This article seems to have some truth to me (although I think 1992 might be little to early for the start of the stagnation mid 90s seems more accurate) but I’d like to know what the younger members here think. http://www.vanityfair.com/style/2012/01/prisoners-of-style-201201
It is too easy to write off crucial developments that you don't see as relevant because you were born in an older world. For example, I am sure my grandmother would say in sixties something like "if you don't count these kids playing around with guitars and whatnot, music seems to have stopped developing some twenty years ago"; if she would mention those kids at all. People of her generation would also probably say something along the lines of "yeah, there are some glass buildings being built now, but those are just experiments, concrete seems to be the final product of architecture". The problem I have with this article is just that: it writes off the biggest change that happened and then states that no crucial changes exist. On one hand, the author is extremely biased; he's too old to understand the changes that are happening because he's looking at them through some very old glasses. Second, not even younger people can see the diference yet. The change and an incredible cultural revolution in the world will only be obvious in hindsight. Third, we have only now truly entered the informational age. Maybe we saw glimpses of it in the late eighties, early nineties, but only at the turn of millenium did we actually start with that. The computer revolution is an incredible development. To rule it out from such an article is grossly mislead. It is, to my mind, the same as stating in the 19th century that the world is not changing because, although some electricity is coming, the forrests still look the same. The informational revolution is changing not just the world, but also the definition of the world. They say that Einstein didn't answer the great question of space, he changed the question to spacetime. In a similar manner, the world today is in a great part digital. To say that the world is not changing and in the same time avoid mentioning the greatest cultural change in history is.. well.. to not use too strong a word, it's not very inteligent. What is culture? What makes the world look different? I'd say that today's websites are quite distinguishable from those in early nineties or noughts. Plus, I avoided talking about other issues because the article is obviously usacentric. But ask any Hungarian, Romanian, Russian, Chinese,... ask the most of Earth's population. The world has changed a lot.
It's interesting. Aesthetically, my area hasn't really changed at all in the last 60 years: there's a more-or-less blanket ban on building new houses in National Parks. Every house is over 150 years old in my village. I even remember in my childhood that we couldn't have plastic paddling-pools in our gardens and odd rules like that, because "it will upset the tourists". So it's incredibly well 'preserved'. But has culture stagnated? Even in this little corner of the world, of course not. Socially, the changes are enormous and have been ten times more rapid than they ever were before the Second World War. The Information Era has made changes happen even faster: in just a few months in the winter of 2009 / 2010, Witch House music sprung up across the entire world, rather than being limited to an entire city. Of course, it was rather niche, but it shows how much faster change can happen. Looking back to the 70's, accessible (pop) electronic music is widely thought to be pioneered in 1974 with Autokraft's Autobahn. Communication allowed it to spread across Europe and the USA reasonably quickly, but I think it took a few years for it to really influence anything. Just an example. But as a disclaimer, I wasn't alive in the 1970's so I don't know. No-one can have a perfect perspective of things such as this. It would take thousands of words to fully argue against the point anyway, not that it was particularly well thought-out in the first place. I think "don't be absurd" would be more effective. Elaborate on why you agree with article, perhaps?
Dalmatian is so spot on. He said pretty much everything that I wanted to say. If anything; the world is changing so fast that it's impossible for large segments of it to keep up.
I find it telling that he chose 1992 to be the year that things started stagnating. My guess is that that's when the author was at such an age that he was becoming aware of the world around him, so he's been seeing all the gradual change over the past 20 years, not realizing that things are changing just as quickly, if not more so, than they ever have before. We take the changes in stride without realizing the impacts they've had. It's the same case with "the watched pot never boils," or how you never notice how much you've grown, but people who haven't seen you in a couple months/years do. I mean, what about the freaking Internet?! Really? I'd argue that it's one of the most revolutionary advancements in regard to culture in Western history. For all intents and purposes, it's been around less than 15 years, and it practically defines modern culture now. MP3 players, laptops, cell-phones, flat-screens of any sort, and most of today's architecture were basically non-existent 20 years ago. Style and music are completely different. Aesthetically, things seem very different to me.
Cultured stagnated at 1992... I mean, seriously, the only aspect you even have to look at is music. There was a lot of grunge, rock, silly pop songs. Then in early 2000s there was the bubble pop (Early Britney, NSynce, etc.). Then there was a period of Rap being very popular. Bubble pop eventually faded out, so has rap as mainstream for the most part. Now most of the music is leaning towards more... light hearted dance music? Not to mention the craziness of dubstep. That is just a small summary, as there have been many other genres prevalent and changing. I think music very much reflects the times. While having money used to be the cool thing to do (think rap or just club music in general in early 2000s), but now the music is more about losing yourself and having fun on the dance floor. I'd say the recession had a lot to do with the changes in music. When less and less people have money, songs bragging about it are going to be less popular. But yeah, I'm not even scratching the surface of all the changes that have happened in my lifetime. And I can only speak on behalf of my limited knowledge. I'm sure there are even more changes than I can imagine.
In summary, I think we'd all agree that the only reason why someone would think this is because they don't realise that nothing is ever as "distinct" when you're living through it. The 2000's have no character just yet. The 1990's are beginning to form an identity, what with reminiscing on times as a "90's kid" and all that.
Precisely. Since the latest times are so fresh in our minds, there is no need to summarize them. But in the future, we'll have to figure out ways to explain it to the next generation. Like how everyone went discoing in the 70s... even though not everyone did. Personally, I think the 2010-2020 generation will be defined by hipsters. It certainly seems to be the rising trend.
^ Huge rise in mistrust towards all Muslims/Anyone who looks or is Middle Eastern may be a bad thing, but it was a huge cultural change that happened after this event.
I think the flaw of this article is that it looks at the last twenty years too closely and everything before that too broadly. If we characterize each decade by it's stereotype, than of course it looks like it changed a lot, but over twenty years that change is very gradual. Our culture is changing just like before, but because we are experiencing it instead of reading about it as a few sections in a history book it feels slower. Also, show me any TV shows from the 90s and I can pick them out. A lot has changes since the 90s.
