Why does everything just get worse

Why don't you put down the thesaurus and try asking that again buddy.

Art is meant to help move soul away from the body and towards the intellect and when this is accomplished art loses its purpose

>big words hurt my brain

Attached: 1558899258939.jpg (350x296, 12K)

>be us
>live under Capitalism
>all art is treated as a commodity, and determined by the Market.
>that which sells, succeeds, and more is made of it
>that which does not sell, or sells less, fails, and ceases to be made.
>the things that sell best are the dumbest and easiest to understand, so the most people can consume them
>we get Adam Sandler movies
>we get the Kardashians
>we get Ready Player One
>it will only get worse

Attached: 179179-zizek.jpg (620x320, 24K)

why dont art good no more ?

society is and up and down thing, all art comes from the beginning of the upward spiral and we're in the downward spiral

idiocracy ensues

He's just talking like a jackass. Nobody uses those words seriously unless they're trying to sound intelligent.

Art is made by individuals. We live in a society. A mass consumerist, corporate-dick-sucking society. Do the math

What's the alternative? Having a cabal of art scholars who decide what will or will not be published? I don't understand how communism will go about deciding the value of art. Also, idiots need art too. Sandler films might be shit but there's a demographic of low IQ people that they appeal to.

low iq, probably from a minority race with a language of ~1000 words

they don't, and it hasn't. never use the word 'purportedly' again.

Almost pure anglo. just appreciate clarity of ideas over signalling.

mass market art is successful not because it competes and wins against high art in the marketplace, but because behind the storefronts, it is easier for large businesses to choose to sell the generic instead of the progressive. Unless you live in one of the few major urban areas where cultural proximity allows access to niche business, your movie theater selection (to use the eminent cultural industry as an example) is chosen not by consumers but by middlemen, and even in those major urban areas, media is sorted so that it is far easier to play into the hands of distribution and marketing businesses than it is to judge art on its own merit. This is not necessarily inherent in the profit motive, but in the design of our society. The Internet provides the tools with which this can be dissolved, but also some tools which entrench the issue at hand. Taste is fragmentizing into microcosmic niches, but at the same time, the global mass scale of social media provides a platform where a film, show, or book only reaches maximum economic utility if it is a universal topic of discussion, without borders or even specific appeal.

Based and Commoditypilled

niggers

The true question should be: why did everything got worse in the 21st century?

Things weren't so bad in the last century. This is a very recent phenomenon and can be pinned down to globalization I guess. Too much information, people can't filter it all, the need for mindless entertainment grows and grows each year. Also, too many people with ACCESS to information. In the last century, literature, cinema (in the first half of the century, at least), theatre, etc, were all still very elitist, and reserved to a few who could pay.

And now people are just a download away from almost everything.

Things get worse and worse because art gets cheaper and cheaper.

is it really a fucking mystery for you

there is no reset between the centuries, all history is overarching and related. the 20th century could be described as the time of decadence and incapable leadership the preludes the fall of societies. don't know about you but my parents definitely operate under an assumption that everything will always be okay.

I just came.

It's weird. In terms of cinema at least the only good stuff you are getting today is from the old filmmakers who are like 85 years old who still create a good piece of art now. Every one else fails to achieve this. What is it they have that no one else has?

cause it's easier to fantasize and romanticize the past and pretend that the bad things weren't there and the good things were even better

People like to say this like we aren't adults who can judge a piece of work without biases.

you’re wrong about that

can we keep this going pls it getting interesting

Not OP, but from what I can conjecture from OP's pretentious prosing question(s) is that they're asking why it's alleged that art is getting worse, and why it isn't the contrary, that art should be getting better as time goes.

that's pretty obvious but it's retarded

it didn't. every era has had a contingent of dilettantes who were adamant that art itself had died and that nothing contemporary could be made that could stand up to the classics. it's an inherent bias in art because we're exposed to enduring masterpieces from all other eras, many of which weren't discovered or properly appreciated during their own time, and in our own era it is the job of the aesthete himself to sift through the bulk of the artistic production of today and find what stands up to prior greats. individuals who fail to do so are inclined to assume, for the protection of their own ego, that such art does not exist. in reality they just didn't find it, or worse, didn't understand it, and so they thrash and cry with impotence and claim their tragedy was being born in a period of inexorable decline. the only thing that is different today, compared to every era prior, is that now we all have to listen to these tasteless fools.

