/lit/ - Literature

>>17401352

All of the arts are suffering from this. Art has become a commodity to be sold, which means it has to appeal to the average braindead retard instead of an educated aristocratic class like it always had been until the 20th century.

>>17401371
"muh capidalism" he grow up faggot.
the reason you perceive there to be no great art is because you are a pleb and don't actually want to look for it, you want to be force fed someone else's opinion and make no critical decision on what is good and what is bad.
fucking kys

>All contemporary books are written for entertainment

You can do better anon

>>17401410
>Muh capitalism
Where did i mention capitalism, you retarded cockmonger? Nietzsche talks about the same thing, he despised mass culture and thought an aristocratic class was necessary to dictate which values are good and to lead society forward. The only difference is the reversal of values has been accelerated and taken to an extreme into present times.

>>17401410
You shouldn't have to look for it.
>>17401352
There can be no great art until people figure out what's going on in the world. Our position is much like 1700s Germany: we can't produce world art until we figure out our place in the world order, philosophy essentially filled the void for them, only our situation is much worse because there is no world order.
So until people figure out what's going on in the world, and abandon the hyper-subjective "I AM HISTORY" bullshit there will never be good art.

Look at the effort threads if you want to figure out what's going on.

>>17401554
>You shouldn't have to look for it
Why not?

>>17401582
Because art should be part of the culture itself, how people come together to strengthen the order and its laws. It shouldn't be hidden in back rooms, or museums which suck the last bits of life from aesthetics.

Stop reading big 5 published garbage and find independent publishing houses and you'll find great recent stuff. my personal favorite being Expat Literature

>>17401554
>"I AM HISTORY" bullshit
What do you mean?

>>17401603
Art was always hidden, except myths (which aren't art) and religious art, which was very local anyway, if you live in Florence you got a nice church, if you live in a little town in Normandy, get fucked. The art that is part of the culture you are talking of is in its most common denominator gypsies doing the same shitty play all around Europe and junglers. If you are content with it, fine, but it's basically what you can see on TV. "High art" was never popular and never strengthened anything asides from the ego of a few chosen ones, exactly the same thing it is doing today: you don't see the average wagecuck going to a Steve Reich concert.

>le born in the wrong generation retard who hasn't read any contemporary literature decides to make a thread about retarded generalizations with no substance

sage

>>17401856
>I am all that exists in history
Basically the conclusion of ultra-subjectivism.

>>17401872
What about people like Tolstoy or Goethe being able to inspire entire movements just with their writings? Do you think that was a "time and place" sort of thing?

>>17401872
You're wrong.
Read aesthetics.

>>17401371
>educated aristocratic class
lmao

>>17401352
good birb

>>17401371
>Art has become a commodity
stop repeating soundbytes ya twat. how does art being treated as a commodity prevent the production of good art? you could write a book RIGHT NOW without worrying one shred about "the market", capitalism doesn't force you to behave in an economically optimal way. the system isn't to blame, you are.

>>17401371
>Art has become a commodity to be sold,
This has been the case for literally all of human history.
>which means it has to appeal to the average braindead retard instead of an educated aristocratic class
Do you consider Verdi, Wagner, Cervantes, Shakespeare or the ancient Greek playwrights lowbrow? Because they all enjoyed great popularity within their lifetimes.
By contrast, what kind of art do our modern-day elites prop up? Anything from Ai Weiwei to Marina Abramovic to Damien Hirst. Make of that what you will.

>>17401352
have you SEEN what they have done to poetry. Unspeakable!

>>17401872
>Art was always hidden
This is such fucking bullshit I don't even know how you came up with it.

>>17401466
mfw we still have an aristocratic class that rules and leads us, only they are leading us down the road to doom instead of the apex of humanities' collective potential

>>17403189
>>17401888
If you argue in good faith and want to have a civil argument, I'd be pleased to hear why you think I'm wrong.

>>17401410
if you don't think capitalism is eating culture alive, especially 'high' culture, i'm gonna take a guess that you have never met an artist nor spent any time stewing in what one might call the "art scene" if they were an asshole. it's no longer about aesthetic value or anything of that sort. critics don't exist to make genuine criticism of art either.

critics are now hired, essentially, as a means to pump hot air into a gallery opening where the aged trust fund owner invites their rolodex of insiders they've spent their entire obnoxious life cultivating to make the show seem all that more important. this is all a means to inflate the price of a piece of art that at the end of the day could be literal dogshit. most art collectors aren't investing into the arts as a means to support work that they appreciate on any sort of aesthetic or theoretical basis. it's fucking equity with the added bonus of adding to your cultural bonefides.

fuck. of course you have to look for it. you have to scrounge the cracks in the sidewalk for it because the place you're "supposed" to find it is a big show. it's a charade! a scam!

