PDA

View Full Version : What post-War art do you think will "stand the test of time"?


Aeschines
01-19-2014, 11:20 PM
I find the lack of survival of literature in various eras fascinating. I was recently commenting on another thread that basically no American drama is recognized as "great" until the 20th century. Even then, I think it's debatable whether Tennessee Williams, Arthur Miller, et al. will really be held up as classics 100 years from now, but no one claims that any American playwright wrote anything good at all until the 20th century. In fact, in the 19th century, only three dramatists get any cred at all: Henrik Ibsen, George Bernard Shaw, and Oscar Wilde. Before them, at least with respect to English, you have to go back to Richard Sheridan and just a few others in the 18th century, and before that you are looking at Reformation Drama in the 1600s to find anything of worth.

The same thing holds pretty true in poetry. I am a big fan of Oliver Wendell Holmes, and I have a soft spot for Thomas Bailey Aldrich, but I would not claim that there are many undervalued 19th century American poets. Who gets respect from critics now? Whitman, definitely, and Poe to some extent. Longfellow, no. On other other hand, many British poets are highly valued from that time period.

I do have a point with this intro. I think there is an unspoken and false assumption that great art is always and consistently being made over time. That something from every time period will "stand the test of time." I think this assumption is made not really because the historical record backs it up--as per my intro, it doesn't; nor have I heard anyone claim otherwise--but because current creative types want to believe they have a shot at a legacy. The other "stakeholders" who have an interest in believing this are professors of contemporary literature. I doubt many claim that everything they teach is soon to be forgotten.

So let's pretend that it's 2114. What art from 1945-2014 holds up? I would suggest that we leave out pop music for one reason: I think a lot from this era will hold up and it would be ludicrous to suggest otherwise. So it would not be fruitful to include it in the debate. If you think otherwise, however, feel free to say so. (E.g., if you think the Beatles will be totally forgotten in 2114.) I think it's also best to leave off movies and TV shows, pretty much for the same reason, but you can talk about them if you feel like it. (To me, music and movies are fundamentally easy to consume, and I think people will continue to consume a bunch of stuff in these categories from the past even if it's *not* that good--I think that's the difference that makes it prudent to exclude these from the discussion. Tell me if you disagree.)

There is a hypothesis I have that informs the following opinions: That which is not popular among the "people" will not retain its popularity in the future. That is, academics revering something will not cause ordinary people or even academics in the future to cherish it.

Without further ado:

Classical music

This genre of music essentially died in this period. The composers who were already established and still writing in this period (e.g., Arnold Schoenberg, Elliott Carter) will still be remembered. But no one born during this period will be remembered at all. The mechanism whereby classical music was determined to be good or bad itself withered away, thereby making it impossible for new "famous people" to be created in this category.

Jazz

All the greats from 1945 to approximately 1975 will be remembered, but no one after that. Jazz became backward-looking at some point in the 70s.

Poetry

I have heard "Howl" by Ginsberg (1956) described as the last time a poem was a cultural event. I think that's true. I'm a big fan of Kenneth Koch, but I pretty much think post-War poetry is a big zero. Here again, the cultural mechanism by which poetry and poets could become famous withered away. Nothing will be famous. Rod McKuen, who oddly enough is the best-selling poet in the history of planet Earth, is already forgotten (not entirely deservedly--he has a handful of good poems). I don't think the beat poets will be remembered either, basically.

"Serious" literature

Outside a handful of books, big zero. The time period has created no giants like Dickens or Austin, not really even many credible candidates. I've heard V.S. Naipaul held up as one--I don't think so. There are people who pick up a George Elliot book for pleasure reading--will someone really be digging into a Naipaul book in 2114? I'm not sure he will even be taught in an English lit class, unless it is specifically about his particular time period.

What could survive in the handful of books is Catcher in the Rye, To Kill a Mockingbird, Lord of the Flies... I don't know, it could be a bunch of things, but I don't see any authors really being held up for particular veneration. This isn't my particular area of expertise, so tell me I'm wrong; my feelings won't be hurt.

Popular literature

For example, will the following be read or even remembered in 2114?

Harry Potter: Will be remembered for being huge but won't be read any more. Many other book crazes will have come and gone by then.

Stephen King's works: Up for grabs. Not many new and *big* horror writers have come along, so he may still be filling a need at that time.

Hunger Games: I doubt it.

Twilight: Hahahaha fuck no.

I'm not sure how well a lot of sci-fi will hold up either. I'm a huge Robert Sheckley fan, but he was mostly forgotten during his own lifetime. Will people still take, say, Dune seriously 100 years from now? I have my doubts. Heinlein is an idiot and I hope he will be forgotten. Certain authors will be remembered for their contribution to the genre, but I doubt they will be read much: Asimov, Clarke, etc.

Drama (plays and musicals)

I think several musicals (Guys and Dolls and Phantom of the Opera comes to mind--yes, I know the latter is extremely corny and of debatable taste--no matter) will survive because the music is good, and music is easy to consume. I think virtually no stage plays will "stand the test of time." Already things like Who's Afraid of Virgina Woolf? are badly dated, and straight stage plays have mostly gone out of fashion anyway. And most stuff that we remember anyway is by playwrights who got their start before WWII. Will Joe Orton's and David Mamet's stuff be revered and performed in 2114? No fucking way.


Visual arts (paintings, sculpture, etc.)

This category is a different for several reasons: the pieces are unique (or limited in number, and so long as there are rich people, there will be a demand for pieces to go on the walls of their homes and offices.

That said, as in other categories, the mechanism by which famous artists are created has withered and died. There are several really rich artists (like that idiot Brit who did the platinum skull, I won't dignify him with a google) who are nevertheless not household names like a Picasso or a Dali. I think Tara Donovan is brilliant, I think her works will be highly valuable in 2114, I think they will be displayed in museums as "contemporary art"--but I don't know if she will be "famous" at that time. I don't know if she can be described as "famous" right now.

Those are some opinions for you. I look forward to reading yours!

pulykamell
01-19-2014, 11:35 PM
There are several really rich artists (like that idiot Brit who did the platinum skull, I won't dignify him with a google) who are nevertheless not household names like a Picasso or a Dali.

Damien Hirst. He's about as much a household name as any currently visual artist is. Doesn't mean everyone knows him, but he's probably the most high profile of his peers. I happen to dislike his work strongly, but I feel he might just pass the test of time.

