History Main / TrueArtIsAncient

Copying and preserving art was much more difficult back in the day compared with the modern digital era, so there might have been only 10 copies of a given book and they ''all'' got caught in a fire or a flood or whatnot, and who knows whether the work was good or bad?

First of all, if some ancient works have survived the test of times, remember that modern works haven't been tested yet. If some modern works are actually ''better'' than the ancient works, nobody who relies on this trope is going to realize it. Today's modern works will have to wait a few centuries before they become ancient (at which point there will a new crop of modern works).

Conversely, the works that we lost weren't necessarily bad. Remember: Lost works are lost, and if they're lost then we can't exactly judge them on the merits, can we? There might be any number of gems that were lost to time for one reason or another. Maybe the creator criticized some powerful people and they burned all her works. Maybe the work expressed ideas that would considered very wise in the present day, but in the author's time those ideas were considered scandalous and thus nobody paid any attention to them and nobody bothered to preserve them. And again, maybe it was just bad luck.

This trope is related to, although not corresponding to UniquenessValue: when there is only ''one'' complete poem of Creator/{{Sappho}}'s that survives, it is a treasure, a lone survivor against the teeth of time. It is unique and irreplaceable, a fragment of a lost era. The fact that Sappho wrote in and for a world that no longer exists also means that her poems and fragments are rendered abstract, and require study to fully understand -- therefore, this trope can also invoke TrueArtIsIncomprehensible.

This trope ignores that although the "test of time" is often reliable, it is not perfect, nor is it without complications. The fact that something has survived does not guarantee that it is good, or that its status as art owes itself entirely to longevity and not to accident. What if the only complete poem of Sappho was a first draft and thus incomplete, or something she considered an OldShame? Later generations may typically depend on translations being easily produced, and having copious remaining works from an artist. Further, posthumous evaluation can fluctuate over time. Creator/{{Euripides}} is a dramatist praised today for his strong female characters, but in the Athens of his day, not only were women forbidden to act, but women were forbidden to even see the plays, and were likewise enshrined by law to remain immured indoors (with exceptions only made to [[HighClassCallGirl prostitutes]] of certain respectable standing). That his female characters are three-dimensional does not necessarily mean that they were intended for the women of his day, and the fact that women of later centuries appreciated it is something that almost no one in the Ancient World would have predicted and anticipated (because, again, it was an extremely misogynist society). It must bear in mind that the literate audience and the reading public (which is not always the same thing) have only increased in number from yesteryear to the present-day. In the classical age from Ancient Athens to Rome, the number of people who had literacy were a tiny part of the populace, and among those, the kind who appreciated art was even smaller. It is inarguable, as classicist Mary Beard has pointed out, that ''Literature/TheAeneid'' is read by more people on any given day in the late-20th and early 21st Century than at any time in UsefulNotes/TheRomanEmpire. The really popular art of the Ancient World, the one people did know involved the oral tradition, stuff like Creator/{{Aesop}}'s fables, more than Creator/{{Homer}}, and while Aesop is also considered great, few would consider him as great as Homer, despite the fact that many of Aesop's fables via adaptation and/or {{Bowdlerization}} reaches a much bigger global audience of small children than Homer's epics do.

This trope ignores that although the "test of time" is often reliable, it is not perfect, nor is it without complications. The fact that something has survived does not guarantee that it is good, or that it's status as art owes itself entirely to longevity and not to accident. What if the only complete poem of Sappho was a first draft and thus incomplete, or something she considered an OldShame? Creator/{{Euripides}} is a dramatist praised today for his strong female characters, but in the Athens of his day, not only were women forbidden to act, but women were forbidden to even see the plays, and were likewise enshrined by law to remain immured indoors (with exceptions only made to [[HighClassCallGirl prostitutes]] of certain respectable standing). That his female characters are three-dimensional does not necessarily mean that they were intended for the women of his day, and the fact that women of later centuries appreciated it is something that almost no one in the Ancient World would have predicted and anticipated (because, again, it was an extremely misogynist society). It must bear in mind that the literate audience and the reading public (which is not always the same thing) have only increased in number from yesteryear to the present-day. In the classical age from Ancient Athens to Rome, the number of people who had literacy were a tiny part of the populace, and among those, the kind who appreciated art was even smaller. It is inarguable, as classicist Mary Beard has pointed out, that ''Literature/TheAeneid'' is read by more people on any given day in the late-20th and early 21st Century than at any time in UsefulNotes/TheRomanEmpire. The really popular art of the Ancient World, the one people did know involved the oral tradition, stuff like Creator/{{Aesop}}'s fables, more than Creator/{{Homer}}, and while Aesop is also considered great, few would consider him as great as Homer, despite the fact that many of Aesop's fables via adaptation and/or {{Bowdlerization}} reaches a much bigger global audience of small children than Homer's epics do.

