Art, Pop Culture, & Mass Production: Why Bushco CAN'T win forever...

[Melodybe]

I was thinking about 1984 and Fahrenheit 451, about the rewriting of history and the burning of books, and then I felt a lot better.

Let me elaborate, since an opening like that does merit an explanation, I was thinking about how hard it would be for them to eliminate everything that talks about how evil they are. Thanks to the internet and thanks to technology it is virtually impossible for them to destroy every copy of Fahreheit 9/11, every dvd of Star Wars, South Park, the Chapelle Show, or the Daily Show (the DVD comes out in June). The music of Dylan, Eminem, Green Day, etc will be around forever. Millions of Anti-Bush books have been published, bought and sold. Pop culture might be littered with junk but it is also full of art that likes to point out that Bushco is evil.

They will never completely wipe us out as I had feared because the big corporations that publish books, record music, make television and movies are too greedy and have mass produced anything that they think will sell, even if it is anti-Bush. If they started cracking down, we have the technology in our homes to recreate all of it, books, CDs, DVDs, etc.

In a hundred years the only thing that people will remember about the US corporate media of the early 21st Century is that they were an enemy to the people and enabled horrible tyrants to run our country. But the arts created during all this will transend and live on to inspire countless future generations.

Thinking about it like that made me feel pretty good and I'd thought I'd share.


OK I changed the title and hopefully now this post will get some play.

[tk2kewl]

1. i'll kick it cause i liked it even when the title didn't get attention

:kick:

[hippiegranny]

2. It is always the arts

that keeps us sane, humane and able to withstand the perils of our times. Any times. As a long time arts advocate, I have seen first hand how the use of creativity and expression can literally save lives. You are absolutely correct that the artsitic expressions of these politically outargeous times will be America's saving grace.

[theboss]

3. What was the most popular song of 1905?

Precisely.

A few artifacts of pop culture will transcend the times and live on. But a large majority of it will be lost to the midsts of time. Jon Stewart may be as obscure as Pat Paulsen in thirty years.

Of course, Eminem might turn out to be governor of Michigan in twenty years. It's a weird world.

[Melodybe]

4. However when the Daily Show comes out on DVD I will make sure

that my children know the backstory of everything on it. It will sell more than a few millions, it will be copied and bootlegged by a few million more.

That secures Jon Stewart's history for at least 60 more years. My children will know that it is important. Plus last time I checked cds and dvds are not biodegradable.

[skooooo]

5. Yeah but...that's not the point..

Whether we remember what was popular in 1905 or not isn't the point. The fact that art has always inspired is something you can't get around. The way that art looks changes with time, but nonetheless, it serves a purpose. Woody Guthrie's music inspired a lot of people to join and stick to the unions. That doesn't mean we would listen to the same songs today for the same reason, but other people pick up on the "truth" and carry it through to the next generation.

Make sense?

[tk2kewl]

6. makes sense to me.

[theboss]

7. Not all art is created equal

Woody Guthrie was an activist/rabble-rouser in the midst of a great western migration in the middle of the greatest economic crisis the country has ever known. And even then, only a handful of his songs would even be recognized today. And the one that everyone knows - "This Land is Your Land" - is generally misinterpreted and misunderstood. It's liable to song at a school concert right before or after "God Bless America," with no one understanding their relationship.

I'm not sure Eminem or Green Day will have any greater staying power since a) it's not clear that they are really that good to begin with and b) they are certainly not activists out to inspire anyone.

I agree that a handful of Dylan songs will live on and inspire future generations. Though I'm not sure if any written after 1968 will be among them. I've loved his last two albums but they are certainly not protest albums.

The problem with modern pop culture is the clutter of it all. Between 300 channels, DVDs, MP3s, self-publishing, and niche publishing, it's hard to separate the wheat from the chaffe. And with humor it's almost impossible to translate across generations. Is an Al Franken book going to make sense to future generations like Mark Twain or the Marx Brothers. There are only a handful of comic creations that are funny to more than one generation.

[skooooo]

8. Doesn't matter how long it lasts...

...but what it does for people at the time. IMO.

[theboss]

9. I agree with that

But that's not the message of the original post, which seems to believe that Jon Stewart will be relevant in the 22nd century.