Ones that I think clearly will endure, with no doubt: Jackson Pollock and Mark Rothko. I also suspect Barnett Newmann and Gerhard Richter will have a strong legacy. There's a whole mess more, but those are both obvious ones to me and the ones with whom I have the strongest connection. I might also throw Clyfford Still into that group.

As for "serious literature," you can't think of a single one? "Lolita" by Vladimir Nabakov would seem to me to be an obvious choice. (It also helps that it's my favorite novel in the English language.) I also think "The Master and Margarita" will long endure, too, but it was written pre-war, even though it was only published in 1967. "Hundred Years of Solitude"? "Brave New World"? "1984"?

I Made French Toast For You
01-19-2014, 11:43 PM
Post-war means, largely, postmodernism. I would be severely disappointed in 2114-ers if any of these pomos were forgotten:

Serious lit: Vladimir Nabokov
Drama: Samuel Beckett
Art: Andy Warhol

Aeschines
01-20-2014, 12:05 AM
As for "serious literature," you can't think of a single one? "Lolita" by Vladimir Nabakov would seem to me to be an obvious choice. (It also helps that it's my favorite novel in the English language.) I also think "The Master and Margarita" will long endure, too, but it was written pre-war, even though it was only published in 1967. "Hundred Years of Solitude"? "Brave New World"? "1984"?BNW is pre-War. 1984 is one of my favorite books, indeed.

I agree about Pollack, too. Perhaps my cutoff date of 1945 (post-War) is part of the problem. The 1950s seem like the time when a lot was still be done that could "stand the test of time." That encompasses The Catcher in the Rye, 1984, To Kill a Mockingbird, and Lolita as well. It captures "Howl."

So a better cutoff date is probably 1960 or so.

pulykamell
01-20-2014, 12:20 AM
BNW is pre-War.

:smack:

pulykamell
01-20-2014, 12:34 AM
So a better cutoff date is probably 1960 or so.

Let's see, I'll throw a few out there: "Midnight's Children" by Salaman Rushdie. "Catch-22" by Heller. You might count "Master and the Margarita" in there if you go by publishing date. "Tin Drum" by Günter Grass just barely misses, coming out in 1959.

In terms of English-language poetry, Seamus Heaney should endure.

For drama, I would add Pinter to the list. Probably Stoppard, as well. I don't think Arthur Miller or Tennessee Williams are necessarily going away, either. Beckett, too, but he straddles your 1960s time limit, with much of his most famous work (Godot, Krapp's Last Tape) being just a bit before.

Trinopus
01-20-2014, 12:59 AM
Classical Music: maybe John Williams. I once heard a movie director say that movie scores are the "classical music" of our age. Perhaps it's silly to think that the themes from Star Wars or Indiana Jones will be known a century from now, but it's at least a nice thought.

Lucas Jackson
01-20-2014, 01:14 AM
Visual arts: Rothko.

Aeschines
01-20-2014, 01:40 AM
Visual arts: Rothko.Looking at Wikipedia, his "late period" seems to have started before 1960. He was clearly established by WWII in any case.

Aeschines
01-20-2014, 01:43 AM
Classical Music: maybe John Williams. I once heard a movie director say that movie scores are the "classical music" of our age. Perhaps it's silly to think that the themes from Star Wars or Indiana Jones will be known a century from now, but it's at least a nice thought.I think they will be known, certainly, because people will still watch those movies. John Williams has also written plenty of "pure" classical music that isn't for movies. Does anyone listen to it? No.

One thing I'd like to emphasize is that I'm *not* of the opinion that we are lacking great creative people these days. I think, however, that the social mechanism by which people recognize artists like Picasso and Stravinsky as "great" has disappeared for some reason.

Trinopus
01-20-2014, 01:58 AM
. . . John Williams has also written plenty of "pure" classical music that isn't for movies. Does anyone listen to it? No.

[pout] I do!

One thing I'd like to emphasize is that I'm *not* of the opinion that we are lacking great creative people these days. I think, however, that the social mechanism by which people recognize artists like Picasso and Stravinsky as "great" has disappeared for some reason.

Probably true, although I want to think about it a bit before I agree. One could also argue that we, today, because of recordings and reproductions, have much more familiarity with the art of the past, and so it is that much harder to do anything that is truly revolutionary. We're spoiled by being able to listen to Beethoven's Ninth any time we want; we are surfeit with greatness.

After one of Ottorino Respighi's massive orchestral works (Pines of Rome?) was performed, it was said (I don't recall by whom) that nothing more could be done with the symphony orchestra. The art of the "big symphonic work" had pretty much been perfected.

We may simply be in that kind of era.

However, this does allow me to mention Wendy Carlos, who had the joy of being in the forefront of an era of creativity and originality, when the new "instrument," the music synthesizer, was introduced. Her work will probably be remembered.

drastic_quench
01-20-2014, 02:19 AM
Tangentially, I found myself wondering this morning when Marilyn Monroe would cease to be a default sex symbol. It can't go on forever, I mean look at how few people would know who Mata Hari is in 2014. Perhaps once all the boomers have passed, only then will she be a footnote.

Aeschines
01-20-2014, 02:48 AM
[pout] I do!Is it good?

However, this does allow me to mention Wendy Carlos, who had the joy of being in the forefront of an era of creativity and originality, when the new "instrument," the music synthesizer, was introduced. Her work will probably be remembered.Hmm, I would say it's forgotten even now.

Now, will someone in 2114 have a Wendy Carlos fansite up, and will people still listen to her music? Probably. There may be a "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" site up too. I'm not commenting on the relative artistic merits by saying that. It's just that the long tail is pretty damn long and will probably get longer.

What I am saying is that people in 2114 aren't going to look back on 1970 and think of Wendy Carlos as one of the giant innovators of the time. Human mental bandwidth is pretty limited when it comes to stuff like this. For example, I think Volpone and The Alchemist by Ben Jonson are at the level of Shakespeare's best plays, but it's easier just to remember Shakespeare and forget Jonson.

Uniqueorn
01-20-2014, 04:30 AM
Damien Hirst. He's about as much a household name as any currently visual artist is. Doesn't mean everyone knows him, but he's probably the most high profile of his peers. I happen to dislike his work strongly, but I feel he might just pass the test of time.



Do you really think that Damien Hirst will be remembered for anything other than being one of the biggest scam artists of all time?

Les Espaces Du Sommeil
01-20-2014, 05:41 AM
Classical music

Ligeti and Dutilleux (both of them are already considered classics and their works have been used in other media). Britten is the only post-1945 composer whose operas are still played regularly. I consider these as "safe". Barber has a shot, too.

