3 ms·
I think this is almost entirely due to the fact that there are many more modern works than past works and it is much more work to filter the wheat from chaff, e
by nathan_compton 3y ago
I think this is almost entirely due to the fact that there are many more modern works than past works and it is much more work to filter the wheat from chaff, especially without the benefit of time. But that doesn't mean dismissing contemporary art is the right perspective either. I don't buy the idea of cultural decline, at any rate. It think the article makes a pretty good case that commodification is the reason for the apparent decline in the average quality of literature.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- fijiaarone 3y agoThere are billions of people and thousands of supercomputers working ceaselessly and communicating instantaneously to filter through modern literature to find a kernel in the chaff. In the past there were only a few thousand people in a few small cities filter through a few hundred books to find the classics.