Modern art is shit

>bestselling book of 2016
>reads like fanfiction written by a crazed 13 year old fan of the series

brand loyalty. not even once.

100 years ago people on average had a wider variety of practical skills and were more self-sufficient.

You and I are actually, categorically worse than our ancestors at basically any manual task.

I did once.

But never again.

How so? I can do basically anything faster than they could. The only advantage they would have is knowledge of repairing things and machinery, but they wouldn't be able to repair many of the things we have today.

People are the exact same people from 3000 years ago. We just live longer, and have a system of government not based on who can inbreed the best.

What do you know about growing or hunting your own food?

Also OP is an ignoramus

It isn't. Every one of those media is shit if you only look on the surface, and every one has works of merit if you're willing to dig deeper.

contemporary society is still digesting the internet revolution desu

I can download a PDF of how to make a garden, drive to the store to buy supplies and soil, and have my garden ready 10x faster than some hick farmer 100 years ago

Comfy armchair

because everything but lit is much more money dependent

television/film are better than they've ever been unless you're only talking about capeshit

just look up that herzog quote about expressing through written word and so on

When art separated from science in attempting to find and express the truths of the world was when we strayed so far from God's light. Most modern (meaning current) artists are the kind of faggots who say, "oh lol I'm bad at maths teehee I hate it lmao." Compare that to the Greeks, the Romans, the artists of the Renaissance, even the fuckwits who made medieval European art, were all far greater than the average pleb-tier artcucks nowadays.
When music became accessible to untalented fucks, with electronic composition equipment becoming far easier to attain, is when good music was drowned out by the modern pop which is so saturated people can actually say if it's "a good pop song" or "a shit pop song." Yeah nah, they're all shit.
Film and television have always been easy entertainment and since it's rise to popularity coincided with 20th-21st century consumerism, it will probably never break away from being utterly superfluous.
And literature: reading never gets easier through any means other than patient practice (and by practice I don't mean rehearsal, I simply mean the act of doing it), even though websites like audible try and make it more accessible, it's creation remains as difficult or as easy as it ever was. It's much easier to ignore shit books because no one mentions them unlike postmodern art who's goal it is to "create a conversation" even if that conversation is about how it shouldn't be considered art, and shit music which gets played on the radio all the time and while anyone may hear it the vast idiot population actually listens to it and are all liek "omg this is my favrit sawung." And all that can be said for the sad miscarriage which is the film industry has been said.

Also, disclaimer: I recognise that there are still great works arising from all these mediums, but I'm just trying to roast the bad shit which has become so abundant. For instance, I'm currently watching Mad Men which has impeccable dialogue and is probably the most thematically fine-tuned show I've ever seen.

Because to consume the media you're describing it literally only takes showing up. You just sit there and consume it against your will.
Lit is kinda a pain in the ass to read, and therefore a bigger investment.

>ITT OP doesn't understand how time filters out the bad shit
>ITT OP thinks contemporary literature isn't mostly garbage

What a pleb

You dont really know what modern means because if you did and you actually disliked modern stuff you would loathe modern literature

>>modern art is shit
>>modern music is shit
>>television and film is shit
>>literature endures
>Why is this?

its all been shit since the 90s and we are living in hell

the only thing that endures is the beauty of the earth

>the only thing that endures is the beauty of the earth
hold that thought

Bad post, you know nothing and Mad Men isn't even that good

>if you hate red, orange, and yellow you must hate blue
Fuck off retard.

Yeah obviously im just pseuding. I literally woke up, got dressed and browsed some lit. Then gave the easiest answer kek. Sorry dûd. What are your thoughts?

>100 years ago people on average had a wider variety of practical skills and were more self-sufficient.

100 years ago people actually needed those skills too.

Literature (at least serious literature aka not genre fiction) tends to repel the sjw/numale/turbopleb/"art is subjective" types that shit up other mediums.

What modern literature isn't shit?

The only thing that isn't shit is music

lol what serious literature is being produced these days?

This is dumb. A relative of mine with no farming experience and moved to France a few years back. Pretty quickly was growing all his own food.

But jews rule the world and they are the masters of inbreeding. I'm confused.

That's what the lizard men want you to think

>modern literature
>not the worst off out of all of them

Empirical evidence suggests that they are much more educated now than they used to be.

less white people prove me wrong

Stop saying modern when you mean contemporary

youtube.com/watch?v=CROmsSyVVF4

The same as it has ever been. Look at bestsellers of any year before 1950, chances are that unless its called Gone with the Wind, you probably havent heard of it, or you know 10 books that were better in the same year.