Perhaps: Lutoslawski and Messiaen.

Hardcore serialists like Boulez or Stockhausen: remembered, never played.

Cage and Glass will be (deservedly) forgotten. All gimmick, no substance.

Poetry

Dylan Thomas and E. E. Cummings. Larkin?

"Serious" literature

Georges Perec (great and very popular) and Julien Gracq (another modern classic). Boulgakov and Borges, definitely (if they fit your criteria). Calvino, Golding: perhaps.

Atwood?

Popular literature

Almost none of that will remain.

Harry Potter: might remembered for being huge but won't be read any more.

Stephen King's works: No.

Drama (plays and musicals)

Beckett.

Pinter, Shaffer?

Visual arts (paintings, sculpture, etc.)

Magritte, Miró (if they fit your criteria): Yes
Bacon: Yes
Rothko, Vasarely: Perhaps
Pollock, Warhol: No (See Cage, John)


John Williams has also written plenty of "pure" classical music that isn't for movies. Does anyone listen to it? No.

That's not true. I don't care for his film scores except for "nostalgic" reasons. His concert stuff on the other hand is quite good.

One thing I'd like to emphasize is that I'm *not* of the opinion that we are lacking great creative people these days. I think, however, that the social mechanism by which people recognize artists like Picasso and Stravinsky as "great" has disappeared for some reason.

I sort of like this idea. I'm not sure it's correct but it's a least worth considering.

Gyrate
01-20-2014, 06:21 AM
Classical music

This genre of music essentially died in this period. The composers who were already established and still writing in this period (e.g., Arnold Schoenberg, Elliott Carter) will still be remembered. But no one born during this period will be remembered at all. The mechanism whereby classical music was determined to be good or bad itself withered away, thereby making it impossible for new "famous people" to be created in this category.Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.

I honestly don't know what to say about this other than wow, is this wrong on every level (well, not about Schoenberg and Carter being remembered, but about everything else). Classical music is thriving and new works are constantly being written and produced. The majority of it is forgettable but then the majority of artwork produced in any era is forgettable, with only the best surviving the test of time (and sometimes - as was most famously the case with J.S. Bach - not being recognized at all in the composer's own era). But there is gold among the dross, have no doubt.
Classical Music: maybe John Williams. I once heard a movie director say that movie scores are the "classical music" of our age. Perhaps it's silly to think that the themes from Star Wars or Indiana Jones will be known a century from now, but it's at least a nice thought.I'm not going to pick on John Williams, who is an excellent composer, but if that's the extent to which you think classical music will endure I think you need to broaden your horizons.
Classical music

Ligeti and Dutilleux (both of them are already considered classics and their works have been used in other media). Britten is the only post-1945 composer whose operas are still played regularly. I consider these as "safe". Barber has a shot, too.Ligeti, certainly; not so sure about Dutilleux. I think Barber will probably end up as a latter-day Pachelbel - a composer of many high-quality works but remembered primarily for one endlessly-arranged bagatelle (the string quartet movement that became the "Adagio for Strings").

As for Britten, he is unquestionably among the greats. Even if opera isn't your thing, the War Requiem is one of the finest and most moving pieces of choral music ever written. Britten is to English music as Copland is to American music - an integral part, and one whose influence can never be entirely avoided.

There are other phenomenal British post-war composers - Michael Tippett for one (although I always wish he hadn't written his own libretti) and Thomas Ades for another. Some people are partial to Harrison Birtwhistle and Peter Maxwell-Davies, although they're not to my taste and thus I can't objectively assess their likely durability, and the recently-deceased John Tavener is similarly highly-regarded.

And speaking of American music, one has only to look at John Adams for a towering figure of our era. Nixon in China and The Death of Klinghoffer are groundbreaking works in their own right, and that's not to mention choral works like Harmonium[i] or orchestral works like [i]Short Ride in a Fast Machine. Adams gets performed a lot, and rightly so. I would be very surprised to see him fade in time.

Oh, and one more giant of American classical music. To quote REM,
LEONARD BERNSTEIN
Perhaps: Lutoslawski and Messiaen.I would agree. Messiaen is not for everyone but his work is amazing.
Hardcore serialists like Boulez or Stockhausen: remembered, never played.Probably true.

Cage and Glass will be (deservedly) forgotten. All gimmick, no substance.Now we're going to part company. While I think Philip Glass's later works show a decline, his famous trilogy of operas (Einstein on the Beach, Satyagraha and Akhnaton) are both beloved and influential. They're no more "populist" in appeal than Messiaen but let's not dismiss them on that basis. The other minimalists are perhaps less likely to be remembered, although Steve Reich deserves more airing as well IMO. And Cage, while not much to listen to, will always be performed because he was such an important conceptualist. A lot of his works need to be heard in order for his ideas to be understood, and his ideas will always need to be understood by future composers and classical music audiences.

There are others I could name, both living and dead - George Crumb, for example, or James MacMillan - but I'm already in danger of rambling.

Les Espaces Du Sommeil
01-20-2014, 08:15 AM
@Gyrate

Classical music is thriving and new works are constantly being written and produced.

I couldn't agree more.

Yet, Aeschines may be right when he says that "the social mechanism by which people recognize artists like Picasso and Stravinsky as "great" has disappeared for some reason." How many people could name a single contemporary composer?

Glad to see you agree with me on Ligeti. One of the most astonishing musical imaginations in history.

Dutilleux: yes, definitely one of the Greats if only for his concertos (Tout un Monde Lointain for cello and orchestra and L'Arbre des Songes for violin and orchestra) as well as his string quartet Ainsi la Nuit. All of these works have been recorded a dozen times which is amazing considering the fact that they're less than 50 years old. I'd argue that they're extremely close to standard repertoire, now (the cello concerto being the safest).

Britten. Defintely a keeper. Barber "will probably end up as a latter-day Pachelbel - a composer of many high-quality works but remembered primarily for one endlessly-arranged bagatelle (the string quartet movement that became the "Adagio for Strings"). " I hope you're wrong but you have a point.

I've changed my mind about Messiaen: some of his works will certainly stay (Quartet for the End of Time, Turangalila-Symphony) but his later stuff will be forgotten. All those annoying birds...

Speaking of French composers, there's Jolivet who's unfortunately forgotten but would deserve a revival.

As far as British composers are concerned, I like MacMillan and Knussen but I wouldn't dare to say anything about their staying power.

