Subject pretty much describes it. When is our generations Beatles or Lolita or Citizen Kane gonna start up?
When will the art community, music and literature and movies and etc., start moving forward?
- Thread starter Buttmunch Chicken
- Start date
I have a feeling our "Beatles" is coming rather soon. There is an anti-electro-pop movement a-brewing right now, and is starting to provide the perfect climate for the return of the instrumental band. And, of course, for an instrumental band to be good without the aid of electronics, it demands that the players be actually musically talented to some degree. THAT's where our generation's beatles will come from.
Can't really say for the Film industry, as the Film Industry artistically speaking, seems to be doing just fine, same with literature.
Can't really say for the Film industry, as the Film Industry artistically speaking, seems to be doing just fine, same with literature.
It's happening right now whether you're noticing it or not. Truly amazing art usually isn't recognized til waaay past it's time. Sadly, as far as I can tell, nothing being produced nowadays will make me proud to have been around during it's infancy. . . gah, why wasn't I raised in the 90's? This is bull-ogna.
I'd say our generations Beatles is Lady Gaga, like it or not (I sure as hell don't).
I'd say our generations Beatles is Lady Gaga, like it or not (I sure as hell don't).
When they start producing stuff which I like, instead of catering to those insufferable morons known as "everyone else". And/or, when I find a bandwagon to jump on, that thing will automatically count as a great classic sadly under-rated by everyone who doesn't agree with me.
Plenty of them have probably already started up. When you think about it, there's nothing that Citizen Kane does that's not done by other really good movies today. It only gets recognition because it was a pioneer. Same with plenty of those other "classics." With Literature, you can see how we've had continuous waves of "great literature" for some time now, really ramping up with the Romantic movement. While plenty of movies made today aren't seen as "classics," they end up scoring the same or higher than real "classics."
You might say "well, there may be a few great art pieces today, but they're few and far between all the shite that gets shoved down our throats. And I'll say that's true, but it's just as true now as it was 50 or 100 years ago. The difference is that movies, music, paintings, photographs, literature, etc. that's made in the past couple decades hasn't been around long enough to be known as a classic or timeless work.
Not to say that the arts couldn't do even better, but it's not like great works aren't being made today. It'll just take time to see what is truly good, and what's not.
You might say "well, there may be a few great art pieces today, but they're few and far between all the shite that gets shoved down our throats. And I'll say that's true, but it's just as true now as it was 50 or 100 years ago. The difference is that movies, music, paintings, photographs, literature, etc. that's made in the past couple decades hasn't been around long enough to be known as a classic or timeless work.
Not to say that the arts couldn't do even better, but it's not like great works aren't being made today. It'll just take time to see what is truly good, and what's not.
Honestly there is so much great music and art out there I dont really care I just hope we arnt defined by all this crappy main stream music where every artist needs a auto-tune and repetitive drum to even be looked at seriously.
As far as our generation goes I would consider us the ones to bring in video games as a legitimate art form
also we have had tones of unforgettable films that revolutionized the medium for example the matrix and how it brought forth slow motion sequences and really popularized the anti hero nowadays people associate white with the villain meanwhile even 20 years ago i would have been black.
As far as our generation goes I would consider us the ones to bring in video games as a legitimate art form
also we have had tones of unforgettable films that revolutionized the medium for example the matrix and how it brought forth slow motion sequences and really popularized the anti hero nowadays people associate white with the villain meanwhile even 20 years ago i would have been black.
I advise you to amend your comment. The Escapist mods don't look kindly upon short posts even if they are fitting.Vegard Pompey said:
OT: I cannot say of music or of arts or of movies, but I believe that literature has never been better: The Malazan Book of the Fallen, by Steven Erikson is the greatest accomplishment in modern literature. And besides, we shall be known for videogames and interactive entertainment.
EDIT: Dang, too late.
/shrug, you say it like it hasnt or isnt already happening, though it depends on what your referring to as "our generation" because your potentially speaking to at least two and maybe even 3 generations here.
