The interesting stuff has always been on the edges. Punk rock started in dim little British nightclubs. From there it spread to other little nightclubs. Then it went mainstream, sold out, and died.
Popular culture has always been the enemy of creativity. But it still thrives where bored people try to do their own thing!
I don’t agree with the core premise that things are getting more boring.
Yes, humanity is now more ‘data-driven’, but that’s not really breaking from the trend, it’s just a natural progression of what has always happened.
History is filled with many examples of new things being created, followed by many years of refinement until a new exciting thing emerges, and the process repeats. That can be seen in physical inventions, music genres, cuisines, etc. My take is our new tech/quantitative abilities are just augmenting an existing process (and speeding it up).
As for the boring aspect…
You know what was boring? Having only five TV channels showing content made for the lowest common denominator. This idea of “Barely anything original makes it into the charts any more” feels like a misdirection. The charts are increasingly only representative of a smaller and smaller fraction of what people are actually consuming, making them less and less relevant/representative of the whole.
There was so much more content created in 2024 than in 2004. Yes, that means there is more overlap/commonalities between content, but there is also just more. And with that abundance comes diversity—think of all the niche content creators out there (Youtubers, indie filmmakers/musicians, etc.). Algorithms have enabled these people to create niche content and find an audience in ways that were not possible before.
I'm glad someone's keeping track. In a novel I'm writing set in the future, I'm intentionally making architecture and art as varied as I can because I think that's where it could (should?) go. Currently crowd-sourcing ideas for the story, if you're interested........https://shonistar.substack.com/p/humanity-is-an-organism (I swear it's not spam I never do this but I'm interested in your take specifically).
The number of people who read and engaged with this blog post vs. the LinkedIn previews might underscore some of the observations you are making here . . .
You could already be familiar with Nicholas Carr on this side of the pond, especially given the Atlantic video links below (The Atlantic is an outlet for some of his writing), but he and a few great minds before him (including Tim Wu) have researched and written extensively on your observations, and offered potential remedies. Carr does it with particularly keen insight, eloquence, and wit.
If not familiar, I am passing along a couple of links to check out, possibly inspiration for a developing thesis:
* Car’s background and bibliography: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_G._Carr (Im sure he would rage against this Wikipedia aggregation). Personally, the Big Switch, Shallows, and Glass Cage were / are most prescient.
I am curious however, how does Odin and this thesis intersect?
Those NBA stats are super interesting. I'm a big rugby fan and I have seen the same happen in rugby (although my team, The Springboks, have probably benefited most from this Moneyball approach, so I don't mind. I share your sentiment about movies. I also wrote something along these lines a while back:
On the creator front, I think tech has allowed way more people to be creative than previously possible. The problem is that there are so many inexperienced or mediocre creators who just copy other people's work. Or some content creation formula.
The interesting stuff has always been on the edges. Punk rock started in dim little British nightclubs. From there it spread to other little nightclubs. Then it went mainstream, sold out, and died.
Popular culture has always been the enemy of creativity. But it still thrives where bored people try to do their own thing!
really enjoyed reading this, thank you!
I don’t agree with the core premise that things are getting more boring.
Yes, humanity is now more ‘data-driven’, but that’s not really breaking from the trend, it’s just a natural progression of what has always happened.
History is filled with many examples of new things being created, followed by many years of refinement until a new exciting thing emerges, and the process repeats. That can be seen in physical inventions, music genres, cuisines, etc. My take is our new tech/quantitative abilities are just augmenting an existing process (and speeding it up).
As for the boring aspect…
You know what was boring? Having only five TV channels showing content made for the lowest common denominator. This idea of “Barely anything original makes it into the charts any more” feels like a misdirection. The charts are increasingly only representative of a smaller and smaller fraction of what people are actually consuming, making them less and less relevant/representative of the whole.
There was so much more content created in 2024 than in 2004. Yes, that means there is more overlap/commonalities between content, but there is also just more. And with that abundance comes diversity—think of all the niche content creators out there (Youtubers, indie filmmakers/musicians, etc.). Algorithms have enabled these people to create niche content and find an audience in ways that were not possible before.
I'm glad someone's keeping track. In a novel I'm writing set in the future, I'm intentionally making architecture and art as varied as I can because I think that's where it could (should?) go. Currently crowd-sourcing ideas for the story, if you're interested........https://shonistar.substack.com/p/humanity-is-an-organism (I swear it's not spam I never do this but I'm interested in your take specifically).
Hey Patrick,
The number of people who read and engaged with this blog post vs. the LinkedIn previews might underscore some of the observations you are making here . . .
You could already be familiar with Nicholas Carr on this side of the pond, especially given the Atlantic video links below (The Atlantic is an outlet for some of his writing), but he and a few great minds before him (including Tim Wu) have researched and written extensively on your observations, and offered potential remedies. Carr does it with particularly keen insight, eloquence, and wit.
If not familiar, I am passing along a couple of links to check out, possibly inspiration for a developing thesis:
* Carr’s blog: https://www.roughtype.com
* Car’s background and bibliography: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_G._Carr (Im sure he would rage against this Wikipedia aggregation). Personally, the Big Switch, Shallows, and Glass Cage were / are most prescient.
I am curious however, how does Odin and this thesis intersect?
Loved this, hilarious and resonant
Seeing the title I thought we were blaming Brad Pitt for a second there
Those NBA stats are super interesting. I'm a big rugby fan and I have seen the same happen in rugby (although my team, The Springboks, have probably benefited most from this Moneyball approach, so I don't mind. I share your sentiment about movies. I also wrote something along these lines a while back:
https://open.substack.com/pub/robertsturgeon/p/i-wood?r=c10we&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
On the creator front, I think tech has allowed way more people to be creative than previously possible. The problem is that there are so many inexperienced or mediocre creators who just copy other people's work. Or some content creation formula.
Interesting article Patrick. Thanks.
I love this post. It has so many great points and insights, but none beats this one:
"Last year, a woman 'married' her chatbot."