Bernstein: good music but will it stay in the repertoire? I'm not sure. Good call on Crumb, though. He also has a shot.

What about composers from Eastern Europe? Gubaïdulina is quite popular. And those who mix their Asian roots with European tradition? Takemitsu was great. Hosokawa? Now I'm rambling, too :o.

But I stand by what I said about Cage. (Pseudo)big concepts do not necessarily make good music. And Glass, well, I think it's really poor stuff. Same thing for the "spiritual" composers like Pärt and Gorecki.

MrDibble
01-20-2014, 08:15 AM
Francis Bacon and Lucian Freud, definitely.

Gyrate
01-20-2014, 08:40 AM
Yet, Aeschines may be right when he says that "the social mechanism by which people recognize artists like Picasso and Stravinsky as "great" has disappeared for some reason." How many people could name a single contemporary composer?How many people in any time period could name contemporary composers? Sure, people knew who Handel was but he was a rare exception. And how many of the successful composers withstood the test of time? I mean, Johann Adolph Hasse was paid the equivalent of Michael Jackson money in his day, but you virtually never see a staging of Cleofide.
Britten. Defintely a keeper. Barber "will probably end up as a latter-day Pachelbel - a composer of many high-quality works but remembered primarily for one endlessly-arranged bagatelle (the string quartet movement that became the "Adagio for Strings"). " I hope you're wrong but you have a point.I hope I'm wrong about Barber too, but even in classical music circles his works don't seem to inspire much interest.
I've changed my mind about Messiaen: some of his works will certainly stay (Quartet for the End of Time, Turangalila-Symphony) but his later stuff will be forgotten. All those annoying birds...I will admit that I could well do without hearing the bloody ondes Martenot again (I suspect he only used it to provide an income for his family, to be honest) but the Quartet alone is a thing of eternal beauty.
Speaking of French composers, there's Jolivet who's unfortunately forgotten but would deserve a revival.I guess Poulenc is more pre-War than post.
As far as British composers are concerned, I like MacMillan and Knussen but I wouldn't dare to say anything about their staying power.Eh, Ollie Knussen is probably better as a conductor than a composer. My inclusion of MacMillan is more wishful thinking than anything else.Bernstein: good music but will it stay in the repertoire? I'm not sure. I am. Maybe not the symphonies but he's got such a wide variety of work that Bernstein will always be played.
What about composers from Eastern Europe? Gubaïdulina is quite popular. And those who mix their Asian roots with European tradition? Takemitsu was great. Hosokawa? Now I'm rambling, too :o.I don't know Hosokawa at all and I've not been taken with the Gubaïdulina I've heard or performed. Takemitsu...not sure. Talented, but then so was Hovhaness and where is his music these days?
But I stand by what I said about Cage. (Pseudo)big concepts do not necessarily make good music. And Glass, well, I think it's really poor stuff. We shall agree to disagree. Most "big concept" artists in all genres fall flat. Cage is an exception.
Same thing for the "spiritual" composers like Pärt and Gorecki.I've never liked Gorecki, considering it all overrated dreck. Pärt is better and I'd lump him and Taverner together in style and quality. I don't think either will be in heavy rotation in the canon but there's always a niche for quiet meditative music.

Les Espaces Du Sommeil
01-20-2014, 08:52 AM
OK.

So let's say:

For sure: Ligeti, Britten

Probably: Messiaen, Dutilleux, Bernstein

Perhaps (let's hope): Lutoslawski, Barber, MacMillan

I'm fine with that :cool:.

For those we disagree on, we'll see :).

Gyrate
01-20-2014, 09:02 AM
I still think you need to add John Adams. Nixon in China is already standard repertoire, and Klinghoffer is only held back due to political sensitivities.

pulykamell
01-20-2014, 09:17 AM
Do you really think that Damien Hirst will be remembered for anything other than being one of the biggest scam artists of all time?

As I said before, I'm not exactly a fan of his (although there are one or two paintings I think are reasonable), but I have a hunch that he will be remembered. It would be kind of hard to go through any art history and gloss over perhaps the highest profile late 20th century art movement (Young British Artists) and Damien Hirst's involvement. Like him or not, he's secured his place historically as a high profile (probably the highest profile) 20th century artist. Now will he be remembered fondly or more critically? I suspect that history will be kinder on him than us.

Aeschines
01-20-2014, 09:58 AM
As I said before, I'm not exactly a fan of his (although there are one or two paintings I think are reasonable), but I have a hunch that he will be remembered. It would be kind of hard to go through any art history and gloss over perhaps the highest profile late 20th century art movement (Young British Artists) and Damien Hirst's involvement. Like him or not, he's secured his place historically as a high profile (probably the highest profile) 20th century artist. Now will he be remembered fondly or more critically? I suspect that history will be kinder on him than us.I'm not talking whether someone is remembered in the history books. Or even retain some sort of reputation among academics. I'm talking about whether their art will still be considered "great," "major," etc., in 2114. For example, Shakespeare is still performed and appreciated, nay, worshiped, today. I think that will still be true in 2114. I don't think Hirst will be ranked with Picasso in 2114.

pulykamell
01-20-2014, 10:04 AM
I'm not talking whether someone is remembered in the history books. Or even retain some sort of reputation among academics. I'm talking about whether their art will still be considered "great," "major," etc., in 2114. For example, Shakespeare is still performed and appreciated, nay, worshiped, today. I think that will still be true in 2114. I don't think Hirst will be ranked with Picasso in 2114.

I wouldn't say that for sure. I think he will be remembered as a major artist. Will he be canonical like the other ones I mentioned? I don't know. But I don't find it inconceivable as, love it or hate it, he's created some of the most memorable late 20th century art. If Warhol can be canon (and I don't really like his work and, to be honest, the few pieces of Hirst that I like I prefer to any Warhol I've seen), I see no reason that Hirst can't or won't be canon.

scabpicker
01-20-2014, 10:07 AM
One thing I'd like to emphasize is that I'm *not* of the opinion that we are lacking great creative people these days. I think, however, that the social mechanism by which people recognize artists like Picasso and Stravinsky as "great" has disappeared for some reason.

I think this is generally true about pop/rock music these days. The record companies did serve a purpose, promoting things. Now that the cost of pressing/distributing your music has hit rock bottom, there's no barrier to getting your music out there. But unless you're a skilled self promoter, it's not getting pushed unless you're on a label. The labels used to take chances on adventurous acts, but they just don't anymore. If you've got a crazy idea on the edge of music, they'll let you take your own chances, thanks. This contributes to the perception that there's no innovation in pop/rock these days.

