Dead Art Forms
Some art forms seem to have passed their creative peak, no longer acting as an outlet for human ingenuity and innovation. But how do we know that they are truly moribund and not just having a bit of a rest?
In this podcast we look at art forms that appear to have stopped generating genuinely novel work, and see if there are any broader lessons we can draw regarding their life cycles. We also consider whether some art forms are better suited to longevity than others. Finally, we discuss the concept of a golden era and wonder which heydays would have been the most fun to have lived through.
A few things we mentioned in this podcast:
For more information on Aleph Insights visit our website https://alephinsights.com or to get in touch about our podcast email podcast@alephinsights.com
This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis:
Podtrac - https://analytics.podtrac.com/privacy-policy-gdrp
Transcript
Hello and welcome to the Cognitive Engineering Podcast produced by me, Fraser McGruer, for Aleph Insights. In this series of podcasts, we take a look at interesting topics and discuss what we think they tell us about analysis and decision making. I'm here with Chris Wragg and Nick Hare of Aleph Insights, and this week we're discussing dead art forms. Nick, lead us in. Why are we talking about this?
Speaker B: t of poetry in the, you know,: Speaker A:if it does happen, then why? Because sometimes you can see technological, but something like poems, you'd have thought was fairly sort of timeless and not sort of, you know, vulnerable to technological changes, or is it? Chris, do you think we're asking the right questions here? And
Speaker C: into cinema, you know, by the: Speaker B:When I think Chris is going big here, because he really is talking about art forms. And, and I think the primary driver, as he's saying is technology. And it's interesting, it just reminds me of something that looking at the way you know, perhaps you could say the big, the most recent mass market art form would be maybe computer games, that might be the, that might be the most recent, you know, couldn't have existed beyond about, you know, 40 years ago. But it's interesting that the, you know, board games still exist, in many ways, they're having a big renaissance. Likewise, you know, it's easy to point at the cinema and say, well, that's obviously better than the theatre. And yet the theatre still exists. Likewise, paintings still exist, even though you might naively think, well, photographs are better. And I wonder if what happens is that the, you know, a lot of the load is removed from, you know, an art form when something comes along and sort of steals its oxygen in that way. You know, so with, with painting, for example, you know, photography comes along, painting no longer has to serve the role of being representational. And, and suddenly, you know, I think in a way it makes the original go in a different direction. And you could, you might say that about, about what happens to visual arts with the rise of, you know, really faithful representational. And I, and I says, and certainly, you know, talking about something I know a lot about board games, you know, when, when board games in the late 70s had really turned into these incredibly complex, you know, huge rule books, kind of war games, you know, that sort of the heyday of the hex encounter war game where, you know, they were every, they were trying to essentially do what you can simulate with a computer, but with rule books and dice. And, and with that constraint removed, you know, you get a whole new kind of approach to war gaming emerging. So it's almost like when you get these new art forms spawning off, it does have, it has possibly an interesting and positive effects on the art that what it
Speaker A:leaves behind. And is any of this predictable? Because we've talked about, you know, the technology side of it. And I think, I think you mentioned in the introduction, Nick, is that, you know, sometimes you can see this coming. Yeah. How can we respond, Chris? Yeah, I think,
Speaker C:I think one, one key sign so that there's, there's the issue of sort of technological replacement, but there's also the issue of technological redundancy, right? Which is, which is where, like, you take something like Chinese ceramics, right? You know, all of that was, was kind of done hundreds of years ago. You know, there's a, there's a, a Sotheby's sold a Ming, what's referred to as a chicken cup, you know, basically a cup with, with chickens on it for 36 million dollars a few years ago. And that's considered to be, you know, that's, that's from about 500 years ago, the kind of heyday of, of Chinese ceramics. But of course, once mass production came along, and, you know, Western countries started being able to more or less turn out exactly the same thing without the, the craft, the individual craft required, that kind of, that kind of kills that as a, as an art form of necessity, or of, you know, mass requirement. And I think the same is, is true of, you know, once, once photography comes along, and things like portraiture, and, you know, capturing things that you, that you wanted to do can, can be done better, and more cheaply, and by everybody. It does force that art in a different direction. But I think there's a, there's a point at which that the direction that gets forced in, if you look at what happened to art in the 20th century, you know, as photography became widespread, it obviously went in, in a more abstract direction. And, and I think that sort of, if you look at art now, a lot of people would say is it is sort of kind of creatively bankrupt, really, as a sort of, you know, an art form. And I think it hastens, you go into more and more sort of abstract and self-referential forms of the art. And before long, you know, if it's not, if it's not being consumed on a mass level, and there's not an economic driver for lots of people to be producing it, it's quite easy for it to become very sort of esoteric niche, a bit
