Did postmodernism destroy culture?
It destroyed everything
>>271224
Tbh culture doesn't exist in any first world countries anymore die to the commodification of everything unique about them by other peoples and because all new culture is rarely supported by the populis causing it to devolve into 2-5 year trends at max where as culturr is cultivated over a time ten times greater than that and lasts much longer.
>>271224
No
Firstly, no one would even call themselves a postmodernist. It's an insult.
Secondly, what people describe as postmodernism probably damaged the cause of art, but it did not "destroy" it. How could it, culture is lasting.
It had an accomplice in doing that though, which is commercialised culture, Hollywood, shitty novels, the music industry, etc.
"Culture" is a niche now.
>>271224
Give a univocal definition of postmodernism and then we can decide
>>271224
No, how can it? Its just a vague philosophical thinking that people can barely even agree on its definition.
Globalization and mass production/consumption/media is what is leading to the degregation of culture and art.
>>271224
culture never existed beforehand
>>271422
>just a bunch of black and white shapes thrown on the covers
why
>>271414
This. Exhibit A: Damien Hirst.
Yes, just look at our society.
>>271224
Postmodernism is a symptom of cultural decline, not the cause
>>271224
>destroy culture
Have there ever been industries of art and entertainment as powerful as those in the present global modern culture?
For the past century, people have chosen their own music, film, and literature. I would call it the "democritization of culture" though "commodification" is accurate as well. Even the Adult GIF board is a form of culture, though no one from a century ago would define "culture" that way.
>>274517
The key idea here being that you put art and entertainment right next to each other.
Kek.
>>275923
Theater is both.
>>275945
Are we at the peak point of theatrical art right now?
I just thought it was funny how he/you barely made a distinction between art and entertainment, like they were at the same place currently and that they were actually similar.
>>275955
Which forms of entertainment would you say are not art?
Sports, I guess
>>275985
There is a made up line about what is and isn't art.
The bestseller genre fiction novels aren't art.
The newest fast and the furious movie isn't art.
A giantess vore hentai comic isn't art.
Miley Cyrus' new album isn't art (I've listened to it, trust me).
Or alternatively, they ARE art, but they're really bad and the artist really didn't know what art was when they made it.
>>271436
Because life is meaningless on its own, we must take what it gives us and give it our own meaning.
>>276011
That's a spook though.
Any meanings we give aren't true meanings. We'd just be sidestepping reality and shoveling our ideas into a bottomless pit, expecting that one day we'll stumble on a Thing that makes sense, when really we're only convincing ourselves that it does.
Postmodernism is wrong. Life has a meaning, we just don't know what it is.
That's why all these identity politics make no sense. They're built on nothing, and philosophers who go down this path must seek greater and greater complexity in order to justify the inevitable holes that tear apart "the truth" that they've constructed. Complexity that is only a superficial recursion, a sidelong glance at a reality that they would rather ignore because they've been told that it has no meaning. Which is a falsehood.
>>276004
>it's not art because I say so
>I'm the only arbitrary of what is good art and bad art.
>>276246
>Life has a meaning, we just don't know what it is.
You're not arguing that it has a meaning by saying no one has a clue of what it is.
Of course life could have a meaning and people wouldn't know what it is but to claim that life has a meaning just like that without even arguing why is silly.
Today we listen to all the best music the world has to offer in hundreds of different genres using sounds that would never have been possible a hundred years ago. We have art forms like film, animation, and video games that were once unimaginable. There's an endless supply of great painters and sculptors. Everyone in the developed world has unlimited access to every kind of art through the internet.
Just because some museum hangs up a canvas smeared with shit on its wall or some art student shoves spaghetti up her vagina doesn't mean that art is dead.
The only art that's really declined is architecture, since unlike shitty paintings you can't just ignore it.
>>276004
>it's only art if its good
>>276348
We cannot know the meaning of life because the intention came from something outside the system. We cannot fathom the meaning in our current state because it is literally beyond anything this universe can see.
>>276393
What if the increased access to culture is exactly that which is ruining culture in the first place? What if a limited array of knowledge is exactly that which is needed to form an unique opinion without being overwhelmed by the other possibilities?
