Our consumption of culture

Artwork by Vicky Klein

Pi Culture Editors Kirese, Olivia, and Laura explore the shift in our consumption of music, art, and film.

The way we interact with the world is changing. Technology has altered how we communicate with one another, and how we share stories. There has been a shift in the way we listen, see and understand music, art, and film.

Consumption of Music

If Stairway to Heaven was released today, would you listen to it? Could you make it through the 52 second intro?

Research has shown that since the mid-80’s the song intro has reduced from 20 seconds to around 5 seconds. Due to the rise of music streaming services we have more choice, but we are also more impatient. Studies suggest that our attention span has reduced from 12 seconds to 8.5 seconds from 2000 to 2015, ironically implying that humans now have a shorter attention span than goldfish, who lose attention at 9 seconds.

In the ‘60s, ‘70s and ‘80s music wasn’t so widely available; people held album listening parties and eagerly awaited new releases. There were subcultures linked to styles of music, including the punks and the New Romantics. Today, streaming services use a pay-per-play economic model, creating more of an incentive to frequently release shorter songs. Songs such as The Beatles’ ‘Hey Jude’ and The Eagles’ ‘Hotel California’ are both over six minutes long and do not fit into this ‘replay’ model. Arguably some of the biggest hits of their time, it is disheartening to imagine that they may not succeed if they were released in today’s musical climate.

The playlist and the shuffle button have worked to diversify our listening habits. You can now explore music from all over the world. From funk to jazz to orchestral and pop music, everything is right at our fingertips. However, is this at the expense of the album and its rich history? Albums today have become miscellaneous orders of hits rather than carefully curated journeys, and the shuffle button ensures we don’t listen to them in the order they were intended. Iconic albums such as The Velvet Underground’s ‘The Velvet Underground and Nico’ or Pink Floyd’s ‘Dark Side of the Moon’ were created as a transcendental experience for fans who would spend hours listening to the vinyl albums. Playlists constructed by digital platforms create the illusion of personally curated content, but stem from a computer algorithm rather than the hard work of those in the industry.

Consumption of Art

Imagine the Mona Lisa is in front of you. What is the first thing you do: gasp in disbelief or stare into her eyes searching for secrets? Nope. You’ve probably already got your phone out, after battling through the crowd, and snapped a couple of pictures. In modern society, it seems that noone truly sees anymore. Seeing and contemplating art has often been replaced by documenting it. One way this worrying trend is being tackled is with “Slow Art Day”. Established in 2008 and increasing in popularity, its mantra is to “help more people discover for themselves the joy of looking at and loving art”. Globally, galleries ask participants to look at five works for ten minutes. Afterwards, they are brought together as a group to share their thoughts. Slow Art Day teaches us to take our time, to contemplate, and appreciate art.

Another trend Slow Art Day addresses is the rise of photography. There is no doubt that images capturing works of art and exhibitions, are valued editions to Instagram feeds. At a time where galleries and museums are eager to attract more visitors, and hence more money, one can see why larger institutions would push for exhibitions that look brilliant in pictures. A recent example is Olafur Eliasson’s exhibition at the Tate Modern. There are endless online pictures of individuals recreating the exhibition’s poster. One of the installations uses the outline of visitors to create a triple and multicoloured shadow upon the gallery wall. Undoubtedly a credible and aesthetic piece of art in itself, I cannot help but wonder whether the posters wanted to spark the idea of a perfect photo opportunity for viewers.

All that is left to ask is whether art has lost meaning. Has the transmission of feelings from the work of art to the eye been blocked by the technological screen? I hope not.

Consumption of Film

The quiet murmurings of detractors were previously silenced amidst the uproar of anticipation for Marvel’s final ‘Avengers’ movie, Endgame, which became the highest-grossing film of all time. Inevitably, the antithesis of this acclaim, and of Marvel films, has broken through. The backlash from New Hollywood directors like Martin Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola, now resounds. This provides us with an insight into how the film industry shifts to suit audience consumption.

The rebuttal of the directors has been noteworthy. Scorsese’s comment that the Marvel movies are “theme park” spectacles has been one of the most standout quotes, as it goes against the usual veneration of the films. What’s even more controversial is that he’s probably right. This may seem like yet another reiteration of the same old battle between the commercial and the artistic, but Scorsese raises a huge point.

With Marvel movies, we can expect the same formula. The cinematic landscape of franchises has become akin to a factory that keeps on producing the same commodity for expectant clientele. Sure, there’s some variety. Black Panther and Captain Marvel are constant points of reference that showcase the progressiveness of Marvel Studios, with the former being nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards. But does one movie in ten suddenly erase the recurring formula?

Can we compare the psychological complexity of a film like Coppola’s Apocalypse Now to Marvel’s Captain America: The Winter Soldier? We should not pretend that these two were made for the same purposes. The former is based on Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness and conveys the horror of the Vietnam war. The latter is a sequel adapted from Marvel Comics, following the eponymous hero uncovering a conspiracy. It is important to recognise that Marvel films are commercial products meant to satisfy large audiences.

They do this with outstanding success. Frankly, the movies are fun. They’re escapist fantasy. A breath of relief for audiences amidst dreary realism and heavy-handed works. Just like the Westerns of the 20th century, Marvel films serve the selfsame purpose of entertainment and spectacle. The Disney pedigree of ‘PG’ has helped this by making Marvel movies into mainstream family entertainment.

But what would happen if a Marvel film tried to be like Apocalypse Now, or even The Irishman? Perhaps that’s what Black Panther did, and what Infinity War tried to do, but the latter is balanced by lighthearted scenes written by comedy-writers, who have to appease the child-friendly label.

The counter-attack of artists to wards this phenomenon may consequently seem like a clash between the masses and the elite, but cinema has always been a paradoxical machine that encourages artistic exuberance yet produces films in cycles. Inevitably, this production is swayed by the fluctuating forces of audience demand. Classics come rarely, not cyclically. Consumption of film products like Marvel movies might eventually end in accordance with a shift in reception.

In all spheres of culture, there has been a gradual shift, engendered and compounded by the increasing presence of technology in our lives. How and what we consume is drastically different from our parents. Whilst change is inevitable, the digital revolution has accelerated the evolution of human habits. Whether these cultural changes are negative or positive, only time will tell. One thing we do know is that the prospects of a changing cultural landscape are bittersweet and feelings of nostalgia and desire for identity are ever increasing.

This article was originally published in Issue 724 of Pi Magazine.