Literature, frankly, doesn't seem to excite people like it used to. Harry Potter was an unbelievable phenomenon, but writers no longer seem to serve the public intellectual role, no Tolstoys or Twains, nor do they have big personalities like Norman Mailer or Ernest Hemingway did. I'm not sure why this is, but if you don't have writers making news and starting arguments, then the medium is not getting pushed forward in the same obvious ways.

Michael Crichton seemed to have a back for starting arguments, and his personality was certainly unique. He's dead now, so I guess your argument stands, but up until that time he was moving debates on climate change and genetic engineering.

What about Michael Pollan? Or how about all of the authors that are writing about middle east cultures? Like the Kite Runner author or the Persepolis author? What about the political pundits that write a ton of books?

but up until that time he was moving debates on climate change and genetic engineering.

Yes, that's true, and advancing those arguments with his books.

What about Michael Pollan?

Ok, sure, but he's not a novelist or artist in any sense.

What about the political pundits that write a ton of books?

That really, really, really isn't the same as literature.

I'd say, like music, the biggest change is a move towards more options.

I think this hits it. This kinda came up in the Greatest Current Rock Band thread as well: with so many ways to listen to music (/obtain reading material/watch entertainement/etc.) it's just that much harder for any change to become widespread enough to become a cultural reference megalith. Insofar as there are titans, it's because they're left over from a bygone age of titans (Radiohead, Metallica, etc.) or are squatting in the space created by said titans (Lil Wayne for Dr. Dre, etc.)

But I don't think that means popular style is stuck on repeat; it means that popular style has fractured in a novel way, and that in itself is a dramatic change. The fact that I can create professional-sounding digital music on my laptop using freely available software, upload it to youtube, share it instantaneously with friends or put it on my inexpensive mp3 player in a vast digital playlist -- to me that is way bigger than Neil Young to REM or whathaveyou.

Ok, sure, but he's not a novelist or artist in any sense.


That really, really, really isn't the same as literature.

But isn't this evidence of the medium changing?

But isn't this evidence of the medium changing?

Huh? No. I am talking about the medium of artistic literature. Political books have been published since the very beginning.

I'm not really sure what you're getting after, McCoy.

The fact that the current dominant Hollywood trends are sequelmania and nostalgia for the 80's illustrates the point that artistic ambition is on the wane.

Well, maybe it means that artistic ambition in Hollywood is on the wane. But it's cheaper than ever for filmmakers to make and distribute artistically ambitious indie-type films. We don't need Hollywood for that. We need Hollywood for flicks with expensive special effects, big-name stars, trademarked characters from our youth, etc.

I'm not really sure what you're getting after, McCoy.

Basically post 55 sums it up. What we do, what we value, what we like has changed and has changed radically and rapidly. A certain segment may whither or even die but that doesn't mean another segment or 50 didn't come along take its place.

I (somewhat) agree with #55, and I don't understand how it connects in any way with the books of political pundits.

That the modes of consumption and production have changed so radically is amazing, and very important, but I think it's a separate conversation from the one about shifts in artistic style. This is actually the very first thing that the Vanity Fair article addresses.

> On edit: sometimes. Obviously the rise of the DVD and Tivo made a big difference in the artistic ambitions of TV writers.

Lady Gaga > Pavement

#55, #58 good points. The era of having a clearly defined "Biggest Band in the World", or mega successful and cultural defining film like Godfather, Gone with the Wind, or Star Wars; is probably over. I believe this is a marvelous change as it allows many more voices into the artistic/entertainment conversation.

The same phenomenon is starting to be seen in the relatively new mediums of TV and video games.

A small cable channel like AMC has been able to create many critically acclaimed and popular original series on small budgets. 10 years ago, only the HBO type of cable channels were able to produce original TV content like that, and 20 years ago all original content came from the 3(4) powerhouse networks.

Besides the amazing popularity of rehashed Madden and COD-type video games, over the last ~5 years there has been a dramatic increase in the popularity and artistic value of independent and small development house game productions. Technology has grown to the point where it can be relatively cheap (compared to say 10+ years ago) to develop a polished game in a small team and distribute it via the web, PSN, Xbox live, or Itunes.

The biggest change with dance music, particularly songs with faster BPMs, is simply its re-acceptance into the mainstream culture after a nearly 30-year absence.

