Are we running out of new music/movies/art from a metaphysical perspective? (updated)

I've noticed the "genres getting full/completed" thing, but I attribute it to how we define the genres.

A friend once lamented how they're not making good prog any more, and not knowing what prog was at the time, I responded with a volley of questions about what constitutes good prog and what happened to the people who used to make it and what we call music that's sufficiently novel relative to prog. Turns out that what he called "good prog" was defined in a way that set up the category to get full: Sufficiently distinct new music wasn't "really prog" because it was other genres, and new music sufficiently similar to existing prog wasn't "good" because it lacked an element of novelty.

My takeaway there was "well duh, if you go around defining genres like that, after awhile there won't be room for quality novel stuff in them".

Mathematically, the amount of possible sequences of stimuli that a human can experience in a finite lifetime is huge but finite. Most of those subsets of stimuli won't be experienced as "good art", and the goalpost for what does qualify as "good art" also moves over time as a function of culture and individual experience.

I don't think we're anywhere near exhausting the available spectrum of "good art", though, considering that we're still early in the game of inventing new ways to control what stimuli others experience. One excellent example is the pairing of music with altered mental states: we haven't even found all the chemicals yet for safely, reliably, and desirably altering mental states. So a bunch of "good art" has never yet been experienced by humans (consider listening to a good album released this year, under the influence of each best intoxicant that will be released each year for the next several decades, as that many novel promising potential art experiences). I think it's way too early about worrying about having had each potential "good art" experience enough times for it to get boring -- and that doesn't even start on the hypothesis that some experiences cannot even be fully and accurately remembered because of neurological limitations, and will thus feel novel each time they're revisited.

With all that said, though, as I grow older it feels like "good art" is becoming harder to find. My personal hypothesis on this is that part of what makes art into a personal favorite is related to the amount of novelty, or rate of personal change, associated with my circumstances when I first encountered it. I find that I can game that system by trying new music, shows, etc at times when I am particularly receptive to change -- while traveling, exploring, experiencing major shifts in interpersonal relationships, etc.

Adolescence is kind of a cheat code for attaching to and identifying with art in a way that keeps it enjoyable, because it's a time of extreme change for pretty much everybody.

tl;dr I think genres get full in general because of how we define them, but we keep making new art, and we keep making new ways to make and experience art. I think many people have a personal experience of "good art getting harder to find" because factors associated with different life stages impact our receptivity to exploring new art and forming new favorites.

Carnatic music is a form of Indian classical music that's existed for thousands of years. In the mid-twentieth century Ariyakudi Ramanuja Iyengar came up with a new format for concerts called Ragam-Tanam-Pallavi. In this section musicians would elaborate on a chosen raga (which is kind of like a Western classical scale of notes) and set the foundation of what would follow. What comes next is a rhythmic improvisation (tanam), and a complex rhythmic composition similar to a refrain in Western music. I bring this up because Carnatic music isn't that well-known outside of South India and certain cirlces in the U.S. (SF, Cleveland, NJ), yet it's continued to innovate despite having 2000 years to cover virtually every mathematical combination of notes.

Most musicians would agree that it's not mutually exclusive to acknowledge there is limited distinctness in art, while also acknowledging that we are no where near approaching that state yet, and even if we did it wouldn't be significant. Most stories follow the heroes journey. Most pop hits use the same chord progression. I've studied Indian and Western classical and one thing I find fascinating is how both systems arrived at 7 fundamental notes, with sharper and flatter variations. Ultimately distinctiveness doesn't contribute to (or at the very least determine) artistic value. I think this becomes apparent when you look at literature. Most writers would agree with the Infinite monkey theorem and there is a limit on how divergent a new story can be from previous literature. However, people still watch Star Wars and people still read Harry Potter. (Both involve a chosen one, raised by relatives, amongst other similarities). 

Also, I think it's worth noting that there have been people who have been quite divergent in classical and jazz music in recent years. You have John Cage who angered a lot of folks with "4'33" and Kamasi Washington with "The Epic" or John Mayer with reviving SRV-like blues popularity amongst young folks. 

I think the reason we appear to be reaching a limit in terms of mainstream music and film is because we're undergoing a shift in how we consume these forms of media: streaming platforms and shortform content that can make or break emerging artists. This has probably forced studios to focus on creating movies that gets people back in theaters regardless of artistic depth, and forced producers to make music that'll create viral 15-second soundbites. At the same time however, the internet has democratized that ability to share art and I think the younger generation can leverage these technologies to share authentic art and find common ground others. The next generations of art will involve syncretizing techniques to create new forms of art. 

I think a great example of what this looks like is Ravi Shankar and the Beatles or John McLaughlin and Shakthi. 

P.S. my first comment on here, so apologies if the formatting is wrong!

I don't think there really are finite possibilities, but obviously there aren't infinite possibilities that make sense, and I don't mean just in terms of being coherent, but in terms of just having a core story or theme or concept that feels like it means something rather than being just Stuff That Happens.

I feel like what for example holds back mainstream movie creativity right now is hyper-optimization. Big companies create movies by committee, trying to appeal to as much of the audience as possible enough that they will pay for them. This doesn't always work, but even when it does, it will tend to produce stuff that is a consistent 7/10 for everyone than stuff that is a 10/10 with some and a 3/10 with everyone else. Weird and unique art is often niche. If you make everything into a global scale business, you can't help but be forced to do this in order to keep the scale economy going. And that's how you get... pretty much anything Disney has churned out in the last 15 years, for example.

