Why Culture Has Come to a Standstill - by Jason Farago in the NYTimes

Oct 10th article in NYTimes, free version on web archive.

For those with a Times subscription (the comments are great)

I blame Lauren Boebert

This entire long article seems like an advertisement for Amy Winehouse’s Back To Black album. Clever!

I agree with this article 100%, and in fact I had already come to the same conclusion quite a while ago.

Everything in the 2000's has just been a re-tread of past decades.

Nothing new or creative.

In fact, social media and smart phones has sucked the intelligence and creativity out of everyone, but especially the youth, who are supposed to be the innovators.

There are no more Wright Brothers or Einsteins or Mozarts. And we'll never know if there are any out there.

Why not? Because they're too busy staring at their phones and taking selfies.

I’m glad he acknowledges that people were having the same conversations about culture in the 1980’s, when the “post-modern” era was evidence that everything had been done, it was all over, and we were trapped in a retro curve loop (and this was before the internet).

Now… the 80’s are looked back on as some sort of pop culture golden age. But having lived through them myself as a teenager/young adult, I can distinctly remember how scattered, disjointed and uncertain that period felt.

He’s ridiculous! We’ve remade Spider-Man in the most innovative way possible!

R5 - it’s because *influencer* has become a legitimate career. And career choice. My partner’s oldest nephew dreamed of being an influencer. We asked of what. He said he didn’t know, but could rattle off all the ones he knew and how much money they make. Don’t you want to go to college, kid?

Interesting examples, some of them too obvious, but some not so. I’ve never hear that explanation of the history of that Manet painting, or of the DIS collective.

I know this may be the minority view...

But "culture" has come to a stop precisely because most people have realized, if only partially, that it was largely bullshit to begin with.

Innovation for innovation's sake rarely leads anywhere and how many great spiritual themes can you squeeze out of a secular age? We're so accustomed to living in Eliot's Wasteland that we don't even perceive it that way any more.

The highbrow in literature has vanished because it was depressing and dull. Architecture is simply packaging. Who cares about poetry?

We don't need any more paintings of dead rich people or gods no one believes in - still less hunks of rusted metal or gigantic balloon dogs. The naked body has been colonized by internet porn.

What else is left?

And if the answer is "nothing" who gives a shit?

Another similar idea, expressed in a different way.

I think people have lost creativity and new ideas with the advent of the smart phone / everyone having a computer.

The NY Times Popcast was discussing the future of album reviews last week. One of the points discussed was how ephemeral content is now and how we may be reaching a point where audiences are no longer interested in anything new.

With the glut of movies, TV shows and music we have now, it seems likely that audiences won't be interested in anything new fairly soon, as in the next 10 or 20 years. And there won't be any correction to this because the machinery that produces all of it has changed so much over the past few decades.

I still watch new movies and TV shows, and I try to expose myself to new music. But it's becoming difficult to find things I enjoy, which is ironic with the ease of access to all those things. Part of that is age, but it's also a major lack of innovation.

It’s been observed how little music and fashion have changed in twenty years

This is IMO the result of the beginning of end-stage capitalism combining with the “end of history” theory

“The end of history is a political and philosophical concept that supposes that a particular political, economic, or social system may develop that would constitute the end-point of humanity's sociocultural evolution and the final form of human government.”

Basically the combination of factors which ushered in late-stage capitalism (the mass corporatization of Walmart, Amazon, JPMorgan or Disney, for example) have determined it is no longer in its financial interest for fashion and music to change, at least like we were accustomed to with huge changes about every five years in the 20th century. Therefore, they are determined to simply “reboot” old styles instead of innovation.

Thanks Obama!

R13 I think a lot of that started with Reagan era in the 1980s. I agree with most of your post but I'd place the start of the decay with the collapse of a lot of industry and small town businesses, the huge consolidation of companies into corporate mega companies, which in turn impacted how TV, film, music and other arts were supported and sold.

What the world lacks now is imagination.

Instead of people being smart, our phones have become "smart."

And now with AI, humans won't have to think at all.

People think this is advancing civilization? No fucking way.

It's having someone else (or someTHING else, I should say) do the thinking for us.

Kids don't know how to read a map. Or calculate numbers using their minds. They let their phones do all the thinking for them.

Our brains were meant to be used. But with all of these "advances" in technology, we are using our brains less and less.

And don't even get me started on what it has done to our ability to think critically.

This is precisely why we get the elected officials we have, and why prices are allowed to get out of control, and why we are in the situation we are in.

When you give up your ability to use your brain to really think about things and distinguish between right and wrong and good and bad, then you give up your freedom.

And cynically, I think this is what "the powers that be" want for us. A docile, disengaged, brain dead populace that they can control.

This is more than just about culture and fashion and movies.

This is about our very existence.

R15 I also agree it started with Reagan, which brings me to the Blade Runner Theory of History.

