Overly reactive audience is a good word to explain. Indeed the
audience have become over reactive these days.
This mass entertainment we have today, these forms , are kinds of different communities. People get interested in being a part of these communities and they make them as separate societies . People,by getting involved in these kind of societies ,miss their chance to live in the original society. They partly live in the original society, partly live in various other societies and in the end, they don't really have a complete life. Entertainment, before, was a part of the society. Now, when a society is created just for entertainment, people tend to be over reactive to anything they come to face in it.
This kind of system functioning today is a real harm to human nature.

Basically is “entertainment” too widespread today, and if so does this mean it’s becoming diluted beyond any immediate repair? — I like sushi

Entertainment is an exponentially larger portion of the economy than ever before. But is it diluted? There is more art created now than at any point in history suggesting a possible dilution. However, there are more genres of art created now than at any point in history. And, within each genre there are more works released, from more artists, from more diverse backgrounds, than at any time in history. Also, with social media "art" can be created and shared by anyone anytime. But somehow all of this results in art being repetitive and stale?

Will comedians be driven into the ground by a stale and overly reactive audience? — I like sushi

Good example. Tremendous comedians filling huge auditoriums may fade during upsurges of political correctness. However, in today's world ANYONE can start a website and fill it with all the "offensive" humor they want. If it is actually funny, or they have a big enough audience of offenders, they can even make a living. It will be more difficult to be a multimillionaire comedian because there is more competition, and if anyone become really famous then EVERY somewhat offensive comment they make will cost them money. This MAY be a problem for society, but I don't see how it is a problem for art?

Perhaps you can provide examples of past art that is superior to today's. It would also be good if you could give a couple examples of the "huge leaps" that occurred in art in the past that are now absent.

I have read your post a few times now, and i am not sure I am actually addressing what you think is the problem? i get the sense I am focusing too much on the "art" portion?

Feel free to put me on track :smile:

I wasn’t presenting an argument just expressing some unresolved thoughts.

For the sake of the discussion I should perhaps take on a more proactive role and make some observations though. As for “art” being better or worse I would say this is due to personal liberation within society. Today people have more freedom than in the past. Today ANYONE can produce art and put it into the public sphere whereas merely decades ago this wasn’t the case - this seems to be an immediately positive thing for “art” we think ... I’m just suggesting maybe, just maybe, there will be a price to pay for such freedom due to commercial intentions?

As for explosions of “art” in the past (the renaissance) these come about, seemingly to me, due to a kind of pressure being released and I’m wondering if there is a lack of constraint then “art” will suffer.

See what I mean?

Note: just to emphasize I’m not saying “this is the way it is” I just thought it was an interesting perspective to explore - I am very curious about the revolution we’re living in that is quite unlike anything previously known in all of human history. Never before have the masses been so globally connected and I constantly wonder about how this will play out in various aspects of human culture.

The general pattern of fashion/trend stems from a fresh movement that gains weight overtime, having time to develop in an partially isolated bubble. In the age we now find ourselves in is it worth considering that during its juvenile stages such movements now lack the freedom to growth independently before dilution into a more commercial driven venture? It seems to me this is worth considering even if it is not actually the case of how cultural/artistic development come to flourish in full.

An example would be rap and hip-hop, or acid house and rave culture. These two musical explosions happened relatively close together. I am asking if these genres didn’t exist today would they have the same kind of impact now if they started up now? It appears if there is something to this we could look at how diverse each genre has become and how quickly they rose into the commercial sphere. By the time hip-hop and rap became commercial it had already developed over time from a private background. What is also apparent about rave and hip-hop music is that they were built upon technological developments - use of turntables and synthesizers.

Ir appears to me that pop culture has been going through a dry spell lately too. In past decades we’ve had heavy metal, punk, reggae, rap, rave and the progression of various boy/girl bands. The only thing I’ve noticed over the past couple of decades to happen is the event of DJ culture ... but musically I cannot honestly say I’ve heard much that is distinct nor heard of anyone talking about a new type of music genre - in past decades they’ve been dry spell too and maybe my age is showing but I cannot think of anything equivalent arising like punk, rock, rap, or rave ... maybe we’re just not distanced enough from it yet? I would view the 90’s as being predominantly about rave/dance culture with a little of the Nirvana “Grunge” and a general appeal toward a more visual MTV popularity (where music videos became extensions of the actual music in an of itself).

