/lit/ - Literature

I'm studying art and yeah the decline is real, especially in humanities

How are we declining?

>>16625106
It seems so. There were plenty of original and profound philosophers in the XVIIIth century but the following century was mostly an age of commentary and such.

>>16625196
>XVIIIth century

>>16625215
Yes?

>muh modern degeneracy
>muh banishment from muh garden of eden

>>16625229
Why even take the time? Is it an aesthetic choice?

>>16625241
I answered that way because I had the history of philosophy in mind. The XVIIIth century had plenty of big brain figures I admire, like Kant, Reid and such. But the spark that was in them was never present in their epigoni. I think this parallels the ancient phenomenon where you had all these men with gigantic intellects, like Plato and Aristotle, who were active a little bit before and after the reign of Alexander the Great and constructed the wildest systems one could imagine. But centuries later philosophy lost this aspect and in late antiquity the study of it was largely found in works of commentary on the great systematizers.

>>16625106
These are subjective categories you’re imposing.

>>16625327
shut the fuck up

>>16625106
Creativity is dying because of objective cultures and high association

>>16625308
i appreciate the thoughtful response but i was wondering why you didn't just write "18th century" lol

>>16625362
Lol, I alternate between the two.

>>16625178
>>16625196
>>16625352

Source? Source? Source? Do you have a source on that?

Source?

A source. I need a source.

Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.

No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered.

You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.

Do you have a degree in that field?

A college degree? In that field?

Then your arguments are invalid.

No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation.

Correlation does not equal causation.

CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION.

You still haven't provided me a valid source yet.

Nope, still haven't.

>>16625396

>>16625396
Also shit like this
And the scientific methods themselves house borders, and are most the time just hypnotic autism

Based on what? Peaked in what exactly?
The fact that you don't really like the pictures that are produced at the moment? That about it? Can you put it in any words that aren't just ' I don't like thing'.
You whiny fucks are so fucking annoying.

>>16625396
.

>>16625396
holy fucking reddit

>>16625426
>>16625396
The jokes write themselves

>>16625439
It's satire

>>16625396
>why yes, i smoke two packs a day, how could you tell?

>>16625396
Reminds me of academia all over again.

>>16625426
The time of high art is over. Since the gadget took over, we will slowly continue to watch it spread over our heads until our perspective of earth and reality are in accordance to the machine’s vision. Human creativity has been heading towards annihilation.

>>16625345
No, it’s true.
At what age do you place humanity n this metaphorical supposition? We’re a 75 year old with arthritis, halitosis and Alzheimer's?

Or perhaps we’re still in infancy and suffering colic or bad gas about to succumb to sids

>>16625442
Try answering anything then. Maybe that writes itself too.

>>16625468
>The time of high art is over.
It's not. Musical geniuses are performing on insane technical levels while interpreting the old masters.
Every bigger city has theaters performing plays of old and new.
Literature in the last 100 years has been breathtaking.
Just because presumable "elitists" on 4chan have no connection to the actual world of art and culture doesn't mean art is dead. People here are just too lazy to engage with it aside from an surface level.

>>16625521
Technical skills are not creative skills
Referencing this is just reinforces this thread

>>16625640
Gonna follow that up with some more points or is that still all you got?
A vague "I don't like it".
That's the problems with these claims. No one is able to actually argue in favor of them on any meaningful spectrum of insight.

>>16625668
>>16625396

>>16625396
ABSOLUTELY BASED

seething trannyfags and Vaushcucks btfo

The only creative thing happening in the world of art is in anime/manga, and it's quickly having fingers locked around it's neck

>>16625190
This
Although as individuals I believe we’re declining. As a species? No

Giving up before full legalization of psycadelics? Dicks everywhere

>>16625178
>>16625106
Fuck bros. what is it about the early moderns thats just so good? its something about the time period betweeon 1600 and 1790 that is just so captivating to me. Maybe its the immense energy that is mixed with a strong sense of self and tradition.

