11–20 of 110 posts
For me culture means Michelangelo, Umberto Eco and Shakespeare, not House of Cards, Girls, Squid Game.
“I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies: 1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works. 2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. 3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.”
― Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt
How one can misspell "entertainment" as "culture"? And the answer is clearly yes, the west consumes too much of it. The stress leads to distraction gluttony which leads to detachment from the real life which leads to stress as one can hardly navigate efficiently the social hive when his mental picture of it is taken from movies, shows, social media, etc.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/454772/number-social-med...
How one can misspell "entertainment" as "culture"? And the answer is clearly yes, the west consumes too much of it. The stress leads to distraction gluttony which leads to detachment from the real life which leads to stress as one can hardly navigate efficiently the social hive when his mental picture of it is taken from movies, shows, social media, etc.
The word "culture" always had two meanings, a. what people in some collective do and b. "high culture", the stuff that is somehow supposed to reflect on human condition.
The lack of shared culture[2] today means people have less in common. It seems to me that having less in common with people makes them more distant and that there could be negative effects of that. I’ve certainly heard the argument that this reduced shared culture can be connected with the larger political divisions we (feel we) see today. But then 100 years ago when there was no mass shared culture like tv (or maybe there was?) we seemed to not have the same problems, so maybe there is something else at play.
[1] I pick this example because the whole thing is referencing many earlier works in one way or another, and it is a concrete thing rather than a field like ‘literature’.
[2] I suppose one might claim that tv is not culture because it is too pedestrian. I don’t really think that’s true, but if you just pick your favourite kind of high culture (eg theatre/ballet/classical music/poetry/literary fiction), there would likely have been some tv shows about it and, as there were only a few channels, lots of people outside the small set of people who deeply care about the thing would see those shows. It seems a little more egalitarian to me than what we have today, though I suppose if you are interested in those things it is now very easy and cheap to seek them out online.
For me culture means Michelangelo, Umberto Eco and Shakespeare, not House of Cards, Girls, Squid Game.
I absolutely love the show Girls. I loved it so much, I was positively depressed when it ended and I emailed Lena Dunham multiple times to BEG her to revive it. I literally witnessed myself turning into a "fanboy" like I'm 16 again. Normally, if I love something I have reason to consider a "guilty pleasure", I will feel reluctant to publicly say I love it for fear of being judged. But in the case of Girls (and Titani…
For me culture means Michelangelo, Umberto Eco and Shakespeare, not House of Cards, Girls, Squid Game.