> The media of today is often created by the very people who were dissatisfied with what was available to us back in the 80's. It'll be interesting to see what

> The media of today is often created by the very people who were dissatisfied with what was available to us back in the 80's. It'll be interesting to see what people dissatisfied with the media of today come up with in another 30 years. This is a good observation, and seems to be true to me throughout literary/artistic history. You can look back through time, and many eras are obviously predominated by a particular creative movement, and each movement can be seen as a reaction of the previous dominant movement: postmodernism as a reaction of creators who were dissatisfied with modernism, modernism as a reaction of those who were dissatisfied with realism, itself a reaction to romanticism, etc. Hegelian dialectics come to mind. Of course, the avant-garde of any era didn't necessarily dislike the former movement (or otherwise be entirely unappreciative of it) to be dissatisfied with it; the only needed to recognize the shortcomings therein. The ebb-and-flow of these movements makes me wonder if the arts are inherently unable to characterize and embody the human experience. I don't see any reason why that must be true, but the notion that people have been identifying and responding to the shortcomings of their broader artistic environments since the dawn of art itself makes me contemplative. Perhaps it's simply that the human experience itself is in a constant state of flux.