Speaker B:pretentious. Sure. Look, I just I think this is reminds me of a thing which Venkatesh Rao, who we frequently refer to actually talked about, he's got he's got this thing he calls the Gervais principle based on a kind of what he sees as an implied theory of organizations in the office. And, and he says he bases it on this McLeod lifecycle of the firm where you start with, you know, you start with with what he calls sociopaths, which are essentially very driven sort of people who want to achieve, and then they recruit what he calls losers, which are people are essentially just sort of, you know, working for doing it for the money. But then eventually, they have to recruit, recruit a third class of people called the clueless, who you might think of as sort of people who kind of, you know, motivated by being in the organization and want to succeed. And, and this then leads to the death of the firm when when you have enough clueless in there. And I and I I've been thinking about the how this might relate to how what happens both within a particular technology for producing arts, but also within specific genres. Now there's a and I think there's a there is a bit of a overlap there in the sense that you think of something like electronica, which, you know, couldn't have existed without electronic music technology, you know, right at the beginning of that movement, you know, which was you could probably look at in the 50s and 60s. And you've got, you know, these sort of people like Brian Eno, and Steve Reich, really experimenting with electronic music, which sort of gradually becomes kind of mainstream becomes things are made easier for people to enter, you can get the you can buy the, you know, the technology. Now, you don't have to build it yourself, you can buy it from somewhere. And then suddenly, there's lots of other people all trying to get in on this whole electronic music scene. And there becomes, you know, a fandom, and the rules start appearing about how you're supposed to produce electronic music, and what it has to sound like, and what you're not allowed to do. And it's, it's almost like, yeah, and it kind of reminds me of that, you know, this, this sense of the death of an art form is almost, you know, is starting to happen as soon as it takes off. And people start thinking, Oh, I want to do that. It reminds me a bit of the, of the Hollywood school, the Hollywood life cycle of which Ricardo Montalban, I think he either invented it, or at least gave a version of it, where it goes, Who is Ricardo Montalban? Get me Ricardo Montalban. Get me someone like Ricardo Montalban. Get me a young Ricardo Montalban. Who is Ricardo Montalban? And I feel like with an art, with with any kind of art form, or even genres within an art form, there's that thing at the beginning of what is this? What is this weird new thing? Then? Oh, how do I do that weird new thing? And then this shift towards how should I do this new thing? The rules and the conventions start appearing. And, and then, then it's, you know, you almost get to the point where people go, Oh, remember that that was a cool thing, wasn't it? You know, and people get nostalgic about it. And then at that point, it's sort of fossilized. And if you take the 12 bar blues, I mean, early blues musicians, for example, people like Robert Johnson, and, you know, Blind Lemon Jefferson, and Blind Blake, and all the other people who had physical ailments, where, you know, they, they didn't play 12 bar blues. I mean, they did sometimes, but but they were doing, you know, quite a lot of varied chord progressions, and would sometimes, you know, use, use, use sort of ragtime chord progressions and stuff. It's still recognizably blues. But eventually, somehow, the rules became laid down that blues can only be blues, if it's that 12 bar structure. And next thing you know, you've got Gary Moore. Yeah, and then and then you have no more innovation is no longer possible, because what was once a sort of unexplored area has now fossilized into a doctrine of how that thing is done. And at that point, you know, the fresh fields are elsewhere.
Speaker A:Yeah, that's really some really nice little little avenue you've taken us down. I think that's a really nice explanation. We, there's a question I want to ask in a minute or two. But before we do that, what I wanted to ask is that analogy that you used of who is Ricardo Montalban? Is that if I said that correctly? Yeah. Can we identify anything right now that is just after the who, who is this? Which is which I think you said is kind of I want some of that. Get me that. Is that right? Can we identify anything right now?
Speaker C:Yeah, yeah, I mean, I've got a candidate, I've got a couple of candidates for different different cycles in that. But I think, I think if you look at something like TikTok, right, and the the creation of the short, the short dance routine that is then embellished and picked up, and it's, it's, it's kind of, you know, it's obviously quite new, but I'm sure it's less new than I think it is. But it's, you know, there is a set structure to it. And, and then people pick up, you know, somebody's dance, and they embellish that dance and change it slightly. And there were sort of rules. And, you know, you use a certain length of time, but it's, it's kind of a, an evolving, an evolving art form, but one which quite quickly is laid down, this is, this is how you, you know, these are the sets of rules that you, that you apply to it. So I think that's it. That's a candidate. I think there are other candidates where we are towards the death throes. So I think, I think, things like comedy, certainly sitcoms, but also stand up comedy have now, I mean, it's interesting, Nick, you mentioned Gervais and the office idea, I think the, you know, there are certain, certain examples of art forms that then effectively ruin the art form thereafter for everyone else. So the office, I think, basically made the standard structure of a sitcom very difficult to do, do again, because of the structure of it. Stand up comedy, somebody like Stuart Lee, and his deconstruction of stand up comedy now makes stand up comedy very difficult for me, for me to watch, you know, at face, at face value. And that was what I was sort of getting at times, you know, if somebody does something self referential, or sort of meta, it makes that it kind of kills that, that art form, because you can't, you can't watch it anymore.
