compare music as played in a cultural setting, say 100 years ago. and the avalanche of dance tracks in the last thirty years (ravers, you are not invited to do this test). Honestly tell me that creatively nothing is lost in musical arts.
I have a music TV service and I have to say that today we have very deep and creative music and bland and shallow too.
Technology turned up artists expressiveness incredibly, but a good artist can create wonders with extremely limited tools and a bad one can't create anything good spending god's money on expensive gear. We have good artists today too.
Music is more creative and varied than ever. You just don't like it as much.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/is-pop-mus...
Compared to the 1800s, art has been pushed towards things that are "simpler" in all areas and it's not because of digitalization. Rothko didn't happen because of a bucket fill tool.
This can't be true for still images. Not only the quantity of art being produced by digital means but the variation and quality has exploded since the democratization of digital painting. Certain styles are in vogue but there are countless examples of wild experimentation. Technical ability also seems greatly enhanced by these tools. Add to that all of the forms that weren't even possible 30 years ago and I strongly doubt we are in any way losing variety or quality in art. Maybe the sheer quantity is the problem, it's harder to find the really great art amongst the ever expanding ocean of generic art.
The digital music you're complaining is just one portion of what is being made and it has mass appeal; you can also complain that sitcoms are so much worse Citizen Kane or McDonald's is so much worse than fine dining used to be. There's still nuanced music and film and food being made, and the complaint that popular stuff is "crude" is basically just a normal refrain in all areas of art, and I don't think digitalization is the primary culprit.
I say this with no snark intended: you are demonstrably in a filter bubble and need to expand your horizons before you can accurately make comments about what "most" art is
> Deviantart is effectively a filter to specific subset of digital art
may be true since it is a community of artists that tend to have their own sub-genres that they move in but I believe the other poster was just giving it as the most popular example. Deviantart is really just the tip of the digital art iceberg, you can search and find a multitude of other sites hosting art communities as well as the sites of individual creators, YouTube and Twitch streams, Discord servers, etc.
The very first OP in this thread is arguing that music was ruined by the availability of digital music compared to music 100 years ago. I think this is just the standard "kids these days" griping. I was trying to say that digital art isn't special, in that most of it is also crap but it's not hard to find good stuff. Music is the same as that and has not been ruined.
:)