I think TikTok may be part of the answer to the question - I’m not a TikToker, in fact I’m one of those people who mostly reads old books, watches old movies and plays old games. But my sense is that TikTok (and Instagram, etc.) takes up a massive percentage of young people’s media consumption, and by its very nature most of that is ‘new content.’ But when people spend hours a day on TikTok that crowds out the time they spend on other things and means that when they watch a movie, say, they’re doing so because it’s one they’ve heard of, and rather than go watch a new movie about something they’ve never heard of, they’ll just watch more reels.
Then again, as you’ve pointed out, the trends go further back than that, so they may be independent trends - or TikTok’s rise may be in some ways a symptom of the weakness of the older industries.
Good point. I also wonder if there is a bias on the TikTok creator side where people are more likely to create content that appeals to a wider audience--e.g. top older video games more people played and play--rather than on newer releases. And it's harder for titles to get to the critical mass where it feels like everyone is playing or talking about it.
Also may be noteworthy that some recent examples of games reaching that mass - e.g. Among Us - are lower-tech products from smaller creators rather than big studios. I'd be curious to see more data around the environment for new media seeking to break through today--e.g. how many examples of books, songs, etc. are produced relative to the past, who is producing them, and how many people are consuming them.
Really interesting - I've noticed this trend with older art but didn't know the numbers, wild! When it comes to video games, I will say that half of the list you provided are free to play games which I'm sure helps juice their numbers.
I think most consumers face “cognitive overload” in a way they didn’t because of the ubiquity of the internet and smart phones. The world is chaotic and rapidly changing and the amount of content we can consume is overwhelming. It’s the tyranny of choice in action—in this context, it’s just easier to pick the art we know than the art we don’t.
Gonna push back on the extent of old-stuff hating in the good old days. I remember Led Zeppelin and The Beatles and all sorts of classic rock being popular in high school next to Guns ‘n Roses and Nirvana. (I was in high school during the GnR to Nirvana flip, if that combo of
The author misses the forest, because of the trees. It's not volume of product, it is all about quality. Older media is just plain better. The quality level is much higher - in every creative field. Modern "media" is mostly just terrible garbage - it's "the song about the song", it's boring, it's formulaic, it's devoid of the creative spark. Every field is derivative-drivel now - and relentlessly self-similar. And AI is going to make this trend worse. Much worse. We turn to the past, because the future looks, sounds, reads, and smells like rotting excrement.
Because all old art, music, film, etc is instantly and equally accessible, every new work has to compete for attention with the entire history of its form. And taste aside, new works may get less attention simply because they make up a small fraction of the entire historical catalog.
Maybe there's simply a decline in quality of newer work? But how do you even define that?
Most of those games have a component that involves online interaction with others, and so there are agglomeration effects as with any social media.
In any case, I'd add to the list: consumers benefit, because older work is generally cheaper (particularly in the case of video games where running something made for machines 10 or 15 years ago requires a much less expensive machine). And what are they losing? Today, far more media each person enjoys exists than xe could ever consume. Why do we need more?
The author misses the forest, because of the trees. It's not volume of product, it is all about quality. Older media is just plain better. The quality level is much higher - in every creative field. Modern "media" is mostly just terrible garbage - it's "the song about the song", it's boring, it's formulaic, it's devoid of the creative spark. Every field is derivative-drivel now - and relentlessly self-similar. And AI is going to make this trend worse. Much worse. We turn to the past, because the future looks, sounds, reads, and smells like rotting excrement.
My only little caveat: I think you leave some explanation a bit open here, especially on books. Yes, many places primarily stocked new books. There are two issues here, however. First, there was always still a core of classic authors you'd be able to find everywhere. 'In a world where folks can read Orwell, Austen or Shakespeare at the click of a button, you need to be arrogant to think someone should read your novel instead.' Sure. It's just that that's always been true. It's never been hard to find a copy of Shakespeare's works! Time was, most reading families would already have a family copy.
Also, I think you're underrating the prominence of second-hand bookshops in prior times. They were a pretty big deal for real book-lovers (and still are to some)! They also allowed people to have pretty convenient - and very cheap - access to older titles, if less systematically than today.
Thanks for putting this together! I think there are a couple other useful points to consider.
Let's look at music.
First, dead artists don't rock the boat. All you have to do in market, push it out and collect the money*. There are no doubts about their next album, will they change genres, etc.... This ties in with your optimization > novelty argument.
Second, and related, you are looking at a filtering event as time passes where often the best albums are resurfaced. You can go and listen to the top 100 albums of the 90s on demand and they are all pretty great! These albums also came out before the barbell-ification of music due to network effects where the super-stars are MEGA STARS and the middling artists are struggling even more so to get by.
I think TikTok may be part of the answer to the question - I’m not a TikToker, in fact I’m one of those people who mostly reads old books, watches old movies and plays old games. But my sense is that TikTok (and Instagram, etc.) takes up a massive percentage of young people’s media consumption, and by its very nature most of that is ‘new content.’ But when people spend hours a day on TikTok that crowds out the time they spend on other things and means that when they watch a movie, say, they’re doing so because it’s one they’ve heard of, and rather than go watch a new movie about something they’ve never heard of, they’ll just watch more reels.
