Did anything significant come out in the 21st century yet? Not just in literature, but art in general?

>You know how after too much of a certain genre, there comes a parody that perverts it and then it's done with it and something new comes about? yeah I don't think that would work today, even parody isn't what it's supposed to be
yeah, i don't think these new "readers" understand irony
the literature they consume is totally "cinematic"

yeah but 21st century doesn't begin until 2002 really

>Is pure literary writing at all possible? I'd say no, because if it were, poetry would still be alive.

Poetry is still very popular in China even though it's much less religious than the West.

Pretty much anything by Danielewski tbqh famalam. House of Leaves will go down as the novel that ushered in the 21sr century literature. Also, if he accomplishes what he's trying to with The Familiar (completes all 27 volumes), it'll certainly be the In Search of Lost Time of our century.

In addition to him, I'd say Egan is a really great writer. Goon squad may never get canon, but it'll be seen as an important work showcasing the stride away from PoMo

My memoir will be the next great literary work
It will be to the Iliad what Ulysses is to the odyssey
And it will be to the 2020s what Ulysses was to the 1920s

>implying that House of Leaves is good and deserves to be remembered.

>implying that House of Leaves isn't the literary equivalent of Warped Tour metalcore

It causes me legitimate mental anguish knowing I'll never in all my life create anything as impactful or important or beautiful as even a single sentence of IJ. Does anyone else know this feel?

Not I. I've already written a work which has helped people get laid, sent people to jail, exposed the semi-literate to the joys of attempting poetry, and caused at least one marriage.

The Bibel?

man I don't know how anyone can defend the "test of time" as a valid indicator of quality in our overly commercial society.

Even now the narrative of the arts is little more than a best guess.

Can someone elaborate further exactly how ""capitalism"" (compared to feudalism/monarchism/etc.) has affected the supply and demand of art/culture in regards to an artist's personal motivations for the creation of art (greed, success, virtue, etc.)?

How was it any more different 300 years back ,and further, into the past? I get the fact that many of the individuals we prescribe as our historic creators of "high art" were somewhat allocated to the higher classes and thus they had the means to actually use their time less effectively (as in ways of simply surviving) compared to those less affluent than them (farmers, knights, servants, etc.). Haven't artists all throughout history been at least somewhat driven by economic gain? What piece to the puzzle am I missing?

DELET DIS

People made godless art since the 19th century. Your timing is off.

>The only thing that is holy today is the internet and maybe science.

Eugh.

>Is pure literary writing at all possible? I'd say no, because if it were, poetry would still be alive.

Yuck.

I'm pretty sure most of the fiction that'll be considered historically significant in the decades and centuries to come is stuff that the digital age made possible for the first time in history.

Other than that, there's some weaaboo trash that has actual literary merit imo. Umineko is way too, for lack of a better word, anime, in its presentation to be taken seriously by most of Veeky Forums, but it's a magnificent new step for meta fiction for sure.

>ITT
“There are terrible people who, instead of solving a problem, bungle it and make it more difficult for all who come after. Whoever can't hit the nail on the head should, please, not hit at all.”

hes bitching about capitalism but he means consumerism and popular culture. he fails to realize that the common folk always settle for the common denominator

Very briefly, higher classes were patrons not artists. Artists were craftsmen and businessmen, paid to create works that the patrons would like. Artists offered a service. This changed later with the status of art/artists and Academies trained artists instead of workshops (though some guilds still made art) but still art was not really for the public.

The onset of capitalism gave rise to the middle-classes, and the middle-classes (in an effort to increase their own power and position since they had the wealth) began to invest in art, thus changing the taste of art produced.

Dutch art was probably the first, since it was capitalist and not catholic they seemed to favour art deemed lower on the 'hierarchy of genres' that one would find in the Academies. In the 18th century, France also got a taste for genre scenes, etc.

Changing technology and distribution over the following centuries (as capitalism advanced) allowed low-cost art to be made for a public with disposable income to invest where they liked.

Some artists like engravers, printmakers, etc. relied more on income to fund their art but generally it has been a high class, educated pursuit. The difference now is that the materials and tastes have changed due to capitalism.

