The Rise of Pop Culture (1850s-2000)
The history of modern pop culture is a fascinating subject, one which has had many tomes written about it. Put simply, pop culture is the result of the merger of the historic patronage model with folk art, seemingly with the ultimate goal of controlling the creation and/or distribution of Low Art.
While High Art has historically been the special project of high society because of its cost (typically subsidized through the patronage model), Low Art was the opposite, since its primary mode of transmission was through oral stories and songs, things which did not require large amounts of money to produce. Absent some exceptions like carnivals, folk art only really entered the commercial space when book printing became cheap enough to popularize collections of fairy tales, religious stories, illustrated news magazines, and the like amongst the common folk.
The success of the printed medium led to the creation of magazines which were the primary distribution medium of early novels, especially popular amongst the growing middle class (i.e. intellectuals, upper bureaucrats, and the commercial elite). Around the 1900s literacy and demand for media grew among the western working class, which led to the distribution of populist magazines and novels, known collectively as pulp fiction. These were the folk tale equivalents of the printed age, rarely being particularly philosophical or profound in their nature, but often appealing to crowds with stories of adventure and exploration. Like all popular media trends, this soon resulted in a crowded market, one which demanded ever increasingly thrills to get purchases. This is where the more negative elements associated with popular novels come from, such as comically noticeable titles, shock violence, seedy sexualization, the exploitative genre, etc.
Numerous publishers, both large and small, existed during this era, and for good reason. Printing, mass distribution, and advertisement has always required a large upright investment, even for works with limited releases. Since the majority of popular authors were not independently wealthy, this meant that they had to join themselves to publishers or magazines in order to get noticed. If a store did not see a book advertised in a catalogue, then how could they know it existed? Similarly, if one was not first published in a magazine, how could one get hired as an author, sans providing some sort of brilliant manuscript? This meant that the control of literature was increasingly placed in the hands of editors from magazines and publishing houses, who ultimately managed their companies for the benefit of investors.
Film has always been the most indicative medium of pop culture, since it has always required a steep investment to get into, has required a large network of connections to get distribution, has relatively few major players, and has typically focused its films on the popular audience. It is therefore unsurprising that film not only became the most pushed form of media, but also came to be considered the dominating player in art and thus the popular mindset. One need only think about the numerous popular movies which have entirely eclipsed the written works they were based on (as a few example, The Godfather, Who Shot Roger Rabbit, Jurassic Park, and Jaws). More classically, any Disney film based on a fairy tale quickly became that story in popular imagination, regardless of how faithful the portrayal was. A successful print run for a book was anywhere from ten to a hundred thousand. A successful run for a movie easily drew in millions.
This trend of centralization permeated all of pop culture, largely through control of distribution mechanisms. One could still be a local musician/musical group, however to make it in the big league one had to sign onto a label to get your songs played on radio and your records distributed. It was still possible to do inexpensive television programs or direct to video releases, however to get them distributed on anything larger than a public station required national syndication only available through a media corporation. For illustrators, most job positions were provided by these larger book companies. For a painter to be successful they had to get their artwork sold at a gallery, especially one frequented by the wealthy. Print mediums, television, and radio all quickly integrated with commercial advertising, which added another element of pressure, pleasing advertisers and making place for them. In some cases, such as television shows designed as glorified toy ads, this even became the primary reason for existence, with the storyline being far and away a secondary thought. Literature came to be centralized in a few publishing corporations (Penguin Random House, Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins, Macmillan Publishers, and Simon and Schuster, and even these are now four companies with the sale of Simon and Schuster to Penguin Random House). These in turn control numerous subsidiaries and imprints. Even academic journals became concentrated in the power of five large companies which control about 75% of the total market (by revenue share) and over 50% (by market titles).
Thus, pop culture, up until the recent era of independent publishing, established a system where Low Culture was merged into the patronage model. Naturally, there were reasons why this occurred and why artists participated in the system. Prior to the internet there simply weren’t any financially accessible ways to distribute art en masse without being independently wealthy. Without going into the commercial publishing sphere, the only other options were to be sponsored by a government, religion, or NGO, and any of those options required the artist to incorporate select propaganda into their art, a cost all of its own. Thus, commercial publishing offered the potential for profit at the cost of submitting to the direct control of an editor. The biggest negative was that the distribution model ultimately meant that the artist typically signed over most rights to their work performed under contract. Thus, we come to the conclusion where creativity is ultimately subjected to commercialism, and thus judged by its ability to make profit. One can critique and mock capitalism and profit all one wishes, yet by participating in the market one ultimately validates it. Thus even dissent can be become a commodity.
