beats for plays and literature in general, he created tropes that are still used in storytelling today, that's why people like him are considered classics.
>>646871 It's not, every person I named utterly changed and shaped their respective mediums and left a mark that will stay, that's why they're on the same level as the people you named
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 17:39:27 No. 646876
>>646859 subtle /pol/bait threads? Yeah, we had tons of them.
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 17:41:35 No. 646879
Instead of making a hundred of these threads you could just read some fucking books you stupid uyghur
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 17:42:29 No. 646882
>>646875 You just listed popular culture that will be forgotten in a hundred years. The only one that will probably be remembered is Scorsese.
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 17:44:47 No. 646889
>>646885 I find Adorno abhorrent so no I won't
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 17:45:23 No. 646890
>>646889 >I find Adorno abhorrent Why?
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 17:46:53 No. 646896
>>646882 What were the people you listed if not pop culture? They all changed how their art was made and their influence in their respective mediums literally can't be ignored. Also Why'd you pick Scorsese out of all of them?
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 17:52:27 No. 646898
>>646896 No they weren't. Popular culture is thought to be simplistic and made for the enjoyment of the masses and not for any substance or lasting reasons. It's not black and white obviously which means you will obviously have a problem with it. I picked Scorsese because he will probably be the only one in the Film History books that you named. The films of Scorsese are also passed down from generation to generation by parents but no one really does that for Lynch or Wes Anderson.
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 17:56:16 No. 646900
>>646875 >Those people are considered classic because of how utterly influential their art was So what about the pioneers of hip hop? If wide-reaching influence is your definition of artistic greatness, then that would make Tupac, Biggie, NWA, etc. some of the greatest artists ever considering the impact of their work on so much of the music that's made today.
>he created tropes that are still used in storytelling today, that's why people like him are considered classics That runs into the same problem though. In order for Shakespeare's storytelling techniques to be considered classic (and thus for Willie himself to be a great artist), they have to still be in use after centuries. What I'm saying is that it's impossible today to say what recently invented techniques and tropes in film, music, literature, etc. will still be in use centuries from now. Certainly in Shakespeare's own day, one could have dismissed him as a fad, appealing to the lowest common denominator, etc. (theatre was at the time seen as entertainment for the unsophisticated commoner). Again, it's by definition impossible to have a contemporary classic.
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 17:56:52 No. 646901
>>646898 >Popular culture is thought to be simplistic and made for the enjoyment of the masses And music and literature isn't that?
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 17:59:02 No. 646902
>>646901 No. Everyone on that list was making music and art for substance not only to please the masses. Again though it's not black and white. Popular culture is sometimes lasting we would just say it's usually inferior in quality something like a Waltz.
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 18:01:33 No. 646904
>>646902 >>646901 I mean part of the problem with Adorno's critique is that art being a viable commodity and being made with this intention is not mutually exclusive with it being good. Certainly commodification leads to the production of a lot of cheap, lazy garbage, but it doesn't make the creation of good art or its mass appeal impossible.
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 18:06:54 No. 646906
>>646902 >Everyone on that list was making music and art for substance not only to please the masses. Do you think everyone I listed was doing it as a way to make money?
>Popular culture is sometimes lasting we would just say it's usually inferior in quality something like a Waltz Lul ok
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 18:06:57 No. 646907
>>646898 Lynch I’ve found yes they do (especially twin peaks) once they get older
Wes Anderson less so
Makes sense considering how much better David lynch is
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 18:09:29 No. 646911
>>646906 It doesn't really matter why they wanted to make it. It's the art itself that is made for the masses. Industry plants and such.
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 18:11:42 No. 646914
>>646907 I've only met two people who talked about twin peaks meanwhile almost everyone I've ever met talks about Scorsese's movies. From Gen z zoomers to elderly people. I think Lynch is just something for posturing midwits
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 18:12:40 No. 646916
>>646911 >the art itself that is made for the masses. How do you determine this? If the art is popular then it's for the masses? That would also literally disqualify everyone you listed.
>Industry plants and such. Literally none of the people I listed were industry plants
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 18:14:35 No. 646919
>>646916 It's on a case by case basis on the art itself. Like I said something like a waltz is obviously popular culture doesn't have much substance. Doesn't take much to enjoy it. Doesn't take much to make.
I just used it so you can understand what I mean also almost everyone in pop music today is a plant.
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 18:15:21 No. 646921
>>646839 Poetry has definitely declined, but there are still plenty of great novelists. Books like Blood Meridian and Gravity's Rainbow will be remembered hundreds of years from now.
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 18:17:58 No. 646926
>>646919 >It's on a case by case basis on the art itself. Then why make such wide sweeping assumptions about modern art?
