What comes after metamodernism?

I usually don't stoop to ad hom's but please, please, defenestrate yourself promptly.

>tif
*rid* Dunno what happened there

lel

>We are already demon frick meat
Maybe, but not in the literal, flesh on flesh sense. Not yet. Infinite Nightmare Technology will change this.

its not that computers dont matter, but computers and online are pretty much the only things seeing any real innovation at all. virtually no innovation in cars, trains, planes, infrastructure, architecture and probably even energy. the pace of technological change has certainly slowed since the early 20th century

What this fails to recognise is that there's a fundamental difference between innovation and development, it's relatively easy to make existing things more efficient, faster, cheaper, safer, etc. Particularly in computer tech, that's paid off quite dramatically. On the other hand, what genuinely new technology has been invented since the 60s?

The darkness you speak of is inside the human, but you are right it seeks to be bigger than the human, to fully enslave the host body and extrapolate outside to reshape the fabrics of reality. No technological inventions will ever do what the human does not crave it to do, whether he realizes it or not, including depravity, decadence, hedonism and the eternal struggle against the establishment. There will be technological devils and saints, and they will fight for humanity for humanity's sake.

You have to be 18 to post here.

and who the frick are you?

yeah, the country club is gonna FREAK! when they hear about how much you love christ

depends, are you going to say anymore moronic shit like being part of the dominant theocratic hegemony is "punk" and "counter culture"

I am definitely superior to an underage moron bragging about religious LARPing as being some kind of Ubermensch

do tell then, then where do your morals come from that is axiomatically opposed to your liberal college boogeyman

This postmodern coping of yours is fascinating to behold. You are literally (as in unironically) freaking out over the guy saying he's a moralgayging zoomer.
He's not trying to convert you gramps, chill out.

And you take it that they are trying to convert you?
Have you gotten to the end of the DFW article E Unibus Pluram? You are freaking out over the "anti-rebels" and thus providing evidence that DFW was correct and that the moral gayging zoomer above, is actually doing something so rebellious that older people freak out.
Well done. Made this dumb thread a lot more interesting. We truly have now entered postmetamodernity.

Ahh of course, you wouldn't be freaked about the possibility of forces religious conversion, you are freaked because it diminishes the integrity of the market place. Makes perfect sense now that you explained.

Anywqy, did you ever read that DFW essay?

Its not a nonsequitor if you've read that essay and gotten to the concept of the "anti-rebel"
What do you think about that idea of his?

literally the post above yours
did you really spend 9 minutes writing that?

You didnt make a point, you rejected a term and acted like you made a point.

Those christgays watching a popular movie freaked you out because of some conspiratorial idea that films and dark money shake the foundations of the legal system. "We" didnt see anything at the last supreme court session, you saw something and assume everyone interpreted the same conspiracy of dark money and law.
You make the moral gayging christolarpers look more appealing when weighed next to your delusions.
You prove FDW accurate in his predictions about people in the future freaking out over anti-rebels.

Deflect all you want, but that film is an anti-rebel film and that's why everyone in the media and (you) are freaking out over it.

no I did make a point distinguishing "rebellious" literary sensibilities and aesthetics from your fatih based visceral reaction to LGBTQ and millenial writing in media, which let's be real is what you're all "rebelling" against. sorry it went over your head

>What does this have to do with the IQfy thread about that film got to do with it then? And dark money?
don't go muddying the waters asshat, surely you're not that desperate already

Its not a nonsequitor if you've read that essay and gotten to the concept of the "anti-rebel"
What do you think about that idea of his?

>Its not a nonsequitor if you've read that essay and gotten to the concept of the "anti-rebel"
>What do you think about that idea of his?

So what's the conspiracy?

The part where you link to a "dark money" figurehead in the exact same way that the christgays (watching that film about trafficking, linked above) always complain abouy George Soros influencing politics with his money. Except they weren't clever enough to give it a moniker like dark money, instead the just yell Soros! And every time the do, they are laughed at.

Except in your case, you think you have the correct conspiracy laid out for everyone to bare witness.

But really the larger point related to this thread was about metamodernism, or new sincerity as it was called, and what comes after. And I was simply pointing out what I see, that the biggest film in america right now is an "anti-rebel" film, which DFW talked about in E Unibus Pluram

First of all, he isn't narrowly talking about literature, yes literature tends to drive culture, and he mentioned lit, but he's talking in general about what probably would be the next generation of rebellious behavior within the culture as a whole... Those who disfavor detached irony, and embrace straightforward sincerity. "Religious Fundamentalism" as you strawmaned it, is a sincerely held conviction for them. There is no irony, they Unironically rebel against the culture of rebellious behavior and aesthetics. It has everything to do it with.

That trafficking movie is sincerely unironically sincere, and you, and all of the MSM are freaking out over it. They are rebellious against you and MSM.

Do you need this in a video essay to understand?

Do you feel like being atheist is rebellious nowadays? I thought there is some public opinion survey out there that shows most people don't believe in god. If this is true, and you are an atheist, this would place you well within the norm and thus disqualify you from being a rebel. Atheists were once rebellious, surely, but now? Not exactly.

Being unironically atheist still lacks the element of going against the norm, even though it is consistent with having a sincerely held belief.

Again you dismiss as if you are better or more knowledgeable instead of honestly engaging.

The anti-rebels rebel against post modern normativity. Do you agree with this statement?

