Nothing New In History?

Part of my Masters degree included “Studies in Contemporary Society”. An inspection of the development of Western culture from the Greek, through to European Philosophy, and including an examination of the current interpretations of art within today’s society. It was interesting (and a little upsetting) to note, that there was, and is, a terrible expansion of marketing involving the acquiring and reshaping of many previous historical ideas and artists works, particularly today, with modern art and music by many of today’s artists and performers. There are many clever original artists out there. But this ‘market’ is suggestive of a lack of certain creative ideas by some artists, unfortunately, many who then appear to dominate simply by commercialisation of their art not of respect for their talent.

While there are certainly new uses and presentations making use of various current media formats and interesting combinations of materials and techniques, I am referring to many of the actual ideas. This is very evident in the commercial film industry, where a movie, not yet ten years old, is being remade and ‘re-interpreted’. Where movies are remade, leaving the original concept and completely alter what the original film was. Many times the films have nothing to do with each other or even the concept. Why call them by the same name? Why not create a new title? Better yet, why not create a new idea?

Commercial music is also doing the same. An artist can record a song, and within a few months it is re-released as another ‘new’ version. Either mixed differently, by a particular person (trying to make a name) as a ‘Producer’, by a famous D.J. or even reworked by the original artist themselves. Sometimes it is the way the bass is remixed, or the vocals, but my issue is; it is released as if it is something extra-ordinary and ‘original’. This is excessive. Probably sadder is, that there is even a market for it. It is this market that effectively narrows down the options of listeners, viewers and audiences. It is different to hearing another performer present a ‘cover’ version. They acknowledge that. But this is practically denial of what has gone before. And surely, that must be a fault. The fact that demand is so high for much of this produced material by those purchasing or financing is frightening.

When any history is ignored, it is not just the idea that it may be repeated. Indeed it was in Eruption that Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) wrote, “It is not worthwhile to try to keep history from repeating itself, for man's character will always make the preventing of the repetitions impossible”. Even then, it was recognised that behaviour and ideas would occur again and again. Indeed, much of what we see today is produced based upon ‘formula’. The identified ‘market’ demands and they provide.

(Continued tomorrow)