4 ms·

This argument is often made, and has been common since the 1960s. Many good essays have been written, and are worth reading, but in the end they can all be boil

This argument is often made, and has been common since the 1960s. Many good essays have been written, and are worth reading, but in the end they can all be boiled down to this: popular arts have become somewhat more important and fine arts have become somewhat less important. Movies are still important, pop music is important, graphic design (of magazines and web sites and apps) is more important than it has ever been before. But the elite edge of art is less important to the public, in the ways mentioned here: "A basic familiarity with the ideas of the leading artists and architects is no longer part of the essential cultural equipment of an informed citizen." That doesn't mean that art has become irrelevant, only that certain kinds of art are less relevant, and other kinds of art are more relevant. People change, and the culture changes. When I was a little kid, my mom would read the New York Times and she would clip out articles about what the great novelists were writing and what the great architects were building, and whether New Urbanism would rescue the suburbs. Nowadays, my mom reads the New York Times and she clips out articles about cloud computing, and she talks about whether the USA is investing enough to modernize its communication infrastructure.

askafriend 11y ago
Your mom sounds pretty cool
coldtea 11y ago
>Movies are still important, pop music is important, graphic design (of magazines and web sites and apps) is more important than it has ever been before. Pop music is not as important as it was either. Musicians used to be huge cultural phenomena, and a kind of escape into another world, now there are tons of similar escapes (computer games, for example, a huge thing, weren't even available to the common how when pop was huge, nor where social media, chat, YouTube, Instagram, the modern "artistically relevant and high production quality" tv series and tons of other things). Now you can ask 10 people and they wouldn't know a current top 10 song -- whereas in the 70's for example it would be inescapable. And graphic design has faded too -- there was a brief period in the mid-eighties to early 00s were graphic designers were huge pop heroes -- interviews in magazines, stars like Neville Brody, David Carson that you get to hear about even as a layman, etc. Now it's only other graphic and web folk care about graphic and web designers. >People change, and the culture changes. It's also good however to be making judgement calls on those changes too. Else we accept everything and anything as fate.
- mrob 11y ago
  >Musicians used to be huge cultural phenomena It still is. Is there any music from the 70s that's been heard by as many people as Gangnam Style? Psy currently has nearly 5 billion total views on YouTube.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    That's a novelty hit, not a cultural phenomenon in the sense of something that affects culture. It was forgotten as soon as the next thing came along, the same way Harlem Shake or whatever were, and it never had any deep emotional or cultural impact to those who saw it in the first place. And even that it's more due to the video than the music -- even you measured it on "billion views".
    - _cudgel 11y ago
      > it never had any deep emotional or cultural impact to those who saw it in the first place. How could you possibly know what had a deep emotional impact on anyone other than yourself or possibly the people you interact with most closely in life? Here's an alternate proposal for you: You've grown as a person, and all the deep emotional impacts that music might be able to make on you have been made. To those still growing, you aren't able to assess the impact, because you now view the world through the eyes of an adult. Give it 30 years, and watch as all these things come back again into pop-culture because those kids from today will be in your shoes, as decision makers at TV/Internet/Whatever companies that push pop-culture -- being guided by their own sense of nostalgia about the things that impacted them as kids.
      - coldtea 11y ago
        >How could you possibly know what had a deep emotional impact on anyone other than yourself or possibly the people you interact with most closely in life? By being a human, involved with culture, and plain being able to see and place cultural artifacts upon certain contexts. How do we know that a war has left "deep emotional impact" to lots of people other than ourselves or "possibly the people we interact with most closely in life"? Because we do, we know what war is, we know what it does to people, etc. In the same way, we know what novelty pop hits are. As opposed to regular pop hits that mostly capture some teens attention for a few years (e.g. Bieber or NKOTB back in the day) and more involved pop that goes deeper. >Here's an alternate proposal for you: You've grown as a person, and all the deep emotional impacts that music might be able to make on you have been made. To those still growing, you aren't able to assess the impact, because you now view the world through the eyes of an adult. I'm quite atypical in this regard, as despite being mid-late-30s, I follow lots of music and still have deep emotional impact from all kinds of stuff, from techno to regular chart pop to some obscure garage-psychedelic or jazz record (I really like from The Residents to Westbam, Deep Freeze Mice and Mingus, and can even hum something like Redfoo's songs). But even as a teenager, I can tell you that there were lots of novelty hits I went for that meant really nothing for me (or anyone else that forgot about them after their peak) and stuff that had deeper impact, which was of a different kind (could still be pop: it just wasn't a novelty track like, say, Cotton Eye Joe or The Scatman).
kingkawn 11y ago
The idea of importance is also no longer important.
- m52go 11y ago
  What do you mean?
  - kingkawn 11y ago
    That there is a central main narrative that is the primary trend across the population that can be used to make predictive generalizations. The idea that a broad conclusion about what is important vs not now has any meaning beyond the person speaking is no longer the case. The Internet has truly splintered us and we are now all exposed as talking only about our own impressions, not referring to a larger whole that previously could be used to fashion an identity and sense of correctness around.

