The Decline of America's Culture Industries: The Struggle Between Bureaucracy and Creativity

While I was in Italy  this spring I was surprised to see the pervasiveness of Bob Dylan books, art and music. There was a Dylan Retrospectum (art) in Rome, and books about or by Dylan featured in every bookstore. I struck up a conversation with a craft beer brewer in Parma regarding this observation, and he noted that it's not just Bob Dylan that America has exported, but Pop Culture in general.

This notion of American pop culture as a product being exported led to my noticing an increasing amount of commentary about the widespread dissatisfaction with the products Hollywood has been feeding us over the past decade or more. Here are some thoughts generated by feeding a sentence into ChatGPT, regurgitated in essay form.

In recent years, America's culture industries have faced a formidable challenge, grappling with the effects of decay, monopolization, and increasing bureaucracy. As the pursuit of profit has intensified, creativity has become stifled, leading to a worrying decline in the quality and diversity of cultural productions. 

Let's examine the claim that America's culture industries have been transformed into anti-competitive, risk-averse monopolists, suffocating real creativity under the weight of mind-numbing and politically driven bureaucracy.

The rise of corporate giants within the culture industries (esp. Hollywood, literature, music) has undoubtedly fostered a monopolistic environment. Large media conglomerates have acquired numerous entertainment companies, consolidating their control over various creative outlets, from music and film to television and publishing. This monopolization has led to a lack of competition, as smaller players struggle to compete in an industry dominated by a select few. As a result, fresh and daring ideas are often sidelined in favor of formulaic, mass-appealing content that guarantees a return on investment.

Furthermore, the fear of taking risks has permeated the culture industries. Executives, driven by the pressure to maximize profits, tend to prefer established franchises and sequels, diminishing the opportunities for originality and innovative storytelling. This risk-averse approach stifles the potential for groundbreaking works of art and entertainment that push the boundaries of creativity.

To compound the problem, culture industries have become entangled in layers of bureaucracy. The quest for efficiency and streamlining often results in cumbersome approval processes and decision-making hierarchies that slow down productions and impede the free flow of ideas. 

The weight of bureaucracy also affects the individual creatives, subjecting them to creative restrictions and inhibiting their ability to express themselves fully. The prioritization of market research and focus groups over genuine artistic vision further exacerbates the problem, leading to a homogenization of content and an erosion of creativity.

Moreover, the rising politicization of the culture industries has added another layer of complexity. In an attempt to appeal to specific demographics or avoid controversy, creative decisions are sometimes shaped by political considerations rather than artistic merit. This approach may lead to watered-down narratives, sanitization of historical events, or the avoidance of sensitive issues, ultimately undermining the power of storytelling to address important societal challenges. 

In conclusion, the decay of America's culture industries can be attributed to a combination of anti-competitive monopolistic practices, risk aversion, and the burdensome bureaucracy they have imposed on their productions. Creativity, once the driving force behind cultural innovation, is now suffocating under the weight of profit-driven decision-making and politically motivated constraints. To revitalize the culture industries and foster an environment of genuine creativity, it is crucial to address these issues, encourage healthy competition, and prioritize artistic vision over short-term gains. Only then can American culture industries regain their vibrancy and contribute meaningfully to the enrichment of global artistic expression.

* * * 

Here's the prompt I used to produce the above brief essay:  "As America’s culture industries have decayed into anti-competitive, risk-averse monopolists, they have imposed layers upon layers of mind-numbing and increasingly politicised bureaucracy on their productions that make real creativity all but impossible." I pulled it from a much longer essay titled America's pop-culture armageddon by David Samuel at Unherd.

In short, the more that is at stake, the less people are willing to take risks. And because the giants control the channels of distribution, the most creative, outside-the-box original ideas never see the light of day.  

* * * 

Where things go from here is anyone's guess. What do you think?

San Francisco's School Renaming Spree Would Be Funny If They Weren't Serious

TRUTH IS STRANGER THAN FICTION DEPT.