Apart from sales and contemporary reviews, the ''real'' test and highest honor of any work is "the test of time". Over generations, time filters art and leaves only works that are worth caring about. The older an artwork is, the better it is. The ability of a work of art to endure after the death of an artist, across languages and cultures rather than his hometown and to still have meaning over the years and centuries is its true merit. The fact that Greek Tragedy and Homeric epics ''still'' have resonance and value two thousand years after they were written testifies to their greatness. Indeed to the more romantically inclined, art offers the only real {{immortality}} human beings can aspire to.

This trope relies implicitly on UniquenessValue: when there is only ''one'' complete poem of Creator/{{Sappho}}'s that survives, it is a treasure, a lone survivor against the teeth of time. It is unique and irreplaceable, a fragment of a lost era. The fact that Sappho wrote in and for a world that no longer exists also means that her poems and fragments are rendered abstract, and require study to fully understand -- therefore, this trope can also invoke TrueArtIsIncomprehensible.

This trope ignores that although the "test of time" is often reliable, it is not perfect. The fact that something has survived does not guarantee that it is good. What if the only complete poem of Sappho was a first draft and thus incomplete, or something she considered an OldShame?
Furthermore, an overly strict adherence to this trope can result in a mindset that views any art that originates after a certain point to be lesser than that which precedes it. In addition, from a purely statistical basis (due to population growth, improved leisure time, et cetera), it is extremely likely that there are more ''contemporary'' works of art than have been created in the earlier days of human history. Even taking into account the number of works from previous eras that [[MissingEpisode no longer exist]], there were still comparatively few compared with how many are produced today.

This trope ignores that although the "test of time" is often reliable, it is not perfect. The fact that something has survived doesn't guarantee that it's good. What if the only complete poem of Sappho was a first draft and thus incomplete, or something she considered an OldShame?
Furthermore, an overly strict adherence to this trope can result in a mindset that views any art that originates after a certain point to be lesser than that which precedes it. In addition, from a purely statistical basis (due to population growth, improved leisure time, et cetera), it's extremely likely that there are more ''contemporary'' works of art than have been created in the earlier days of human history. Even taking into account the number of works from previous eras that [[MissingEpisode no longer exist]], there were still comparatively few compared with how many are produced today.

This trope relies implicitly on UniquenessValue: when there's only ''one'' complete poem of Sappho's that survives, it is a treasure, a lone survivor against the teeth of time. It's unique and irreplaceable, a fragment of a lost era. The fact that Sappho wrote in and for a world that no longer exists also means her poems and fragments are rendered abstract, and require study to fully understand -- therefore, this trope can also invoke TrueArtIsIncomprehensible.

This trope ignores that although the "test of time" is often reliable, it's not perfect. The fact that something has survived doesn't guarantee that it's good. What if the only complete poem of Sappho was a first draft and thus incomplete, or something she considered an OldShame?

->''Since brass, nor stone, nor earth, nor boundless sea,\\

That in black ink my love may still shine bright.''

----

Furthermore, an overly strict adherence to this trope can result in a mindset that views any art that originates after a certain point to be lesser than that which precedes it. In addition, from a purely statistical basis (due to population growth, improved leisure time, et cetera), it's extremely likely that there are more ''contemporary'' works of art than have been created in the earlier days of human history. Even taking into account the number of works from previous eras that [[MissingEpisode no longer exist]], there were still comparatively few compared to how many are produced today.

The idea shown in the story is that, over generations, time filters art, leaving only works that are worth caring about. The older an artwork is, the better it is. This trope does ignore that although the "test of time" is often reliable, it's not perfect. The fact that something has survived doesn't guarantee that it's actually good.