Ridley Scott made Blade Runner as a response to the changes that Reaganism and Thatcherism were bringing and what they would do to the future

Basically he was correct and we are now on the path to the society depicted in the movie, which is The End of History.

The fin de siecle culture of the 90s happened to coincide with the rise of the Internet, a giant index of everything in the world.

This was only a presage to Artificial Intelligence (note the year Steven Spielberg made that film, right as the century turned)

Rather than spur more innovation, the giant index of the Internet simply laid the foundation for artificial intelligence to be born. Humans no longer need to innovate because the machines have gotten there.

If you take Blade Runner and AI Artificial Intelligence together, they can easily lay out the likely scenario of the rest of the 21st century:

-massive environmental destruction particularly relating to water (constant rain in Los Angeles, flooded Manhattan)

-enormously powerful corporations

-the omnipotent wealthy living in fortresses

-decaying, dystopian cities

-fascistic, reactionary violence (the flesh fair in AI)

-artificial intelligence

Our culture has become Grey. Grey walls. Grey floors. Grey hair.

I also think it dates to Reagan's presidency, but because that's when the market took over everything. We have terrible arts and culture because the businessmen have taken over the arts and culture industries, and now the financial bottom line is all that matters.

People are addicted now. It started in 1980s with boys. The couldn’t take their eyes of video game screens. They curse, slam things, yell for hours in front of a screen

Then came computers then came tablets/pads. People started carrying laptops everywhere when they came out with ones that played DVDs. Than the smartphone. It’s funny how Facebook endures. Chatrooms died, online forums withered, web-rings disappeared, then blogs were all stopped dead in their tracks by Facebook, which became a religion among older women.

People are so into themselves, their grand babies, their food, their Yelp reviews, their tweets. The shutdown ended a lot of friendships over mask/no mask, vax/no vax. Celebrities are molded in front of our eyes as they change appearance due to radical procedures.

Celebrity divorces are now entertainment. There are books, podcasts, videos about johnny Depp and Amber Heard.

We don’t see movies about people like us. We hardly see movies about people. It’s all superheroes and cartoons.

Thirty year old men buying Lego’s.

School shootings about which nothing is done.

We’re living in a world where there’s no one we can trust. Not our family, not our friends, not strangers in the street who might sucker punch us as a prank. We can’t get on a plane without dreading the claustrophobic feel and the possibility someone might open a door during flight, or fly us into a building.

It's surprising (or maybe not) how the arts seem to be so absent in people's lives today.

When I was a kid in the 80s, virtually everyone, irrespective of class or education, had heard of Pavarotti and Baryshnikov. Most people knew of Arthur Miller or Tennessee Williams.

Who are their counterparts today?

The audience for Opera, Ballet, Symphonies must be dying out even in large cities like NYC. How do big city cultural institutions survive these days. Is Lincoln Center selling out?

Traditional theater and opera is dying an extremely fast death, with many regional theaters including major ones like Steppenwolf in trouble

R21 is the end of civilization right there.

People are forgetting how to use the apostrophe.

Lorne Michaels Bob Iger, Andy Cohen, Simon Cowell, and Picasso being taken seriously

Superhero movies, reality and garbage music proliferate. Very little of lasting value created in the new millennium.

When I mention to millennial friends that society seems to be regressing when compared to my experiences ‘70s-‘90s I often hear, “how can you say that? We now have a device in our hand that can tell us anything and pretty much do anything”. They just don’t get it.

This progression of culture thing is a product of the 20th century. Pre-20th, no one thought about the future. There wasn’t a race for anything. People just wanted to survive. People now expect too much. What about AIDS? Do you think that’s not progression? Technology has changed us at lightning speed. You know what hasn’t progressed? The NYT.

R28, they’re absolutely right.

If you base culture on Hollywood, that’s really embarrassing.

R22, most of this people weren’t old at the time. Boomers knew next to nothing about the First World War because it was old. It’s true of every generation. The reason why everyone doesn’t know everything and everyone is because of technology. There’s far too much choice. The reason why people knew those people is because there was no choice. You relied on the media and four tv channels.

[quote] This is IMO the result of the beginning of end-stage capitalism combining with the “end of history” theory

End stage capitalism? You don’t even know what that means. You forgot the work in neoliberalism, too, comrade. You think all this music and art comes out of capitalist America? It comes out of Korea, China, Scandinavia, etc.

Everything you guys are mentioning is Hollywood. Hollywood has always been low-class and vulgar. It was never original. Just repackaged crap.

"I don't want to be new, I want to be good"

--'Ludwig Mies van der Rohe

This used to mean something too.

Novelty of form is overrated.

/rolls eyes at R34

It's pretty obvious to anyone even slightly socially aware that this century has been responsible for startlingly few innovative technologies and works of art. As a lover of art/culture/literature/poetry/film/music/fashion (any or all), it's depressing and extremely existential to think humanity's creative supply has been tapped out. But is it necessarily a bad thing? Is it better to innovate, for innovation's sake alone? There are enough significant works of art to keep us thinking and inspired into eternity, I'm sure. One last push to create a truly workable global model for sustainability, and we can live on the fat of the past. What else is there?