>go to art school
>get in massive debt in order to build your credentials and justify your existence to some guy whos just a millimeter above you on the ladder
>hope they include you in a group show
>maybe someone at the group show gives you a write up
>probably going to have to make a friend who works at a small mag to get you one as a favor
>do a solo show at a shitty gallery if you're lucky
>maybe get noticed by someone with a slightly nicer gallery
>repeat this ladder climbing process until you're in your late 30s and you finally get the whole dog and pony show at which point your art is bought by a collector who probably made all his money off your loan addled ass in the first place
>now he's going to put your art in storage somewhere hoping it accrues some value
>the gallery takes a massive cut of your sale
>fuck you

>>17403231
International art movements have always been a thing. Hellenism, Romanesque, Gothic, the Renaissance, Baroque, you name it.
They were all the foremost artistic currents of their time, which would be impossible if they had been "hidden" in any way.

Besides, artists often came from humble backgrounds and their patrons could be anything from urban guilds to royalty. So the conception of the arts as a purely aristocratic domain clearly does not reflect reality.

>>17401352
A beautiful, meaningful, truly groundbreaking book could come out tomorrow and all of you would shit on it anyway. The past seems golden because it is spoonfed to you.

>>17403318
I see what you mean. When I say that it was always hidden, I mean that the common man had no idea of all these things you are talking about, and even the not-so-common man probably didn't know much more than what he was exposed to. Only a handful of people knew enough about all these things to be able to influe on them. My message was in reaction to the idea that art ever served uniting "the people to strengthen the order and its laws". There are few exceptions like epic poetry, which goal is precisely to do that, but these exceptions are too few to justify that most of art wasn't reserved to an elite cast.
>Besides, artists often came from humble backgrounds and their patrons could be anything from urban guilds to royalty. So the conception of the arts as a purely aristocratic domain clearly does not reflect reality.
Yes and no. It is true that there were always artists coming from humble backgrounds like Marin Marais. But these are more the results of coincidences than the product of a true artistic desire (hence why someone like Rimbaud fascinates so much). It's hard to find data that goes beyond the anecdotical but look at picrel. Every name which as a "d'" or a "de" is an aristocrat. Some names who haven't an aristocratic particle are still noblemen like Albert Malaspina. The whole list looks like that.

>>17401352
the democratization of the arts has produced a respectively massive amount of trash art. you will never find a new, quality book on the new york times best seller list or recommended on any popular forum. all books with the slightest breath of originality and quality control are effectively underground now, or at best hard to find

>>17403451
That's a pretty specific example. Medieval poetry might have been a predominantly aristocratic undertaking, but even then many other art forms (especially architecture and painting) were dominated by the urban middle class. Giotto, arguably the most important painter of the time, came from a dirt poor background.

>>17401410
Stfu retard

>>17401466
Hey anon
Ignore the fucktard
I think by the phenomenon your describing good art is meant to be born. It will be a rebellious work against the problems of art beeing made you described. People knowing theyre better than the mainstream crap will get frustrated and it will fuel their skills and their emphasis in their works and create something new which is great. Even if it doesnt get the recognition it deserves immediately. Where there is darknes always also is light :)

>>17402479
Low quality bait

>>17403177
Ill get us revenge anon. We dont sleep and we are many. Dont loose hope only bc all u see is retards.

>>17403318
Yes and no
1/2

>>17403651
Fuck forgot picture
2/3

>>17403660
3/3

We are in the hiatus just before the winter of our civilization. Just wait 10 years and art will be back. (Although it will be back as huge work of propaganda such as the aeneid)

>le born in the wrong generation retard who hasn't read any contemporary literature decides to make a thread about retarded generalizations with no substance

kill yourself you retard

>>17401888

>>17401371
What? Art has always been a commodity. The system of patronage has simply morphed. Rich people now set up trusts, exhibits, judging panels, and prizes instead of commissioning the art directly.

>>17403276
>go to art school
>get in massive debt
I've said it once and I'll say it again. You do not fucking attend a BFA/MFA unless you're being fully funded. Only the top schools fully fund (except the jews in NY). If you didn't get into the top schools, this isn't for you

Art is suffering because only niggers, women and kikes are allowed to get published.
Clown world is accelerating fast though and it won't be able to prevent itself from collapsing, so white men will have their rightful place on the throne restored eventually.

>>17404347
>>>/pol/

>>17404381
I'm right though. The truth hurts, I know.

>>17404391
>>>/c/
>>>/o/
>>>/p/
>>>/e/

>>17401352
literature is for degenerates. get off your high horse and smoke some crack.