>>16625683
it’s a funny post but i don’t think anyone here is asking for “sources” just more explanation lol, like elaborate nigga

>>16625640
no artist is born with the skillset to be considered good, all of its is learned, passed down by a master (or the internet nowadays)

>>16625698
The renaissance
You can't get one today without large dissociations from the phone

>>16625735
Or a kid with a pleasant voice can just playfully make pleasant sounds and become great
The pre-conditioning of your lineage can still hand you creative abilities

>>16625735
The exceptional skill we label as talent is not a single capability. It is a complex micture of motive, curiousity, receptivity, intelligence, perception, sensitivity, expert teaching, perseverance, problem solving skills, timing, sheer luck, and countless other things. If any part of it is genetic, divinely endowed, the result of astrological fiddle-faddle, fate or destiny, that part is not the sole determining factor. All the other ingredients must be present in the right combination - and no one knows the exact recipe

artistic skill - the ability to draw well and make paint behave - is not a natural endowment like big blue eyes or great legs. Nor is it a special knack you simply have or do not have, like a "green thumb," a "natural sense of rhythm," or "surgeon's hands." (those things are nonsense too.) neither does it matter whether your parents, grandparents, or any of your ancestors were artist, except insofar as they may have motivated you, taught you, or served as role models.

you can learn the skills required for painting in the same way that you can learn anything else you are strongly drawn to. I dont mean to understate the difficulties, however. The great painters devoted their lives to their art, often to the point of total obession. Serious painting is not something that can be learned casually. You must be willing to sacrifice many other things. So don't waste your time worrying if you are talented, and dont blame any failures on the lack of it- THAT is the ultimate cop-out.

>>16625801
Dont be afraid to learn. You might think it goes without saying but I am quite serious in mentioning it. The idea of having an aversion to learning may sound silly, but in some quarters learning is a definite no-no. Throughout the past century and even today and astonishing number of otherwise intelligent people in the field of art education seriously believe and teach that learning the technical essentials of painting will inhibit an artist's creativity - that chic contemoporary art today is all about spontaneity and impulsive acts, and those acts alone matter. The thory is that everyone is a natural-born artist, and the source of art is somewhere deep within the human spirit and any influence from the outside (such as established knowledge) will somehow contaminate the purity of the interior process. All that is necessary is to "let go," and a force from within will manage things.

I've always had trouble with that. After all, Shakespeare, Back, Michelangelo, Rembrandt, and all great masters that I know of were fine craftsmen who built upon hard-won skills and knowledge, and they werent stupid. Johannes Brahms pointed out that "without craftsmanship, inspiration is a mere reed shaken in the wind." Even mozart occasionally listened to his father!

If we are going to master a skill and stimulate new achievements, it is not wise to ignore what is already known- above all, technical information. Painting has occupied some of the greatest minds in history, so why not yours and mine too?

we will never run out of fascinating things to study, art is a living languages with infinite possibilities awaiting. so learn EVERYTHING you possibly can about it, then add your own insights, and use what you need.

>>16625776
But its not so much the renaissance, but the post renassance im talking about.

>>16625106

>>16625846
looking back in time, I find it hard to imagine the average citizen of pre-renaissance europe relating to very much in paintings the way we respond to serious representational art today. For one thing, the notion of art as a vehicle of self-expression had not yet appeared. Subject matter was largely confined to biblical episodes, the allegory and mythology of antiquity, and glitzy tableaus of powerful people such as royalty, clergy, warriors, and the like (and lots of saints, angels and cherubs). I believe it can be said that during those early european centuries of widely sustained illiteracy, pictures were, more often than not, the way people received a version of their personal weltanschauung, or world view. It was similar to the way in which hollywood and television provide the same service today. Moreover, the ways such things were depicted in those good old days were far removed from any ordinary person's personal experience.

>>16625893
I think thats a good take

>>16625106

Look, a statement such as that is too categorical too be true.

Have aspects of society such as morality, striving for the portrayal of beauty in art and architecture, and certain traditional societal institutions like the church declined since 1700? Sure.

But can you honestly say germ theory, vaccines, indoor plumbing, massive increase in life expectancy, and the unprecedented proliferation of words and ideas in the modern world are not, in at least some way, positive developments?