This purpose in profitability marks the difference between pop culture patronage and historical patronage. Historically, patrons didn’t typically expect to attain profit from the artistic works they sponsored. For example, the patron who commissioned the Mona Lisa never expected to flip the Mona Lisa for profit, they were ordering an expensive portrait to hang in their house. Such displays were important for nobles and wealthy merchants, since one attained a sort of social honor by sponsoring a work of culture. This is contrasted with new patronage where each work of art was judged, not on its artistic merits, but upon popular demand. An irony then that the greatest and most difficult ideas are all too often overlooked in this “marketplace of ideas.”
One might think that High Art would not be as effected by this commercial trend, given its non-profit based nature. That would be wrong. High Art is ultimately controlled by whoever has power and wealth in a society, because High Art is rarely commercially viable. However, what happens when the powerful and wealthy find it amusing to deconstruct the concept of art itself? Enter modern art, a genre which is either boringly brutalistic in its realism, or garishly ugly in eccentricity. The genre is notoriously unpopular with the general population, but intensively promoted by commercial elites. From there, well, let’s just say that the rabbit hole of modern fine art is quite a deep one, and quite commercialistic in its purpose.
And this was the state of art before the advent of the internet. Next, let’s turn to what happened to art in the new digital age, an age in which many old structures, some of them hundreds of years old, fell as outdated relics of the past. Just as many new structures stood waiting to take their place, but was it as replacements, or simply as new kings?
The Internet Age and Postmodernity (2000-)
Ah the 2000’s, that lovely time of… terrorism, fear, panic, surveillance, pseudo-nationalism, over-industrialization, racial and national conflict, widespread dissension with government and commercialism, downturns in the market, and rapidly changing global societies. And in response we saw ever more control, hollow platitudes, vapid religions, and ultimately toothless social movements. And then there were the 2010’s, which only solidified that pattern (while managing to be even more out of touch than the 2000’s). And the 2020’s… well, between plagues, social divisions, an economic downturn, and the seeming restart of the Cold War, let’s just say that the optimistic future of the 1900’s seems pretty far away. It’s no wonder that people wish to drown themselves in the nostalgia of the past or fantasies of different worlds.
Four distinct trends emerged in this era, nostalgia, escapism, dystopianism, and deconstructionism.
Nostalgia is clear with the ongoing popularity of the major franchises. We have comic book movies starring characters from almost a hundred years ago. Star Wars, once a series with a relatively defined end, got an entire slew of rebooted movies. Every popular and semi-popular franchise seems to be getting a reboot nowadays, pulling at the nostalgia of the 30-50 year old demographic. The reality is that these franchises remain popular for now, because they come with a built in group of fans and they get their fandoms talking about them. Even the relevance of many people who don’t like their present forms depend on these franchises for success.
Escapism is the rule of the day. Gone is the optimistic future of science fiction, for technology is now something feared and dreaded, even as personal computers and cellphones have made its use ubiquitous. Instead, the revival of the old fairy tale worlds provide a solace, simply in imaging a world governed by entirely different principles than our own. And one might say that magic powered characters (or their Superhero counterparts) are also expressions of how individuals wish they were stronger in this world, one in which their rights and beliefs seem drowned out by huge impersonal systems of governance and control.
There is the expression of our outright cynicism with the world, reflected in the dystopian tales we tell. Robots, once thought to be the means to reduced work weeks and civilizations with expanded leisure, now destroy or seek to enslave us. Technology, once the path to power, is now power wielded against us. Governments, once the means to protect a people, now become the means of their oppression. Our religions and angels have gone away, but our monsters and demons remain. And perhaps the end of this all is a wanderer in a desolate wasteland, traveling though cities reduced to mausoleums.
Finally there is deconstructionism fueled by cynicism. Was the past ever good? Were we not cynical enough while experiencing it? Perhaps the past led us to this place, a place where it must be destroyed or changed. And so the past is revived, only to color it with the experiences of the present.
Thus pop culture is left at a standstill. Is the past a thing to be rejected, or something to be glorified? Is the future worth living, or should we conceive or another one? What must change? What must remain?
