> there's more beautiful art being created today than ever.
Except there’s not. Where is the Notre Dame of our time? The Mozart (who was well recognized in his time)? Who can be compared in our time to the sheer talent of Michelangelo? Who still produces ballets like Swan Lake?
Yes, we have beautiful art in our time, but you have to be blind to not see the difference in the sheer majesty and scale of pre modern Western art. It’s exponentially better.
Usually people who say things like this have made zero effort to discover contemporary art that they like. You list examples of old European art that can be found in a 7th grade textbook.
Contemporary art is very hard to discover because society had so little time to filter and decide what it liked. That's why old art seems so much better-categorized in hindisght.
I agree. Just like other old things that are still around, old art seems good due to survivorship bias. There has been lots of terrible art made in all media since the beginning of civilization.
What about film making, TV, photography or even computer games? They sometimes have scale and majesty. Just with a different funding model than a few rich benefactors.
For music I'd argue that the present mode of the classical tradition lies mostly in film and video scores. Your Mozart is quite possibly, and in all seriousnous, likely John Williams. Many of the notable classical composers of the first 2/3 or so of the 20th century did work in film.
You mention Mozart but neglect J.S. Bach, who was all but forgotten before being later revived; much of his catalog was lost. Michelangelo produced validating propaganda for the upstart and brutal Medici family. Much classical art (painting, sculpture, music) was similarly created for religious or state sponsors.
Ballet and opera were the most complex performative works of their time. You'd probably want to look to musicals for modern equivalents, combining drama, music, singing, and dance.
Signature buildings are harder to name, but then, they also often take centuries to earn their reputations, and are often dismissed or unappreciated for long periods. The Notre Dame cathedral only started becoming a classic in the 19th century, nearly 800 years after it was begun.
In most cases, it's familiarity and time which cement reputations and acceptence. There's a timelessness IMO in stone, brick, and wood which concrete, steel, and glass match with difficulty, making other possible contenders -- most skyscrapers, bridges, and dams, say, less qualified, despite numerous contenders (e.g., Brooklyn & Golden Gate bridges, Hoover Dam, Burj Khalifa, Guggenheim Museum).
Ultimately, it is up to the eye or ear of the beholder: I neither like the Beatles nor Mozart. Give me some Polka and I'm happy.
While there may be differences in skill of the composers and musicians, that is largely irrelevant. Art only is if it is appreciated. Complexity and skill without any appreciable quality is busywork. However, appreciation of the masses comes with hitting the average taste.
I don’t think an ability to hit the lowest common denominator is necessarily an indicator of artistic value. What is considered “high art” or “refined and complex” is often partially a function of class distinctions and access. The Beatles could’ve been treated like a symphony in a different context, as silly as that may sound.
Video games come to mind. There are some indie games that are, quite frankly, beautiful works of art. Outer Wilds comes to mind, as does Celeste.
The burj khalifa is vastly more impressive than the notre dame from an architectural perspective.
Any of the top 100 movies on imdb can stand its own as far as capturing the imagination and delivering enjoyment as any of the great symphonies of old.
Modern art is different, but it is not inferior. I would argue today’s art vastly exceeds any period in history in scale and imagination. And beauty, well, that’s a personal matter.
Would you argue traditional japanese sword forging produced superior weapons to today’s because nobody makes swords that way anymore?
Except there’s not. Where is the Notre Dame of our time? The Mozart (who was well recognized in his time)? Who can be compared in our time to the sheer talent of Michelangelo? Who still produces ballets like Swan Lake?
Yes, we have beautiful art in our time, but you have to be blind to not see the difference in the sheer majesty and scale of pre modern Western art. It’s exponentially better.