Value is dictated by scarcity. Why is gold valuable? It's scarce. If it grew on trees, it wouldn't have been used as the standard currency of humanity for as long as it has been. Following this, if something is popular, it is not scarce. Everyone will have access to it, if they didn't, how would it become popular?
I'll play my own devil's advocate and cite music. Say there's this sweet indie band that's your favorite and no one knows about them or their totally unique vision that speaks to your soul - you're gonna hold them close to your heart and it will be special. What if they got huge all of a sudden? What if they got popular? Would you still like them? This is where the sell-out/way cool factor comes into play. If a band can maintain its integrity as it becomes popular, more power to them, but if they "sell out", the value drops despite their apparent success. What about Mozart then? A lot of people know him, listen to him, are aware of him. Does that mean his music is less valuable than said indie rock band who has fewer fans? Most certainly not. There are always exceptions. On a whole, I'd have to argue that things specifically designed to be consumed by mass quantities of people will have less value purely for the reason of universality. To make something entertaining/appealing to many, specifics and the individual will have to be sacrificed.
What about iPod's then? What if the person in question finds the product/music/show deeply personal to her, despite the popularity of it? What about those beautiful human emotions that are universal?
I don't know. There's a counter argument for everything.
But! If everyone enjoys something, there must be something of value there right? RIGHT!??! Why is it, then, that whenever I turn on Family Guy I am moderately amused, but on a whole appalled that the show is as popular as it is (Seth MacFarlane is a genius I hear them cry!). Maybe I'm too much of a Scrooge, and maybe I should just take it for face value as good entertainment. But seriously, what happened to our society? The book made a good point about the kid with his WalkMan, the kid living "...a nonstop, commercially prepackaged masturbational fantasy," of a life. Did all the great thinkers, philosophers, scientists, generals, inventors, people, artists, farmers, sailors so heroically accomplish all their epic endeavors just so that we could live bullshit lives of hollow materialism, blindly, patriotically adhering ourselves to others ideals, carnal desires and fucking Super Bowls? But, alas. To each his own. The grizzled machine will march on to the dim horizon of his yet uncertain dawn.
Will his inhabitants snap out of their Rx induced haze and hit the kill switch?
Or will cliffs to a dead coral abyss greet him?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
There are a lot of interesting points and counter points here. This isn't an easy issue to tackle.
Your opening point is quite interesting- seemingly there's a clear line between cultural theory and economic theory. Scarcity = value.
But, is every unknown indie band a gem? Would they be as popular and meaningful if only more people heard them? How are you defining selling out? Isn't that just plain sales?
Also, I'm curious at the end why you lament the end of thinkers in the wake of Family Guy. Certainly more people draw meaning from a live sporting event of epic struggle and community pride than they do from Derrida or Whitman? Why can't we reconcile these?
Post a Comment