On the other hand, some fields suffer from a pathological obsession with originality and shock value, which is its own problem. Feels to me like the visual arts (I mean the sort that go into exhibitions and museums) are an example here. These fields end up suffering instead from a paradoxical effect in which they're predictably unpredictable; the main thing the new artist seeks is to do something that will seem surprising and revolutionary, and damn any other value. Hence things that are understood and appreciated only by a closed circle and look simply weird, cryptic and off-putting to most everyone else.

I don't think any art can be ever done, nor that originality per se is the only value - sometimes executing a classic concept well is all you need. But it requires the right condition, social and material, for that to happen, and we certainly have a lot of toxic feedback loops that sometimes strangle entire forms of creativity.

Yes, they're completed, but only if you don't care about them. I don't much care about pop country, and so I know a few big names and new progress won't change that. And yet it's still capable of supporting a subculture of people who do care, and for whom new things are happening.

Classical music expert here. I don't think that classical music has been "completed" in any meaningful sense. Imagine a previously unknown piece by Beethoven being discovered tomorrow in some old German trove. I definitely don't expect the public reaction to be "Meh, classical music is already completed, there's no reason to perform this one". 

Of course, you could argue that Beethoven has achieved near-mythical status, and works by more obscure composers would be left in the trove. But I still don't think that's accurate. Obscure composers remain obscure only as long as no one care enough to publicize their work (e.g. Vivaldi, who was definitely obscure before 1920), and I can ensure you that the niche of classical performers is currently doing its best to resurrect a lot of old works. This is particularly true in the case of operas, where a lot of the work is done by the on stage representation itself, and we currently do this kind of things much better than 1700 people did. One of my favorite examples here is this excerpt from Les Indes galantes by Rameau, were they did an amazing job keeping the spirit of the original play.

What about living people writing classical music? Well, they exist too, and they usually don't try to fully imitate the works of old masters. Classical music is just a set of (very precise) rules, that can be employed in unexpected ways. One of my favorite is the Lady Gaga fugue, which could not have been written by Bach himself for obvious reasons.

It is difficult to judge at first, but it appears that some music genres (classical and jazz especially) have seen a radically slowed or non-existent output of significant works in recent decades

I don't know about classical, but there's a a genre actually called Nu Jazz. I'm finding it hard to keep up with the output ATM.

In a similar way, there is a building popular consensus that Hollywood is not pursuing original ideas as much anymore and is relying on rebooting old stories and franchises.

OTOH: Daniels.

I hope this is not considered off-topic, but I'm more interested in the possibility of running out of perceptions.

Can I experience anything just as I did when I was 5 years old? That magical feeling? I think it's unlikely. Whatever valence remains in music for me is something like how my internal noise and tempo interacts with the symmetry of the music. Positive associations, feelings, experiencing the music (e.g. as a story) aren't a big part of my music experience anymore. But this is a problem with me, rather than the music, no?

If I require strong stimuli, it's likely because of impatience and frequent overstimulation. If music doesn't speak to me it's because I'm jaded. If genres are too "silly" it's because I take myself too seriously, basically closing off my perception. Depending on my mental state, the amount of things I can perceive and enjoy differs by a lot, perhaps even by multiple magnitudes. 

To answer the post, I don't think we're running out just yet. I still have many things on my playlists which are unique. I can't find anything remotely similar to them nor can I put words on them. I think there's many more combinations which are just difficult to find. Sort of like how a lot of Game of Life configurations were hidden for many years.

But I'm not overly concerned, since the amount of art should still exceed that which any person can consume in their life time. So from that perspective, we'll never run out even if humanity manages to map out "art-space" or "perception-space". As to how big this space is, and whenever it has the same dangers as superstimuli, are questions I will leave to more knowledgeable people.

A category in which you may be able to get more direct questions is in ASMR. There's a limited amount of triggers, and it should be possible to research how fast the novelty wears off and how preferences change over time. At the same time we could research the hedonic threadmill of sound and ways to migrate the negative effects.

I think that the reason why art is slowing down is because imitation is becoming more popular. The exploration-exploitation ratio is tending towards exploitations for reasons I will attribute to less abundant states of mind in society. It takes a certain amount of good health to experiment and create new things rather than just mindlessly consume.

No, we are nowhere near exhausting what's possible. There are just large numbers of unoriginal works and it's easy to get lost among them. 

It's harder and harder to make good art in a way: there more there is, the less likely you are to be able to do it better or create something truly new. However it's not approaching impossible, because there's always new life happening to make art about. And there are usually new technologies coming along to make it with

To an extent, the more tumultuous and fecund the world becomes the more possible it becomes to produce good art again. Apocalypse or economic devastation is bad for art because it depletes the resources and free time needed to make it. However if there is a possibility of a bounce back you have both the fuel and the resources to make works of genius. This is a solace of (quite) bad news.

I really love movies. This year I’ve gone to more re-releases and anniversary showings than new releases. I chalk that up to formulaic thinking behind newer movies. So we’re not running out of art but rather existing niches are being filled faster and in more clever ways and arguably faster than new niches emerge.

It could also have to do with the nature of film production. If a movie takes five years to make the design and production team is predicting what viewers will want 5 years in the future. The result can be stale overly commercialized type movies.

I wrote brief articles called Limitism and The Big Niche to try and explain this concept.

The "Limitism" link is broken.