A future of fads, and constantly fading beauty
From enfascination
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | I was at a dinner party* and the composer was a big fan of emphasizing experiential universals and (therefore) universal reactions to music and (therefore) an argument for universal beauty, or at least universal communication through music. By universal I mean human, but all humans. | + | ==The Point:== As individuals and small groups form a larger proportion of those institutions which determine society's 'canonical references', fads will become more common in society because only large institutions have the inertia (and resistance to change) to carry one generations's canon into following generations. |
| + | |||
| + | ==The Spiel:== | ||
| + | I was at a dinner party* and Howie the composer was a big fan of emphasizing experiential universals and (therefore) universal reactions to music and (therefore) an argument for universal beauty, or at least universal communication through music. His opinions seemed to be mostly a reaction to the excessive relativism of the last century. By universal I mean human, but all humans. A builtin sense of beauty. I'm more moderate than all that, and lean more towards relativism, but I was listening. | ||
One assumption he was making was that The Greats have lasted because they are beautiful, because of their strength and universal appeal. He expressed doubt that any art or music made in recent years will weather the centuries that the late great composers have. | One assumption he was making was that The Greats have lasted because they are beautiful, because of their strength and universal appeal. He expressed doubt that any art or music made in recent years will weather the centuries that the late great composers have. | ||
| − | A confound occurred to me, one worth investigating (and possibly investigable). Institutions carry ideas and traditions through generations. There is no arguing that this will be a factor (in addition to | + | A confound occurred to me, one worth investigating (and possibly investigable). Institutions carry ideas and traditions through generations. Their size influences their resistance to change and their ability to carry art through human time. There is no arguing that this will be a factor (in addition to Beauty) that carries art forward through generations and lends a sense of universality and concensus to such cultural artifacts. By this mechanism, lost artists, are artists that got dropped by institutions and rediscovered only by research. Presumably such work didn't 'speaks' to its birth culture. |
| + | |||
| + | This culture is seeing an interesting trend. Large institutions get larger and Small ones get smaller and more numerous (Analogously, Designers have noticed that Photoshop has made good design better and bad design worse). Since any institution, large and small, can only carry a finite (and small) number of cultural artifacts forward as canonical, the number of cultural artifacts carried forward by large institutions will be small relative to the number of artifacts and the number of artifacts carried forward by small institutions. I will put my focus on the role of small institutions in carrying work forward. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Individuals are more empowered than ever before. Small institutions are gaining an larger stake/share in selecting the contents of collective conciousness. But small institutions don't last. They have limited power to carry cultural artifacts through the vast stretches of time necessary to lend such work an air of universal appeal. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Fads are works that don't stay relevant beyond a generation. Perhaps (and is there even a circumstantial way to test this?) as people get more empowered and large traditional institutions contribute a smaller share of those artifacts which a culture finds relevant, fads will become more the norm. | ||
| − | + | An interesting implication is that we can't use the ephemerality of fads as evidence of their lack of 'substance'. I don't think Howie will like that. | |
| − | + | There is evidence in support of this already (though falsifiability is what we are after). I wonder if there is any way to test the following hypothesis. A Model? | |
[[Category:Systems]] | [[Category:Systems]] | ||
[[Category:Society]] | [[Category:Society]] | ||
| − | ===* | + | ===*notes to self=== |
| − | Look up Howie the composer (red sneakers) and Anna Willieme | + | *Look up Howie the composer (red sneakers) and Anna Willieme |
| + | *Much restraint to not use the word meme, which is still too arcane for non-obnoxious use in discourse. | ||
Revision as of 17:05, 17 March 2008
==The Point:== As individuals and small groups form a larger proportion of those institutions which determine society's 'canonical references', fads will become more common in society because only large institutions have the inertia (and resistance to change) to carry one generations's canon into following generations.
The Spiel:
I was at a dinner party* and Howie the composer was a big fan of emphasizing experiential universals and (therefore) universal reactions to music and (therefore) an argument for universal beauty, or at least universal communication through music. His opinions seemed to be mostly a reaction to the excessive relativism of the last century. By universal I mean human, but all humans. A builtin sense of beauty. I'm more moderate than all that, and lean more towards relativism, but I was listening.
One assumption he was making was that The Greats have lasted because they are beautiful, because of their strength and universal appeal. He expressed doubt that any art or music made in recent years will weather the centuries that the late great composers have.
A confound occurred to me, one worth investigating (and possibly investigable). Institutions carry ideas and traditions through generations. Their size influences their resistance to change and their ability to carry art through human time. There is no arguing that this will be a factor (in addition to Beauty) that carries art forward through generations and lends a sense of universality and concensus to such cultural artifacts. By this mechanism, lost artists, are artists that got dropped by institutions and rediscovered only by research. Presumably such work didn't 'speaks' to its birth culture.
This culture is seeing an interesting trend. Large institutions get larger and Small ones get smaller and more numerous (Analogously, Designers have noticed that Photoshop has made good design better and bad design worse). Since any institution, large and small, can only carry a finite (and small) number of cultural artifacts forward as canonical, the number of cultural artifacts carried forward by large institutions will be small relative to the number of artifacts and the number of artifacts carried forward by small institutions. I will put my focus on the role of small institutions in carrying work forward.
Individuals are more empowered than ever before. Small institutions are gaining an larger stake/share in selecting the contents of collective conciousness. But small institutions don't last. They have limited power to carry cultural artifacts through the vast stretches of time necessary to lend such work an air of universal appeal.
Fads are works that don't stay relevant beyond a generation. Perhaps (and is there even a circumstantial way to test this?) as people get more empowered and large traditional institutions contribute a smaller share of those artifacts which a culture finds relevant, fads will become more the norm.
An interesting implication is that we can't use the ephemerality of fads as evidence of their lack of 'substance'. I don't think Howie will like that.
There is evidence in support of this already (though falsifiability is what we are after). I wonder if there is any way to test the following hypothesis. A Model?
*notes to self
- Look up Howie the composer (red sneakers) and Anna Willieme
- Much restraint to not use the word meme, which is still too arcane for non-obnoxious use in discourse.