>Like I said something like a waltz is obviously popular culture doesn't have much substance. Doesn't take much to enjoy it. Doesn't take much to make. You don't know much about modern art or music production do you?
>I just used it so you can understand what I mean also almost everyone in pop music today is a plant Most aren't but whatever
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 18:20:39 No. 646935
>>646926 >Then why make such wide sweeping assumptions about modern art? Because I've done the research
>You don't know much about modern art or music production do you? Yes I do actually.
>Most aren't but whatever You don't believe in the deep state either huh
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 18:22:39 No. 646939
>Because I've done the research >Yes I do actually. >You don't believe in the deep state either huh
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 18:22:58 No. 646940
>>646939 You gonna post something or just play games
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 18:27:40 No. 646950
>>646940 I'm gonna go do a waltz you pseud
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 18:52:22 No. 646993
>>646862 The world has almost forgotten about Amy Winehouse. Adele and Kanye will be forgotten just as quickly after they die, if not before then.
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 19:00:00 No. 647008
>>646839 you can just straight up post fash propaganda now and its cool.
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 19:02:24 No. 647012
>>646839 muh dead white guys
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 20:00:15 No. 647081
>>647008 Liking classical music = fash Liking Adele = Communist and based
ok retard
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 20:16:01 No. 647109
>>647081 wrathofgnon is far right BS
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 20:50:18 No. 647166
>>647138 Prove that it isn’t. You won’t be able to, because it is.
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 20:50:43 No. 647170
>>646882 >Kanye won't be remembered You stupid
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 21:01:58 No. 647200
>>647170 Rap music is going to die
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 21:02:15 No. 647201
>>647166 Prove that I'm not fucking your mom right now
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 21:32:07 No. 647239
>>647217 It's going to die within the next generation or two
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 22:02:37 No. 647269
>>646839 Brecht, Einsenstein, Mayakovsky, Shostakovich, Sviridov come to mind.
Honorable mention John Adams. Personal bias due to Nixon in China.
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 22:20:15 No. 647288
>>647269 I said 21st century also those guys suck
Anonymous 2021-12-15 (Wed) 22:44:25 No. 647335
>>647288 I must have misread 20th instead of 21st.
That said, with your simple one line comment you have revealed yourself to be a troll and I can now ignore the thread.
May you suffer 10 000 deaths and your whore mother strangled in hell for all eternity 🥰
Anonymous 2021-12-16 (Thu) 01:07:51 No. 647527
>>647335 You literally only like them because they're communists nd you have ideologybrain. It's like when right wingers favorite painters are some unknown nazi painter
Anonymous 2021-12-16 (Thu) 01:22:10 No. 647546
>>647252 (me)
>>It's going to die within the next generation or two I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you dislike hip-hop because of whatever biases you have and are trying to project that on to the rest of the world with this 'It will die soon' argument.
Anonymous 2021-12-16 (Thu) 02:11:12 No. 647605
>>647546 Except I like rap music so great theory
Anonymous 2021-12-16 (Thu) 02:59:19 No. 647674
>>646839 lol
we have:
David Foster Wallace, Pynchon, Bret Easton Ellis, Palahniuk, Trebek, John Hughes, Trump, Scorcese, Lynch, Rowling, Cormac McCarthy, Kaur, Coen Brothers, James Cameron, Flannery O'Connor, Ayn Rand, Hyde, George Lucas, Rogan, Clancy, and Houellebecq. In music there is West, Bowie, Mangum, Lil Uzi Vert, Albini, Lou Reed, Yorke, Bjork, Cobain, Nico, Grimes, Morrissey, Homme, Kate Bush, Elliott Smith, Richey Edwards, Reznor, Gira, Zappa, Sade, Varg, Dimebag Darrell, and LOAF.
Anonymous 2021-12-16 (Thu) 03:22:17 No. 647693
>>647674 troll post except for Kate Bush and Varg
Anonymous 2021-12-16 (Thu) 04:26:41 No. 647751
Any album Anthony Fantano rates a 10/10 is objectively perfect
Anonymous 2021-12-16 (Thu) 05:00:40 No. 647771
>>646839 Sca-ji, Romeo, Narahara, Jackson, Mareni, Maruto, Setoguchi, Sakurai ;^)
Solarian !6Z9BMPB0.2 2021-12-16 (Thu) 05:13:06 No. 647782
Where before the internet the people who were the harbingers of good taste were editors of magazines, owners of art galleries, academicsu and the upper management of both government and media companies, now our attention has been balkanized. where to be considered a master of the art, it mightve been good enough to be written about in the prestigious art magazines and journals because that was the only vector people had to enter the interest and keep up with it, now there are endless different platforms and subculturesnone of which has an authority that is recognized with the same weight that old authorities had.
