THX1123
Tele-Afflicted
This is a long post. Jog on if that's a problem.
I'll put a TL;DR at the end...
One common theme on TDPRI seems to be generational differences. Whether it's "Boomers" or "Millennials" or "Generation Zed-Beta-7" or "New Gen X/Y" or "Post Millennial Gen B prime/post subset 19/20" or whatever - a common theme is to generalize and stereotype conflict based on age. It goes in both directions.
I just read the thread about "unknown" Bonnie Raitt winning a Grammy, and was thinking about how that relates to the idea of Generational Difference. Some commenters said Raitt is no longer "relevant," or that her demographic is too small to be a valid winner. Here we see confusion between quality and audience size/market share and "relevance." These measurements arguably have little to do with the quality of one's art. Popularity, novelty, and sales are valid measurements, but they are not measurements that affect how a critical listener judges and appreciates art. I have nothing against Lizzo, but comparing Lizzo and Bonnie Raitt is problematic without context, and without asking one's self why you think one deserves a Grammy and one doesn't. What has Raitt contributed or added to our culture? What has LIzzo? Is there actual value in those contributions?
If your experience and taste is based only on the last 10 years, and may be based on pop-culture sensationalism and repetition - then you may lack the context and critical thinking skills of a 60 year old fan. And if you, as an older listener, summarily dismiss modern pop without understanding the context of the market and modern listener, well you haven't exactly understood the nuances of the time and context in which it was created (zeitgeist) and may be summarily predisposed to dismiss it as "bad."
Ultimately, any industry that awards itself with such pomp is suspect, in my view at least. If Raitt's award seems like an anomaly, well...is it?
I've read a lot of Roman history and surviving Roman writings. Some Romans literally wrote that they felt the young generations were lazy and foolish and would be the downfall of their society. Likewise with Elizabethan and Victorian and Edwardian writers. If every new generation was as lazy and clueless as they all thought, well - we wouldn't be here today.
I have been working at Universities for about 15 years. I have been fortunate to get to know many young people over that time. My office currently has several student workers throughout the week. Some are clueless and do not even perform at the minimum standard; others are on time, engaging, and take the job seriously, and teach me something every week. None, however, can explain what Bussin' really means (joke). This difference of performance, I feel, is a matter of innate personality and upbringing, and not a generational thing.
Incidentally, the adults and older adults I work with reflect the same basic ratio of doing the minimum, and of taking pride in their work and relationships. Put any 10 people in a room (I don't care if they are Freshmen or Ph.D.s or Masonry Laborers or Engineers or landscapers or Dentists or Harley Mechanics) and 3 will perform poorly, always be late, barely squeaked through their training, and think a majority of things are "stupid."
For a while at another UNI I was one of the few people who ran and maintained a Plotter - basically a huge color printer for large UNI research posters. It wasn't really part of my job, but I had acquired the ability to keep the thing running because of the proximity of the thing, so I did it. As we'd load and proof and print the posters off thumb drives I'd chat with the kids about their research and stuff. I learned a great deal from the ones who were engaged and prepared.
The ones who failed to schedule a time to print, or didn't finish on time...these are the ones who were rude, complained, did not engage, whose products were poor, and who blamed everything and everyone else for their failure. I'm suggesting this is not generational, but rather just an unavoidable subset of humanity. I will admit I sadistically enjoyed it when they failed to schedule a time to print and in order to pass the class had to spend $100 at the local print shop to print their posters.
One summer we had advanced High School kids come in for a few weeks for a special summer research program. They all made posters and I was printing them. The kids were complaining about having to read "stupid old books." They wanted to read new books, books of their generation instead of classic literature. One said "I think we should stop teaching those old books and read something new." These kids were young, like 15.
I said "I disagree, and I will tell you why." The kids all looked at me with suspicion and unease. Kids are used to being told things, not presented with reason and clear arguments they can respond to, so they were ready for another "being told" moment.
I suggested that it is important to try and understand how those who built our world as we know it were thinking. I suggested that framing our world in that context, and then thinking about it and how we got here are very valuable exercises. Ideas and knowledge and history often require context to have true value. We cannot avoid the beliefs and mistakes and fallacies of the past unless we understand them. We cannot truly develop taste and a rich appreciation for art and literature unless we understand what came before. If we don't we run an even greater risk of stagnating as a society, of succumbing to base art forms, and of ultimately repeating ourselves with diminishing returns. If you read classic literature, and don't like it, you should be able to explain why, and then you can create something new in reaction to it.
If you don't we run the risk of more and more people not even being aware they are simply paying to hear or see what they already think, and mocking those who think otherwise to justify themselves.
I asked the kids what they thought about that. They all had furrowed brows and were processing the ideas I presented. None had much of an argument. Their teacher didn't either. I was open to discussion, but the argument I presented was enough to get those gears spinning in their heads.
On the other hand, I have had conversations and experiences with young people that opened my eyes to many things I was not aware of, of blind spots. My Nephew drew a fighter plane. I said "That guy in the pilot's seat sure has long hair." He said "It's a lady, Uncle THX, not a man."
As a kid in the 70's I would not have drawn a woman as a pilot...it was part of the context and time I grew up in. His experience was different, and probably better in some ways. That interaction, and many others have helped me ask myself why I used to think what I did, why I like what I like, the context and shortcomings of the time I grew up in, and why I now think what I think.
