molly mary o'brien

this thrilling but disconcerting time

This essay, which is all about our inability to make any kind of cultural advancement in the past twenty years, has me in a tizzy.  While the argument is legitimate — Kurt Andersen correctly writes, “You can…see that the characteristic surfaces and sounds of each historical moment are absolutely distinct from those of 20 years earlier or later” — some of the examples don’t line up.  Lady Gaga may be an appropriate variant of Madonna, but I doubt anyone who listened to “Fantasy” in 1995 sees Adele as the second coming of Mariah Carey.  And why cite a “groovy” Alessi teakettle as evidence of the stagnation of design?  Shouldn’t the kettle represent the longer shelf life of particularly good design?  Shouldn’t calling the “sensibility and style” of Joan Didion’s books “plausibly circa-2012” be complimentary to Joan Didion and her skill, instead of insulting to current literary taste?

In an essay like this, the big idea matters most, but the evidence that supports the big idea should not be ignored.  Andersen’s acknowledgement of the Internet as a cultural force is important, but his snarky dismissal of the “quirky, independent individualists” who cultivate their esoteric interests online misses the mark; what he fails to recognize is that people are only just beginning to harness the power of the Internet to change culture.  It’s going to take a little while longer before that kind of evidence shows up.

Of course, this is the kind of essay that makes people want to accelerate cultural change, makes people impatient for the 2000s to really turn into the 2010s, makes people hope 2012 and 2002 will be as discrepant as 1967 and 1957.  In that case, I’ll send the link to everyone I know.