Then again, as you’ve pointed out, the trends go further back than that, so they may be independent trends - or TikTok’s rise may be in some ways a symptom of the weakness of the older industries.
Good point. I also wonder if there is a bias on the TikTok creator side where people are more likely to create content that appeals to a wider audience--e.g. top older video games more people played and play--rather than on newer releases. And it's harder for titles to get to the critical mass where it feels like everyone is playing or talking about it.
Also may be noteworthy that some recent examples of games reaching that mass - e.g. Among Us - are lower-tech products from smaller creators rather than big studios. I'd be curious to see more data around the environment for new media seeking to break through today--e.g. how many examples of books, songs, etc. are produced relative to the past, who is producing them, and how many people are consuming them.
Really interesting - I've noticed this trend with older art but didn't know the numbers, wild! When it comes to video games, I will say that half of the list you provided are free to play games which I'm sure helps juice their numbers.
Ok so I’m one of those souls writing new books… but seriously, aren’t we dead as souls if none of us are creating?
Great article though. Disturbing! But great
I think most consumers face “cognitive overload” in a way they didn’t because of the ubiquity of the internet and smart phones. The world is chaotic and rapidly changing and the amount of content we can consume is overwhelming. It’s the tyranny of choice in action—in this context, it’s just easier to pick the art we know than the art we don’t.
Gonna push back on the extent of old-stuff hating in the good old days. I remember Led Zeppelin and The Beatles and all sorts of classic rock being popular in high school next to Guns ‘n Roses and Nirvana. (I was in high school during the GnR to Nirvana flip, if that combo of
popularity confuses you)
The author misses the forest, because of the trees. It's not volume of product, it is all about quality. Older media is just plain better. The quality level is much higher - in every creative field. Modern "media" is mostly just terrible garbage - it's "the song about the song", it's boring, it's formulaic, it's devoid of the creative spark. Every field is derivative-drivel now - and relentlessly self-similar. And AI is going to make this trend worse. Much worse. We turn to the past, because the future looks, sounds, reads, and smells like rotting excrement.
Because all old art, music, film, etc is instantly and equally accessible, every new work has to compete for attention with the entire history of its form. And taste aside, new works may get less attention simply because they make up a small fraction of the entire historical catalog.
Maybe there's simply a decline in quality of newer work? But how do you even define that?
Most of those games have a component that involves online interaction with others, and so there are agglomeration effects as with any social media.
In any case, I'd add to the list: consumers benefit, because older work is generally cheaper (particularly in the case of video games where running something made for machines 10 or 15 years ago requires a much less expensive machine). And what are they losing? Today, far more media each person enjoys exists than xe could ever consume. Why do we need more?
I would argue that a lot of these games aren't "old"
If you take a look at modern League of Legends compared to release and they are really 2 different games ("CS2" came out in 2023).
Same with Roblox where it's more of an engine and the "games" being played did not come out in 2006.
The author misses the forest, because of the trees. It's not volume of product, it is all about quality. Older media is just plain better. The quality level is much higher - in every creative field. Modern "media" is mostly just terrible garbage - it's "the song about the song", it's boring, it's formulaic, it's devoid of the creative spark. Every field is derivative-drivel now - and relentlessly self-similar. And AI is going to make this trend worse. Much worse. We turn to the past, because the future looks, sounds, reads, and smells like rotting excrement.
"Without new works, culture grows stagnant."
Turn it around. When culture grows stagnant, you get no new works. Happens whenever civilizations entire decline.
Two thoughts:
1. Could be a contributing factor that younger people consume more diverse things, whereas older people all consume the same thing.
2. I wonder if this is related to there being fewer standout startups with founders under 40 than ever before.
Great piece! I think the third factor -- availability and frictionless search-- might be the big thing here.
There's no original art because there's (virtually) no divergent thinking. This is a symptom of the collapse of cognitive and behavioral agency in American society. Genre-Style Pedagogy is the solution: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/throwing-rhetorical-discus-what-genre-style-pedagogy-gsp-abe-nemon-q4wpe/?trackingId=s63oc5VmQwuvDDd6CVIbYA%3D%3D
My only little caveat: I think you leave some explanation a bit open here, especially on books. Yes, many places primarily stocked new books. There are two issues here, however. First, there was always still a core of classic authors you'd be able to find everywhere. 'In a world where folks can read Orwell, Austen or Shakespeare at the click of a button, you need to be arrogant to think someone should read your novel instead.' Sure. It's just that that's always been true. It's never been hard to find a copy of Shakespeare's works! Time was, most reading families would already have a family copy.
Also, I think you're underrating the prominence of second-hand bookshops in prior times. They were a pretty big deal for real book-lovers (and still are to some)! They also allowed people to have pretty convenient - and very cheap - access to older titles, if less systematically than today.
Thanks for putting this together! I think there are a couple other useful points to consider.
Let's look at music.
First, dead artists don't rock the boat. All you have to do in market, push it out and collect the money*. There are no doubts about their next album, will they change genres, etc.... This ties in with your optimization > novelty argument.
Second, and related, you are looking at a filtering event as time passes where often the best albums are resurfaced. You can go and listen to the top 100 albums of the 90s on demand and they are all pretty great! These albums also came out before the barbell-ification of music due to network effects where the super-stars are MEGA STARS and the middling artists are struggling even more so to get by.
*easier said than done