We can look at the best of what we have now and compare it with the best of the past or are we not allowed to judge the work until 50 years has past?

it depends on whether you can judge it well, and whether you've experienced enough of the works of the day to even venture a comparison. the advantage of looking backwards is that countless others have done the necessary sorting and critique for you. of course, this subjects you to a consensus reality, where you have a diminished ability to decide for yourself what is great, piggybacking as you are on the opinions of others.

So if someone had enough knowledge they could say the movies in the past were better and you would be fine with it.

>of course, this subjects you to a consensus reality, where you have a diminished ability to decide for yourself what is great, piggybacking as you are on the opinions of others.
Sounds like projecting

>piggybacking as you are on the opinions of others.
Also what if you don't know the opinions of others. No one reads reviews before watching a movie. They are going in with a blind eye just like they would with any other film.

it's not about knowing what everyone thought of a film before you view it, but about the way you choose what film to see in the first place. why choose Tarkovsky over his contemporaries, as so many do today? because of the way his work is regarded. this is impossible to escape, because the only theoretical way to choose what art to view without relying on the opinions of others would be to choose works absolutely at random instead of by word of mouth, historical significance, or any other of the criteria people actually use. even such a scattershot approach would still be filtered somewhat through the lens of consensus opinions, however, because the 'lesser' works did not survive as often as the 'greater' works did. it is impossible not to rely on that consensus to a perceptible extent, even if it is wrong. there is a perfectly reasonable possibility that great works fell through the cracks of critique and were lost in history, but you are always less equipped to find those hidden gems than you are to find today's.

>Be Netherlands / Cuck europe in general
>Glorious government heavily subsidizes art
>Be renowned world wide for contemporary art and literature and film such as
>..
and
>..
based cant wait to go to state funded feminist multicultural project #1345 i love paying taxes for this

This lmao. The DEFA only had about one good film, state art is garbage

Because you aren't reading Dan Schneider.

I don't get how the way you choose the film has any effect on the way you view the movie. People can hate on movies that are recommended by critics and love the ones they aren't. What does that have to with reviewing the decade as a whole?

Another thing is if the only thing the decade has going for it is that there might be hidden movies that we don't know about that are really good isn't that just saying the decade is shit. The movies that were rated highly in the 60s/70s are still good today. "Sure all the movies we had so far are terrible but in 20 years there might be something good so wait until you say it's bad." Doesn't that logic seem weak to you?

One question I have is how long of a time is good enough for you. Are we allowed to critique the 90s yet?

the problem is not that people are biased towards thinking works from the 60s/70s are better because they're recommended. such biases can be suggested but not proven, and in any case they're irrelevant. the bias occurs when they take their perception of the films of the 60s and 70s-- primarily comprised of films which are considered significant, meaningful, and influential-- and compare it to their experience of the films of today, which is a constant stream of film which has been filtered, at best, by the critique of the companies which decide what films to show. making a direct comparison between the two is ridiculous, and unless the viewer lived through both periods it will likely always be impossible. even if they did, distance and memory filter that experience further, and even someone who experienced a constant stream of film in the prior era may have been forced to revisit them, which subjects them to the social filtering of critique. any critic with a gram of integrity can choose whether Taxi Driver was better or worse than You Were Never Really Here, but as soon as you suggest this reveals some glaring indictment about film in the 2010s, you make a statement which is impossible to knowingly believe in.

So if someone had knowledge of all types of cinema and was watching hundreds of films from different directors/countries/companies today then could they make a valid critique of the decade (so far)?

what is a critique of the decade so far? if you mean a well-considered argument for what's good and bad in the 2010s, yes. if you mean an argument that hinges on the quality of the 2010s versus the quality of the 2000s, no. perhaps God could make that latter argument, or any other being for whom time is irrelevant.

So can you critique the 60s vs 70s as we know it today? What about the 80s vs the 90s?

that's a more difficult question, because if both decades are distant the only question is degree. you could make such a statement if both decades were distant enough that you could not directly experience either (and ideally if they were distant enough that there should be no disparity in the social exposure you received to each decade, such as from an older coworker who lived through the 70s but was too young to truly experience the 60s at the time) but it would have to accept limitations: firstly, that what is being critiqued is not the actual output of the decade in question, for the full output is larger than the volume which has survived; secondly, that whichever cross-section the critic has received is not necessarily a true representation of the quality of the full output (this would be true even if the cross-section is comprised of every surviving work, so long as not every work survived); thirdly, that cultural contexts and extratextual information which may have importance to the output of each decade is likely not known in full to the critic, and what is known may be considered through a biased lens (as would the lens of modern opinion on race in critique of blaxploitation, or of modern opinion on propaganda and state media on the jingoistic militaria made in the eras near the second world war).