Case in point, the references to Citizen kane 1940s, Lolita 1950s and the beatles 1960, your referencing two different generations cultural contributions.
Case in point, the references to Citizen kane 1940s, Lolita 1950s and the beatles 1960, your referencing two different generations cultural contributions.
Like the posters above me, I would also say it's definitely here. The reason that it's so hard to find is probably also because great art isn't recognized until after it's time (sort of like how Kurt Cobain only became famous after he committed suicide, or all those mad classical painters who lived in dire poverty).
The other reason, which I believe is simply that there is SO MUCH out there. Try looking for talent in the right places, and you would be overwhelmed, I'm sure. All those kids being pushed into piano and singing lessons, from China, to Eastern Europe, to wherever you might care to look that doesn't pick up on the mainstream (and I'm not talking about the Idol or Got Talent shows), and you would be floored.
I think youtube helps in that respect, but then again, for "art", the term is too broad to narrow into simply painting, music, or whatever.
Lately, the photorealistic painting of Franz Gertsch (whether you like photorealism or not, his stuff is crazy) and the plastic bag sculptures on subway vents are among the coolest things I've seen recently.
The other reason, which I believe is simply that there is SO MUCH out there. Try looking for talent in the right places, and you would be overwhelmed, I'm sure. All those kids being pushed into piano and singing lessons, from China, to Eastern Europe, to wherever you might care to look that doesn't pick up on the mainstream (and I'm not talking about the Idol or Got Talent shows), and you would be floored.
I think youtube helps in that respect, but then again, for "art", the term is too broad to narrow into simply painting, music, or whatever.
Lately, the photorealistic painting of Franz Gertsch (whether you like photorealism or not, his stuff is crazy) and the plastic bag sculptures on subway vents are among the coolest things I've seen recently.
I don't even know where to begin with this. Firstly, what connects Citizen Kane with The Beatles or Lolita? Are they supposed to be examples of something "moving forward"? Or are they just examples of something being really good, with the inference that nothing is good anymore?
Citizen Kane is rightly held as one of the best films ever made, but its innovations were primarily technical - notably the development of deep focus. Most of it was basically special effects. If this is the criteria for "forward thinking" then a film like The Matrix, with its technical innovations like Bullet Time, would be a modern equivalent. And yet, I somehow doubt that's what you mean.
I'm not sure Lolita advanced literature in any real way at all, beyond being iconic and very good. This is just a poor example. As for the Beatles, most of the things they ostensibly pioneered had actually already been done by other, less-well-known musicians, and were merely popularised by the band. It may seem startling that they went from simplistic '60s pop to Revolution 9 in such a short space of time, but that progress is mainly within the band's own storyline, not within music as a whole. Revolution 9 did not invent musique concrete, avant garde sound collage or anything else. There is this myth that The Beatles invented pop music out of nowhere, with no prior influence. Even the most revolutionary and challenging works of art in history have always been an amalgamation of existing influences and techniques.
If you just mean there isn't anything good being made anymore in these respective fields... well I'll simply conclude that you aren't searching hard enough.
Citizen Kane is rightly held as one of the best films ever made, but its innovations were primarily technical - notably the development of deep focus. Most of it was basically special effects. If this is the criteria for "forward thinking" then a film like The Matrix, with its technical innovations like Bullet Time, would be a modern equivalent. And yet, I somehow doubt that's what you mean.
I'm not sure Lolita advanced literature in any real way at all, beyond being iconic and very good. This is just a poor example. As for the Beatles, most of the things they ostensibly pioneered had actually already been done by other, less-well-known musicians, and were merely popularised by the band. It may seem startling that they went from simplistic '60s pop to Revolution 9 in such a short space of time, but that progress is mainly within the band's own storyline, not within music as a whole. Revolution 9 did not invent musique concrete, avant garde sound collage or anything else. There is this myth that The Beatles invented pop music out of nowhere, with no prior influence. Even the most revolutionary and challenging works of art in history have always been an amalgamation of existing influences and techniques.