Ah, but these are artistic questions. For now two answers are given. One answer, that of independent art, is that the age of pop culture, in the sense of controlled folk culture, has come to an end. It is now the time for the large controllers to pass away, and for smaller entities or individuals to take their place. The answer of technological and media corporations is that the age of pop culture must go on, ever recycled and reused, since centralization is the answer to building bigger and better franchises. Thus franchises will continue to be recycled until no more profitability and popularity can be squeezed out of them. It is in cultivating franchise and fan popularity that fandoms are created and maintained, which are self perpetuating sources of profit and popularity. This mindset is followed whether the media produced is nostalgic or deonstructionist, praised of critiqued.
Because the primary purpose of mainstream media is to be consumed by the largest possible amount of people, it tends to trace whatever the hot trend is at any given moment. Television, video games, and movies, as the three most popular mediums at the moment, are full of this. The ever declining publishing houses are also noted for trend chasing, such as the YA novels particularly popular amongst millennial audiences or the fantasy trend of recent years. And the west is not the only place one finds this mindset. Japanese media goes in bursts of popularity, itself following after the fantasy trend currently (albeit, in a way expected to end soon). Trends thus carry on until a media trend becomes tired, upon which there are a few pieces produced which are critiques of the trend, and then media pieces which only use the design characteristics of a trend. I would cite the recent Joker movie, admitted by the director to only wearing the trappings of a Superhero movie in order to be made, and the recent rise of Japanese mangas/animes parodying the fantasy genre as an example. And then there’s the horror genre, which is popular, yet its fans have seen its tropes so many times that it has become stale.
The Superhero genre has been given a last lease on life by the success of the latest Spiderman movie, however that came at the cost of expending a vast amount of nostalgia from the last two decades. Simply put, it isn’t something that can be done again with that character. DC is going to try something similar with their upcoming Flashpoint movie (which will essentially be all of their Superhero movies since the 80’s), however that is coming out of a failed franchise (the DCEU), and it is entirely relying upon older versions of its characters to sustain it. The genre will be milked until its death cycle, but it waits to be seen how long it will go for.
Horror… doesn’t seem to have anything substantial that is upcoming. However, it can often be put together relatively cheaply, so it won’t go anywhere.
Finally, we come to the fantasy genre, the most uncertain of the three. The continuation of fantasy as a popular genre will likely depend on the success or failure of the upcoming Lord of the Rings TV show on Amazon. This genre has already been dealt major blows by the lukewarm to hostile reception to the end of Game of Thrones and Star Wars (its current two biggest franchises), and the former powerhouse in the genre, Harry Potter, has failed to get an audience for its most recent prequel films. The Lord of the Ring series is not only relying on nostalgia for a two decade old film series (since book fans have been quite hostile to it), but is trying to follow up on the mediocre Hobbit trilogy. And it is apparently only licensed to use the appendixes from the Return of the King. In all honesty, part of me thinks that the Lord of the Rings is simply a played out idea, perhaps to an even greater degree than Star Wars.
Where then could mainstream media go after its current genres? Simply put, corporate media has been almost forced into this place since there isn’t a clear place to go after the end of superheroes, horror, and fantasy media. We’ve had enough cop/detective procedurals, and the atmosphere around that premise is too politically charged right now for corporations. War movies are too miserable and non-sanitized for modern audiences, Science fiction isn’t popular anymore, having a niche audience at best (as one can see by the latest reactions to the Star Trek reboots). Historical dramas imply that the current audience has any understanding of/interest in history. Comedy falls flat and hollow nowadays, or causes uproar when actually done. That leaves us with…
Cinematic video game adaptations and live action anime adaptations. In an odd way, I suppose that makes sense. Reading amongst younger people has declined greatly since even the millennial generation. Video games, meanwhile, have become the titans of the entertainment industry, surpassing movies, streaming, music, sports, and books in profitability. This is the media that most younger people grew up with, and perhaps, even with being used to the concept of transitory games, there might be some nostalgia there. Thus there are currently high budget movie and TV show projects for video game franchises such as Halo, Uncharted, The Last of Us, Life is Strange, Sonic, and Mass Effect being developed and released. Similarly, when we look at the sort of media younger people are consuming, much of it is eastern media like manga, anime, and K-pop. Of course, even in Asia it is known that those genres often adapt quite poorly, something the west has seemed to confirm in its last few undertakings.
