How come Brits are generally incapable of producing great art beyond literature?
Holst for instance was just Mahler attuned toward the tastes of normies, and the Pre-Rafaelite painters always lagged behind the French academy. Even the English rock music everybody loves was mimicry of American art from the same time.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
youtu.be
youtu.be
youtu.be
twitter.com
Have Americans produced any art in any field?
and even our writers are dwarfed by the irish
Most interesting art music these days comes out of the US. Both minimalism and new complexity emerged in America, and the "postmodern" synthesis that dominates contemporary classical is mostly based in America.
In terms of pop music, nothing comes close to American jazz. Our folk singers (Bob Dylan, Johnny Cash, Sufjan Stevens, Joanna Newsom) are better than yours too.
Americans are also the best filmmakers since WW2, considering that Terrence Mallick, Paul Thomas Anderson, Francis Ford Coppola, Kubrick, Scorcese, John Ford, Elia Kazan, and the Coen Brothers are American.
You could've just said "no" instead of writing all that out mate
Claiming British writers who happened to live in Ireland which at the time was British is the Irish version of 'we wuz kangs'.
Joyce was British and kept British citizenship even after Ireland became independent.
British music is great
>Most interesting art music these days comes out of the US.
t. American art trader
And pop culture isn't art and also has to do with political influence.
add british music
>inb4 not classical music xD
fuck off
based
Nah I'll give you that one. While Joyce and Beckett and Yeats and Martin McDonagh are incredible, the Irish output doesn't compare to the canon of British writing.
Pound for pound however, the Irish are easily the most literary nation on the planet.
20th century European cinema (of which I don't include Britain) is infinitely superior to American cinema of the same period. Sadly film these days is a dead medium due to rise of television.
European cinema is definitely superior to American, but Europe isn't a country
>Sufjan Stevens
>Good
SCREECHING
You said Americans are the best filmmakers since WW2 which is patently false. A lot of the great directors of the late studio system were European immigrants for one thing. I'd probably agree with you if you said since the 90s because America is now the only market large enough to properly support art films.
Holst is nothing like Mahler and isn't even close to being the best English composer, also it's Pre-Raphaelite not "Rafaelite", and they had nothing to do with Academy painting other than an openness to historical scenes. A for effort but you're still a pseud.
this is something to consider
a lot of the great films made in american before the 50s were made by recent European immigrants
hames joyce preferred to live overseas for which it was more practical to hold a british passport. he'd probably change that if he was to live post brexit
>How come Brits are generally incapable of producing great art beyond literature?
Like Turner, Blake, Hockney, Lean, Powell & Pressburger, Bacon, Chaplin, Holst, Elgar, Purcell, Pinter, Constable, Vaughan Williams, Lowry, Parry, Meadows, Leigh, Wright of Derby, Lloyd Webber, Bennett, Coward?
this
it doesn't say anything about his ideas and he wrote against british imperialism several times
>Pound for pound however, the Irish are easily the most literary nation on the planet.
Fucking Hell, do you even read?
Even if you think you hate contemporary classical music, it's empirically true that Americans dominate the field.
sam johnson wrote against british imperialism, doesn't mean he thought he wasn't british.
Absolutely awful taste
All I know is that the Brits have (or had?) a hard on for this painting. I read a book on the details and history of the ship itself, pretty nice read.
t.autist
Holst and Mahler are nearly indistinguishable in aesthetics. Nearly everything he does can be found in Mahler's symphonies.
Holst was just better at entertaining a crowd.
Absolute bullshit. At least try to construct a meaningful argument.
Describing your own taste?
I don't know what your obsession with Mahler is, you seem to be confusing music that came after Wagner as being informed by one another other than by Wagner proper, if you really wanted to criticise Holst you could just say he was knocking off Wagner as everyone else (including Mahler) was at that time. Either way it's six and two threes because English music is not limited to Holst or even post-romanticism.