askafriend 11y ago

Your mom sounds pretty cool

coldtea 11y ago

>Movies are still important, pop music is important, graphic design (of magazines and web sites and apps) is more important than it has ever been before. Pop music is not as important as it was either. Musicians used to be huge cultural phenomena, and a kind of escape into another world, now there are tons of similar escapes (computer games, for example, a huge thing, weren't even available to the common how when pop was huge, nor where social media, chat, YouTube, Instagram, the modern "artistically relevant and high production quality" tv series and tons of other things). Now you can ask 10 people and they wouldn't know a current top 10 song -- whereas in the 70's for example it would be inescapable. And graphic design has faded too -- there was a brief period in the mid-eighties to early 00s were graphic designers were huge pop heroes -- interviews in magazines, stars like Neville Brody, David Carson that you get to hear about even as a layman, etc. Now it's only other graphic and web folk care about graphic and web designers. >People change, and the culture changes. It's also good however to be making judgement calls on those changes too. Else we accept everything and anything as fate.

mrob 11y ago
>Musicians used to be huge cultural phenomena It still is. Is there any music from the 70s that's been heard by as many people as Gangnam Style? Psy currently has nearly 5 billion total views on YouTube.
- coldtea 11y ago
  That's a novelty hit, not a cultural phenomenon in the sense of something that affects culture. It was forgotten as soon as the next thing came along, the same way Harlem Shake or whatever were, and it never had any deep emotional or cultural impact to those who saw it in the first place. And even that it's more due to the video than the music -- even you measured it on "billion views".
  - _cudgel 11y ago
    > it never had any deep emotional or cultural impact to those who saw it in the first place. How could you possibly know what had a deep emotional impact on anyone other than yourself or possibly the people you interact with most closely in life? Here's an alternate proposal for you: You've grown as a person, and all the deep emotional impacts that music might be able to make on you have been made. To those still growing, you aren't able to assess the impact, because you now view the world through the eyes of an adult. Give it 30 years, and watch as all these things come back again into pop-culture because those kids from today will be in your shoes, as decision makers at TV/Internet/Whatever companies that push pop-culture -- being guided by their own sense of nostalgia about the things that impacted them as kids.
    - coldtea 11y ago
      >How could you possibly know what had a deep emotional impact on anyone other than yourself or possibly the people you interact with most closely in life? By being a human, involved with culture, and plain being able to see and place cultural artifacts upon certain contexts. How do we know that a war has left "deep emotional impact" to lots of people other than ourselves or "possibly the people we interact with most closely in life"? Because we do, we know what war is, we know what it does to people, etc. In the same way, we know what novelty pop hits are. As opposed to regular pop hits that mostly capture some teens attention for a few years (e.g. Bieber or NKOTB back in the day) and more involved pop that goes deeper. >Here's an alternate proposal for you: You've grown as a person, and all the deep emotional impacts that music might be able to make on you have been made. To those still growing, you aren't able to assess the impact, because you now view the world through the eyes of an adult. I'm quite atypical in this regard, as despite being mid-late-30s, I follow lots of music and still have deep emotional impact from all kinds of stuff, from techno to regular chart pop to some obscure garage-psychedelic or jazz record (I really like from The Residents to Westbam, Deep Freeze Mice and Mingus, and can even hum something like Redfoo's songs). But even as a teenager, I can tell you that there were lots of novelty hits I went for that meant really nothing for me (or anyone else that forgot about them after their peak) and stuff that had deeper impact, which was of a different kind (could still be pop: it just wasn't a novelty track like, say, Cotton Eye Joe or The Scatman).

kingkawn 11y ago

The idea of importance is also no longer important.

m52go 11y ago
What do you mean?
- kingkawn 11y ago
  That there is a central main narrative that is the primary trend across the population that can be used to make predictive generalizations. The idea that a broad conclusion about what is important vs not now has any meaning beyond the person speaking is no longer the case. The Internet has truly splintered us and we are now all exposed as talking only about our own impressions, not referring to a larger whole that previously could be used to fashion an identity and sense of correctness around.