>>276339
Art is subjective.
I'm putting my subjective view as fact. Obviously people have different meanings of art, but I can dismiss those opinions as bad taste, and you'd probably agree with me.
I understand that the post I made is basically false.
>>276556
It's bad art. Art that is really really bad at some point ceases to be art, but we can't pinpoint that exact location.
>>272016
thought this was a postmodern book title for a second tbqh
>>276004
>He's doesn't like Giantess vore
>>271224
No, it only gave capitalist free reign to destroy and negate culture. Good thing reactionary tribalism will be the only thing left, since it actually existed both phisically and ideally and after post-modernism deconstructs itself, it will be unleashed.
>>276724
I call this the Terrell owens effect. Basically too much of a good thing is bad
>>271224
no, a motley band of idiots did, from the dadaists who sought to take vengeance against western society to the CIA:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html
>>278937
Oh, I do my friend. I just don't think it's real art.
I'm more of a musclefuta on male guy myself.
>>276004
>A giantess vore hentai comic isn't art
my dick says otherwise
Postmodernism was a response to the destruction of culture, you pleb.
>>278680
>Art that is really really bad at some point ceases to be art
What gives you that idea?
>>271422
I understand the two's thoughts had much to do with each other, so where does reading Sarte fit into all of this? I read Huis Clos and it really effected me, I think.
>>271224
Nah desu, it just destroyed the bourgeois fantasy that culture is a world of its own, something that exists apart from everyday life, a quasi-mystical realm.
>>276393
>Today we listen to all the best music the world has to offer in hundreds of different genres using sounds that would never have been possible a hundred years ago. We have art forms like film, animation, and video games that were once unimaginable. There's an endless supply of great painters and sculptors. Everyone in the developed world has unlimited access to every kind of art through the internet.
Nicki
Minaj
Justin
Bieber
Call
Of
Duty
>>280175
*
tips
fedora
*
No, modernism did.
>>280188
»»»/lewronggeneration/
>>280175
Fuck you, Call of Duty is fun.
>>271224
It replaced white western cultures with hot steaming garbage yeah.
>>276393
We do have access to more "good" culture than ever, but the problem is our "living" culture is more shit than it was in the past.
People with taste retrovert, and people who dont give a fuck and never progress their taste listen to bass in the form of rap and techno.
all art forms have similar ailments.
Modernism did. Post-modernism saved it.
No, but it seems like a dead-end for literature right now. I can't tell where things could go from here.
>>271414
How can the rich decide what is good art when art is inherently subjective?
>>275923
If something isn't extraordinary then it can't be considered art. Just because many people like doesn't make it less profound.
>>275985
Sports can be art.
Art needs a medium and in sport it's the ball and the field.
It's not a real art because there is no subjectivity to it. In sports there are winners and losers. Liverpool is objectively the better artist than Man City today.
But let's say people found the art of juggling more profound than the kicking of the ball and the eventual goal.
In juggling you don't necessarily compete and there are many different styles and tricks that people find appealing.
>>281950
Same medium, different concept and no objective truth.
>>276004
i agree with you anon
down with all the plebs
>>279964
>I read Huis Clos and it really effected me, I think.
how so?
Art education destroyed art. When I was forced to take an art class in college, most of it was about modern/postmodern shit, the basic "Fountain was a powerful, game-changing piece" as well as "Look at this piece that represents Feminism somehow". There were only two sections I really enjoyed, and those were architecture and "art and Rulers".
Fuck, that class bored me to tears.
>>276724
>What if the increased access to culture is exactly that which is ruining culture in the first place? What if a limited array of knowledge is exactly that which is needed to form an unique opinion without being overwhelmed by the other possibilities?
I believe this is the case. Look at what the "boring 50's " wrought, an explosion of new and interesting things for the next 20-odd years(Hippies, Punks, etc). What have the decades with all the knowledge of the entire history of humanity at our fingertips created? More of the same really, a snake eating a slowly disappearing tail. Increasingly shorter fads and periods of retro nostalgia.