>>16625893
If you trace the development of imagery used in Western European Art (our dominant roots), you will notice elements in pictures did not begin to look "natural," that is to say with authentic looking colors acting in light and shadow the way you and I see everyday things, until the early to mid-seventeenth century. That was not very long ago in the long history of art. Except for the development of a practical system of linear perspective by filippo brunelleschi in 1413, we sledom find a painter even attempting a naturalistic depiction of what human beings actually saw.

painting techniques were highly stylized, with lights and shadows serving merely to model the forms of the subjects rather than depict the true light and shadows acting upon them. Colors were most often used as flat tints, and very little looked like what we today would call "real." In making these observations I do not in any way wish to sound judgemental, or give the impression I think artist of early, mid, or late renaissance times were less sophisticated or lacking in artistic abilities. They were then, as we are now, using the tools, methods, and aesthetic sensibilities of their respective periods, and much of what they handed down to us remains unsurpassed today. The violins of Antonius Stradivarius remain unexcelled, the stunning portraits by Hans Holbein are lessons for today's painters, and Michelangelo is still the standard by which sculpture is measured.

>>16625106
>in decline

???

What the actual fuck, are you just casually going to forget that in the 1700s a scrape could have done you in. Sure by some retarded metrics that you could only vomit out after incorrectly reading the continentals, you could make that claim, but the world being shit now doesn't change that it used to be a whole lot more shitty in the past.

>>16625924
LET THERE BE LIGHT (that really important stuff.)

while there had to be some awareness among early painters abouth the role of light in the visual field, there was little serious headway in daling with it until an astute Italian named Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio and his colleagues introduced and fin-tuned the concept of chiaroscuro - the use of high contrast light and shadow to not only show form, but also to impart dramatically moving effects of light. Caravaggios amazing success in creating such powerful new pictures provoked a major revolution in visual perception and rocked the world of painting.

because of his use of light and shadows as distinct pictorial elements was a new concept, the idea did not catch on as fast as linear perspective did. After all, it was quite a lot to swallow for painters who had thought only in terms of physical form. Even when the use of light and shadow in painting did catch on later, it took a few more generations before shadows (with their tricky color temperature reversals) were understood well enough to be rendered with a look of naturalness. Indeed the concept of light temperature and its behavior in shadow arcas was so slow in coming that even Rembrandt did not quite grasp it. He was however, so very skillfull in observing and capturing colors in the light, those occuring in his shadows were never an issue.

The difficulty with light as the absolute determining factor in all aspects of seeing, was that it went against the traditional commen sense notion that people and objects simply "look like what they are" and that they exist out there in an invisible space called air. Its rather like the joke in semantics - the one about the day adam and even decided to give names to all the different types of animals in paradise. The first to be named was a large, sleek, four-legged creature. Even took one look and suggested they call it a horse, when adam asked why the name horse, even said "because it looks like one"

I guess my point is that assumptions and unexamined traditional thought can easily provoke resistance to brilliant new ideas. Artists were certainly aware of light, but judging from their paintings, light to them served only as a source of illumination and did not affect the actual appearance of and object. In their minds a horse still looked like a horse regardless of the direction, intensity or color of the light upon it. Well, it was hard to argue against ignorant (and risky, as galileo found out)

>>16625955
Do you go to to the hospital every time you cut yourself? No? Then what the fuck are you talking about a scrape could kill you

>>16625975
the die-hard traditionalist of the day must have been appalled at the very thought of chiaroscuro. Afterall the new idea threatened the preeminence, not to mention the validity, of what was unquestionably great art (theirs). THeir standard way of doing things had always worked well for everyone, and also paid the bills. Caravaggios introduction of light rather than form as the primary ingredient in the visual field must have shaken the art world as much as Einsteins theory of relativity shook the world of physics. Why? because it was a great deal more than merely a threat to the status quo.

one problem in those days was the difficulty of understanding light and the perception of it. As we know, people tend to fear and put down what they do not understand. Valid scientific knowledge, not only of the nature oflight, but also of human vision (how we see), was simply not available then. Naturally, theories abounded. Some were misguided, others came close, but non were quite satisfying and so the mystery lingered.
anyways I cant copy paste from my book (obviously) so if you want to read more, its 'Alla Prima II'

>>16625983
anti biotics you fucking mong

>>16625872
What I'm saying is, it's largely the result of the renaissance

>>16625106


LA HUMANIDAD CULMINÓ EN LA ÉPOCA BARROCA CON LA CIVILIZACIÓN HISPANOCATÓLICA.

>>16625362
Not him, but that's how it's written in my language. Maybe the same applies to him and his mind slipped.

>>16626031
I enjoyed reading this series of posts, thank you

>>16625689
lmao

>>16625190
Rapidly, I'd say.