In the end, it's liberating for both the performer and the listener. At the same time, it's more work for both, with more reward when you get it right.

I see this effect less in visual art, because there still seems to be around the same market for original art, and there hasn't been a great change in who is the establishment. Some people have been able to use the internet to market/exhibit their art successfully, but I haven't heard of gallery owners clamoring about their lost sales, and Art In America and Artforum both seem to be doing well, with the same established galleries advertising.

I don't know enough about the economics of contemporary classical music to comment much on how they get promoted and become successful. However, I've always thought that classical music ensembles, and by extension the composers of contemporary works, generally depended on benefactors to perform. Is this incorrect?

Francis Bacon and Lucian Freud, definitely.

Absolutely, Warhol and Ruscha as well.

My wife hopes Hockney would be durable for 100 years. I don't think he will be for his painting, but possibly for his photography. I'd like to think that Rauschenberg would survive, simply because he was the first to overlay images in a way that is very important in the modern era. My wife disagrees, and thinks he'll be like Corot, who's important to painters, but isn't well known.

One of the things that will keep some contemporary artists from being durable is that their work is intentionally created in ways and on things that won't be here in 100 years. (e.g. Banksy, Robert Smithson)

Aeschines
01-20-2014, 11:10 AM
Classical music

Ligeti and Dutilleux (both of them are already considered classics and their works have been used in other media). Britten is the only post-1945 composer whose operas are still played regularly. I consider these as "safe". Barber has a shot, too.

Perhaps: Lutoslawski and Messiaen.Thanks for reminding me about Ligeti; I've been meaning to check into his stuff.

But all these guys were basically established pre-War and certainly by my new arbitrary cutoff date of 1960. Barber's string quartet with the famous adagio is from 1936.

Fame and legacy tend to work based on "brand." If you can establish the brand, your work will continue to be "input" into the system even after it is not taking new applicants, so to speak.

If a crude, poorly written play by Shakespeare were discovered next week, it would be huge news reported by the major media, performances would be put on immediately, and so on. In contrast, if a masterpiece by Ben Jonson were similarly discovered, it would not be big news. Further, there is no way any new author could write a play so good that it would get as much press as a crude Shakespeare work. Shakespeare has "brand." (I'm not saying he doesn't deserve it, but the way such brands work does not always lead to justice.)

That's why I emphasize when these guys got their start. They were able to establish their brands when *new* classical music was a part of mainstream life. Perhaps highbrow mainstream life, but it wasn't just academics.

Poetry

Dylan Thomas and E. E. Cummings. Larkin?

Thomas died in 1953. Cummings is basically a pre-War poet and died in 1962. Larkin was born in 1922. I would say he was never really famous among the masses in the first place.

"Serious" literature

Georges Perec (great and very popular) and Julien Gracq (another modern classic). Boulgakov and Borges, definitely (if they fit your criteria). Calvino, Golding: perhaps.

Atwood?

Let's keep in mind that we just have not produced a Dickens in our era--someone who sells a lot of books and is considered "great" in his or her own time. Some of the above, perhaps all, seem like writers only academics will know about in 2114. I really don't think anyone is going to give a shit about Margaret Atwood then. Or Jonathon Franzen, for that matter. They haven't established the big brand and cultural cachet that people were able to do up until around 1960.

Drama (plays and musicals)

Beckett.

Beckett was born in 1909, and Waiting for Godot came out in 1953. I don't think he qualifies. I can't comment on the others.

Aeschines
01-20-2014, 11:38 AM
I honestly don't know what to say about this other than wow, is this wrong on every level (well, not about Schoenberg and Carter being remembered, but about everything else). Classical music is thriving and new works are constantly being written and produced.I think you misunderstand. I'm not talking about whether works are being produced. I'm not even talking about their quality. I'm saying that people are not taking notice in large numbers, and the social mechanism by which we used to elevate a Beethoven or a even a Britten to "greatness" no longer exists. Thus, when classical music fans or even academics look back to the year 2014, they may have their favorites, but they will not be able to claim that that anyone became famous for music composition at this time. My theory is that, unless someone is famous in his or her time, he or she will not be famous in the future. Thus, the masses will still listen to Beethoven in 2114, but they will not (in any large numbers) listen to Ligeti--or to anyone composing in 2014. I'm not saying that's fair or right, but I do think it's true.

The majority of it is forgettable but then the majority of artwork produced in any era is forgettable, with only the best surviving the test of time (and sometimes - as was most famously the case with J.S. Bach - not being recognized at all in the composer's own era). But there is gold among the dross, have no doubt.What you say is interesting and true, but the implications may be the opposite of what you are saying.

In Bach's time, there were big trends in music, and people were as you say forgetting the "old": the galante style was replaced Baroque, and idiots like Stamitz were considered the bee's knees. Out with the old, in with the new.

Then, in the 19th century, as you know, Bach was revived. Good move! I love Bach. The "trouble" (both blessing and curse), however, is that we've kept all the good stuff since, so that classical music, to most people, now means that good stuff from the 18th and 19th centuries, with the rare 20th century piece thrown in.

The thing is, it's a big deal for a symphony orchestra to learn and perform one symphony--think of all the man-hours! So are they going to do Beethoven's 5th or some new work? What will bring in the dollars? Hell, even among Beethoven's symphonies, some are not performed very often (I was lucky to see the 1st a few years ago). I listened to the Kodaly Quartet's complete set of Haydn string quartets in the car for years but still feel I didn't get to know them well enough.

And that is another issue when imagining 2114: just the glut of stuff people will have to deal with: another hundred years of movies, TV shows, popular music, and so on. Human mental bandwidth will not increase, but the amount of stuff to be sorted through will be that much greater. All of the dross does make it harder to locate the gold, especially if it was not mined in its own era.

As for your comments on modern classical music, I think they show an academic bias. There *are* no "towering figures" in our era. That's precisely the problem I'm addressing. People don't know about these guys. I consider myself a big classical music fan and *do* listen to "contemporary" classical, and I haven't heard a lot of what you're talking about. Now why is that? Basically because I am *passively* open to new classical--if I encounter it in the media or it smacks me in the face somehow, I will give it a chance. But the fact is that it doesn't smack me in the face. People outside of classical music message boards and whatnot do not not talk about this stuff. My friends that I consider smart and intellectual do not talk about this stuff.