Stan pilled
m.youtube.com/watch?v=MduM0SCXlqM

Attached: mad-stan-batman-beyond-3.2.jpg (210x240, 18K)

Great works of art comes from need of innovation and conflict which the modern world mostly lacks. Yet only strife we now face is from the disquiet we get from a clinical outlook of the world that we now feel pampered by which leads to perennial discussions like these with no solute.

We all just dote around our seemingly proclaimed self awareness without making anything new of it.

on further thought, this raises another important question which makes a decade-to-decade comparison irrelevant: quantifying artistic quality so that the 'sum' of multiple works is the subject of critique is also likely impossible on its own. take for example a problem instructing the critic to decide which is better: the pairing of Tarkovsky's Stalker with Click starring Adam Sandler, and the second pairing of The Empire Strikes Back with Carpenter's The Thing. One critic might decide that the former pairing is better because Stalker outshines both films of the latter. Another may decide that Click drags Stalker down and neutralizes some of its effect so that the second pairing outshines it. Both of these example critics have the same opinions of the films in question (which puts Stalker greatly above The Thing, which is slightly above ESB, which is greatly above Click), but their impressions of the sum of the two pairings differs greatly. Assuming the complexity of summarizing an entire decade's output is several orders of magnitude more problematic than even this simple example, assessing the qualities of decades is probably a task that can only be taken non-seriously, as a kind of mental exercise not fit for serious study.

>seemingly proclaimed
I think therefore I am. Besides, new things are made every day. Maybe it is our patience to find them that is lacking

Unless you’re a third world cuckold with too low an iq to make anything of it

Attached: 2F73A96C-931A-4E10-A7D8-E7E4F2AA5C8E.jpg (750x438, 350K)

Innovation is a duh, but Dickinson made a whole poetic corpus just by being a hikikomori shut in and Wallace Stevens worked as an insurance VP. Conflict doesn't matter if you don't even have talent. On the other hand, great artists can make great works out of the most mundane things.

Mediums have a finite number of possibilities to be exhausted. It doesn't get worse, it just gets old, loses its novelty. Original ideas get copied and become diluted by shortsighted derivatives.

clearly. except through his myopic english he worded it in a way that makes it seem like certain works of art are getting worse over time.

but anyway the point is art doesn’t get worse, or better. it has no chronological pattern. there have been centuries with no good artists at all

I wouldn't blame capitalism as much as the effects of efficient mechanical reproduction, especially when combined with high population density. Quiet solitude, where there is ample opportunity to be selective about what or whom one hears, is lacking. Everywhere you go, multitudes of loudspeakers and screens issue lowest-common-denominator content, which further lowers the common denominator. It's also interesting how different businesses have different etiquette about this vicious cycle, just as different households & neighborhoods & nations do. Whether imposed by chaos or tyranny, I loathe having trash music and trash talk imposed on me, especially when it's almost all trash. Some trash, trash that is to one's own residue of perverse or sublimely silly taste, is a good thing now and then, sometimes even in binges to be permanently rid of the appetite for certain kinds of it. But the mind and heart will die on a diet of nothing but it. Yesterday I learned that the net worth of Jay-Z or whoever just crossed the $billion threshold. And in the 20,000 hours of recorded music in my stash, he's not in there once, because my limits don't go that low, and I have traded off much to not become too much like the times.

I love vocabposting

> boo-hoo I don't want Adam Sandler and Kardashians to paly in my sandbox
> boo-hoo, no I don't want to consume good but not popular content
You lefty cucks nothing more than whiny little babies.

dunno if vasari was thinking 'fuck, art is just getting worse'

That'd be cool

t. brainlet who uses a thesaurus while writing essays because 'markers totally eat it up bro'

>Having a cabal of art scholars who decide what will or will not be published? I don't understand how communism will go about deciding the value of art.
Yes, that's exactly how they did it in my country, and the cultural, literary, cinematic and musical output of those times has been the best, quality-wise, in its entire history.

It's one of those forever questions and the anaswer is inside of you and not outside. For example in Don Quixote, Cervantes rises exactly the same question.

