Cultural Criticism Stagnation
Well, there's another one of those "culture hasn't changed in twenty years" articles out again by yet another delusional cultural crony in a state of personal decay. This time it's Kurt Andersen at Vanity Fair, the January 2012 edition, in an article titled "So you say you want a devolution?"
http://www.vanityfair.com/style/2012/01/prisoners-of-style-201201
Maria Russo easily and breezily refutes most of it at Salon.com.
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/18/is_2011_really_just_1991/
And then the comments section dutifully "devolves" into a generational bash-up, with Boomers who seem to honestly believe that culture stopped when the Beatles broke up and Janis, Jim and Jimi died (They don't seem to feel Mama Cass's death had any relevance, but personally speaking I cried when she died.) railing against that good night and every subsequent generation, calling them bitter and jealous because they "weren't there," and younger people generally trying to assert that indeed there has been music after Woodstock, only to be called "Boomer bashers" for their polite trouble. A lot of hogwash.
Both are interesting reads in the ongoing 2011 yawner of a discussion about how we've lost ourselves in "nostalgia." I agree with Russo far, far, far more than I agree with Anderson, although I agree with some of his points. I just think that he doesn't get it. I mean, yes, he's talking about the surface of things, how things look, and then to a large degree he's asserting that innovation stopped in 1982 or so. She seems to understand that much of what he's talking about is terribly superficial, but she also agrees with some of his points in places I would not agree at all.
I don't care if people are wearing jeans today, jeans in 1992, jeans in 1972, and whether they'll be wearing jeans in 2032. I say bully for that! Jeans are comfortable. But I also am surrounded by a different world than poor myopic Kurt, I'm afraid, as I see a lot of people, kids, kids I tell you, who are not wearing jeans.
Also, although I can see the resemblances and the cultural borrowings, I don't think Lady Gaga is all that much like Madonna. The song Born This Way like Express Yourself? Sure, but who cares? ELO was a lot like one or two Beatles albums, while being wholly different as well, but who cares when you're bopping your head to the music? I recall when I was visiting my sister, who "came of teenage" in the late sixties hippie music era, and I introduced her (a Floridian) to fellow Floridian Tom Petty, whose hit "Refugee" was all over the airwaves. She dismissed him upon first listen. "Sounds like Dylan."
Well, sure, on the surface.
Now, unlike the stuck in amber Kurt Andersen, along with all the other stuck in amber "nostalgia catastrophists" of 2011, my sister got beyond that early, premature assessment of Petty. The knee-jerk Gaga/Madonna comparisons will continue forever, of course, for the bitter, negative naysayers because it's just so easy. I was a big Madonna fan back int he day and I loved her continuing array of new permutations, and I'm less of a Gaga fan than that; but I think Gaga's a different beast. While her lyrics stray into the annoying and cloying at times, I think she's a better songwriter, and she's braver and more adventurous musically than Madonna. She's kind of an anti-fame celebrity, and she is trying to say something.
In short, the resemblances to Madonna are intentional, but also quite superficial.
But, while she's certainly a big star right now, she's hardly representative of all "culture," or all music, or all anything.
I'm damned glad I don't live in Kurt Anderson's dull world. I'm especially glad I don't live in the world many of the commentators live in either. The world may have stopped for THEM, but how can anyone be so blind to the rather obvious fact that for OTHER PEOPLE life goes on? Life hasn't stopped at all. For some of these commentators Brian Eno did it all in the mid seventies, and everything anyone does these days he did. (Or name another artist from that period.) I'm sure if I keep checking back in I'll eventually learn that Mumford & Sons are completely irrelevant and untalented. They are merely the Starland Vocal Band of 2011.
One of the more hilarious points Andersen makes in comparing 1992 to 2011, and deciding they are the same, when wrapping it all up with what he believes to be the wittiest of witticisms, he states, "Lady Gaga has replaced Madonna, Adele has replaced Mariah Carey-both distinctions without a real difference-and Jay-Z and Wilco are still Jay-Z and Wilco."
Russo and some of her commentators point out that, of course, Wilco didn't exist in 1992. Jay Z also didn't really hit the scene until 1995.
But reading this essay-light, it's obvious that facts are not important to Kurt Andersen. Some of his facts are correct, but his befuddled view of the world is a little sad to me. And to Russo, too. "Andersen might also be the only critic who would argue that Douglas Coupland’s “Generation X” is “in no way dated,” or confuse a Josh Ritter song with a Bob Dylan tune." Throughout his piece he asserts that "we" could not tell the difference between 2011 and any point in the 90s, and even the late 80s, if we were plunked back into time suddenly. I can refute that by offering up a viewing of the Melanie Griffith film "Working Girl."
He also sadly challenges anyone, (anyone!), who has not heard a series of musical pieces from the past five years before, upon hearing them for the first time, to be able to tell whether the music came from today, or the 90s, or earlier. He seems confident that such a person would not be able to tell.
Well, ironically, I agree. If someone hasn't heard any of this music from the past five years, then you'd probably be as stuck in amber as Anderson, who believes cultures stopped moving forward in 1982, or these Boomer commentators who believe culture ended in 1971, and no, you wouldn't be able to tell.
It's funny to me. My life is stagnant. My life is stuck in amber. I am not moving forward. I'm sure Kurt Andersen's life is far more fast-moving than mine. But I'm here, in 2011, surrounded by people moving forward in time, and while I see how some things are not changing, some fashion, some music, etc., thankfully I can also hear the exciting new things going on. (I never cared about fashion.)