And that's the thing: smart people who are open to new classical, people who would be in the "demo," don't hear about it. That's what I'm talking about with the "social mechanism" thing. People hear about Miley Cyrus at the VMAs, even if they are not interested in it. No one hears about Nixon in China, even if they are open to it. (Btw, that sounds like a spoof of modern opera as opposed to an actual opera. The thought of Nixon belting out an aria sounds, well, absurd. Just sayin'.)

Aeschines
01-20-2014, 11:41 AM
What you say is interesting and true, but the implications may be the opposite of what you are saying.

I didn't clarify this enough. What I ultimately meant is that the preservation of past gold reduces the bandwidth for recognizing new gold. And I think the bandwidth people have reserved for classical music is pretty much used up now, to the point where great pieces from recognized giants like Beethoven, Haydn, and Mozart are regularly neglected.

Aeschines
01-20-2014, 12:02 PM
I think this is generally true about pop/rock music these days. The record companies did serve a purpose, promoting things. Now that the cost of pressing/distributing your music has hit rock bottom, there's no barrier to getting your music out there. But unless you're a skilled self promoter, it's not getting pushed unless you're on a label. The labels used to take chances on adventurous acts, but they just don't anymore. If you've got a crazy idea on the edge of music, they'll let you take your own chances, thanks. This contributes to the perception that there's no innovation in pop/rock these days.

In the end, it's liberating for both the performer and the listener. At the same time, it's more work for both, with more reward when you get it right.I concur with your analysis.

I think another thing that's happened is that record companies--and movie companies--have gotten "better" at their jobs. Movie companies didn't put out great movies like Taxi Driver in the 70s out of a desire to create great art (I'm not saying that desire was zero, but...). Rather, they hadn't learned to focus almost entirely on blockbusters yet. Same thing with pop music. They didn't have the formula down yet. Now they do. They are going to "One Direction" us forever. Now I love a good pop song (and even like a couple of their songs), but c'mon...

I see this effect less in visual art, because there still seems to be around the same market for original art, and there hasn't been a great change in who is the establishment. Some people have been able to use the internet to market/exhibit their art successfully, but I haven't heard of gallery owners clamoring about their lost sales, and Art In America and Artforum both seem to be doing well, with the same established galleries advertising.Ja, that's why I said visual art is not like the others, cuz rich people can own it. I have no doubt that people will still want to own Damien Hirst works in 2114. There are going to be a lot more rich Chinese people then who want to put something on their walls. But that doesn't necessarily mean he will be considered a great artist like Picasso (not that you were saying this--I'm just building on your point).

I don't know enough about the economics of contemporary classical music to comment much on how they get promoted and become successful. However, I've always thought that classical music ensembles, and by extension the composers of contemporary works, generally depended on benefactors to perform. Is this incorrect?Yes, there is not a lot of money in it, and I know that symphony orchestras have to be subsidized with donors. Even then, the tickets seem expensive.

Tapioca Dextrin
01-20-2014, 12:06 PM
"Serious" literature

Outside a handful of books, big zero. The time period has created no giants like Dickens or Austin, not really even many credible candidates. I've heard V.S. Naipaul held up as one--I don't think so. There are people who pick up a George Elliot book for pleasure reading--will someone really be digging into a Naipaul book in 2114? I'm not sure he will even be taught in an English lit class, unless it is specifically about his particular time period.

What could survive in the handful of books is Catcher in the Rye, To Kill a Mockingbird, Lord of the Flies... I don't know, it could be a bunch of things, but I don't see any authors really being held up for particular veneration. This isn't my particular area of expertise, so tell me I'm wrong; my feelings won't be hurt.

Popular literature

For example, will the following be read or even remembered in 2114?

Harry Potter: Will be remembered for being huge but won't be read any more. Many other book crazes will have come and gone by then.

Stephen King's works: Up for grabs. Not many new and *big* horror writers have come along, so he may still be filling a need at that time.

Hunger Games: I doubt it.

Twilight: Hahahaha fuck no.

I'm not sure how well a lot of sci-fi will hold up either. I'm a huge Robert Sheckley fan, but he was mostly forgotten during his own lifetime. Will people still take, say, Dune seriously 100 years from now? I have my doubts. Heinlein is an idiot and I hope he will be forgotten. Certain authors will be remembered for their contribution to the genre, but I doubt they will be read much: Asimov, Clarke, etc.

Those are some opinions for you. I look forward to reading yours!

I think you're prfoundly wrong with your initial premise. Our view of great literature is based on what's currently in fashion. The literary giants of 2114 will be defined by what's ever in fashion 10 years in the future. Just because something is regarded as a crapfest today won't make a jot of difference to the literarti of the 22nd century.

In the 19th Century, Charles Dickens was the very embodiment of popular literature. People all over the world (Europe and the US, anyway) waited eagerly for new chapters of his latest work to appear in Strand magazine or whatever newspaper it was being serialised in.

This is as close to JK Rowling as it's possible to be.

Regarding it as "serious literature" is something that happened later.

Same with Shakespeare. Written as throw away pieces in a just a few weeks and forgotten completely for two hundred years. Now they're among the best stuff ever written by anyone ever. In a hundred years time, Bill might fall out of fashion and literary scolars will carry out deatiled mata analyses of the pivotal seventh season scripts of Two and a Half Men.

Aeschines
01-20-2014, 12:25 PM
I think you're prfoundly wrong with your initial premise. Our view of great literature is based on what's currently in fashion. The literary giants of 2114 will be defined by what's ever in fashion 10 years in the future. Just because something is regarded as a crapfest today won't make a jot of difference to the literarti of the 22nd century.My theory is that something needs to be famous in its own time among a large number of people in order to be famous in the future among a large number of people. What academics think today about art doesn't impact what people read very much. Dickens was popular in the 19th century and is still read. Is there any author who was *not* popular in the 19th century but now read by a large number of people? None that I know of.

In the 19th Century, Charles Dickens was the very embodiment of popular literature. People all over the world (Europe and the US, anyway) waited eagerly for new chapters of his latest work to appear in Strand magazine or whatever newspaper it was being serialised in.

This is as close to JK Rowling as it's possible to be.I agree. That's why I even considered her as a candidate. I just don't actually think Harry Potter and crew will be enjoyed much in 2114.

Regarding it as "serious literature" is something that happened later.Or rather, that division didn't exist yet. That said, Dickens was indeed recognized in his time as a great writer. Beethoven was recognized in a his time as a great composer. The idea that "true art" could only be understood by college professors didn't exist yet. It's this division, I think, that has been a big part of the loss of social mechanism for recognizing artists as "great" by society.

