Why produce new things (art) when there's so much of everything already?

Why produce new things (art) when there's so much of everything already?

Other urls found in this thread:

libraryofbabel.info)
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

because people can only live by using things they know, and you can only get to know things by making them, not just by having them.

OKKKK but you didn't react to the "there's so much of everything already" bit.

Because there's joy in creating, and you can enjoy it for that sake alone, even if it's for a selfish reason, and even if no one even looks at it.

why live when there's so many people already?

of course i did. by saying people cant live by given but only by made things i implied that the things that are already there are not useful cause they re given. people have to, taking them for models, make something on their own.

people can take them as a readymade, the act of taking become the act of creating, why produce yet more 'stuff'? why not reflect on stuff already produced?

plebs don't understand there were no cellphones or facebook on the xix century etc etc etc

>the act of taking become the act of creatin

wrong. that cant be done. only by the act of conception will people get to live things, not just by mere reflection.

Cultural and scientific progress means there is constantly new innovations to be made. Your point does rightfully apply to those "writing a novel" etc, though.

The philosophy of "why": Like a child autistically asking its mother endless questions, without even paying attention to her answers, the decadent religions and the pseudo-philosophers keep asking "why" to all our plans and reasons. And why is technology better than eternal primitivism? And why is complex art better than primitive art? And why is culture better than barbarism, schools and hospitals better than savagery, expansion and discovery better than stagnation or even contraction? Ultimately, the question that sits at the bottom of all their other questions — although they never verbalize it — is "And why is continuing to breathe better than suicide?" — for if they verbalized this question the scam would become obvious, and their championing of decadence would be immediately seen for what it is.

>conception

that's what i'm saying, champ, i believe they call it conceptualism

Synthesis of the various inputs that make us who we are.

Honestly, because art is meaning. And meaning is how you don't degenerate into nihilism and self-destruction.

There's a lot of everything, but there's nobody else that has the exact same creative visions that you do.

If you have a fairly obscure interest it will be pretty easy to exhaust the supply of good literature pertaining to it.

honestly, there's so much of everything it's tempting degenerate into nihilism and self-destruction.

there's so much of everything, anything you or anyone else produces seems valueless.

Read some Walter Benjamen dude.

he has never known internet particularly internet of the past 10 years

Now that, ladies and gents, is pure ideology.

based. fuck genius. artist should be considered a worker in modern society.

ITT: People discuss postmodernism without knowing it.

Read Arteaud's "Death of an Author" - this is actually a central question of contemporary art. One of the reasons Warhol called his group "The Factory" is because it was a manifestation of the Beaudrillardian simulacra where the copy of the original becomes so good as to replace it, and he and his artists were participating in art that pointed out the reproducibility of the image. In a post-internet reality, we are essentially living in a time where original content is dead, and we are only piecing together fragments of what has come before... see The Library of Babel (libraryofbabel.info) for a literal manifestation of this concept taken from a Luis Borges story.

Why, though? Why do we still do it? Because our perceptions and experiences are all we have in these bodies. Because we recognize, somewhere deep in the kernel of self-awareness that enables our consciousness itself, that the entire universe is dependent on the interaction between speaker, audience, and message, and that while we may not be able to become all of those things at one time, we are one of those things all the time, in every moment of our lives - and very likely before and after.

>"Death of an Author"
>original content is dead
fantastic art is still being produced and there are very much authors behind those works, it's just that these days, it feels like it doesn't matter. there's too much of everything, it loses value. no one really cares. no. one. really. cares.

There are a lot of people misinterpreting OP's argument. I considered answering him with 'newness is generated through recontexualisation' which is what others are getting at but realised it is not the point. The point is that there is already so much to get through that is far beyond the capabilities of any one person that there hardly seems to be a reason to create anything new, else the pile of things to get through would go any further. I guess the solution is to consolidate what we have, which of course would mean creating newness through recontextualisation. I fuck

That's not really what DoA is about.

True. It's more about the intentional fallacy; you're right. What work was I thinking of?

>when there's so much of everything already?
but 99% of that is shit.

Op brings up an interesting dilemma that I fear many of us scoff at. The truth is that if art is to survive the 21st century then it MUST be removed from the market lenses we have grown to use. Reading John berger is a necessity now more than ever. The reality is that art as we know it will probably only produce a few more classics for consumption. That is fine. Art as a cathartic human experience never needed validation to begin with. People will always continue to create and technology will only serve to make this easier for all, if anything technology will warp art as we know it. It is necessary to embrace this warping. We can judge from the increasingly free transfer of art through technology (pirating) that art is essentially worthless in a completely free market. Art as an economy is faltering. It needs to though. If mankind decides to skirt art simply because it ceases to provide fame and fortune then we never deserved it in the first place, though I doubt that will be the case. Art will continue at an ever faster pace and through technology become free of the demands of the market, hopefully resulting in an intimate experience unlike we've ever had before.

because it's yours and i love you

Just because you don't have anything new to say doesn't mean nobody has.

Thank you poster. I will read Berger and Benjamen.

To preserve the perspective of are culture in the moment.

Because people like patterns.

Things that are like the last thing we saw but not exactly trigger brain thingy that we like.

Which is why story formulas are popular even after over a thousand years of rehashes and rewrites. Humans were meant to enjoy new things that aren't.