Could it be possible that we've reached the end of all new, good ideas? Or can a lack of intelligence and ingenuity (and powerlessness due to Capitalism) really be to blame?

Or there is less gate-keeping and people who 'decide' what culture is no longer matter.

Vogue and fashion magazines used to create and produce trends - nobody cares about those as much anymore. And people aren't listening to one person or group held aloft to determine what you should wear or look like.

Similar comments can be made for the publishing world, film production, etc.

The 'centers' of food, culture, arts are no longer just the global cities. You don't have to live in NYC to get creative, good food or to see good theater. I applaud that.

This thread is confusing as many as three separate and only alleged issues (albeit related issues).

The first, that there is a dearth of new formal expression.

The second, that there is less production of new works at the level that would be called "high culture."

The third, that there is less interest in "culture" as a whole.

All three things can be true, but they don't necessarily reflect the same thing.

I definitely think we are in the grip of social and cultural entropy. In spite of advances and exponential growth in terms of technology, I think culturally and socially we are disintegrating.

[quote] Could it be possible that we've reached the end of all new, good ideas?

Gene Roddenberry seem to think so. The Federation was absolutely at a cultural dead end. The performers on the Starships never played anything fresher than the mid 1950s with Shakespeare, Gilbert and Sullivan, Dumas, Dashiell Hammett, Sinatra, and Cole Porter.

What has happened is a leveling of the audience at an international scale.

Teenagers in Lagos, Shanghai and Osage City are suddenly part of a (potential) single marketing grab. But the resultant dumbing down doesn't mean that they're all equally dumb.

The creativity of the 1870-1970 period was largely a response to the quadruple whammy of modern technology, modern warfare, exploding population and the collapse of feudal society.

Looking back at it and wondering why we can't have more is like wondering why the person in the hospital bed isn't still having that very entertaining seizure.

We Artist are hated unless we are wealthy or in a context of wealth. Art has always been an expression of wealth. The middle class what’s left of it is mostly trying not to fall into poverty. That’s the idea we’re focused on now, survival.

Listen to yourselves. Didn't your parents say the same thing ? Your grandparents heard the same line from their parents. It's a product of aging. Civilization is not coming to an end but YOU are. You're OLD. It's YOUR culture that is becoming irrelevant and you resent it. Tough shit. Now get off my lawn gramps.

The NY Times uses Amy Winehouse as an example but it’s particularly egregious because Amy Winehouse simply carried on the tradition of the Ronnettes and Dusty Springfield of blue eyed soul. Blue eyed soul comes and goes revert couple of years, and Winehouse began a new era that includes Adele, Duffy, Meghan Trainor and others.

The issue is not so much a blue eyed soul revival, but the fact that everything else is a revival and nothing really new sounding is being created.

A better example might be Disney cannibalizing the past with endless remakes of its animated cannon or retconning the original Star Wars. In fact, the perfect symbol of our era is probably Baby Yoda.

R43

“In Italy, for 30 years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love, they had 500 years of democracy and peace - and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.”

[quote] We Artist are hated

The story of art in the last hundred years is primarily that of the artist's hatred of the public. Art to beautify, glorify, and inspire is replaced by anger , contempt, and subversion.

R47 Don't forget copious amounts of cheese, chocolate and stable banks.

This is an amusing video because after 1990 nothing changes.

The model is Matt Watts.

R40 Hear Hear!

This video does show a little bit more of a change from the 1990s

The issue with fashion is IMO that it is still changing but very slowly, because global capitalism finds it more efficient now to hang on to trends than dispose of them quickly. For example, it’s obvious that the Fast and Furious franchise is going out of fashion, but it still went for a good 20 years (the first one came out perfectly timed in 2001 for fin de siecle.)

Good article and comments; interesting discussion here.

R46 No question Amy Winehouse was continuing the tradition of blue eyed soul, but it was art, it was authentic, she took an existing model and infused it with her essence. I don't think we expect artists to trailblaze new forms every year, but at least surprise us by baring your soul. Where are the authentic soul-barers, who do it out of passionate necessity and not breast beating narcissism?

R54, you think that hasn't been the question being asked since Plutarch wrote his first sonnet?

"The poets have muddied all the little fountains..." Etc.

"Listen to yourselves. Didn't your parents say the same thing ? Your grandparents heard the same line from their parents. It's a product of aging. Civilization is not coming to an end but YOU are. You're OLD. It's YOUR culture that is becoming irrelevant and you resent it. Tough shit. Now get off my lawn gramps."