>>16625499
Childless middle aged woman (approaching menopause) with progressive joint disease

>>16625106
What are you talking about vro, we have the Constitution. That's what seperates liberty and democracy from muslims and muslim democracies.

I wasn't alive before the information age, so I can't really say with authority, but it feels to me like the rise of computers at the forefront of society has irrevocably altered the way that humans socialize and interact. Like all of the authenticity of living has been stripped away.

Before, the big issue between human socialization was the most fundamental gap between two people: you cannot be the same person. No matter how close you are, there is always an element of irreducible uncertainty. The nature of this divide is a product of the human condition, not the surroundings around it. Coming to terms with this is part of what it means to be human.

Yet, with the information age, humans are so focused now on maintaining an image, to such an inflated degree that it's degrading social relationships. So much ostentation in our society, and so little real connection anymore. Social media, rapid communication, and the ever-growing culture of consumerism is destroying the way humans interact, at least in the western world.

My two cents.

>>16627895
>tweens prefer their phones to Rembrandt
THE DECLINE IS REAL

>>16625327
It's the subjective in the same way people eat shit and enjoy it makes food subjective.

>>16625106
Humanity peaked in the reign of Augustus.

>>16625874
Required reading.

>>16625106
There's a passage in the Arthurian mythos in which King Arthur and Lancelot reflect on the fact that their kingdom, their life's work, is doomed. Arthur decides that rather than mourn the certain fall and the coming dark ages, he and his knights would create such a light that those on the other side of the dark ages would be able to feel it.

ITT, anons have mentioned the Renaissance and early modern times, and for good reason. They were the beginning of the time of light, and we live in the dusk of this golden era. It is our duty to create such art and literature, that when the coming dark arrives, those on the other side will bask in our glow.

>>16625106
>machines can produce copies of this sculpture endlessly but this is proof humanity is in decline

>>16626040
You take antibiotics every time you cut yourself?

>>16627895
>>16628104

Actually tweens are made to do an assignment about the Rembrandt using their phones.
Whether that's a didactically good idea is another question, but to give the impression that the kids have no interest in the painting and are instead playing with their phones is a dishonest one.

>>16628976
Not true but they might be able to produce simulacra which I guess is your favourite thing

>>16629050
>simulacra which I guess is your favourite thing

What do you think art is bro

humanity peaked in the 1980s with the release of the modern scots new testament.

>>16628981
Good god youre retarded

>>16628906
So you don’t understand what I said?

>>16625396
Jesus christ you're an embarassment, a walking breathing and somehow literate embarassment.

>>16625691
>As a species? No
Yes. Modern medicine has actually allowed genetic defects to build up in the genome which would have in the past been removed from the gene pool. You might object to this by saying these don't matter if we can treat the diseases they cause, but they do matter when they compound in individuals.
We also lost the selection pressures which favour intelligence. This is a big part of why Asian IQ is higher than white IQ on average; it's not that Asians are inherently smarter, it's that western nations are no longer selecting for intelligence or boosting their nutrition, and the stupid have been outbreeding the smart for long enough for this to have a real impact. In the future, you're going to see the average IQ of Asian countries like Japan and China decline relative to other nations if this continues.
tldr we are actually degrading genetically.

>>16625106
That is a bit optimistic anon. Humanity is in downfall since 23rd BC after Sargon of Akkad has invaded Sumeria.

>>16625106
Spengler argued that for Faustian culture, Western Europe since about 900 AD, it has been declining since Mozart.

>>16630779
75 posts in until the right answer.

>>16626351
mi ancestros :)

>>16626040
histrionically illiterate retard you used alcohol to cleanse wounds

>>16625106
It's bad. Philosophy has regressed to gay nihilism and whether or not you can be born with a penis but think you have a vagina.

>>16625327
shut up you dumb cunt, no one wants you here. fuck you

The reason it feels like it has peaked and is in decline is the same reason why every human generation thinks that same thing. Everything we have and everything that IS springs from the ideas of the past. So when new things take that form somewhere else, all.we can do is compare to the past and the familiar always feels better.

>>16625106
Subhumanism reduced all humans to be mere bureaucratic units, including leaders. Aside from a few meme ones, they're all a big load of nothing.

>>16625233
Public education is hell on earth.