For the record, I don't envy future historians. There is going to be a lot of crap to read on this era.

[skooooo]

12. You're right...

And time will only tell what endures, and what doesn't!

[Melodybe]

10. My point is that it is damn near impossible for them to destroy it all.

1984/F 451 style that is.

My little ones like Charlie Chaplin, The Kid is their favorite, great art is timeless.

[theboss]

13. You were actually afraid of this?

I share so few of the fears of a lot of DUers.

[Melodybe]

15. 1984, Fahrenheit 451, and a Handmaid's Tale are literally my worst

nightmares.

[bunkerbuster1]

14. I think it was "Teddy Roosevelt is a Thug"

by The Scott Joplin Experience

[murielkane]

16. In the Shade of the Old Apple Tree

"Wait Till the Sun Shines Nellie" and "Come With Me Lucille In My Merry Oldsmobile" were also biggies that year.

Actually, 1905 seems to have been a somewhat weak year. 1904 was a little better, with "Meet Me in St. Louis, Louis," and George M. Cohan's "Yankee Doodle Dandy" and "Give My Regards to Broadway."

But if you get away from "most popular" and start looking at people like Scott Joplin or Jelly Roll Morton, you hit some stuff from 1905 that's actually worth remembering.

Which is kind of the point. Nostalgic songs from 100 years ago about sunshine and apple trees are all but forgotton, even if they topped the charts at the time. Songs about the hot trends of the moment have done only marginally better. But the real leading edge stuff -- early jazz and blues -- continues to roll down the years and to influence who we are and how we think and the way we move and wear our clothes to this day.

[theboss]

18. I certainly agree with that

100 years from now, Uncle Tom's Cabin, Huckleberry Finn, Native Son, and Walden are going to be part of college curriculum. And people will be listening to "My Old Kentucky Home," "Strange Fruit," and "This Land is Your Land."

But I don't think you can look at the entirity of the landscape and think that everything is going to survive in any meaningful way. For example, I think that the only Michael Moore piece that is going to be viewed as relevant in 25 years is "Roger and Me." I think "Farenheit 9/11" is far too narrow a story and far too specific to the time period. "Mosh" barely made a ripple in 2004; I don't think it will have any relevance in 2016.

And before someone starts listing a dozen songs from 1968, I think any pop culture related to the "Baby Boomers" is skewed in its relevance by their sheer numbers. They are the biggest, richest, and most self-indulgent generation in history. They are going to force "Fortunate Son" on every period piece movie trailer until they are all in rest homes.

[lumpy]

11. I agree, this is always something to bear in mind.

The theater of the arts has always influenced people.

[RandomKoolzip]

17. The trouble with this is this:

We used to have the freedom to agitate, to actually take direct action and make a social change. Now we are limited to just bitching about the evils of those in power.

The way I see it, we have all the freedom in the world to complain about whatever we want to, but our freedom does not extend to changing those things.

[theboss]

19. What can't you do now that you used to do?

The reason, to me, that the anti-war protests don't have the energy they did during the Vietnam era is because there is no draft. Those protesting the war have almost no chance of actually dying in the war. I think that's the difference for lack of energy and lack of consistent participation.

[grace0418]

20. I read a great article by Ted McLellen (sp?), who is

actually an acquaintence of my husband that really made me feel better. I'll try to find a link but the basic premise was that liberals always win. It may not seem like it right now, but things always progress. Slavery was eventually outlawed, women eventually got the vote, mixed-race marriage was eventually legalized. That's not to say that racisim and sexism don't exist, but progress HAS been made. Good people know what's right, and they will win in the end. BushCo may win a battle here and there, but BushCo will no win the war.

[grace0418]

21. I read a great article by Ted McLellen (sp?), who is

actually an acquaintence of my husband that really made me feel better. I'll try to find a link but the basic premise was that liberals always win. It may not seem like it right now, but things always progress. Slavery was eventually outlawed, women eventually got the vote, mixed-race marriage was eventually legalized. That's not to say that racisim and sexism don't exist, but progress HAS been made. Good people know what's right, and they will win in the end. BushCo may win a battle here and there, but BushCo will not win the war.