>>17404340
Hard agree. Honestly it's insane to think that any 17/18 year old is expected to have the talent or understanding of their own practice to enter school for painting. Rent a studio space for like $200 a month and develop on your own until someone notices or you hit the ceiling of your own practice at which point a teacher would actually help you, and you'll have enough of a portfolio to be fully funded.

>>17404340
>>17404493
What if I am incapable of any kind of art forever? What kind of life can i possible live if im subhuman

>>17404502
You can still patronize art if you have a mind for the finer things. If you don't, maybe you're a lumpenprole, tough luck.

>>17404502
You are not
You just havent discovered either the way how to properly express yourself or the braveness to try and become good enough only bc your shit in the beginning.
Sucking at something is the first step of beeing good at something anon.

>>17401371
the problem of current art isn't the public but our way of life, art of all times have appealed to the poor and uneducated, the very purpose of religious paintings was to educated those people and interest them and I would hardly call them ugly
The problem is that the libidinal energy artist used to have and use to project their vision has been completely killed off by this ability we have to acquire everything almost immediatly we developped as a society, and without that energy creation cannot have the same soul and energy
there is still some artists that manage to replicate a similar feeling but we cannot ever hope to achieve the same level as we used to

>>17403585
Yes I agree that it is a specific take but still it covers a large period, a large area and one of the most prominent art of the period. I think we can build on our two examples. Manual crafts such as painting were for the longest times "forbidden" to noblemen (to the point that many of them were had troubles making ends meet sometimes) so obviously we're not going to find many of them in these arts. But it firstly a mean to put bread in the mouth, only a few could become artists (as we understand the word today, because let's not forget that artist also means craftsman). It's also pretty easy to see why there weren't many troubadours that were laymen since it's probable that poetry didn't pay much at the time either.
But the real question is not really who the artists were, but rather who the public was. And here I think it's fair to say that through most of our history, most arts were enjoyed by a chosen few. The problem of locality especially is really important, of aura as Walter Benjamin put it. I personally don't see it as a bad or good thing, there is a book by Daniel Arasse I believe that talks about that at length: how art partly evolved in Christendom in churches and monasteries as a mean of contemplation of the Divine grace through repetition (not really related, just thought you might find it interesting).

>>17404637
>there is a book by Daniel Arasse I believe that talks about that at length
That sounds interesting. Do you happen to remember the title?

>But the real question is not really who the artists were, but rather who the public was
Didn't troubadours perform in public, non-courtly settings too?
Also, I'm pretty sure religious art played an important role in popular religiosity. It only makes sense that, in a largely illiterate society, the Church would rely on visual means such as frescoes, reliefs and stained glasses to complement their preaching.

You're living in a mongrel nation with a dead culture. What do you expect?

>>17404502
You probably never give yourself the space for creative thought.

>>17401352
censorship happened, internet.

>>17401352
Literature is doing good, you just have shit taste and don't know where the worthwhile stuff is at.

>>17401410
this

There's plenty of great contemporary literature it's just that no one has spoonfed you a /lit/ chart of it yet.

>>17401352
Same thing that happened to music.

Time hasn't yet weeded out all the deadwood.

>>17406534
>censorship happened
you don't know much about anything do you?

Americans are incapable of producing soulful art because their collective soul has been killed and replaced with gay liberal consumption and their idols replaced by social activists.
Their vocabulary is proof of that, absolutely infantile.

If you cannot see the massive social upheaval that occured at the start of the 20th century and then again in the mid century, you are a retard. E.g. see the events of the US 'election' for evidence of a people who are incapable of decent art. Even the pulp magazines of the 20s and 30s was better than anything produced now.

>>17401410
The idea of aristocratic, high culture being produced for the patrician classes in the [current year] is a joke. The 'aristocrats' of today are hedge fund managers, 'philanthropists' and NGO founders. There is no culture there except the pursuit of wealth at all costs. The elite are the ones who teach your child to be gay in school and that you need to pay reperations.

>>17401352
What happened in the arts also happened to writing. People used to learn the fundamentals and tell original, exciting stories and now everyone's just writing complete junk

>>17408000
Baby brain take. People used to be fucking illiterate and write garbage just the same as ever. The only thing that shifted is that cheap paperbacks are considered to be better now as what would be considered the avant-garde isn't absent necessarily, but completely fucking ignored.

It's an incredibly good marketing phenomena that simply reading anything makes you smart now. The amount of retards on YouTube who offer painstaking analysis of fucking Marvel movies does wonders to convince people that what they're watching has literally any merit to it outside of being a means to see into the psyche of the average American (it's full of funko pops, power fantasies, and a desperate desire to be absolved of their guilty existence).

The same thing has happened with books, just on a subtler and mildly more depressing scale. 37 year old women who identify as a Hufflepuff running writers workshops and posting Medium articles reviewing literature for teenagers.