>!
gottem

Blessed post.

you're doing exactly what I said you would to the letter thank god you left after conflating all your terms and frameworks

you have no idea how full and intense it feels to live like this without doing much at all. ohhhh christ save me, and then you jerk off on disgusting anime girls, sometimes you're trying to pray and you feel lust so you're like oh no please stop the sinful thoughts, but then you're like, I can't keep praying while I feel horny, so I'll jerk off, and then you write the filthiest smut and jerk off to it, and say wicked shit on IQfy while you're at it, calling people Black folk and telling them to kill themselves, then you clutch your cross and go ohhhh I am such a sinner and you whip yourself, I'm a stupid pig, ohh I'm such a filthy pig, and then you see someone asking for charity and go euughh frick off Black person but then you're like oh ohhhh the world is so corrupt and hateful, and I'm the most hateful swine, shameful and unclean, SAVE ME LORD, and you whip yourself again, but it's sort of a turn-on, then you drink and shitpost, and then you despise yourself because you are a slave to vice, ohhh christ have mercy while I have another glass.
You know how Gollum has constant conversations with Smeagol? It's like that, you never get bored. Truly a high IQ way to live.

>There is no irony, they Unironically rebel against the culture of rebellious behavior and aesthetics. It has everything to do it with.
okay great I feel the same way and I'm an atheist now what, am I an anti-rebel because I'm an atheist? no

like do you understand if I'm a "rebel" making cynical doomer art under an oppressive regime, the oppressive regime doesn't circle back around to being a new breed of free thinking "anti-rebels" when they oppress me

> if I'm a "rebel" making cynical doomer art under an oppressive regime, the oppressive regime doesn't circle back around to being a new breed of free thinking "anti-rebels" when they oppress me
in this hypothetical the actual "anti-rebel" anon is so fixated on would be someone that had the audacity to make uplifting optimistic art that counters the cynical doomers

>we don't need to regurgitate the whole song and dance about new sincerity
It's Unironically (capital U) the entire point of this thread.

thanks, though this board is plagued by those types like the other anon that jumped in if he wasn't trolling, though that'd explain his shit arguments

It's all artschool, crit theory BS. It's not real. The art isn't the theory. The theory exists in its own world, with its own rules. Art, at least partially, reflects life. Unless you think everything will remain constant in the world then consequently change in the art world is just as inevitable. Once you let go of trying to fit works into these false metanarrarives and instead insist upon taking them as they are on your own terms, everything opens up again and becomes interesting again.

that may be so but as soon as we move from the realm of sensorial experience to process and communication of the art do we not neccessarily enter the realm of contextualization and narrative?

I don't got no type (Nah)
Bad b***hes is the only thing that I like (Woo)

I met an aged, aged man
Upon the lonely moor:
I knew I was a gentleman,
And he was but a boor.
So I stopped and roughly questioned him,
"Come, tell me how you live!"
But his words impressed my ear no more
Than if it were a sieve.

He said, "I look for soap-bubbles,
That lie among the wheat,
And bake them into mutton-pies,
And sell them in the street.
I sell them unto men," he said,
"Who sail on stormy seas;
And that's the way I get my bread –
A trifle, if you please."

But I was thinking of a way
To multiply by ten,
And always, in the answer, get
The question back again.
I did not hear a word he said,
But kicked that old man calm,
And said, "Come, tell me how you live!"
And pinched him in the arm.

His accents mild took up the tale:
He said, "I go my ways,
And when I find a mountain-rill,
I set it in a blaze.
And thence they make a stuff they call
Rowland's Macassar Oil;
But fourpence-halfpenny is all
They give me for my toil."

But I was thinking of a plan
To paint one's gaiters green,
So much the color of the grass
That they could ne'er be seen.
I gave his ear a sudden box,
And questioned him again,
And tweaked his grey and reverend locks,
And put him into pain.

He said, "I hunt for haddock's eyes
Among the heather bright,
And work them into waistcoat-buttons
In the silent night.
And these I do not sell for gold,
Or coin or silver-mine,
But for a copper-halfpenny,
And that will purchase nine.

"I sometimes dig for buttered rolls,
Or set limed twigs for crabs;
I sometimes search the flowery knolls
For wheels of hansom cabs.
And that's the way" (he gave a wink)
"I get my living here,
And very gladly will I drink
Your Honour's health in beer."

I heard him then, for I had just
Completed my design
To keep the Menai bridge from rust
By boiling it in wine.
I duly thanked him, ere I went,
For all his stories queer,
But chiefly for his kind intent
To drink my health in beer.

And now if e'er by chance I put
My fingers into glue,
Or madly squeeze a right-hand foot
Into a left-hand shoe;
Or if a statement I aver
Of which I am not sure,
I think of that strange wanderer
Upon the lonely moor.

?the Italian Futurists

I read of it recently in pic rel
great book
hmm I bet you're eyeing AI the same way the Futurist were cinema

so sculpture or something physical like that then?

I'm familiar with his work, hence my comment.

So what if a couple of snooty mags and galleries don't care, or there's no commercial potential? Is that really all this comes down to?
>We're not Medievals
No, but the mediaevals are able to speak to us nonetheless. This isn't worthless at all. Give it the benefit of the doubt and you'll find something to it, I'm sure. The cult of progression has absolutely no place whatsoever in artistic expression.

It’s not merely that it’s not commercially successful. The artist I mentioned actually manages to eke out a living. I think he’s even on the faculty of a university. The issue is rather that the art 1) comes off as insincere or somehow inauthentic and 2) doesn’t articulate or speak to the broader culture. For these reasons, the artist can be appreciated by a cult following of his contemporaries, but he’ll be limited in both commercial and gallery success and he’ll inevitably be washed away under the tide of art history because like I said, we are not Medievals.