>>16636088
They’ve designed it to be that way
They’re trying to crush the unions

>>16636091
They're selecting the future of humanity to be basedboys etc. and as such, made themselves a dysgenic machine.
>I don't want a nation of thinkers, I want a nation of workers
Subhumanism.

>>16630779
This seems to be largely true, but then why is eugenics so much hated by everyone? Isn't it better to have the future generations be biologically better?

>>16626351
Amén

>>16625106
>>16625698
It's called white culture.

Since the 19th century Zionist movements have been infiltrating Western countries and academia hence what is promoted as 'art' these days.

>>16626351
Esto

>>16636403
Even if it were not for subversion we would have seen a decline.
It is the nature of civilisation, and with the removal of high child mortality due to the industrial revolution we have seen a progressive worsening in the quality of the people.
There are still greats, but they are not as good as the greats of past ages nor are then in similar quantities.

>>16636104
Why are you arguing with it instead of filtering namefags?

>>16625106
>Has humanity already peaked? it seems we've been in decline since the 1700s
Can you fucking die you pol scum
>Modern world waaah waaah
You can't do anything? You're unhappy? YOU are the problem. YOU are the failure.
Now quit your constant fucking spam

>>16625955
>Its a people conflate technological sophistation and cultural output episode

>>16625106
In the cultural sphere, yes. It has been downhill for a while.
In other spheres, not really.

>>16636543
He’s agreeing

>>16625846
>Throughout the past century and even today and astonishing number of otherwise intelligent people in the field of art education seriously believe and teach that learning the technical essentials of painting will inhibit an artist's creativity
i went to art school and this couldn't be farther from the truth

>>16630779
and here's the guy that thinks evolution has a goal and that goal is efficient & capable office administrators

>>16636114
>"you can't have children ever. why? because i'm an expert and i say so. now excuse me while i go have some children"
that's why

>>16625106
>Has humanity already peaked? it seems we've been in decline since the 1700s
Humanity peaked in hunter gatherer societies. Since the invention of agriculture "we" are in decline.

When humans stopped fucking other people's wounds is when we went on the decline.

>>16637687
True.

>>16625396

I wondered how long will it take for conservatives to abandon all concept of proof or scientific evidence. I figured since they are objectively wrong on every wedge issue, that non-anecdotal proof will become a "reddit" thing.

>>16638547
You got a source on that, bro?

>>16625396
thing is you do actually need a source or something called evidence. if you don't have that then you've got literally nothing. no one can refute this.

Anon. 2020. Source? 4chan /lit/ literature board. >>16625396

>>16636403
no its not. its just the permanant and unchanging cyclical nature of all civilisations. they come and go. there are good times and bad times. yes 'race' (peoples) can play a huge factor and it most certainly has done in Europe. we would be different and most likely better if things were different. but we'd still be on the downward spiral regardless. our freedoms would still be disappearing into the future like they have done to other populations throughout history time and time again. but this time it would be worse due to the advanced technology and industry at hand. like I said before the future will be bad, then good, then bad, then good again, then bad again, and so on.

>>16629050
>it only counts if a human fucking does it by hand
Did he use tools? Well then he's a fucking simulacra making pleb. REAL chads don't use tools and just find things that look like the thing they want already and say it is.

Why do you think one of the earliest man made objects is a fucking dildo?

>>16625106
fucking coward, afraid of a little existential crisis, whether you like it or not the HUMANITY TRAIN has no brakes

>>16638648
How is anything he talking about resulting to an existential crisis? Humanity has an eventual ending, whether you like it or not.

>>16637687
This really. Bigger brains, fit, varied diet, adapted to the environment.

>>16626351
Amén

>>16625432
I know this'll will be ironic but: sources on that pic? Are the dreaming quotes Derrida?

>>16625327
There is no such thing as subjectivity. I cant believe this board is full of such metnal midgets.

It's metal. I'm serious.
It's metal.
All of us are suffering from acute metal poisoning from our constant contact with and ingestion of metallic compounds.
Metal has anti-pneumatic properties; it shuts off your mind from your soul leaving you a husk.

>>16625640
>he thinks a piano virtuoso interpreting Chopin is devoid of creativity, just technical

>>16639533
i've been thinking about this lately

i keep reading about "demineralization" by R/O and steam distilled water and i wonder if there's merit to it removing these metals.