Because it's harder to remake, reboot, or remix a novel.

What did my ancestors know about growing or hunting their own food? My great-great grandfathers were variously pub-owners or millionaires.

>I much prefer classic literature, and being told what is good and what isnt. I dont read contemporary literature, subscribe to literature journals, or take the plunge on interesting new works coming out around the world. I am not only intellectually lazy, but a coward as well. Contemporary Veeky Forums is shit. Trust me.

I've een looking at publishers weekly bestsellers from the 19th century, and it is always fucking garbage. Great literature isnt discovered until time has tested it.

Then it's just good sense to wait.

You're right btw. People have no idea what was popular back then. They just cite Dickens' publication in serials, forgetting the huge swamp of shit that people read.

Fair, but nearly all 'literature' being produced these days seems to be YA... The day that YA becomes classic literature, just kill me

You didn't even read his post.

It won't become classic literature. Are three-volume novels "classic literature"? They were all the rage, 130 years ago.

The best of YA will be seen similarly to Walter Scott. That's being "hopeful".

Whats the fun in waiting. Melville wasnt rediscovered until the 1920s. How lucky was the guy who read it the year of his death. And look at Stoner, which is only popular now because some Dutch newspaper guys thought, hey this is a fucking great sentimental novel. I dont want to miss out on a great book just because I die at 87, a year before the New New York Times reviews the great american novel that I could have read, maybe, this year.

see Last 15 years, and I suspect there are plenty to add as the actual reading part of Veeky Forums continues to explore new things. I will agree with you in regards to actual American Veeky Forums, which right now is obsessed with Coates and Zadie Smith and the like.

>Whats the fun in waiting
Bitch I have enough to read without wading through wastes of shit to find a few decent works. I'm fine with reading the actual Melville. There's no need for me to look for the modern version; I'll let others do that.

>everything modern is shit because I'm a lazy fuck who only knows the mainstream trash

ok

hey! the double!

Imagine doing a thesis on popular 19th century literature?

I dont know how old you are, but I'm in my mid thirties. I make no claim to wisdom or reason, but ive been reading books im "supposed" to read for the last 25 years. There are only so many moby dicks and catch 22s and lovecrafts and ulysses. This week in the NYRB, Coatzee suggested Zama by Di Benedetto as a masterwork of South American realist lit. Say no more, sounds like something I can dig my teeth into that has merit.

Fuck pressed submit too fast.

Anyways, I'd rather read that than some fragments of Justin Martyr or Sorokin's Ice Trilogy that I probably "should" be reading.

>reading bestsellers

18, of course. This is Veeky Forums.

There's a lot of good literature. I don't think I'll run out of it, nor that you have, either. If I do, sure, I'm not going to just wallow in nothing. But it won't happen. Our immortal memelord Bloom based his entire life's work on the assumption we can't read enough of the good stuff before shuffling off.

Reminder that the same authorities telling you to read melville agree almost to a "man" that Beloved is the novel of the century.

>c-contemporary literature is just as good as classic literature!
There's literally nothing wrong with deeply reading the classics, they're classics for a reason. And yes, literature was always bad, and no, contemporary literature actually is especially shitty.

"The honest critic must be content to find a very little contemporary work worth serious attention; but he must be ready to recognize that little..." - Ezra Pound

"Classic" Veeky Forums has an enormous benefit of having been run through a massive sieve. The diamonds remain at the top.

Those of us who read in contemporary Veeky Forums are digging through the sand for diamonds. Dismissing contemporary literature out of hand is a massive error.

But modern music is leagues ahead modern lit still. No more greeks, no more latin, no more philosophy being taught to students forcibly, quality shit isn't going to be created from the void left there.

The "authorities", such as they exist, aren't forcing me to read Melville. If I decide he's shit I'll stop reading him, or get butthurt enough to shitpost about him on Veeky Forums. I'd imagine this is this board's general recourse.

In any case, they don't.

Is most of what you read good? If there were any great writers now, they'd be at the forefront. And literature is 99% shit, that's not dismissive, it's a fact. And it's not like you'd even be able to judge a book accurately without a deep education in the classics.

No, he's right. Modern literature is generally worse than any other. More of it's being written, and by proportionally more people, so more shit gets shat -- and you do not usually get good lit from the sorts of people who have been introduced to writing.