This trope relies implicitly on UniquenessValue: when there's only ''one'' complete poem of Sappho's that survives, it is a treasure, a lone survivor against the teeth of time. It's unique and irreplaceable, a fragment of a lost era. The fact that Sappho wrote in and for a world that no longer exists also means her poems and fragments are rendered abstract, and require study to fully understand -- therefore, this trope also invokes TrueArtIsIncomprehensible, to a degree.

Furthermore, an overly strict adherence to this trope can result in a mindset that views any art that originates after a certain point to be lesser than that which precedes it. In addition, from a purely statistical basis (due to population growth, improved leisure time, et cetera), it's extremely likely that there are more ''contemporary'' works of art than have been created in the earlier days of human history; even taking into account the number of works from previous eras that [[MissingEpisode no longer exist]], there were still comparatively few compared to how many are produced today.

That said, it is a JustifiedTrope because many critics argue that the real test and highest honor of any work of art is "the test of time". Put it simply, the ability of a work of art to endure after the death of an artist, across languages and cultures rather than his hometown and to still have meaning over the years and centuries. The fact that Greek Tragedy and Homeric epics ''still'' have resonance and value today in the 21st Century testifies to their greatness and the same applies to literature from the more recent past, the works of Shakespeare, Cervantes, Dante and others. Indeed to the more romantically inclined, art offers the only real immortality human beings can aspire to.

This trope relies implicitly on a scarcity value law: if there's only ''one'' complete poem of Sappho's that survives, that makes it worth more than anything mass-produced these days. It's unique and irreplaceable, a fragment of a lost era. The fact that Sappho wrote in and for a world that no longer exists also means her poems and fragments are rendered abstract, and require study to fully understand -- therefore, this trope also invokes TrueArtIsIncomprehensible, to a degree.

This trope also relies implicitly on a scarcity value law: if there's only ''one'' complete poem of Sappho's that survives, that makes it worth more than anything mass-produced these days. It's unique and irreplaceable, a fragment of a lost era. The fact that Sappho wrote in and for a world that no longer exists also means her poems and fragments are rendered abstract, and require study to fully understand -- therefore, this trope also invokes TrueArtIsIncomprehensible, to a degree.

-->-- '''{{Shakespeare}}''', ''Sonnet 65''

<<|TrueArt|>>

->''Since brass, nor stone, nor earth, nor boundless sea,''\\
''But sad mortality o'ersways their power,''\\
''How with this rage shall beauty hold a plea,''\\
''Whose action is no stronger than a flower?''\\
''O how shall summer's honey breath hold out''\\
''Against the wrackful siege of batt'ring days,''\\
''When rocks impregnable are not so stout,''\\
''Nor gates of steel so strong but time decays?''\\
''O fearful meditation! Where, alack,''\\
''Shall time's best jewel from time's chest lie hid?''\\
''Or what strong hand can hold his swift foot back?''\\
''Or who his spoil or beauty can forbid?''\\
''O none, unless this miracle have might,''\\
''That in black ink my love may still shine bright.''

-->''Since brass, nor stone, nor earth, nor boundless sea,''
-->''But sad mortality o'ersways their power,''
-->''How with this rage shall beauty hold a plea,''
-->''Whose action is no stronger than a flower?''
-->''O how shall summer's honey breath hold out''
-->''Against the wrackful siege of batt'ring days,''
-->''When rocks impregnable are not so stout,''
-->''Nor gates of steel so strong but time decays?''
-->''O fearful meditation! Where, alack,''
-->''Shall time's best jewel from time's chest lie hid?''
-->''Or what strong hand can hold his swift foot back?''
-->''Or who his spoil or beauty can forbid?''
-->''O none, unless this miracle have might,''
-->''That in black ink my love may still shine bright.''
-->{{Shakespeare}}, Sonnet 65

Furthermore, an overly strict adherence to this trope can result in a mindset that views any art that originates after a certain point to be lesser than that which precedes it. In addition, from a purely statistical basis (due to population growth, improved leisure time, et cetera), it's extremely likely that there are more ''contemporary'' works of art than have been created in the earlier days of human history.