I'm not all 5G memer, but I kind of feel it from frequencies as well, especially large cheap televisions

>>16625691
>As a species? No
Not as a species, but USA, UK, and Canada are spiraling down thanks to multiculturalism, counter culture movements (thanks to drugs), and educational manipulated by politics (Egyptians were black, Common core math, etc.)
Compare books, movies, and television of the 1950s to now. Hell, compare textbooks from then to now.

>>16625396

When you lack proof so much, you OD on copium and start rejecting the necessity of proof

>>16639566

these are the niggas making angry posts about STEMfag bugmen

>>16639555
it literally is though. look at the chinese. they're greating at following formula, recipe, and sheet music. but terrible at creation.

>>16625178
>>16625106
>decline
Why do undergrad think the one thing they learned is the only good thing ever? The best literature and music ever was produced in the 1920s, what the fuck are you guys talking about? Read more, look around more, there's plenty of amazingly creative stuff in all arts going on, even right now. You're just uncultured people who started studying the day before yesterday

>>16639533
edta chelation therapy?

>>16625640
He never said anything about technical skills you retarded midwit
>literature in the last 100 years has been breathtaking
This is true and everything you add just proves you have not read anything relevant in the last century. You have not read enough books to sustain this discussion or support your claim, so go do that

>>16625327
Leave.

>>16625106
When Bach died the Baroque Period ended. When Wagner died Art ended.

>>16639533
Based and schizopilled

>>16639714
Petronius made fun of people like you centuries before Bach of Wagner was born. Thinking like this is the sign of an unculterred soul.

>>16625106
Not the 1700s, the 20th century is at fault.

>>16639736
Keep living in denial, faggot. Artists have no place in society anymore thus art is dead

>>16626351
Go back to /int/ (please)

>>16638603
Keep regurgitating jewish lies about how it's all natural. Jews control the US this undeniable, look at the 3rd Reich to see what direction a nation would have been going in without Jewish control.

>>16625106
Swings and roundabouts

>>16625178
That's rough. Are you studying art practice?

>>16625345
This.

>>16630779
this has happened on a smaller scale throughout europe. The british are a particularity favorite example of mine. Cicero would call them the stupidest people he ever met while they would go on to conquer the world and contribute heavily to the material sciences and general well being of the world. Now they are now in decline. My question is, what will be made in the ruins of troy? In the ruins of the roman empire.

>>16625345
based

>>16625327
subjective categories are subjective

>>16625396
Based.

Food, water, bedding, material, calm, air, transportation, time, health and much more are within arms reach for many. Where there was once a void of art and a dwindling of spirit, people arose to fill it. Now the world is steeped in the artistic ether. There is no decline. The apex is upon us and there are unglimpsed vistas of art that is entirely unlike the world that we have known. If you are still fooling with the decline narrative then just wait until you are struck upside the head with the 'meaning' narritive. Thou shalt gush thine stool out thine eyeholes. Now go pick up some fucking tools and make some fucking art, you goddamn idiot.

>>16642389
People were more healthy then, and food was only a shortage at certain times like famines.

>>16642418
People die less now and they die older. People have access to lifetime supplies of food if they calculate and plan. Atop that we also have the genetic, habitual, and scientific gifts of eras that adapted to sicknesses which no longer ravage us.

>>16625106
Protestants ruined everything.

>>16625190
how does a gay man decline teen pussy

>>16642418
not everyone was royalty, you fucking retard
majority of population were peasants who had to work their ass off to stay alive

>>16642418
>People were more healthy then
>source: It was revealed to me in a dream.

There are ten times as many people on the planet today as there were yesterday. Public education is widespread. Children aren't dying of TB in childhood. We're not all living in desperate poverty. We are in an era of unprecedented growth and prosperity.

So no, I don't think humanity was peak yet. We're just getting started

>>16637687
Fucking this.

>>16625106
Stop thinking in such linear simplicities. Things can be better or worse in different times and places across varying degrees and points of comparison. You post the pieta, as if this were something you'd normally see in Michelangelo's time. What you'd regularly see is the ankle deep shit sodden streets, the anguished grimace of lepers, the heads on pikes. Everything was fine until your wife died in child-birth or you got sick and the doctor had you drink arsenic. The art and sculptures that survive are what rose above an incomprehensible sea of anguish, kept afloat by the aspirations and quiet pains of exceptional souls.