If someone can point out some distinct musical genres that have sprouted over the past couple of decades I’d appreciate it. Nothing comes to mind in either the 2000’s or the current 2010’s. Are we just cooking something below the surface or is nothing much given time to come to proper fruition due to the drive to commercialize what is new and vital prior to giving it the opportunity to growth into something with more longevity?

Due to the mass communications, we have today, are we losing something unique in how we use entertainment and how we create it? Will all music and film become one drab and repetitive scheme where small differences in the artistic endeavor are made out to be huge leaps when in fact they’re mind numbingly dull compared to bygone eras. — I like sushi

Now this is something that I call the critical reviewer's disease.

You see, once you have attentively watched too many films and TV shows you get it. You get how the industry works and pushes the product through. You get it how the scriptwriters work. And you notice that it's done with only a few templates and that you can start to refer things like MacGuffins or noticing when some series "jumps the shark". But basically you have got the disease. You have watched too many movies and thought of them too much. Somebody who hasn't watched so much as you will find movies that you find lame and boring exiting and witty. And those films you find "interesting" and as "a breeze of fresh air" are totally confusing to the ordinary movie goer. And notice: the ordinary movie goer is actually the person that goes to the movies only few times in a year and doesn't know movies like you.

Now when talking about entertainment becoming drab, one should check if you have the reviewer disease. Then after a bit of self reflection can you be more objective about the issue.

Will comedians be driven into the ground by a stale and overly reactive audience? — I like sushi

They are already adapting to their audience. People like stand up comedians get instant response from the crowd so they likely know the direction from where the wind is blowing.

It appears to me that pop culture has been going through a dry spell lately too. In past decades we’ve had heavy metal, punk, reggae, rap, rave and the progression of various boy/girl bands. The only thing I’ve noticed over the past couple of decades to happen is the event of DJ culture ... but musically I cannot honestly say I’ve heard much that is distinct nor heard of anyone talking about a new type of music genre - in past decades they’ve been dry spell too and maybe my age is showing but I cannot think of anything equivalent arising like punk, rock, rap, or rave ... maybe we’re just not distanced enough from it yet? I would view the 90’s as being predominantly about rave/dance culture with a little of the Nirvana “Grunge” and a general appeal toward a more visual MTV popularity (where music videos became extensions of the actual music in an of itself). — I like sushi

So I guess you haven't listened to country rap or hick hop as it's called. :razz:

I would say earlier, especially in the 70's and so on popular culture and fashion were very homogeneous. Last remnants of these people following slavishly some look and attitude with no individualism were in my view the 'hipsters'. And producing and distributing music was in the hands of record companies, hence pop music had only a few global pop stars. Now I can buy music from the websites of artists and there is a plethora of music available which is served to me by algorithms finding similar music I like. This of course makes it a highly diverse field with various subcultures. Perhaps only the actually teenagers, who are starting to listen to music for the first time are conservative in still behaving in the old mold and follow 'superstars' of the day, hence go with the old norms.

Today ANYONE can produce art and put it into the public sphere whereas merely decades ago this wasn’t the case — I like sushi

1917 - Too far back?



Duchamp announced that if you say it is art, then it is art.

As long as entertainment placates the masses, what does it matter? We'll all become drooling dependent morons one way or another and end up in chambers full of gelatin like the matrix.

Yes, too far back. The internet allows people to distribute art on a scale never seen before.

Now this is something that I call the critical reviewer's disease. — ssu

Yes, there are definitely people who spend a lot of time consuming voluminous quantities of cultural product, and in so doing they enter a twilight zone of hypersensitivity to stuff that actually doesn't matter much--this first novel, that rap group's greatest hit, this book of poetry, that journaling project, the latest recording of Beethoven's 9th, blah blah blah. I flee when they begin pontificating about this or that art form, art group, art event, artistic clusterfuck, etc.

Nothing new here, of course. Coteries of sophisticates have been doing this for a long time -- probably there were cultural critics who had tedious opinions about the latest cave art before the paint had dried.