Same with Shakespeare. Written as throw away pieces in a just a few weeks and forgotten completely for two hundred years. Now they're among the best stuff ever written by anyone ever. In a hundred years time, Bill might fall out of fashion and literary scolars will carry out deatiled mata analyses of the pivotal seventh season scripts of Two and a Half Men.Except not.

Chronos
01-20-2014, 01:15 PM
I agree with the OP that plenty of movies and TV shows from that period will endure, but for a different reason. It's not because they're "easy to consume": A movie is no easier to consume than a play. Rather, it's because both media are still young. When a medium is new, there is plenty of room for innovators to take it in fresh new directions, and that gets noticed and remembered.

Aeschines
01-20-2014, 01:20 PM
I agree with the OP that plenty of movies and TV shows from that period will endure, but for a different reason. It's not because they're "easy to consume": A movie is no easier to consume than a play.It's easier to consume than a play, since you can watch it at home. But basically, yes. The big difference is that plays are *not* easy to put on, and distribution is highly limited.

Rather, it's because both media are still young. When a medium is new, there is plenty of room for innovators to take it in fresh new directions, and that gets noticed and remembered.I think this is true. People will remain curious about the beginnings of the whole thing as well.

Trinopus
01-20-2014, 02:52 PM
Is it good?

(John Williams' original classical music.) Yeah, pretty good.

(While naming names, Shaun Davey writes remarkably good "modern classical" stuff. The "Relief of Derry" symphony is brilliant.)

. . . The preservation of past gold reduces the bandwidth for recognizing new gold. And I think the bandwidth people have reserved for classical music is pretty much used up now, to the point where great pieces from recognized giants like Beethoven, Haydn, and Mozart are regularly neglected.

Reasonably similar to what I said. And, yeah, it's a shame when Beethoven's, or Vivaldi's, or etc.'s, greatest stuff squeezes out their other stuff. I have an album entitled "The Forgotten Beethoven," concentrating on his lesser-known stuff.

(Who ever listens to the first two Leonore overtures, when the third is so surpassingly brilliant!)

Gyrate
01-20-2014, 05:38 PM
((While naming names, Shaun Davey writes remarkably good "modern classical" stuff. The "Relief of Derry" symphony is brilliant.)I don't know if Davey's even that well known in Ireland and the "Relief of Derry" is even more politically fraught than Klinghoffer is, which discourages performances. That said, it's a cracking piece of music and well worth a listen, even if it's unlikely to be one for the ages.

Gyrate
01-20-2014, 05:51 PM
As for your comments on modern classical music, I think they show an academic bias. There *are* no "towering figures" in our era.There were very few "towering figures" in any era, and fewer still who weren't as famous for their performances (e.g. Liszt) as their music. It's posterity who decides.
That's precisely the problem I'm addressing. People don't know about these guys. I consider myself a big classical music fan and *do* listen to "contemporary" classical, and I haven't heard a lot of what you're talking about. Now why is that? Basically because I am *passively* open to new classical--if I encounter it in the media or it smacks me in the face somehow, I will give it a chance. But the fact is that it doesn't smack me in the face. People outside of classical music message boards and whatnot do not not talk about this stuff. My friends that I consider smart and intellectual do not talk about this stuff.

And that's the thing: smart people who are open to new classical, people who would be in the "demo," don't hear about it. That's what I'm talking about with the "social mechanism" thing. People hear about Miley Cyrus at the VMAs, even if they are not interested in it. No one hears about Nixon in China, even if they are open to it. (Btw, that sounds like a spoof of modern opera as opposed to an actual opera. The thought of Nixon belting out an aria sounds, well, absurd. Just sayin'.)Well, as I said Nixon in China (which premiered in 1987) is already part of the standard operatic repertoire. It was the subject of an enormous amount of media coverage (regular media, not just "classical music circles") at the time it premiered and it gets performed a lot, particularly for an opera with few hummable tunes. The Man on the Street may not have heard of it but then the MotS probably doesn't know who Wagner was either outside of Bugs Bunny cartoons (and, these days, not even those).

You're not being consistent with your criteria. On the one hand you want to know who will be considered "great" in a few generations. On the other, you want people who write the music the Man on the Street can hum. By the latter criterion, the "towering figure" of 20th-century classical music is Carl Orff. Is that really what you're asking?

Aeschines
01-20-2014, 07:35 PM
There were very few "towering figures" in any era, and fewer still who weren't as famous for their performances (e.g. Liszt) as their music. It's posterity who decides.Some is better than none!

Well, as I said Nixon in China (which premiered in 1987) is already part of the standard operatic repertoire. It was the subject of an enormous amount of media coverage (regular media, not just "classical music circles") at the time it premiered and it gets performed a lot, particularly for an opera with few hummable tunes. The Man on the Street may not have heard of it but then the MotS probably doesn't know who Wagner was either outside of Bugs Bunny cartoons (and, these days, not even those).I hear you, but people who are reasonably educated who don't consider themselves classical music fans are likely to have heard of Wagner. I actually have *heard* of Nixon at some point but could not have told you the composer's name, and I *do* consider myself a classical music fan. But not someone who feels he's got to know everything (I really have no friends to talk about this stuff with, so I also learn in a pretty random fashion, too).

You're not being consistent with your criteria. On the one hand you want to know who will be considered "great" in a few generations. On the other, you want people who write the music the Man on the Street can hum. By the latter criterion, the "towering figure" of 20th-century classical music is Carl Orff. Is that really what you're asking?Well, with classical music, the hummable stuff was abandoned long ago, and that's when the Man on the Street and even Educated People lost interest. Also, the press lost interest. It now only appeals to a very narrow group of people, a high percentage of whom are musicians and composers themselves. It is pretty much the same way with poetry. It's incestuous. And I think in such a situation greatness is not registered now, nor is it exhumed or otherwise revived later. I really don't think any poet who started working after 1960 will be remembered in 2114 as "great."

Rick Kitchen
01-20-2014, 07:58 PM
Tom Stoppard.

And I'm thinking Tolkien, as well. Maybe even Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings, but it will probably have been remade at least two times more since then.

pulykamell
01-20-2014, 07:59 PM
In English, I see no reason to doubt Seamus Heaney's legacy.

Tapioca Dextrin
01-20-2014, 08:02 PM
Tolkien was one of the progenitors of 20th century fantasy, but the culmination of the art was ... Terry Pratchett?

your 21st century lit crit

Aeschines
01-20-2014, 08:27 PM
And I'm thinking Tolkien, as well.Pre-War!!!