It's said that one way to define TrueArt is that TrueArt will "stand the test of time" - that, as time passes, merely ordinary works will be forgotten, while people will still care about TrueArt hundreds of years after its creation. Essentially, the idea is that the ImportFilter, applied to generations rather than to countries, will only leave behind works that are worth caring about.

Although the "test of time" is often reliable, it's not perfect. The fact that something has ''survived'' doesn't guarantee that it's actually ''good''. Many things that are remembered are remembered for their historical significance and their influence instead of their intrinsic merit. For example, some sections of TheBible, such as those that detail the laws of ancient Israel in minute detail, are rather boring to read and have no ''literary'' merit whatsoever -- that's right, even the Bible can be boring! (Of course, TheBible isn't meant to be art, or not ''that'' part of it) There's also the "SeinfeldIsUnfunny" effect; even if [[TropeMakers you did it first]], that doesn't mean that other people, building on your work, won't eventually do it better. Finally, the test of time, by definition, can't be used to determine the quality of anything recent. A FanDumb StrawCritic of the more academic persuasion will often be seen [[NostalgiaFilter rejecting anything recent out of hand]]. Many writers, especially writers of science fiction, have complained of such a bias in academia.

Furthermore, an overly strict adherence to this trope can result in a mindset that views any art that originates after a certain point to be lesser than that which precedes it. This neglects that certain texts are very much of their time and reflect this; certain texts ''can'' go beyond the generation that spawned them to take on universal significance and relevance to all future generations, but these texts are very few and very far between. Furthermore, even the best of these texts may (or will) contain some level of ValuesDissonance or [[HaveAGayOldTime language]] [[GetTheeToANunnery issues]] that affect how the text is read; culture, language and understanding shifts from generation to generation. Art speaks to the generation of its time strongest of all.

In addition, from a purely statistical basis (due to population growth, improved leisure time, et cetera), it's extremely likely that there are more contemporary works of "true art" than have been created in the rest of human history.

See also SciFiGhetto.

Furthermore, an overly strict adherence to this trope can result in a mindset that views any art that originates after a certain point to be lesser than that what follows it. This neglects that certain texts are very much of their time and reflect this; certain texts ''can'' go beyond the generation that spawned them to take on universal significance and relevance to all future generations, but these texts are very few and very far between. Furthermore, even the best of these texts may (or will) contain some level of ValuesDissonance or [[HaveAGayOldTime language]] [[GetTheeToANunnery issues]] that affect how the text is read; culture, language and understanding shifts from generation to generation. Art speaks to the generation of its time strongest of all.

Compare SciFiGhetto.

Although the "test of time" is often reliable, it's not perfect. The fact that something has ''survived'' doesn't guarantee that it's actually ''good''. Many things that are remembered are remembered for their historical significance and their influence instead of their intrinsic merit. For example, some sections of TheBible, such as those that detail the laws of ancient Israel in minute detail, are rather boring to read and have no ''literary'' merit whatsoever -- that's right, even the Bible can be boring! (Of course, TheBible isn't meant to be art, or not ''that'' part of it) There's also the "SeinfeldIsUnfunny" effect; even if [[TropeMakers you did it first]], that doesn't mean that other people, building on your work, won't eventually do it better. Finally, the test of time, by definition, can't be used to determine the quality of anything recent. A FanDumb StrawCritic of the more academic persuasion will often be seen [[NostagliaFilter rejecting anything recent out of hand]]. Many writers, especially writers of science fiction, have complained of such a bias in academia.

Although the "test of time" is often reliable, it's not perfect. The fact that something has ''survived'' doesn't guarantee that it's actually ''good''. Many things that are remembered are remembered for their historical significance and their influence instead of their intrinsic merit. For example, some sections of TheBible, such as those that detail the laws of ancient Israel in minute detail, are rather boring to read and have no ''literary'' merit whatsoever -- that's right, even the Bible can be boring! (Of course, TheBible isn't meant to be art, or not ''that'' part of it) There's also the "SeinfeldIsUnfunny" effect; even if [[TropeMakers you did it first]], that doesn't mean that other people, building on your work, won't eventually do it better. Finally, the test of time, by definition, can't be used to determine the quality of anything recent. A FanDumb StrawCritic of the more academic persuasion will often be seen rejecting anything recent out of hand. Many writers, especially writers of science fiction, have complained of such a bias in academia.