3 ms·

For it to be considered as such I think that it would need to be easily recognised by a relatively large portion of the world compared to other shows. Anecdotal

For it to be considered as such I think that it would need to be easily recognised by a relatively large portion of the world compared to other shows. Anecdotal but I have only 1 friend who watched B99, but almost all of my friends would be able to recognise actors/scenes from Breaking Bad even if they haven't watched the show itself. Breaking Bad is referenced a lot in pop culture, much more so than B99 (an example I can think of would be the rehashing of the sentence "This is the moment when [Walter White] became [Heisenberg]"). The same can be said of The Office. People have been exposed to it enough that they can recognize a scene from it based on the production style even if they have never watched the show. I do not think Brooklynn 99 is at that stage yet. Perhaps it will reach it in the future. This has nothing to do with the merits of B99 though. I personally think it is a great show. It has good characters, fantastic actors, decent writing and an alright overarching plot. But I would not call it a cultural artifact (yet).

arp242 3y ago
Yeah, that's not how culture works, or ever worked. You don't need to be omni-dominant in a "large portion of the world". Most works of culture are seen, read, or heard by a relatively small part of the world, and they all contribute strands to a larger tapestry. Some strands are wider ("most influential") and/or longer ("remembered longer") than others, but every strand is part of culture. If you were to pick up a guitar and started singing at the local pub then that's culture too. No, it's not the reach of the Rolling Stones or whatnot, but that doesn't mean it's not culture.
- subtra3t 3y ago
  So by your definition is this comment thread itself a cultural artifact. Your definition of the phrase cultural artifact is lenient enough to allow for that. After all, this thread was seen by a relatively small part of the world and it contributes to the "larger tapestry" (ie the hacker news post).
  - FartyMcFarter 3y ago
    Well, yes.
  - pohl 3y ago
    By George I think you’ve got it.

arp242 3y ago

Yeah, that's not how culture works, or ever worked. You don't need to be omni-dominant in a "large portion of the world". Most works of culture are seen, read, or heard by a relatively small part of the world, and they all contribute strands to a larger tapestry. Some strands are wider ("most influential") and/or longer ("remembered longer") than others, but every strand is part of culture. If you were to pick up a guitar and started singing at the local pub then that's culture too. No, it's not the reach of the Rolling Stones or whatnot, but that doesn't mean it's not culture.

subtra3t 3y ago
So by your definition is this comment thread itself a cultural artifact. Your definition of the phrase cultural artifact is lenient enough to allow for that. After all, this thread was seen by a relatively small part of the world and it contributes to the "larger tapestry" (ie the hacker news post).
- FartyMcFarter 3y ago
  Well, yes.
- pohl 3y ago
  By George I think you’ve got it.