Anonymous 2022-01-03 (Mon) 06:45:57 No. 671756
Anonymous 2022-01-03 (Mon) 07:01:08 No. 671763
>>646894 That was one of his correct predictions. He missed big on Stravinsky
Anonymous 2022-01-03 (Mon) 13:54:58 No. 671983
>>646839 It's called the consequences of the industrial revolution.
Anonymous 2022-01-03 (Mon) 16:05:13 No. 672159
>>671983 Partly this, but remember the greats of the 19th century were responding to the human challenges poses by the industrial revolution, and come to think of it, great culture since that time has always been about the dialectic of humanity and technology. And as the historical dialectic has progressed, I agree nothing in the XXI century seems good. It's an age of despair and disillusion. Maybe we will come to recognize great things later. But with the advent of the interwebs and commercialization of everything, the very conditions for greatness have been swept away.
🍀 Shay 🍀 2022-01-03 (Mon) 17:05:59 No. 672274
>>671928 That huwyte dom bf lookin kinda cute
Anonymous 2022-01-03 (Mon) 17:38:29 No. 672324
>>672274 ofc you respond to that post since you are obssesed with the aesthetics of a failed slave state.
Anonymous 2022-01-04 (Tue) 07:24:17 No. 673193
>>672159 Humanity doesn't matter anymore. It wrote itself out of the picture with neoliberalism. The 19th century was the swan song of pre-modernity and its ideals were utterly destroyed by the mechanized nightmare of the World Wars.
Anonymous 2022-01-04 (Tue) 07:28:26 No. 673199
>>673197 Tell me what good's found in neoliberalism bro, because the only outcome of it is a Landian dystopia.
Anonymous 2022-01-04 (Tue) 07:36:57 No. 673209
>>673204 Dude I'm not saying that neoliberalism is the only outcome, I'm saying if we continue to pursue it, it will end up destroying anything we consider human. And because it is so dominant, it is responsible for the ills that OP complains about. In China there's at least a human being at the top, and it isn't just a depersonalized capitalist black hole.
Anonymous 2022-01-04 (Tue) 07:48:20 No. 673220
>>673209 Also the image of it being an rigid hellscape is something that Western porkies project on to it derived from the problems they've fostered in their own societies. It fucks with them because China didn't drink the Kool-Aid, and because the US has failed to resolve its own contradictions and is suffering for it they presume that China can't do so either and will also falter. They adhere to neoliberal superiority and any other political economy to them is pre-judged as inferior.
sage Anonymous 2022-01-09 (Sun) 08:56:09 No. 683006
Didn't Melville only get popular after his life?
Anonymous 2022-01-09 (Sun) 09:25:43 No. 683031
>>646839 There's plenty of contemporary bands and artists that are like this.
Queen, Picasso, Dali, etc.
75% of the people you notes are litterally whos to people not studying that specific field, and people like Dickens and shakespeare are only important to you because you're an anglo, nobody outside of the Anglosphere cares about them other than that they have to read them for their English class for no reason, they aren't even translated.
Modern bands are harder to get broad appeal because a lot of modern music is rhetorical, it's about the lyrics, which, you know, makes it less broadly appealing than music for the sake of the music.
You're like one of those evropa larpers, you list people from half a mileni and complain that in the century of 2 world wars and a cold war there hasn't been any "classics" filtered out of the contemporary artistry.
Anonymous 2022-01-09 (Sun) 09:26:53 No. 683036
they had the industrial revolution and all of its social upheavals to light a fire under their asses
Anonymous 2022-01-09 (Sun) 10:40:00 No. 683120
>>683031 >people like Dickens and shakespeare are only important to you because you're an anglo, nobody outside of the Anglosphere cares about them other than that they have to read them for their English class for no reason So was Tolstoy part of the "Anglosphere"? He must've been ultra-Anglo since he was influenced by both. What about Goethe's strong admiration of Shakespeare? Was Goethe secretly Anglo? Freud mentions and quotes Shakespeare constantly: did the fungal spores of the Anglo menace reach as far as fin-de-siècle Austrian and Austrian-Jewish culture? I could go on, but here's my point: stop talking about things you know nothing about. It's a general problem on this board.
>>683006 >Didn't Melville only get popular after his life? For Moby-Dick, yes, although he wasn't completely unknown beforehand.
dfs,tthe,C Anonymous 2022-01-09 (Sun) 12:30:26 No. 683235
SC aC C i C.progressionatnd
Anonymous 2022-01-09 (Sun) 13:32:45 No. 683283
bump
Unique IPs: 36