You have a legit point. It's not like this concern, this idea of cultural stagnation is unique to our current times, and the author does point that out. But, I'd argue that my parents, my grandparents didn't make that argument - the argument that things were stagnating, that there was nothing "new" or changing. Rather, they made the argument that things were new and changing, but that those new and changing things had little value compared to what they knew. Whether they truly believed it or were simply reacting defensively to their own aging and feelings of irrelevance, I don't know. But, that seems to be the insecurity espoused by a large swath of every generation as they age - what I value isn't seemingly valued anymore; hence I'm not valued and I feel invisible, an after thought, old.

All of this is anecdotal, but my parents and grandparents didn't seem to ever critique culture as stagnant; more often they were taken aback by the pace of change. Now the pace of "change" is merely the pace of production and the critique is that not much has changed even if there's tons of rapid-fire production - said cynically, "they're acting like this is brand new."

[quote] In fact, social media and smart phones has sucked the intelligence and creativity out of everyone, but especially the youth, who are supposed to be the innovators.

This pretty much sums it up imo.

Good essay.

A lot to digest.

It's sameness that kills creativity...the success of The Mouse...

Fear to step out of the box and not "liked" or, worse, declared cancelled.

The profit motive...why experiment when another superhero movie can make us millions.

The desire to fit in overrules the need to critique.

"The desire to fit in overrules the need to critique."

The highest status for most people is to be "normal."

People are too afraid to think outside the box or say how they really feel because of political correctness. The far left has killed art. They demand art be taken down because it’s offensive and they come up with new words for things because it’s triggering. You can create in a world like that.

*can’t create

Too much group think today. “Read the room” = agree with everyone else or face the consequences.

While "triggering" and "canceled" may be relatively new words, they're not new ideas. Artists have always faced consequences, sometimes harsh career-damaging consequences. There's not some magical time when all cultural production was accepted; and it really shouldn't all be accepted point blank. I think what's changed, given our interconnected and online world, is the ease with which people can offer their opinion that artists should be penalized for their work (or simply their comments). It takes nothing but a click; not much commitment. Further, I'd put a large amount of the blame on mere "observers", maybe even more so than the person making the original criticism of an artist. People just love to be on board with something.

[quote] People are too afraid to think outside the box or say how they really feel because of political correctness. The

I wonder if the internet made life for everyone so international that it has thrown the innate need to feel part of a tribe off-kilter. Like, we’re all trying to fit in with so many people now. At least online. Maybe people are trying to enforce some kind of commonality because humans want that instinctively.

A bit of a stretch, but could be a factor.

Creativity and innovation in the arts is 100% dead

Against this is not so much about the invention itself.

Rather, it's about peoples' desire, willingness, and even ability to create and invent.

All throughout human history, each generation has done something new. From indoor plumbing, sewer systems, tax systems, and organized governmental agencies during the Roman era, to calendars and printing presses during the Middle ages, to cameras and photography and refrigeration in the 1800's, to phones and electricity, automobiles, and airplanes in the 1900's.

Each generation came up with these major advances in technology and innovation, because people had the imagination and creativity to do so.

And don't forget about all the art and music that came about in the past 2000+ years.

They weren't distracted by the stupid and useless things we're distracted by today. As already mentioned, smart phones, social media, selfies, influencers, and political correctness.

All of these things are distracting today's youthful innovators. Instead of using their minds to develop new and unique tools, inventions, music, and art, these young people are just waiting for the newest version of the Iphone to do it for them.

Why think or imagine, when a stupid little gadget can do it for you?

Today's youth are intellectually lazy and creatively lacking in every single aspect of culture. They have no new ideas because they lack the motivation to come up with anything new. Plus, they're too busy taking pictures of themselves and making millions of dollars "influencing" for corporations.

It's so fucking twisted.

Originality was is and will always be the rarest quality.

You know for decrying how the Kids Today aren't creative, you all are not very creative with your diagnoses of the situation.

The first thing that happened is that it became too expensive to be poor.

It used to be that you could live in London or NYC or Paris or any big, creative city for not that much money. That hasn't been true for a long time. Now, only rich kids have the ability to be artists and they all suck.

Also - and this is squarely on boomers - old people don't want to be old any more.

Everyone thinks they're young. Everyone dresses like teenagers. Grown people wear superhero outfits. Parents long to use the latest youthful lingo.

People like feeling the power of being able to destroy someone and unfortunately businesses going along with it thereby emboldening people who love “cancelling”, which sounds Orwellian in and of itself. You have an entire generation growing up that everyone needs to be in agreement, no one should rock the boat. It’s very Marxist. You simply cannot create in that type of environment. Who wants their lives destroyed, their families harassed, etc? It’s easier just to going along with everyone else. The only ones who can go against society are those with fuck you money and unfortunately whatever they come up with will suit their own financial interests, not culture.

R68, what does dressing have to do with anything?

[quote] Also - and this is squarely on boomers - old people don't want to be old any more.

[quote]Everyone thinks they're young. Everyone dresses like teenagers. Grown people wear superhero outfits. Parents long to use the latest youthful lingo.