Culture hasn't gotten better, I don't think -- just more of it, more specialized, more diverse, shorter shelf life -- all that -- but the media of radio, television, internet, recording devices, etc have enlarged the hose, and one can drown in the flood instead of just getting a drink (see "drinking from a fire hose").

Print isn't immune. There is more and more print available too -- not just new print, but old print served up by archival projects. I read too much which leads to too much information that other people do not want to hear about. Sigh.

People have not changed. They like to be entertained. There are more people now (three times as many in the world as when rock and roll began (1950s), and there is much more cultural activity now than 70 years ago. There is also more economic activity: more mining and manufacturing, more sex being had, more crooked deals getting done, and more rubbish -- much more.

Yes, but it was people in the past like Duchamp in 1917 who made it possible for people in the internet age to call their crap "art". As William Faulkner said (in a novel I never read, and almost certainly never will) "The past is never dead. It's not even past."

See what I mean? — I like sushi

I think so, and I do tend to over-react anytime it is implied that old art is better than new art :grimace:

As for explosions of “art” in the past (the renaissance) these come about, seemingly to me, due to a kind of pressure being released and I’m wondering if there is a lack of constraint then “art” will suffer. — I like sushi

This part is interesting to me. I have always thought explosions of art were a result of improved agriculture and governance (progress in these areas means more people have time to do art). But having never really thought about it, that is clearly an incomplete answer.

Can you describe the specifics of what you meant by "pressure being released"? That may help me to relate to the modern situation.

I guess I’m really talking about Dionysus as opposed to Apolline order (Nietzsche). In society I believe that when people are restricted from expressing themselves then a certain force builds up - once freedom is given a new wave of creation explodes onto the cultural scene.

What makes me curious is whether or not we’ve now got too much freedom and the kind of tension we’ve had in previous generations is nowhere near as severe today. I am not saying this with any degree of weight or certainty, it’s just a thought that caught my attention.

One thing I find hard to deny is the huge freedom of communication we have today. Generally we think of sharing and communicating as good only. I just wonder if there is an unseen drawback to this that will be felt in the coming decades (and perhaps already is to some degree?)

is it worth considering that we’ve now entered an age where entertainment has lost its vitality? — I like sushi

I think that entertainment is better than ever, so I'd say no.

Vital is not the same as better. I’m asking if there is an excess that is possibly damaging; today especially.

Damaging how?

That’s what I’m asking. Not looking for opinions only.

Ah, well, I have no idea why one might think that entertainment is damaging. To me that seems like a weird thing to think.

Also, not sure how we'd "not look for opinions only" on this. There aren't going to be facts whether something is "too distracting" etc.

In society I believe that when people are restricted from expressing themselves then a certain force builds up - once freedom is given a new wave of creation explodes onto the cultural scene. — I like sushi

OK. thanks for the clarification. This makes much more sense now. I really was not sure what type of pressure release was being referred to.

What makes me curious is whether or not we’ve now got too much freedom and the kind of tension we’ve had in previous generations is nowhere near as severe today. — I like sushi

So I think you are suggesting that BECAUSE lives were worse (more difficult, etc) in the past, art may have been inspired by these difficulties? That seems plausible. However, like you said, we have more freedom of action, but tensions are actually INCREASING. As people no longer have to struggle to live, we have plenty of time to identify EVERY reason why other people are different and why our way is "better". Might this new tension create the "struggles" that artists need?

Am I at least on the right track? (even if you disagree, I THINK I am at least addressing your point)

So I think you are suggesting that BECAUSE lives were worse (more difficult, etc) in the past, art may have been inspired by these difficulties? — ZhouBoTong

Well, and if art/entertainment is as good as ever, what would any of that matter, anyway?

The answer depends on how much someone pays attention to it.

Well, and if art/entertainment is as good as ever, what would any of that matter, anyway? — Terrapin Station

That's what I am trying to figure out :grin:

I’m asking if there is an excess that is possibly damaging; today especially. — I like sushi

I think I am getting closer, but still have a couple questions on this bit:

"excess" - I assume this refers to an excess of art?

"damaging" - who or what is damaged? I think you mean that with excess quantity comes reduced quality? Why would that necessarily (or even typically) be true?

It seems you are thinking out loud, more than arguing, so maybe give me an example of the type of "damage" you are referring to, and that may help me think of other ways it could be damaging.