Speaker B: 're still they were brilliant: Speaker C: n, I look back on the, on the: Speaker A:Really nice. Yeah, that's very interesting. Um, okay, that what you're doing, what you're talking about, they're harking back to something even without the nostalgia is something I want to ask, which is this is if you were able to to travel in time, and immerse yourself in a period when a given art form that is now dead, and that you can't really access anymore, when it was in its heyday, which dead art form, would you like to go?
Speaker B: put you straight back in the: Speaker A:Yeah, it's funny, you should say that, because the other day, I was watching that film yesterday, which has got a really interesting premise to it, which is a world where the Beatles does not exist, right? Are you familiar with it? I'm familiar with the premise. I wasn't sure if I'd like the film. So I've never watched it. But is it what is it worth? It's a mixed bag, a mixed bag. I think it's worth watching. But um, but I was saying to my wife, imagine, you know, hearing yesterday for the first time ever. You know, we've heard it so many times. But imagine hearing that for the first time, how fresh that would have sounded. So yeah, so you know, good point, Nick. Nonetheless, what would be an art form, either Chris or Nick?
Speaker C:I think, for me, there are two that kind of come to mind. One is Icelandic Edda. I would love to go back and hear those stories told in, you know, some Thames Hall, and kind of, you know, sit around the fire and, you know, just, I mean, that's a period of history that intrigues me anyway. But the other one that I would, that I would love to see firsthand, for not an obvious reason, would be Shakespearean theatre. So I think, because there is so, because of what it's become now, and because there is so much reverence around it, and so much about, you know, this is, you know, the Globe Theatre, and this is how it would have been. Yeah, this is how it should have been done. It would have been authentic. And I would love to, I would love to see it and actually see that there were, you know, people sat in the background, sort of, you know, just chatting or not, you know, not really paying attention or that it wasn't like that. I would like to see that myth, the bubble of that myth bricked.
Speaker A:Yeah, yeah. Nice one. Nice. Nick?
Speaker B: a connection with people from: Speaker A:Yeah, no, good point.
Speaker B:I'm forever trapped in my own time.
Speaker A:I think, I think for me, like Chris, I've got two. One is, I love blues. And I play, you know, a bit of piano. And I sometimes do feel a bit silly playing it, because one, it does feel so fossilized. But second, you know, I'm just this white middle class English person in the 21st century playing this, just, you know, it feels a bit odd. But yeah, I'd love to be able to go back to, you know, Beale Street at its height in Memphis. And I've been there when it's not at its height. And it's just, it's just very. It's a tourist destination. Yeah, yeah. Though I did find a great place rather aptly on the outskirts of town, which played had some great blues in Memphis, but also, you know, going up to Chicago and that kind of really, you know, when they had all the whole street was rocking with all these jute joints. And I would love that. I think as much of it is, I think it's the culture around it as well as just the music.
Speaker B:Yeah, I think I suspect that, you know, the right, the way to think about it will be, okay, well, what would it be? As much as it pains me to say it, because I've got, hip hop does nothing for me at all. But I suspect the equivalent now will be going to, you know, to whatever new schools of hip hop are out and about are coming out, you know, it might be something more like that, if you went to that today.
Speaker A:But here's the thing, we're talking to that point, Nick, about similar, you know, not being able to appreciate it, because you're never going to hear it for the first time. Someone we've said on a previous, at least one of the previous podcasts is whenever we hear new music, we don't like new music, we only like old music. And so we don't appreciate, let's say Oasis until 20 years later, let's say. So if you were hearing it for the first time, you still wouldn't appreciate it.
Speaker B:You wouldn't like it. Yeah, yeah, that probably you'd be like, what's this noise? Yeah, if you heard blues for the first time.
Speaker A:Who's this J.S. Buck? The other one, just very briefly, and I don't know if you could call it an art form, Roman Games, Roman Games. Just the thought of being in the arena with, you know, gladiators and yeah, and the Coliseum and like burning a few Christians.
Speaker C:Not in the arena, maybe.
Speaker A:There's only one side you want to see it from. But also like flooding, you know, flooding the arena and like have recreating, you know, yeah, exactly. I just think that would have been wonderful. That said, I can't even watch bullfighting on TV, so I don't know how to feel about seeing actual people getting carved up in real life. Okay, on that happy note, we'll finish there. Thank you as always for listening to the Cognitive Engineering Podcast. I'm Fraser McGruer. We've been here with Nick Hare and Chris Wragg of Aleph Insights. Until next time, goodbye.