Are you crazy, R68? Do you even know any "old" people? I live in Florida surrounded by "old" people (I myself am 65), and honey, trust me -- none of us wish to be young unless you mean we wish to be as physically healthy as we were, say, 20 years ago. Yes, everyone wishes that.

We know no new slang. We listen to no new music. The last era of music I actually liked was from the 90s. I don't even try to listen anymore because I no longer care. Plus, all of us, even those with only high school diplomas, are better educated than anyone younger than Gen Xers. And yes, you can ask me how I know, and I'll tell you. While I was teaching at various Florida colleges where I couldn't get a tenure-track position because I was out and proud, I worked PT scoring essays (and these are national exams, so you can't blame FL) for the GRE, SAT, and No Child Left Behind exams. I wanted to weep, the responses were so poorly written, not only due to the usual grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors, but content-wise as well.

You can say/feel/think whatever you like, of course. But I know what I know. Just wait for the crises when the Millennials and the Zs take over!

R11 bah, I can definitely tell when something is from the 2000s. There was tons of layered clothing, low waisted boot cut jeans and side parted hair. Chunky belts, the emo scene kid style, mall name brand shirts. The image quality looked different from cell phone cameras. The unique thing I notice today is the extreme contoured makeup women wear and the inflated lip look, the broccoli head and short shorts on boys.

A lot of good thoughts in this thread. I would add in the loss of physical media as a reason why so much of our culture feels disposable. When we had to go to stores and physically obtain our trophies — be they albums or books or videos or even video games — that item felt more like a product into which its creators devoted time and effort. The object was itself part of the overall package. With so much of culture now being streamed and clicked and consumed with so little effort, it’s easier to devalue it.

The internet and social media, especially the constant use of it with the smartphone, has killed the one thing that most inspires creativity.....boredom.

1. I think creativity has been stifled because people are afraid of being “cancelled” so artists tend to only put their most bland work out there as not to cause controversy.

2. People can no longer afford to support the arts. Most people, especially young people, are just trying to get by and living paycheck to paycheck.

American public schools have also cut back drastically on the arts so kids don’t grow up with an appreciation for the arts like earlier generations did.

3. There have been innovations in indie music and indie film but those artists don’t get mainstream attention.

4. The entertainment industry is pretty much fueled by nepotism now which is why it sucks.

"The internet and social media, especially the constant use of it with the smartphone, has killed the one thing that most inspires creativity.....boredom."

I totally agree, but maybe maybe boredom along with a lack of things to easily distract a person. I still know plenty of people always in their gadgets who claim to be bored. Also, the feedback loop. Creativity used to be a way to get feedback, even if by a small number of people. Now people are inundated with feedback; it's only a click away. Of course people will give feedback to creativity if you put it out there, but you don't have to. You can get feedback for a picture of the burger you're eating or a social media post giving your take on what you saw on television.

Because luxuries like pop culture and innovation take a backseat to simply surviving, and right now, it appears we are entering a time when people just want to keep their heads above the water.

But haven't pop culture and innovation come from struggling populations in prior generations? Not uniformly (not all innovators were struggling), but at least partially. A significant portion of the population trying to stay afloat is nothing new.

Exactly, R78.

I think R77 is wrong.

Necessity is the "Mother of Invention."

Today's young generation wants for nothing. They have everything they need at their fingertips.

They are also the beneficiaries of one of the most productive and richest eras in human history. And they have direct access to that money through technology.

So they have a lot of disposable income and time to engage in frivolous activities. Not to mention access to the latest technology.

Which is why they are not out there inventing, and innovating, and creating. They're just coasting.

There's no reason for them to mentally exert themselves.

It's obvious why everything stopped after 1985. AIDS cut down a generation of gay men who would have become the innovators of art,music, and culture.

R78 Yep. For example, the complete lack of working class representation in music outside of rap/hip-hop is evident today.

I think there probably is a lot of creativity out there, but the gigantic corporate structures that now control their distribution won't take even the tiniest financial risk, so you have to look for it. Meanwhile the mainstream is filled with retreads.

Apologies if someone posted this rather obvious explanation above; I haven't read the whole thread.

[quote] after 1985. AIDS cut down a generation of gay men who would have become the innovators of art,music, and culture.

By that theory, more than a generation having passed the new crop of gay guys should be accomplishing something better than this performance

R10 👏 👏 Fuck me senseless.

These new fangled "paperbacks" have stunted youngsters creativity.

It’s because they stopped teaching cursive.

R10, yours is not a minority view at all, it is the majority view. It shows a complete lack of appreciation--by which I mean understanding--of high culture in any form. The idea that all great literature is "depressing and dull", for example, simply means you haven't read any since school and you didn't have a good teacher then. Nobody has done paintings of gods for 150 years, and while rich people doubtless still commission portraits of themselves, none has been considered an international masterpiece since the 19th century. If architecture is only packaging, why does every performer want to appear at the Sydney Opera House?