>Why does everything just get worse
Entropy

This thread reeks of single straight white men.
you know for whom things havent gotten worse?? literally everyone but straight white men

>dotage

Attached: large.jpg (640x640, 409K)

There's still great, innovative stuuf being made; it's just that it gets drowned in the sea of mediocre bullshit. The media industries tend to reject truly innovative works because they don't know how to sell them.

Based

>All mediums of art purportedly vitiate with the age.
Mediums do not vitiate - forms do, via rejection of the substantial/essential prerequisite, and via entrapment within convention. Creative lifeessence dissipates/uglifies when the mediums that are used for its expression become means to degenerate ends, or ends in themselves, within their forms. Mediums are akin to mirrors - they reflect and direct light in intended ways.

Name some stuff.

This. The times of greatest art seems to be those of aristocratic patronage. 'Mainstreaming' of a medium is the kiss of death for its quality.

It's not so much capitalism itself though, as the shift towards the masses being able to afford regular consumption of non-essential goods. The silver lining is that sheer size of the market and ease of distribution afforded by the internet allows you to still find decent art in the less-explored niches.

Unfortunately, the dominance of mainstream culture has a contagion/programming effect. Most of us grow up in it, our exposure is constant (unless you're a hermit) and it ends up shaping basically everyone, even highly intelligent/artistic people, and even if only unconsciously. There's also a dysgenic effect being produced by our current economic, political and technological paradigms which I'd wager is quite significant.

>This. The times of greatest art seems to be those of aristocratic patronage.
In communism, the state financed art just like the aristocrats did. Literally the only system that has an issue with art is capitalism.

If you want a good example of how it worked in the best case scenario, look at how many "avantgarde" anti-system films were made in ex Yugoslavia with full funding from the state simply because they were deemed to be of a decent artistic quality regardless of the ideology.

Meanwhile, in glorious capitalism, literally every film must be pro-EU, pro-gay, and anti-nation, to get state funding now, and the quality doesn't matter at all.

how do you reconcile that with shakespeare? or homer?
shakespeare, homer, cervantes, picasso, they all wanted to persuade the public to accept their art. to do that, you have to play the part of a prostitute. put on a bit of make-up, be a little bit dishonest, you have to give something the public can follow.

Where do you live and what institution you're talking about?

There are many very good directors from capitalist countries though. Most of the most acclaimed ones really, Welles, Hitchcock, Bergman, Fellini, etc.

It also seems a bit of a meme to compare film to things like Baroque music or dutch oil painting

I'm not an absolutist, there are degrees of course. It is possible to create great art with a public-facing facade, but I think these are rare cases that don't significantly modulate the driving paradigm.

You don't actually like Picasso, do you?

I think this is because capitalism has historically been the system which brings civilization to decadent levels of wealth for the public. If a communist system were to produce such wealth, and the people were actually free to consume according to their whim, then you'd see a similar pattern (even if the art had to be imported). Of course, what you're talking about is the government determining what art is worthy to be produced instead of leaving it up to the masses, but any more authoritarian system could accomplish this and so communism deserves no special recognition in this regard.

>If a communist system were to produce such wealth, and the people were actually free to consume according to their whim, then you'd see a similar pattern (even if the art had to be imported).
I mean, everyone still watched all the good European and American movies of the time, it's not like we were living in a vacuum.

>determining what art is worthy to be produced
No, just what art is worthy to be financed by the taxpayer money. Of course, you *can* do that in capitalism too, this is just a historical example of how it was done, but it hasn't been done like that since.

>It also seems a bit of a meme to compare film to things like Baroque music or dutch oil painting
Same goes for literature, most of the famous authors that lived a decent life in communism, ended up dying or killing themselves in poverty in capitalism, and now you can't publish a book if you're not a publisher's/printer's nephew so he can launder some money via printing it, or if it's a book about a prostitute listing all the famous footballers she fucked.

if the 'rare cases' are very probably the two greatest poets who ever lived i'd choose another hill to die on.