No way. When I started listening to the radio in 1994 or so, it seemed like half the songs on the Top 40 were things like "Run Away" and "Rhythm Is A Dancer" and "What Is Love?" and Technotronic and C+C Music Factory. It basically got replaced by rap music for dancing purposes for a decade or so, and now non-rap dance music is more prevalent again.

I don't really agree with the Vanity Fair article. I think there has been a huge change between 1992 and 2012 in films, TV, food, fashion, and music. I'm not versed well enough in the art world to comment on that and while I am no expert on literature it sure does seem to me like it has changed. But again I'm no expert on writing styles and such to really say one way or the other.

The last twenty years have had an unprecedented digital revolution, and that has basically overshadowed everything else. To say that art has not changed is ridiculous. We've seen groundbreaking changes in forms of art: video games as interactive theater, blogs as literature, online comics and short videos, collaborative online communities, etc. Television is more complex and more dramatically pushes the envelope.

We've also gotten an entirely different level of exposure to other cultures through the internet. Our senses are overwhelmed with more content than we could process in a lifetime. A lot of it is stuff that isn't necessarily new, but just new to us.

No way. When I started listening to the radio in 1994 or so, it seemed like half the songs on the Top 40 were things like "Run Away" and "Rhythm Is A Dancer" and "What Is Love?" and Technotronic and C+C Music Factory. It basically got replaced by rap music for dancing purposes for a decade or so, and now non-rap dance music is more prevalent again.

I will give you that oasis ('91-95). I was thinking more about 80s freestyle (TKA, Cover Girls, Marc Anthony v.1.0) -- upbeat, breezy music that received relatively little airplay beyond NY, Philly, Miami, Chicago, and LA. Additionally, even top DJs/producers like Tiesto and Kaskade got little MSM attention until very recently.

That the modes of consumption and production have changed so radically is amazing, and very important, but I think it's a separate conversation from the one about shifts in artistic style.

I guess I disagree that they are separate. The meaning of an artistic style depends on the way that people are experiencing the art. At very least, the modes of consumption and production help define what a "style" can be.

For example, I'd say an important new "style" of popular music is eclecticism, and that this is mostly happening at the listener level rather than the musician level. I think if a typical person from 20 years ago were, say, transported into one of the coffee shops I like to work at they would remark at the range of musical genres played in short succession.

"Rhythm Is A Dancer"

Featuring the worst lyrics ever: "I'm as serious as cancer, when I say rhythm is a dancer"

Lester Bangs was already feeling the decentralization of popular culture back in 1977. His essay on the death of Elvis Presley wrapped up with these words:

“But I can guarantee you one thing; we will never agree on anything as we agreed on Elvis. So I won’t bother saying goodbye to his corpse. I will say goodbye to you.”

Featuring the worst lyrics ever: "I'm as serious as cancer, when I say rhythm is a dancer"

How dare you insult Turbo B, the second-greatest rapper from Pittsburgh ever.

After reading that Gaga quote up top, I'm wondering: does anyone know in what language that was originally written? And, what translation site was used to convert it to English?

Meanwhile, me and a few others hide in our metal corner...

Biff, hijack-ish question. I'm belatedly dipping my toes into metal waters, and and seeing three bands this spring I've heard good things about but haven't really listened to - Meshuggah, Baroness, Opeth. Any recommendations for good starting points on any of those bands?

"Rhythm Is A Dancer"

Featuring the worst lyrics ever: "I'm as serious as cancer, when I say rhythm is a dancer"

How dare you insult Turbo B, the second-greatest rapper from Pittsburgh ever.

This rhyme is stolen from Rakim, who often appears on Best Rapper Ever lists:

I got a question, it's serious as cancer
Who can keep the average dancer
Hyper as a heart attack nobody smiling
Cuz you're expressing the rhyme that I'm styling

Biff, hijack-ish question. I'm belatedly dipping my toes into metal waters, and and seeing three bands this spring I've heard good things about but haven't really listened to - Meshuggah, Baroness, Opeth. Any recommendations for good starting points on any of those bands?

I don't know anything about the middle one, but for the other two the recommendation would be pretty similar: start in the middle. After they had mastered what they were trying to do but before they started branching off into other genres and/or got too pretentious and complex.

So the albums "Blackwater Park" for Opeth and "Nothing" for Meshuggah.