Capitalism has destroyed the Western society. By destroyed I mean atomized - the whole world revolves around the individual now. The society is our context - there is no individual without the collective - and if our context is shattered, then we cannot find any meaning in it. Just take a look at the state of contemporary art: there is no "mainstream" style in any branch of it. Just like the contemporary society, contemporary art is shattered into pieces and devoid of any meaning

kinda true though. i mean there are good poets but outside academia no one cares (like pare exemple Larry Levis)

The 20th century saw the final degeneration of culture. Prior to this point, innovation in art consisted in the creation of new structures i.e. stylistic norms and conventions, within the sphere of which further innovation could be achieved through subtle mutation of and exploration within these structures. The 20th century begot a different kind of innovation that had been going on for much longer but saw its culmination in the modern era. This consisted not in the creation of new structures but rather the complete dismantling and abolition of any kind of structure – see: serialism in music, complete abstraction in visual art, postmodernism in literature etc. This movement was underpinned by the advent of Marxism in political theory, which effected or at least occurred parallel to this degeneration in the arts, itself a product of cultural Marxism. The 21st century leaves us stranded in this "anything goes" mindset, where it is no longer possible to truly innovate, since it is no longer possible to distort the structure of an already structureless artistic world, and any attempt to return structure to art ends up feeling like a weak attempt to imitate the greats of the past.

There will never again be any truly great work of art that stands the test of time and is remembered alongside the likes of Dante, Shakespeare, Beethoven etc. We are living in a post-cultural era.

The old methods of distribution have either been phased out or altered beyond recognition because of how the internet works. Publishing houses, newspapers, film studios, record companies etc. acted in some ways as arbiters of taste but also provided some semblance of quality control, because their product reached out to so many people. There may very well be a group of musicians better at playing and songwriting than The Beatles are somewhere on bandcamp, but because of the way the distribution model now works you can never have a band as culturally influential as the Beatles. Because of the atomization and amateurization of different art/entertainment media it becomes more and more difficult to produce signifcant (in terms of cultural impact) work.

I wish I was alive when Guggenheim's printing press was newly effecting the monastery hand-printed book system. You would fit right in.

>tfw I'm okay with this.
>wtf I want a Dr. Skipper now.

Nope. We're in decline.

>No pic of Robots on Mars
>No pic of Burj Kalifa
>No Pic of people using Facetime
You really can't see the forest for the trees, can you?

Don't want to derail the thread but none of those were made my women

Don't want to derail this thread, but listen to this, it'll really make you think.
youtube.com/watch?v=juTeHsKPWhY

Dr. William Luther "it's the kikes" Pierce agrees.

>implying any of those things are valuable rather than simply novel.

Are you me?

>Moby Dick didn't become Veeky Forums until well after Hermey's life.
this.

I'm sure there's a book that's already out that people think are meh that in a centenary's time will be a classic

you are gay. you fell for the /mu/ meme of pleb/ patrician. honestly, just listen to classics and youll never be dissatisfied.

>Has anything significant come out of the 21st century yet
Only time will tell

>Art came from religion
Incorrect.

>Music was supposed to evoke rain
People enjoyed and constructed rhythm before they arbitrarily connected it to the weather

>Few people know what it really means to be religious
>The only thing holy today
>Pure literary writing
>Music isn't poetry
Stop drawing ridiculous dichotomies of the world around you.

But justin beiber and twilight will be forgotten about in 50 years and ulysses still won't. Staying power comes from influencing the next generations.

Your mentioning religion reminds me of this old post:

>I think it's worth saying that the great poets and prose stylists of the past were raised in a very different context from us post-moderns.Think about the painters of old. They devoted literally unimaginable amounts of time to perfecting their craft, engaged in the study of light, of angle, of colour. Their motivations for doing so were a devotion to the craft that we, by our historic skepticism, are locked out of experiencing: namely, they believed that what they were doing was in some way divine or divinely inspired. Now take modern artists; I am not a luddite or a traditionalist; I am not going to discard the fine art of the 20th century, since very much of it is just as good as the art of the past, in terms of content.
>But I think it's at the least very clear that these artists are not nearly as devoted to developing their technique as their predecessors.
>The reasons for this are societal. People in post-aristocratic society simply do not have the time or resources to truly devote themselves to a craft. The same applies to poets and prose writers; this is a sad fact of modern life.
>You at this moment are thinking of prose stylists who are exceptions, those who both come from non-aristocratic backgrounds and are patron-less. You are thinking of Joyce (though he had a patron), or you are thinking of Nabakov (he does not compare with the older craftsmen, and his background is indeed noble).
>Or maybe like O.P. you are thinking of Melville. And now, you are onto something. For Melville alone comes from humble beginnings, is patron-less, does not discover the classics until a late age (like all of us), yet is a towering prose artist, who we might expect had studied the ancients from a young age and learned their lessons in his youth, so perfectly does his prose smack of classical dignity and care.
>The secret is this: Melville picked one mentor, and poured so much devotion and ego-less love into learning the lessons of this mentor, that he, alone, of modern artists made up for his historic disadvantage. This mentor, of course, was Shakespeare.
>So my advice to you is this: if you desire to be like Melville, then find one poet, not a group, not a movement, but a single great poet, and study them, not coldly, not as a cerebral lemon-squeezer, but intimately and passionately, with time coming to know them as if they were more alive than any living soul you've met. Love them unconditionally; for you, this poet shall have no flaws, no short-comings; they will be everything to you.
>Whether you choose Dante, Virgil, Blake, know that what you do is not done out of envy or for the sake of your won gain, but nothing less than an act of worship. These are the greatest minds; they are inhuman in their capabilities.
>And maybe someday, someone will find your work, and fall upon it with this same burning devotion, and you in turn will become the mentor and the kindler of some future flame.

>Cinema
>rather unimaginative for the last 15 years
Lmao, go watch anything thats not from hollywood.

muh degeneration
muh anti-Catholicism

such an intellectually outdated, boring and irrelevant criticism.

>art came from religion

It's the other way around. Religion came from art people took too seriously.

Agapē Agape was posthumously released in the 21st century even though Gaddis wrote it in the late 90s close to when he died.

I was talking about the art that comes out today. Hopefully the established canon will remain safe, (though it's already under fire from intellectually dishonest postmodernists) but today's artistic climate is so irrevocably warped that there's every chance overly didactic trash will go on to be remembered. i mean Beyonce lyrics are taught in english literature classes for fuck's sake.

No, the Dutch were anti-catholic. I was just stating a cultural attitude toward art during the Dutch Golden Age.

Also I said nothing of degeneration.

This is a good post.

If your work is read by anyone at all (it won't) you will just be remembered as a second rate Joyce, if they are generous.

>Guggenheim

Gutenberg, kiddo

Therefore it was not produced in the 21st century, you retard. What was even the point of your idiotic post?

Richard Yates

harold bloom (pbuh) doesnt think so

I think Taipei is better

The Sopranos is an artistic masterpiece

Certainly One Punch Man

There's been some very good film and music in the 21st century so far, it's just accessible because of the quantity being produced. There's some amazing documentaries currently being made, maybe they'll capture something that will be lost in future?

I can't think of any literature or visual art off the top of my head that I think will go down as classic. I think they often take time and historical perspective to fully appreciate. Caravaggio's influence wasn't appreciated until well after his death.

*less accessible

Thanks for this optimistic post

I didn't like it because I didn't understand it. Seemed like pseudo garbage.

>i don't think these new "readers" understand irony

This is why New Sincerity is a thing.

Sam Hyde get out

tao lin and alt lit i guess
there's been some decent philosophy
don delillo and thomas pynchon keep em coming
i mean sure yeah literature is dead to me, personally
but literature will probably never die
just continue growing more peripheral to spectacle of personality surrounding writers
writers becoming huge fakes who just pretend to be writers and get fucked up and write total bullshit because they're just dumb rich kids
but hey isn't that what literature is really about? social stats

i don't know
i love philosophy
but fuck fiction

also poetry is completely dead

Brandom keeps pumping out work like a God. Nicholas Rescher still publishes line 2-3 books a year. Michael Thompson will soon be recognized as the heir to Anscombe and a downright genius in his own right.

All is good in Pittsburgh w/r/t philosophy.

facepalm.zip

I kind of buy into the theory that we are still living in what will be known as the "Post 9/11" Era. The world is still getting over it and our art reflects that. Capitalist-Democracy is not yet the only system/dominant force (it looked like it would be after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Look at the art that came out in the 90s.
Eventually there will be a movement/event that will shift society's thinking and there will be new great/classic art again. It comes in waves.

Even though people like Pynchon, DeLillo, McCarthy, etc. are considered the peak of American writing they may well fall out of fashion and relevance in the next thirty years or so.

Compare with someone like Sherwood Anderson or William Gaddis. These aren't unknowns, but they're fantastic writers and hardly at the forefront of literary conscience.