Is 2012 culture much different from 1992 culture?

Cafe Society
1

This essay by Kurt Andersen in the latest issue of Vanity Fair IMO makes a compelling case that culture–when compared to previous 20-year increments, at least in the US–seems to have stagnated. Obviously there have been technological and scientific leaps over the past two decades,and certainly one can argue that there have been political transformations. But when you look at the artifacts of our culture, very little have changed:

He continues with examples from architecture, film style, music, and books, then:

The article really marshals the details, and is well worth a read. My question to the board is, do you agree, and if so why do you think the stagnation occurs. IMO the article is fairly weak on the last point (throws up a bunch of possible causes, but none of them are firmly persuasive).

2

Back in 1992 there was no way for niche performers to reliably reach their audiences, and now there is. The cultures may look similar if you just look at the most popular things, but as soon as you start to expand your view a little, you see radical differences.

3

Paranoia is King, now, not Elvis nor Michael.

4

Well, you can always pick and choose your examples, but the author is on the right track. Popular music is the same as it was 20 years ago, just with different acts. Movies are dominated by the same “blockbuster adventure” mode started by Jaws.

My take on the cause: cost. The price of everything has gone up. Movie ticket prices have far outpaced inflation (from an average price of $4.15 in 1992 to an average of $7.89 in 2010). The same for prices across the board on most other types of art.

The one exception is music, where you can download an album for less than a CD at the time, but the cost of an album of music on iTunes is far more expensive than file sharing, so the low price still looks high.

The result is that, as people pay more for their art, they stick to the tried-and-true. For $4.15 in 1992 (the equivalent of $6.37 today), you might take a chance on a film, but when it’s an extra dollar and a half* (plus inflation on the cost of popcorn, drinks, and gas), you don’t want to take a chance.

While there are niche performers, there are far fewer than in the 90s, they are much harder to find (even with the Internet), and fewer of them have a chance to make any money at it.

I saw the issue occur on Broadway 30 years ago. Back in the 50s, a play could have mixed reviews and still limp along, as people would give it a shot. But as ticket prices rose, it became either smash or flop, with nothing in between.

At the same time, as the cost of making art increases, then you become wedded to the blockbuster mode. When you’re investing hundreds of millions of dollars in a film, you don’t want to take any risks. So you go with genres that are sure things (there’s also the fact that even flop action films do well overseas).

Ultimately, the more you have to pay to see a movie, or go to a concert, or see a show, the less likely you are to take a chance. Thus people stick with what they know, and those who are outside the mainstream have a hard time breaking through.

*Also, people judge the cost of art as an absolute number. Even though $16 for a hardcover book in 1993 was not considered an unreasonable price, $25 for one today seems expensive, even though inflation makes the two amounts equivalent.

5

Well, technology does have an effect.

6

Culturally speaking, how different was 1750 from 1770? 1870 from 1890?

What I mean is that maybe the rapid cultural acceleration of the 20th Century was an aberration, and we’ve now returned to the normal rate of gradual cultural change humanity has always exhibited. It seems strange to us because we’re used to it, but actually, it’s the way things are supposed to happen.

7

Ah there are loads of differences between then and now, in style as with everything else. I think part of it is that the generation who came up and were most intimate with the early '90s haven’t shoved it down everyone else’s throats as some golden age (yet).

8

The Dream of the '90s is Alive in Portland.

9

“The uploader has not made this video available in your country”. However I saw that video recently anyway I think.

10

I became a parent in the early '90s, and so I have not paid any attention to popular culture in twenty-some-odd years. As both girls are now away at college I may have a chance to see what is going on in the entertainment world again, and wil return with a report in about six months or so.

11

I think Andersen makes some good points, but he also cherrypicks a lot of his “proof.” Saying Lady Gaga is the new Madonna is a bit of a cheat seeing as how Madonna made her debut in 1982. The Adele example is even worse as torch singers have been around since the 1920s.

However, I also think a lot of 90s era culture has been absorbed into the mainstream as some kind of “modern era” and in the 20 years since, it has become very resistant to change. But all the underlying details (especially computer-related stuff) has changed so much that it’s wrong to say 1992 is just like 2012.

12

I’d say the ubiquity of computers and cell phones/smart phones is a pretty significant difference from 1992. So much so that a lot of thriller movies from that era feel dated because a simple cell phone would have solved whatever problem our protagonist was facing.

13

However, I will say that it seems odd to me how many of today’s teenagers seem to enjoy a lot of the same music as their parents. That ain’t right.

14

Yeah but loads of them are into dubstep too. So there’s that.

15

just like nobody thinks they have an accent, no person is a good judge of the culture in which they spend much of their existence.

16

Eh, my parents used to say the same thing back when I was a teen in the 90’s. I don’t think kids liking music from the last generation is really particular to the present. Kids today and kids then don’t just listen to old music though.

I watched the Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV series for the first time a few months ago. The shows original run strattled the time period when cel phones started to become ubiquitous, and it was kind of funny to watch the writers at first ignore them, and then have the characters constantly forget to take there’s with them as they left for supposedly super-critical and dangerous missions, so that the other characters couldn’t tell them whatever key plot-breaking fact they’d just learned.

17

On the surface, there’s not much difference, but culture has changed a lot over the past twenty years.

18

A few months ago, I was having lunch at a local fast-food place, and saw a teenaged couple (probably around age 15)…she was wearing a Bob Marley t-shirt, and he was wearing a Led Zeppelin t-shirt. My first thought was, “cool, they’re going old-school”. Then, I thought about, if, as a 15-year-old (in 1980), I’d been wearing t-shirts for bands which were 30 years removed from their prime – I would have been wearing shirts for Les Paul or Benny Goodman. :smiley:

19

Back then though rockabilly and punk did borrow huge amounts from the sartorial culture of the '50s. I know a guy who runs a club night that is all music from prior to 1959. It’s a huge success and you get people of all ages there, most of whom weren’t around or were very young when the music he plays was in the hit parade.

20

I sure miss flannel and Doc Martens, though.