Clarification: The Hobbit is from 1937, the trilogy is from 1954-1955...

Les Espaces Du Sommeil
01-21-2014, 08:05 AM
Thanks for reminding me about Ligeti; I've been meaning to check into his stuff.

But all these guys were basically established pre-War and certainly by my new arbitrary cutoff date of 1960. Barber's string quartet with the famous adagio is from 1936.

Fame and legacy tend to work based on "brand." If you can establish the brand, your work will continue to be "input" into the system even after it is not taking new applicants, so to speak.

If a crude, poorly written play by Shakespeare were discovered next week, it would be huge news reported by the major media, performances would be put on immediately, and so on. In contrast, if a masterpiece by Ben Jonson were similarly discovered, it would not be big news. Further, there is no way any new author could write a play so good that it would get as much press as a crude Shakespeare work. Shakespeare has "brand." (I'm not saying he doesn't deserve it, but the way such brands work does not always lead to justice.)

That's why I emphasize when these guys got their start. They were able to establish their brands when *new* classical music was a part of mainstream life. Perhaps highbrow mainstream life, but it wasn't just academics.



Thomas died in 1953. Cummings is basically a pre-War poet and died in 1962. Larkin was born in 1922. I would say he was never really famous among the masses in the first place.



Let's keep in mind that we just have not produced a Dickens in our era--someone who sells a lot of books and is considered "great" in his or her own time. Some of the above, perhaps all, seem like writers only academics will know about in 2114. I really don't think anyone is going to give a shit about Margaret Atwood then. Or Jonathon Franzen, for that matter. They haven't established the big brand and cultural cachet that people were able to do up until around 1960.



Beckett was born in 1909, and Waiting for Godot came out in 1953. I don't think he qualifies. I can't comment on the others.

In your OP you said: "What art from 1945-2014 holds up?". Now, you reject my examples because you have decided on a new cutoff date. Sorry but I have a feeling that you started this thread so that we would approve of your... prejudice?

I'm also a bit puzzled by your fixation on Dickens. Why do you keep on refering to him? Do you think all artists should have the same profile as his for their art to be valid? If so, then goodbye Bach for instance as Gyrate pointed out. That doesn't make sense.

Regarding the examples I provided. Ligeti started writing in the late 40s but only hit it big in the early 60s. Dutilleux started quite a bit earlier but his stature only started growing in the 70s. They fit IMHO, unless you move the goalposts again.

Perec is an example of a post WWII writer who was both well-known and critically acclaimed. Still is by the way:

Georges Perec's Life: A User's Manuel [La Vie Mode d'Emploi]. Simply one of the most brilliant novels written in the last 50 years. Ingenious, fascinating, creative, historical, devious, intriguing and unique, a great writer from the OLIPO group, widely read in the US, well in NYC anyway, contradicting this article.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25299446 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25299446)

@Gyrate

Sorry about Adams but I must confess that I'm not very familiar with his music. I've only listened to The Dharma at Big Sur and, while I certainly enjoyed it, I cannot say that I found it particularly great or even memorable. I'll try and listen to a few more pieces of his in the future.

Measure for Measure
01-21-2014, 08:30 PM
I think comics will have legs and that graphic art will be compared favorably to painting. As such, there will have to be a set of authors/artists of historical interest. Gaiman has a decent shot. Frank Miller will be a little obscure. Tezuka will be remembered (along with his foundation). In anime, Hideaki Anno will remain a name. New Yorker cartoons may or may not persist... I wonder whether the business model can survive.

Architecture. Hm.

MaxTheVool
01-23-2014, 12:38 AM
I sing in a choir that does lots of contemporary compositions, and I've heard it claimed that the most "popular" (among fairly serious classical choirs) a capella choral composition from the past few decades is the Ave Maria by Franz Biebl.

Gyrate
01-23-2014, 04:38 AM
I think comics will have legs and that graphic art will be compared favorably to painting. As such, there will have to be a set of authors/artists of historical interest. Gaiman has a decent shot. Frank Miller will be a little obscure. I was thinking the same. Alan Moore has a huge oeuvre (fnar fnar), much of which is well-known and popular (horrible film adaptations sort of helping, sort of hindering). There are a number of other graphic novels included in lists of must-read books including Art Spiegelman's Maus that will be less popular but remain critically well-regarded.
Architecture. Hm.Lots of famous post-war architects- I M Pei, Frank Gehry, arguably Daniel Libeskind (although I agree with the view that Libeskind is a second-rate Gehry), Norman Foster etc etc. And of course buildings tend to endure and be extremely visible.

I sing in a choir that does lots of contemporary compositions, and I've heard it claimed that the most "popular" (among fairly serious classical choirs) a capella choral composition from the past few decades is the Ave Maria by Franz Biebl.It's a lovely piece but again, it's one short simple motet. There's not much 'there' there.

MaxTheVool
01-23-2014, 12:37 PM
It's a lovely piece but again, it's one short simple motet. There's not much 'there' there.

But the same is true of the Pachelbel Canon.

I don't think that the Biebl Ave Maria is going to be particularly familiar to the general public, but I think it's at least possible that it will be somewhat regularly performed by the choirs of the future, assuming there are choirs of the future who sing the same kind of repertoire as the choirs that currently sing it, if you see what I'm saying. I feel like it's got at least a good shot as any other choral piece written recently, which I believe is the point of the thread?

Miller
01-23-2014, 12:51 PM
I'm surprised that, in a thread specifically about post-war art, no one has mentioned television. It's the medium that defined the second half of the twentieth century, and will likely remain ubiquitous for the foreseeable future. We already have plenty of examples of shows that have maintained a degree of popularity for fifty years or more, so there's a good pool of candidates to pick from for long term endurance, too.

Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor
01-23-2014, 05:59 PM
The Original King Kong will not lose it's power to fascinate.


Tolkien? Yes, I think so.

Lovecraft? Yes.

Justin_Bailey
01-23-2014, 06:50 PM
The Original King Kong will not lose it's power to fascinate.

Tolkien? Yes, I think so.

Lovecraft? Yes.

All Pre-War.

MaxTheVool
01-23-2014, 07:12 PM
The Original King Kong will not lose it's power to fascinate.


Hasn't it already? How many 20-year-olds have seen it? I'm 40 and I've never seen it, although I've seen it parodied infinitely.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.