>You don't actually like Picasso, do you?
course i do

Attached: ka.png (746x782, 372K)

Greatness is pretty rare in general. If the overall trend still causes these (non-contemporary) examples of great art with public appealing facades to fall into de facto cultural irrelevance, then what is your point exactly?

my point was this:
>'Mainstreaming' of a medium is the kiss of death for its quality.
and this:
>It's not so much capitalism itself though, as the shift towards the masses being able to afford regular consumption of non-essential goods. The silver lining is that sheer size of the market and ease of distribution afforded by the internet allows you to still find decent art in the less-explored niches.
is untenable

I don't see how. Exceptions prove the rule, and the fact that some aspects of mainstream distribution can allow for great art won't prevent the overall depressive effect. You're only skimming the surface of the issue.

actually i think if a correlation exists it's between a dominant entertainment motive and great art

Art hasn't really declined -- the mistake is viewing the production of art today in an ahistorical lens of the past. The science of semiology has had the greatest impact on how art is produced, i.e. its strategies in depicting within certain media. One may view the art of the past as great and cite the emphasis on craft and refinement as a reason why. That is the story of our metaphysics, and how we come to think of art, as the refining of signifiers so they are truthful and proper substitutions for the signified. Not so much anymore, because this metaphysics of presence has shifted to the autonomous bourgeois individual and his experiences. Art objects aren't the focal point of art anymore. I would say that it is not so much the individual pieces of art we view that matters but the cultivation of the individual by what he takes away from the art he views, to expand and deepen his knowledge of things, and not just what he associates himself with in his public identity. In this case you cannot blame the decline of art on anyone but yourself.

I propose we de-commerciliaze art. Art should be borne out of passion, not monetary gain. Otherwise you get con-artists hoping to make a quick buck.

Attached: The Treachery of Images, René Magritte.jpg (378x264, 27K)

>literature stopped to be the only medium of entertainment for most people
>people wanted things quicker
>the invention of radio and tv
>America becomes superpower thus bringing brutish forms of entertainment
>with modernism and postmodernism everything can be label as art because art means nothing anymore
>pop-culture mass adoption
>nigger music 24/7 on every media that only speak about money and other stupid shit
>ironic bullshit since the 90's

Brianlet take

this

1. Capitalists
2. You are getting older
3. Humanity is getting older

There is real decay happening all the time, some of it good and natural, things to be expected. But some of it is just unnecessary and gross.
Well; don’t fear the future. Mold it.

Attached: 0E523075-9AB0-4787-9263-BA229C9E2987.jpg (1475x1080, 167K)

Cultural Marxism and Freuds grandson

The problem isn't capitalism. Capitalism generates a lot of money for certain people. The problem is those people don't value art. Art only matters (before everything art doesn't matter -at all-, by the way) in the humanities and the humanities aren't taught in business school, law school, etc.

Butterfly, you referred to us as ‘us’ tonight. What did you mean? :3

>the only possible art in our age is the video-game.
God help us, videogames haven't been good for years.

We are in societal decline and art is associated with societal incline

I was actually talking about us socialists. I don’t think you’re quite there to consider yourself one of these “us”

Attached: B5F870A3-8C30-4C75-B1DE-3CBFCAA9F51B.jpg (1064x789, 106K)

Even vidya has rapidly become exhausted

There is nothing more to say.

Compare the best anime produced his decade with the best anime of the 90s (I won't even talk about books or music because it would be pointless), I'm waitting.

So, capitalism?

>We live in a society

>Expecting people to work and risk more for less than a regular job.
Try it you first and you will change your mind.

How do we fix the problem? I don't think just because one day the workers might own the means of production means that we are going to have aesthetic kino like in the 60s/70s? How do we make that happen again now? The only movie I've seen recently that tried was The Love Witch.

Attached: lovewitch.jpg (1200x1064, 149K)

The past is never coming back.

Attached: 8DA1C4AA-7269-4E83-9138-C08127D2285A.jpg (741x1024, 44K)

says you fucktard

Attached: 1533719D-1D3B-4D57-971F-48FD2A6319AF.jpg (750x738, 55K)

dead wrong, pal.
just wait until i publish My Collected Yea Forums Posts in a couple of years.

Yeah right Butterfly and you obviously flirted with me, but whatever.

You’re addicted to the attention you get from me, Id like you to at least admit that. :3

Breaking covenant with God.
Lowering of IQ because of neo palestinian's fantasy of the melting pot
Women offering up their unborn to baphomet
Maximum Inversion of history and culture

Good thing is we have more patrician books than we have time to read.

i wasn't aware that we're using "vitiate" intransitively now. new meta or regression?

Because every macroculture has a certain amount of creative potential and when that potential is actualized high art is no longer possible
>T. 100 years ago said this would happen

Attached: FaceApp_1559317937983.jpg (720x580, 172K)