TL;DR - Yeah, I'm not doing that, fool.
I'll put a TL;DR at the end...
One common theme on TDPRI seems to be generational differences. Whether it's "Boomers" or "Millennials" or "Generation Zed-Beta-7" or "New Gen X/Y" or "Post Millennial Gen B prime/post subset 19/20" or whatever - a common theme is to generalize and stereotype conflict based on age. It goes in both directions.
I just read the thread about "unknown" Bonnie Raitt winning a Grammy, and was thinking about how that relates to the idea of Generational Difference. Some commenters said Raitt is no longer "relevant," or that her demographic is too small to be a valid winner. Here we see confusion between quality and audience size/market share and "relevance." These measurements arguably have little to do with the quality of one's art. Popularity, novelty, and sales are valid measurements, but they are not measurements that affect how a critical listener judges and appreciates art. I have nothing against Lizzo, but comparing Lizzo and Bonnie Raitt is problematic without context, and without asking one's self why you think one deserves a Grammy and one doesn't. What has Raitt contributed or added to our culture? What has LIzzo? Is there actual value in those contributions?
If your experience and taste is based only on the last 10 years, and may be based on pop-culture sensationalism and repetition - then you may lack the context and critical thinking skills of a 60 year old fan. And if you, as an older listener, summarily dismiss modern pop without understanding the context of the market and modern listener, well you haven't exactly understood the nuances of the time and context in which it was created (zeitgeist) and may be summarily predisposed to dismiss it as "bad."
Ultimately, any industry that awards itself with such pomp is suspect, in my view at least. If Raitt's award seems like an anomaly, well...is it?
I've read a lot of Roman history and surviving Roman writings. Some Romans literally wrote that they felt the young generations were lazy and foolish and would be the downfall of their society. Likewise with Elizabethan and Victorian and Edwardian writers. If every new generation was as lazy and clueless as they all thought, well - we wouldn't be here today.
I have been working at Universities for about 15 years. I have been fortunate to get to know many young people over that time. My office currently has several student workers throughout the week. Some are clueless and do not even perform at the minimum standard; others are on time, engaging, and take the job seriously, and teach me something every week. None, however, can explain what Bussin' really means (joke). This difference of performance, I feel, is a matter of innate personality and upbringing, and not a generational thing.
Incidentally, the adults and older adults I work with reflect the same basic ratio of doing the minimum, and of taking pride in their work and relationships. Put any 10 people in a room (I don't care if they are Freshmen or Ph.D.s or Masonry Laborers or Engineers or landscapers or Dentists or Harley Mechanics) and 3 will perform poorly, always be late, barely squeaked through their training, and think a majority of things are "stupid."
For a while at another UNI I was one of the few people who ran and maintained a Plotter - basically a huge color printer for large UNI research posters. It wasn't really part of my job, but I had acquired the ability to keep the thing running because of the proximity of the thing, so I did it. As we'd load and proof and print the posters off thumb drives I'd chat with the kids about their research and stuff. I learned a great deal from the ones who were engaged and prepared.
The ones who failed to schedule a time to print, or didn't finish on time...these are the ones who were rude, complained, did not engage, whose products were poor, and who blamed everything and everyone else for their failure. I'm suggesting this is not generational, but rather just an unavoidable subset of humanity. I will admit I sadistically enjoyed it when they failed to schedule a time to print and in order to pass the class had to spend $100 at the local print shop to print their posters.
One summer we had advanced High School kids come in for a few weeks for a special summer research program. They all made posters and I was printing them. The kids were complaining about having to read "stupid old books." They wanted to read new books, books of their generation instead of classic literature. One said "I think we should stop teaching those old books and read something new." These kids were young, like 15.
I said "I disagree, and I will tell you why." The kids all looked at me with suspicion and unease. Kids are used to being told things, not presented with reason and clear arguments they can respond to, so they were ready for another "being told" moment.
I suggested that it is important to try and understand how those who built our world as we know it were thinking. I suggested that framing our world in that context, and then thinking about it and how we got here are very valuable exercises. Ideas and knowledge and history often require context to have true value. We cannot avoid the beliefs and mistakes and fallacies of the past unless we understand them. We cannot truly develop taste and a rich appreciation for art and literature unless we understand what came before. If we don't we run an even greater risk of stagnating as a society, of succumbing to base art forms, and of ultimately repeating ourselves with diminishing returns. If you read classic literature, and don't like it, you should be able to explain why, and then you can create something new in reaction to it.
If you don't we run the risk of more and more people not even being aware they are simply paying to hear or see what they already think, and mocking those who think otherwise to justify themselves.
I asked the kids what they thought about that. They all had furrowed brows and were processing the ideas I presented. None had much of an argument. Their teacher didn't either. I was open to discussion, but the argument I presented was enough to get those gears spinning in their heads.
On the other hand, I have had conversations and experiences with young people that opened my eyes to many things I was not aware of, of blind spots. My Nephew drew a fighter plane. I said "That guy in the pilot's seat sure has long hair." He said "It's a lady, Uncle THX, not a man."
As a kid in the 70's I would not have drawn a woman as a pilot...it was part of the context and time I grew up in. His experience was different, and probably better in some ways. That interaction, and many others have helped me ask myself why I used to think what I did, why I like what I like, the context and shortcomings of the time I grew up in, and why I now think what I think.
TL;DR - Yeah, I'm not doing that, fool.