"Innovation for innovation's sake rarely leads anywhere" is one of the great "No shit Sherlock" remarks I have seen on the DL. No artist is appreciated because they innovated for the sake of doing it. They had to be innovating because they had something new to say. For example, it's pointless to go on painting like John Constable after someone has invented the camera, but that wasn't the main reason Cezanne and the Cubists struck out away from naturalism: they wanted to show the world art could convey several different perspectives at once. That in turn became a keynote of perception in general in the 20th century, all the way to Schrodinger's Cat which is either alive or dead according to whether it is viewed.

Put another way: "The designer introduces Cerulean as a theme in Paris Fashion Week, and eventually it percolates down to wherever you bought that ugly sweater."

What you are saying is that it requires effort to understand the arts properly, therefore they are stupid and not worth bothering with and therefore Ovah. If Steve Jobs had said the same thing about electronics (for which it is also true) you wouldn't be able to watch reality TV on your iPhone instead.

R42 getting close to the point that disturbs me most. The international accessibility of all art and information is not a bad thing, but the fact that more than a vast majority (99% is not an exaggeration) of it all is geared toward the lowest common denominator is the problem. One generation of poorly educated and highly conditioned kids is all it takes for people to not even know the difference.

R87 no offense intended to Steve Jobs, but I don't think the ability to watch reality TV on our iPhones is a good example of innovation that has enhanced the quality of life on this planet. Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. That's what I meant by "innovation for innovation's sake." This current onslaught of AI is another good example. These technologies can be helpful when used responsibly, but of course no one is interested in that when there is an immediate profit to be made.

R87, I worked as an art curator and literary critic for 25+ years.

The world of "high culture" is riven with bullshit and driven by money, same as it always was.

The best art addresses new issues through the most appropriate means. Sometimes that involves a new form of dialogue. Sometimes -and these days usually - not.

The century of innovation cited above - roughly 1870-1970 - was driven by cultural development that fell outside the arts.

Its audiences tended to be very small and drawn from the wealthy - people who could afford it, after all. It's only the post-WWII period where high culture gained a foothold with the general population, and that is a mere accident of surplus wealth. The "dumbing down" of people is reflective of the decay of the middle and upper middle class in terms of income as much as anything else. John Cage is less amusing on a stagnant wage.

As for dull and depressing - it might not bother you or me per se, but there's only so many times existentialism can be trotted out as a warhorse before it dissolves into yet another pathetic fallacy. And there's no Blake or Bulgakov waiting in the wings. The parametric architecture of shit-smears like Patrik Schumacher doesn't even succeed as packaging. Packaging at least keeps things fresh. Poetry? Show me the voice of Pound or Stevens for our day, let alone Eliot. HINT: convolution is not depth.

The flip side of this is that the reason why Mozart and Shakespeare continue to succeed is that they represented a mix of complete genius and middlebrow taste. Tell me The Magic Flute and A Midsummer Night's Dream aren't the superhero blockbusters of their day in addition to whatever else they are.

At the end of the day, you will get more out of Tolstoy than some chap trying to write a novel by cutting words out of the dictionary, flinging them into the air and gluing them together where they land. Not that the latter can't provide an amusing - even inspiring - way of looking at how words work. But how they work and the work they do are not the same thing.

Thanks for the dollop of dime-store condescension though, I needed the laugh.

R90 made me kinda hard.

Dolly Parton quietly buys musical instruments for poor high schools all over the South. That, to me, is doing more for the future of culture than anything else.

I think showing her big tits are.

There is more than enough great culture of the past to last many lifetimes.

R90, you completely misapprehended my argument and appear to be contradicting your own at R10.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

R89, my point about Steve Jobs was that he persevered with something very difficult and invented something marvellous (a computer in your pocket with more power than the one that sent Apollo to the moon). The fact that an individual uses it for a ludicrous purpose is not his fault, any more than it is Shakespeare's fault if someone is dumb enough to compare A Midsummer Night's Dream to a superhero movie just because both are popular.

Up until say the 18th century, wasn't most art and ome architecture fueled by religion? Nobody is creating anything now to the glory of their gods. Although I do remember the furor of an African artist creating a portrait of the Madonna with elephant dung in the 90's.

R95, I see reading comprehension is not your bag. Maybe if I tried interpretive dance?

I blame Magas.

I'm by no means poor, but I haven't been to a cultural event, concert or show since well before the pandemic.

I cannot understand or comprehend seeing a concert for $500, nor a musical or dramatic play for over $200. I support theater and want it to succeed, want everyone to be compensated, etc. My frustrations are mostly with the ticket orgs like Ticketmaster and LiveNation.

Sadly, I've also moved to a smaller town that doesn't have many of the free concerts, symphony performances, etc. that my former city did.

If I struggle with that, I'm sure younger people with smaller incomes and enormous rents/student loan payments are definitely not interested in spending so much on a few hours of music/culture.