It's what happens when you abortively educate everyone in, say, literacy, but not in the humanities. Not that that's in any way a bad thing. You'd have to be autistic and retarded to think statistically worsened literature is bad enough to halt education over.

99% of everything is shit.

Modern music is objectively shit. I seriously hope you're not an indiefag or a normie who "turns up" to "sick beats".

He probably listens to lo-fi. It's when you loop a simple beat but it's patrish because now it's all crackly.

>literature was just as shit in the Elizabethan era
>literature was just as shit in the late Middle Ages
>literature was just as shit in the early 20th century
Art can degenerate.

>Modern music is objectively shit.

How much time did you spent exactly to look for actual good music that's not the first hit on Google?
You sound like the retarded muh wrong generation faggots who only listen to radio.

Not most. But if I read 50-70 books a year, and find 3-4 GOAT gems, thats good enough for me. I also read a lot of NYRB/Dalkney type stuff which is a filter of sorts and non-fiction , and 19th century sentimentalist stuff, so I dont want to pretend like I read exclusively in contemporary Veeky Forums. I also need to "hear" about a book somewhere in a reputable publication or recommended here or in international book awards (not Nobel which demonstrated its irrelevance this year or Man Booker, which has become post-structural racialist bullhorn) or whatever, so thats also a filter.

Why is pop a bad genre?

>wow just wow why don't you want to search for obscure, patrician good music on TMT and Pitchfork? I really like this new ambient album, it sounds like all the others but it's experimental for some reason

Mystery plays were shit.

Morality plays were shit.

Pulp was shit.

You were saying something about degeneration?

>NYRB/Dalkey type stuff
Stopped reading there. You are tasteless.

Yeah, and? Marlowe and Shakespeare reacted against those trends. Golden ages exist, retard.

Thanks for telling all of us. It's really useful for us lurkers to know when somebody has stopped reading part of a post.

>i only know about the works that actually survived the test of time therefore that represents all the works produced in that era

>yeah I know 99% of this era was shit but what about the 1% did you ever think of that?

Please show us your superior taste in a trend chart. No doubt it will be an obscure philosophical tract or typical Veeky Forums fare. I am sure you will make sure to stuff in the Dubliners and American Psycho

Because you have a surface level understanding of the non Veeky Forums things you're talking about and you're working backwards from a conclusion at that.

>literature was as swamped with shit in an era when there wasn't 7 billion people on the planet
Just admit it. Reinassance painting is better than contemporary painting and Elizabethan drama is better than modern drama. If there was a writer on par with Shakespeare in the 21st century we'd know about him. Art DOES NOT stay at the same quality at all times. Some ages are better than others.
>literature was always bad!
No it wasn't.
Epic

Classical is practically dead, dead in a ditch and held up for all to see by repetitive conductors who do their best to cherish the artform they love. No I've been listening to schubert lately as well as neil young, there's not even a point in bringing up classical music though, might as well do jazz instead.

Popular music still has a tradition that only goes back 100 years so everyone even if the lyricism is dead still feeds off earlier artists and keeps some semblance of music alive. Give it up faggot.

>nuh-uh
>nuh-uh
>nuh-uh
nuh-uh

>classical is dead
Only because there aren't any good composers due to the decline of musical education and the rise of consumerism.

>there are people on Veeky Forums who actually believe this

holy shit i thought this board wasn't fucking retarded

>golden ages don't exist
>muh test of time

>duuude man, classical just doesn't reflect the soul of contemporary culture, it's irrelevant, get with the times gramps

>grumpy idiots act like their retarded granddad saying everything was better in the old times

Just kys faggots.

>the world wasn't better in the Classical era, what are you some kind of pleb
>*dies of plauge*
>t. faggot from the Middle Ages

>>grumpy idiots act like their retarded granddad saying everything was better in the old times
/thread

>the world wasn't better in the Classical era, what are you some kind of pleb
>*dies of plauge* (SIC)
>goes to heaven due to the saving power of Christ

FTFY

>implying culture wasn't literally better

This is literally the golden age of TV.
The stories are more adventurous than ever and there is tons of good quality shit out there

Wrong. TV is too young and inflexible a medium right now. The best TV show can't even compete with the best novel or symphony, but it will be able to when the medium has matured.

>modern criticism is shit

this

>Modern film/tv is shit
what is Paolo Sorrentino?