If you just mean there isn't anything good being made anymore in these respective fields... well I'll simply conclude that you aren't searching hard enough.
Our generation won't have a "beatles" in the sense of a mainstream, popular group that bring a widely recognized combination of technical skill and artistry to the table because the marketplaces of popular music don't allow for anything that truly exemplifies those characteristics. If you just mean "beatles" in the sense of great music, however, it's all over. Look at Man Man's Six Demon Bag or Architecture in Helsinki's Places Like This. Both albums show such an uncommon degree of refinement in both technique and innovation that I would not hesitate to call them first-class. However, the fact that they are not likely to reach the mainstream means that their influence will be much less far-reaching than that of the beatles on the world of music.
Ya know, those works that we now look at as Classics were just a few examples in a sea of other books, movies, and songs that have not stood the test of time. In a similar vein, I would say there is no way for us to know which current works will be seen as Classics 100 years from now.
One group that I would say has a lot of potential to be likened to The Beatles, should they continue in the direction they are and manage to gain a wider audience, goes by the name of Tally Hall (I personally think they are brilliant, at any rate). But like Isaac Minarik said, the current state of the industry is such that it is highly unlikely that any comparable entity to The Beatles could possibly emerge. Not in the way we'd envision it, anyways. And of course, as an audience, we've become quite individualized as far as what kinds of music we like, so who knows how likely it would be for any one band to gain such a widespread following (AND be considered as innovative as The Beatles - Lady Gaga certainly has a following).
One group that I would say has a lot of potential to be likened to The Beatles, should they continue in the direction they are and manage to gain a wider audience, goes by the name of Tally Hall (I personally think they are brilliant, at any rate). But like Isaac Minarik said, the current state of the industry is such that it is highly unlikely that any comparable entity to The Beatles could possibly emerge. Not in the way we'd envision it, anyways. And of course, as an audience, we've become quite individualized as far as what kinds of music we like, so who knows how likely it would be for any one band to gain such a widespread following (AND be considered as innovative as The Beatles - Lady Gaga certainly has a following).
Kurt Cobain was pretty famous before he killed himself... but yeah, his suicide obviously didn't hurt Nirvana's record sales.JohnnyDelRay said:
As for the OP... I'm not sure our generation needs a Beatles. We have an entire music industry that influences larger culture instead.
We have fine literature. Jonathan Safran Foer, Arundhati Roy and Cormac McCarthy have written novels that easily stand against the best of previous decades. But if I was to suggest a book that would be this season's Lolita... I'd have to say American Psycho.
oh yeah ... Se7en is our Citizen Kane and anyone that disagrees can go fuck thems... umm yeah in my humble opinion and all.
I was going to write something more elaborate but realized that a mere sigh very succinctly summed up my exact thoughts on the subject. I suspect you understand why.Giest4life said:
Funny that you should mention The Malazan Book of the Fallen, as I was actually just reading that (about 300 pages into Memories of Ice). Very exhausting series, I might take a break after Memories of Ice and read something else. I loved the second half of Deadhouse Gates, but for the most part it hasn't been worth the effort. Every time I start a new book I groan at the dramatis personae - most of the characters introduced thus far haven't been properly characterized, and every book seems to introduce a hundred new ones. I appreciate large casts and complex plots, but this is getting a bit too much.
Anyway, to contribute something to the topic at hand: The Beatles weren't geniuses without modern-day equals. They happened to be at the right place at the right time. They were instrumental in making experimentation more acceptable in mainstream music, which is not a development that can happen twice.
Personally I'm quite interested where the whole electronic music thing is going, as it's drastically lowering the entry barriers to produce and distribute music. Of course there'll be trainloads of total crap, but so far my digging for indie electronic music has already left me with some gems. [footnote]I hereby do claim that by no means I am a hipster. I've never liked a band less because they were popular.[/footnote]zehydra said:
N.B. I said "electronic", not "bland, auto-tuned electro-pop".