It’s the despair of post-modernism. We acknowledged that all power structures around us were inherently corrupt. So now we believe in nothing: not the government; not religion due to secularism; not businesses due to unchecked greed and distasteful advertising; not media due to poor creativity; not each other due to the proliferation of violence. The catch is that we have nothing to replace these things. Nothing at all. The world is so big that nothing can ever be objectively “good” anymore. So since we collectively believe in nothing, and we can’t coalesce around any truly “good” things, we’re desperately searching for a collective reason for existing. The days of loving thy neighbor are over. The only future I see is one of violent competition for resources, whether that’s under the control of dystopian megacorporations or in a lawless desert. Thankfully, breeders will suffer the most. Those who mindlessly cling to life and procreation will need to existentially fight each other for those things.

R100, other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, what did you think of the play?

Oh look. Another thread where Boomers pat themselves on the back for their unprecedented contributions to culture, nevermind their disastrous leadership and decision making in other, far more important realms.

Art is no longer about the beauty of the artwork but the beauty of the idea behind the artwork. The problem is that creating beautiful ideas is harder to do than creating beautiful things.

R100, and adding to that: There is a current emphasis on postmodern "decolonizing" of everything. So we have shit like a retread of the endlessly retold story of Henry VIII's wives -- BUT WAIT! They're all black and have a dazzling array of sexual orientations! WOW! TRANSGRESSIVE!!!

An original musical about a really interesting black person -- Billy Strayhorn? Malcolm X? Scott Joplin? Frederick Douglass? Naw, fuck that noise. We're just gonna keep doing the same ol' shit that was already being done 100 years ago, but the shocking, fresh, and provocative twist is: everyone's black. Cleopatra. The founding fathers. Regency England. It's not a retread of well-worn material, though; it's a reinterpretation! And if you don't agree that it's startlingly original, you're racist.

Same goes for reworkings like the recent "Mrs Doubtfire" and "Tootsie" and "Some Like it Hot." The shocking, fresh, and provocative twist is: They're transgender!

As long as audiences keep perceiving these retreads as new and interesting, there's no incentive to come up with anything fresh.

R84 gave the best comment on this thread. He or she should work for the Atlantic.

I meant r10. I was praising r10 in my comment in r84.

Sorry, R102, I forgot the contributions of non-boomers who gave us Cardi B, Megan Thee Stallion, Taylor Swift, Billy Porter, The Real Housewives, cancel culture, and all of the great cultural innovations and contributions to the arts.

R7 The Spider-Man movie is nice though. Feels very nostalgic.

Everyone is afraid of looking foolish. Nobody wants to take risks and end up with a creeper pic taken of them online to be made fun of

I was thinking more about this today since the discussion has been so good.

First, I think there's a lot of different concepts enmeshed and overlapping in the article. "Culture" is a huge concept and it's a word ascribed to different things. It applies to customs, norms and institutions of a group of people/country - and in that sense, I'd say "culture" has changed massively due to the internet, social media, smartphones - which is the very reason why a lot of posters here are saying "culture", as I think the author means it - mainly the arts, or artistic production - have come to a standstill.

No doubt social media, phones, internet have influenced culture as I first used it - norms, customs, etc. - as they have vastly altered how and when we communicate in many ways - from work, to relationships, to play, to criticism, to activism, to politics. I don't think anyone would disagree that these things have caused a massive shift in the "culture" of the United States.

But, again, the author is saying "culture" - as in artistic cultural production and innovation - has come to a standstill. And like I said before, and many others have said in any other number of ways on this thread, the broader "culture" brought about by the social media and internet age" have in various ways hindered "culture," i.e. creative artistic production and innovation.

Why? Posters have already laid it out. First distraction and the absence of boredom, which work in tandem. I think many people are still fundamentally bored, but will choose distraction with gadgets instead of ambitiously pursuing cultural production to alleviate boredom.

Second, fear of reprisal/cancellation, etc. - since what is produced is usually available for a huge number of people to easily see and analyze and it's equally as easy to, anonymously or not, criticize, tear down, shame, threaten, etc. - which can overwhelm creative ambition for those who do pursue artistic outlets. But, I'm not talking about it making people simply "fearful" of creative artistic ambition, which certainly happens. People can be fearful but still move forward. I'm talking about more broadly altering people's entire cost-benefit analysis, such that their immediate impulse is to not even want to try to rock the boat, as opposed to wanting to do it but being fearful of the reaction.

Third, I think you have to look at it not only from the end of the would-be artistic producers, but also the end of artistic consumers. The artistic cultural production of many generations is at our fingertips; we're inundated with artistic production, criticism of that production, and criticisms of that criticism. We've "seen it all and heard it all" and I'd say we're (generally, not universally) jaded, cynical, "over it." Criticism (positive and negative, but more so negative) is a huge part of how we consume cultural production - because we can; we have the easy platforms. So we complain that culture has come to a standstill, but what creative artistic production would we actually see as being "creative" or "innovative" reflecting "change" and not just simply dismiss - whether genuinely or for sport. Something like a Tik-tok creation is too small and inconsequential. Bigger works are subject to increased criticism for being derivative because we all have easy access to what pieces of art are referencing, or simply someone else's analysis of how a piece of art is derivative. Plus, the broader "culture" has fragmented us, demanding hyper-identity, meaning a lot of people dismiss a lot of artistic production since it "doesn't apply to me."