A lot of people were probably surprised when mobs began tearing down statues in several cities around the country. What surprised people wasn't that statues were being torn down, but the kinds of statues being destroyed or defaced. It was no longer just Confederate generals, but presidents and people considered heroes in many quarters. 

Against this backdrop I was not surprised to learn that the San Francisco school board was renaming as many as a third of their schools because they were determined to be no longer acceptable. 

Yesterday I came across this disturbing article from The Atlantic titled The Holier-Than-Thou Crusade in San Francisco by Gary Kamiya. Here is the story lead: 

San Francisco has issued its latest grand moral decree, and bad ex-presidents would be quaking in their coffins—if they could stop laughing.

On January 26, the San Francisco school board announced that dozens of public schools must be renamed. The figures that do not meet the board’s standards include Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, John Muir, Robert Louis Stevenson, Paul Revere, and Dianne Feinstein. A panel had determined that the 44 schools—more than one-third of the city’s total—were named after figures guilty of being, variously, colonizers; slave owners; exploiters of workers; oppressors of women, children, or queer and transgender people; people connected to human rights or environmental abuses; and espousers of racist beliefs.

The lively writing is filled with zingers like this one:

The more than 70 million Trump supporters whose most extreme caricatures of liberals have now been confirmed...

and this one:

The city’s move to rename schools will provide invaluable ammunition to Fox News.

* * * 

Evidently the School Names Advisory Committee was assembled in 2018 to address the issue of inappropriate names for the schools in their district. Once they realized the power they had been given, they threw caution to the wind. Kamiya writes:

In keeping with the incorruptible, Robespierre-like spirit of our revolutionary times, the committee decreed that one sin (being a colonizer or slave owner, using an “inappropriate” word, and so on) was all that was required to send a figure to the guillotine. Once that decision was made, the severed heads rolled into the gutter of history.

I encourage you to read the article to see what got Robert Louis Stevenson cancelled. It's so absurd that it defies comprehension? Then again, this has been my biggest concern about PC and Cancel Culture: No Mercy. And the corollary: Facts don't matter.

You should also check out the misinformation that passed as fact which expelled Paul Revere from another school.

As Kamiya puts it, "This debacle is just the latest example of 'progressive' cultural censorship in a city once renowned as a bastion of free speech."

READ THE FULL STORY HERE:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/02/san-francisco-renaming-spree/617894/

* * * 

THE ACRONYM ISSUE

As if the above story weren't disappointing enough, the following is the one I was looking for when I stumbled upon the Atlantic article. This story, by Andrew Chamings, apeared in the SFGate. It is titled:

After renaming debacle, SFUSD says

acronyms are a sign of 'white supremacy culture'

Now I'm not afraid to tell you that acronyms can be a problem. For years I taught a class on writing in which one section was devoted to Acronyms. In that class I showed how every industry has its own set of acronyms. Since the goal of communication is to communicate, we should not use acronyms without explaining them. API means American Petroleum Institute in the auto industry, for example. 

I do know how demeaning it can sometimes feel when people use unfamiliar acronyms and you don't know what they mean but are afraid to show your ignorance. I get it. But to call it white supremacy seems a bit of a stretch. Is LGBTQ a white supremacist power play? I don't think so. 

The SFGate article begins with the re-naming of schools that has been taking place. Then it slides over to the issue of acronyms. 

Some in the district have now taken the confounding stance that acronyms are a symptom of "white supremacy culture" and are working to remove them from buildings.

Evidently the arts department, which has formerly been VAPA (Visual And Performing Arts) is now going to be the SFUSD Arts Department. Go figure.

In a Newsweek story about the acronym issue, Dem congressman Ted Lieu took to Twitter to say "This is stupid. Acronyms are not a symptom of white supremacy culture. They are shorthand to make communicating more efficient. For example, CAPAC stands for Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. Much easier to say CAPAC. Or ACLU. Or NAACP. Or NASA."

Exactly. 

You can read the full SFGate story here:
https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/school-renaming-SFUSD-acronyms-racist-15919053.php