Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
As my uni literature teacher says: over the past 30 years ( in the field of literature), nothing of high quality and worthwhile has been created.
This is his opinion and that of many literary critics.
Look at the latest Nobel Prize in Literature, awarded to Bob Dylan “for creating new poetic expressions in the great American song tradition.”
There are two questions asked here. The probability that culture and art will run out is extremely low, as they develop both thanks to support and despite prohibitions. As for the situation in which humanity will no longer be able to produce anything new, it is possible, but the condition for this must be some process that leads to the irreversible degradation of all people without exception (worsening selection)
As long as humanity exists, “culture and art” will also exist. At the same time, I mean that as long as there is culture, along with it — along with art (literature, music, dance, theater, fine arts, etc.) — there will be philosophy, science and technology.
Why? Culture “in the broadest sense” is an absolute prerequisite for any form of life — in nature, in the animal world, and for humans. (In flora and fauna, there are special forms of survival that I would also classify as a culture, despite their radical difference from the “culture of humanity”: human culture is self-contained and inextricably linked to its fixation through transmission from generation to generation.)
Culture” in the narrow sense ” contributes to the origin of life, its preservation and protection. Protecting life or survival involves a constant process of innovation, regardless of its quality. It is impossible to say exactly how high a person's creative potential is. However, it is obvious that any form of creativity, on the one hand, is a prerequisite for survival, and on the other hand, for the destruction of life. That is, it can also lead to the complete self-destruction of humanity.
Thus, culture can only exist as long as life exists.
Burying culture and art began a long time ago. In general, in the very desire to bury such large abstract concepts, there is a specific desire to become the last witness of the “Golden Age”, which, you will agree, is a little flattering to the human Ego.
You can, of course, begin to answer the question by starting to talk about the phenomenon of decadence in the late Roman era, when such concerns were already expressed, but I would advise you to turn to the New Time. In the 19th century, culture and art were buried by the philosopher Nikolai Danilevsky, who saw the spread of Western European ideas about life as the death of cultural diversity. German philosophers Oswald Spengler and Martin Heidegger continued their funerals of culture and art. The twentieth century generally developed in a very specific way – the appearance of the avant-garde was considered both as a sign that it was now that a true culture would be created, and as a sign that culture would end there. Postmodernism wanted to close the theme of the death of culture and art, but it did not succeed. People still express concerns that either there is nothing left, or soon there will be nothing left.
We are used to thinking about culture and art through the prism of the concept of “new”, although this obsession with novelty was not always there. It appeared, as it is not difficult to guess, precisely in the New Time. Now that we are tired of this New Age, which has told us that the surrounding reality can and should be changed, that there is no Divine providence and other forms of metaphysical predestination, we want to end this glorious era of experimentation. The experiments were different. There were scientific experiments, and there were also social ones. There were various discoveries resulting from these experiments: there were laws of physics, geographical discoveries, and the theory of evolution, but there were also things like the GULAG and Auschwitz.
There is a probability, as well as the probability that once we will no longer care about this issue, and in the concepts of culture and art we will put some other meaning. As long as we depend on the category of “new”, then, of course, the question will remain open. Unfortunately, these funerals of culture and art are already very long in time and have very fundamentally become the fabric of the socio-cultural world, so it is quite possible that the cultural space will develop further through the mechanism of its own funeral.
As for the cyclical nature of any process, this is the universal philosophical law of “negation of negation” – development in a spiral, where each new turn differs from the previous one in a new view, a new understanding, a new aspect. The world remains the same, but only up to the changes that a person makes in it. And these changes, reflecting the human personality, create a new culture, a new relationship of a person with the world. In the next stage, they will create other qualities of the person himself.
This is culture, this is art, this is science.