Anyway, both articles are worth reading, together, as yet another round in this yawner of a fashionable "argument" for 2011. Listen to Yeasayer, or Animal Collective, Skrillex, Bjork, or even Carolina Chocolate Drops while you're at it.
http://www.vanityfair.com/style/2012/01/prisoners-of-style-201201
Maria Russo easily and breezily refutes most of it at Salon.com.
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/18/is_2011_really_just_1991/
And then the comments section dutifully "devolves" into a generational bash-up, with Boomers who seem to honestly believe that culture stopped when the Beatles broke up and Janis, Jim and Jimi died (They don't seem to feel Mama Cass's death had any relevance, but personally speaking I cried when she died.) railing against that good night and every subsequent generation, calling them bitter and jealous because they "weren't there," and younger people generally trying to assert that indeed there has been music after Woodstock, only to be called "Boomer bashers" for their polite trouble. A lot of hogwash.
Both are interesting reads in the ongoing 2011 yawner of a discussion about how we've lost ourselves in "nostalgia." I agree with Russo far, far, far more than I agree with Anderson, although I agree with some of his points. I just think that he doesn't get it. I mean, yes, he's talking about the surface of things, how things look, and then to a large degree he's asserting that innovation stopped in 1982 or so. She seems to understand that much of what he's talking about is terribly superficial, but she also agrees with some of his points in places I would not agree at all.
I don't care if people are wearing jeans today, jeans in 1992, jeans in 1972, and whether they'll be wearing jeans in 2032. I say bully for that! Jeans are comfortable. But I also am surrounded by a different world than poor myopic Kurt, I'm afraid, as I see a lot of people, kids, kids I tell you, who are not wearing jeans.
Also, although I can see the resemblances and the cultural borrowings, I don't think Lady Gaga is all that much like Madonna. The song Born This Way like Express Yourself? Sure, but who cares? ELO was a lot like one or two Beatles albums, while being wholly different as well, but who cares when you're bopping your head to the music? I recall when I was visiting my sister, who "came of teenage" in the late sixties hippie music era, and I introduced her (a Floridian) to fellow Floridian Tom Petty, whose hit "Refugee" was all over the airwaves. She dismissed him upon first listen. "Sounds like Dylan."
Well, sure, on the surface.
Now, unlike the stuck in amber Kurt Andersen, along with all the other stuck in amber "nostalgia catastrophists" of 2011, my sister got beyond that early, premature assessment of Petty. The knee-jerk Gaga/Madonna comparisons will continue forever, of course, for the bitter, negative naysayers because it's just so easy. I was a big Madonna fan back int he day and I loved her continuing array of new permutations, and I'm less of a Gaga fan than that; but I think Gaga's a different beast. While her lyrics stray into the annoying and cloying at times, I think she's a better songwriter, and she's braver and more adventurous musically than Madonna. She's kind of an anti-fame celebrity, and she is trying to say something.
In short, the resemblances to Madonna are intentional, but also quite superficial.
But, while she's certainly a big star right now, she's hardly representative of all "culture," or all music, or all anything.
I'm damned glad I don't live in Kurt Anderson's dull world. I'm especially glad I don't live in the world many of the commentators live in either. The world may have stopped for THEM, but how can anyone be so blind to the rather obvious fact that for OTHER PEOPLE life goes on? Life hasn't stopped at all. For some of these commentators Brian Eno did it all in the mid seventies, and everything anyone does these days he did. (Or name another artist from that period.) I'm sure if I keep checking back in I'll eventually learn that Mumford & Sons are completely irrelevant and untalented. They are merely the Starland Vocal Band of 2011.
One of the more hilarious points Andersen makes in comparing 1992 to 2011, and deciding they are the same, when wrapping it all up with what he believes to be the wittiest of witticisms, he states, "Lady Gaga has replaced Madonna, Adele has replaced Mariah Carey-both distinctions without a real difference-and Jay-Z and Wilco are still Jay-Z and Wilco."
Russo and some of her commentators point out that, of course, Wilco didn't exist in 1992. Jay Z also didn't really hit the scene until 1995.
But reading this essay-light, it's obvious that facts are not important to Kurt Andersen. Some of his facts are correct, but his befuddled view of the world is a little sad to me. And to Russo, too. "Andersen might also be the only critic who would argue that Douglas Coupland’s “Generation X” is “in no way dated,” or confuse a Josh Ritter song with a Bob Dylan tune." Throughout his piece he asserts that "we" could not tell the difference between 2011 and any point in the 90s, and even the late 80s, if we were plunked back into time suddenly. I can refute that by offering up a viewing of the Melanie Griffith film "Working Girl."
He also sadly challenges anyone, (anyone!), who has not heard a series of musical pieces from the past five years before, upon hearing them for the first time, to be able to tell whether the music came from today, or the 90s, or earlier. He seems confident that such a person would not be able to tell.
Well, ironically, I agree. If someone hasn't heard any of this music from the past five years, then you'd probably be as stuck in amber as Anderson, who believes cultures stopped moving forward in 1982, or these Boomer commentators who believe culture ended in 1971, and no, you wouldn't be able to tell.
It's funny to me. My life is stagnant. My life is stuck in amber. I am not moving forward. I'm sure Kurt Andersen's life is far more fast-moving than mine. But I'm here, in 2011, surrounded by people moving forward in time, and while I see how some things are not changing, some fashion, some music, etc., thankfully I can also hear the exciting new things going on. (I never cared about fashion.)
Anyway, both articles are worth reading, together, as yet another round in this yawner of a fashionable "argument" for 2011. Listen to Yeasayer, or Animal Collective, Skrillex, Bjork, or even Carolina Chocolate Drops while you're at it.