Finally, posters here have brought up the severe corporatization of artistic culture, the institutionalization of risk-adverse art, non-original art - "we know what relatively non-offensive things sell, make it again, and don't fund much else." So what we mainly see comes from this environment. I'm sure there are great, innovative cultural works being produced somewhere - but it would take significantly more effort to find them and corporations and even some artistic institutions actively discourage you from doing so.

I guess I'm left with the question of how much we squarely place the blame on artistic deficiency (if you indeed do think there is a deficiency, which not everyone does) on the artists themselves as a collective.

Italy and France used to be the vanguards of what we perceive of culurally progressive art, but that fizzled out centuries ago, and it seems like the rest of the world has caught up.

OP there is still some culture out there. It is just more unique and diverse.

Not that I doubt its existence-- the evidence is all around me-- but I find it very hard to believe that so many people would allow their behavior to be influenced by a fear of getting "cancelled." There are so many examples of brilliant, beautiful works of art that are considered ubiquitous today, part of the allure of which is the knowledge that the artist was shunned and derided by critics, "ahead of his time." Sargent and the scandal of Madame X with her fallen shoulder strap is the obvious, ridiculous example. What ever happened to learning from the past, or not letting the bastards get you down? A point of view governed by a strong sense of self is one of the most attractive qualities, and it does not have to work in opposition to empathy or an open mind.

My parents were lax in imparting morals to my siblings and myself, but one lesson I had drummed into my head from the time I found myself in school was: if someone doesn't like you, doesn't understand you, or has nothing nice to say about you, then "fuck 'em," in the words of my father. Can't think of a greater tragedy than the potential lost by a brilliant mind stifled by fear and the misguided parameters of groupthink.

Feat of being cancelled - like wtf this has always existed in the arts. People rioted in the theater when Stravinsky played Rite of Spring.

R115 Yes, but it didn't stop him from continuing with the next night's performance or composing further works. You can't please all people all the time.

Maybe it's possible no one did a musical about Billy Strayhorn is that they cost untold millions of dollars? Theater organizations simply don't have the resources to take that kind of chance?

Nah, it's much easier to fulminate about WOKENESS than it is to recognize that the reason Culture Has Come To A Standstill is basically Capitalism.

Are Broadway shows considered high culture nowadays?

Broadway never has, but, as stated above by that very astute poster, a middlebrow entertainment that occasionally is gifted with an exceptional talent like Rodgers and Hammerstein and Sondheim.

I was on board until it was suggested that “We Belong Together” and “Irreplaceable” don’t sound dated.

There is also the "appropriation" of cultures that is frowned upon, we can't cross-pollinate anymore.

Not true r 121. Look at the popularity of Kpop.

I only browsed through the essay, but isn't his perspective a bit myopic? Considering the time it took for cultural changes a few centuries ago, the outliers were the rapid changes of the late 19th and 20th centuries. Of course, this development cannot be continued indefinitely.

I think the next big crucial development will be the optimization of AI. On the one hand, AI art is dead, regurgitated art; on the other hand, with its easy access, it might bring forth completely new styles and sensibilities. Also, being participatory and hierarchically flat, it could circumvent the stranglehold that big business has on creativity.

Kardashians are to blame

r122, pop is a style not relegated to one ethnic group.

I think 24/7, 365 days a year, commoditised, mediated, wireless, experience of life is CULTURE and it is revolutionary. The author can't see the forest for the trees.

We now have digital natives, the first generation of humans who grew up with a big chunk of their cognitive development, and life experiences, having been half virtual, and mostly commoditised. For example the prostitution of tens of millions of ordinary, mundane, not depraved, young people through their own commoditisation of their bodies and sex acts, is a cultural revolution. Influencers is a cultural revolution. Kardashians. etc. We also have the extreme stratification of wealth distribution and all the diversionary measures taken to prevent people objecting to that. Many of these diversionary measures being media commodities. The author has limited his context to extinct parameters of cultural production.

Irreplaceable doesn’t sound dated you dumb bitch. It is literally the foundation of Taylor Swift’s ENTIRE catalogue. Queen Bey and Neyo laid the foundation.

The very idea of “content creation” has altered the arts and artistic expression. I imagine there is a sharp decline in young people committing to studying music and theatre and fine arts with the the intention of pursuing those fields in the traditional way. Sure, there are still some, but a lot of those young artistic types would now follow the all-consuming pursuit of becoming an influencer or “content creator.” They are serving the algorithm rather than serving their own artistic interest.