One would be remiss in failing to point out that streaming has been a major game changer. Now media must not only be produced to a sufficient quality not to look cheap, it must also maintain that look over an entire season, which is at least two movies for a miniseries and more like three or four movies for a complete season.
Video games are notorious trend chasers, often with comedic results. For example, the most recent video game trend was the “Battle Royale.” This refers to a genre of games where a single player or team of players competes again dozens of other players/teams in an effort to eliminate them and be the last one standing (essentially gladiatorial combat in video game form). It’s a simple concept and many gamers have found it enjoyable. This trend was popularized by a game named Player Unknown’s Battleground, a wargame from a Korean studio which acquired a playerbase in the tens of millions. This overnight success drew quick imitation from other companies, most prominently the game Fortnite which implemented a battle royale mode and became the most popular game of all time. Needless to say, a bunch of other publishers implemented the mode in their games, switched existing projects over to battle royales, and published a flurry of cash in games. Of these only two others, Apex Legends and Call of Duty: Warzone, succeeded. Every other mainstream game that tried to be a battle royale was a failure. And both of those games were switched to battle royale in the middle of development. As anyone with any actual knowledge of games knows, trends typically last for 1-3 years, during which time there can only be a few games that succeed. In the current year, this is especially true given the trend of game companies coercing people to spend ever more time on their games (I’ll have to do another article about AAA video games and psychological manipulation sometime. That’s quite an interesting subject). The point is that trends come and go very quickly in our internet age, and for us Millennials and younger, that’s all we’ve ever really known.
There is an old saying that, “familiarity breeds contempt”. It is a cynical statement, but one that becomes accurate as one recognizes flaws the more time one spends with something. The pop culture equivalent is that oversaturation breeds indifference. The original impulse behind every popular franchise was something that spoke to a large part of the general population. This allowed that franchise to remain popular for years, while other trends burned out and were forgotten. It is the comparison between the long-running popularity of Star Wars and the ultimate irrelevancy of a movie like Avatar. However, that raises an issue. If a franchise is put in a state of continuous publication for decade after decade, how many fresh concepts can it truly explore while also remaining coherent? Can a television series remain fresh even after a dozen seasons? Can a film series retain credibility after a dozen sequels? Can a book series attract attention with ever increasing burdens of what one must read to understand it?
The answer is that an artistic idea never survives that sort of exploration intact. Every idea eventually gets played out to its logical conclusion, at which point the artistic choice is to end it appropriately. That, however, is not the corporate way. If the primary purpose of a franchise is to gain money and a fandom, and if an audience still remains, then there is no reason not to greenlight a new entry, no matter how tired the franchise has become.
Punctuating the feeling of media oversaturation is the rise of easily accessible streaming media. Going to the theatre is no longer required to see a movie, nor does one have to record shows on a DVR at the mercy of the TV schedule. There’s now a massive quantity of customizable entertainment to choose from on whatever streaming service is your choice. The positive side of this is that streaming shows and movies don’t have to rely upon advertising and television guidelines, hence they can take more risks, be more innovative, and don’t have to advertise products. In theory, this could be the best innovation for television, particularly genre television. Similarly, there is more opportunity than ever to get your book, artwork, game, or music published online. What once took a publisher and a great deal of money to achieve can now be done alone or crowdfunded.
On the negative side, accessibility and saturation have made individual artistic works increasingly disposable, and thus there seems to be few memorable works which occur each year, and even many of those are quickly buried under the next product. And this isn’t just a matter of quality, though that is part of it. Audiences simply move so quickly from one thing to another that there is little time to grow interested in something. Indeed, it is typically a few very large franchises/works that command attention, largely on the basis of being extensively discussed on social media more than anything.
And that’s where we find ourselves at present. Pop culture is mostly producing recycled products, often with a focus on movies and television shows, while many other forms of media (like books and graphic novels) seem intended to serve as TV pitches rather than standalone media. Book publishers are increasingly impossible to get into without connections, and even so success is hardly guaranteed (with most books never recuperating their advances). Independent art and AA media published by small companies is where most of the originality comes from, at the cost of a large body of mixed quality work (some good, the majority rather amateurish), oversaturation, and difficulty difficulty finding an audience, issues that are yet unresolved. That brings us to what the future holds.
Kotharian Lightning 