|
Nothing's shocking, nothing's new: Creative stagnancy in popular media "It's all been done before," one jaded individual might say when pondering the question of originality. It is true that a glut of ideas exist in the collective consciousness, and it is very difficult to think of something which hasn't been done before. It seems reasonable to conclude that at some point in time, all ideas in a particular media will be used up. We function using closed systems, right? After all, the alphabet is a closed system of twenty- six letters which formulate a finite number of words in the English language, and there are only twelve notes in a musical scale. At some point, all combinations within these closed systems will expire, and there will be no ideas left, right? Wrong. Chaos theory explains the possibility of infinite variations in a finite system. For example, consider a simple fractal. In their book, Introducing Chaos, authors Ziauddin Sardar and Iwona Abrams write, "in a fractal triangle, each small triangle is structurally identical to the large one. Within the overall shape, there lies a repetitive pattern whose exquisite substructure characterizes the nature of chaos, indicating when predictability breaks down." In the finite capacity of a triangle, a triangle can be inverted and placed within the first triangle, and then another triangle within the second, ad infinitum. An infinite amount of triangles can hypothetically exist in that closed shape. Another easily grasped example involves decimals. Between the numbers one and two, which are exactly one unit apart, an infinite amount of decimals and fractions exist. In relation to media, which does function within a closed system of sorts, there are only so many words to say, things to do, and ways to say and do them. But there are infinite variations on these established means: entropy. So while the potential of endless creativity exists in any kind of media, the American media has largely ignored these possibilities in favor of more familiar, formulaic mechanisms: stability. A look at the top ten grossing films of 2004 reveal that seven of the ten were based on preexisting media. The top film, Shrek 2, is a sequel using characters and themes which were previously laid out in the first film. Spider-Man 2, Meet the Fockers, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, and The Bourne Supremacy were also sequels, and all but one were based on books or graphic novels. The Passion of the Christ and The Polar Express were also based on books - the former upon a centuries- old series of books. Is using old themes, characters and stories an anomaly? Film industry sources record that between 2003 and October, 2005, six of the top ten grossing films were based on unoriginal material. Greed is largely responsible for the prevalence of unoriginal thought in popular film. These films did, after all, gross between 140 to 435 million dollars. Clearly the films were well-received by the American public. People support films that are familiar, craving the stability that familiar characters and plot lines offer, and enjoy them because they are reminded, however subconsciously or abstractly, of the great time they had the first time around. Sequels, remakes, movies based on books, graphic novels, true events and even theme park rides like Disneyland's "Pirates of the Caribbean," provide the basis of many blockbuster films. Their success indicates that the American consciousness supports a status quo attitude, and this attitude remains an obstacle to the growth of our consciousness. By definition, the status quo disavows growth and change. Original, highly creative films are being released, but they tend to make very little money. For every Waking Life and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, there are dozens of example of celluloid dreck. American television is hardly any better than film. It may actually be worse. It is a breeding ground of cliche, regurgitated material and static creativity. A prime example lies in the dozens of daytime soap operas which essentially revolve around the basic themes of sex, lies, drugs and murder. Much can be written on an industry based upon the exploitation of human vice, but the point is that hundreds of television hours are devoted to variations of the same basic ideas. Prime time sitcoms also revolve around the same device, including insults, family life and school problems. The same situation on Full House could easily appear on Will and Grace, albeit in modified form. Occasionally a truly original program appears, but slowly any innovation or creativity the show may once have possessed devolves into a sad parody of self-replication. For example, The Simpsons has aired for nearly sixteen years and it simply does not have anything new to say. The first few seasons were refreshingly original, exploring edgier perspectives on the well-trodden themes of family and society. After sixteen years, the show has little left to cover. Now it feels like the characters are merely replicating roles and functions already explored in earlier seasons and, despite its best efforts, feels like a mere pastiche of its former self. Many potential reasons are responsible for the show's decline, including changing attitudes about what is and what is not acceptable on American television. Additionally, shows that were influenced by The Simpsons in their inception, such as Family Guy, have by and large surpassed their predecessor. American television is the very definition of stability. Sitcoms and soap operas remain unremarkable and indistinguishable in theme, and shows that do occasionally break the mold inevitably fall into self-replication, becoming undifferentiated from earlier work. Instead of conforming to grand themes, they conform to their own ideas of themselves. In the case of popular film, the public embraces the comfort and familiarity offered by well-known material. Yet in doing so, we condemn ourselves to a static state of consciousness. The most irritating example of unoriginal thought in popular media is found in the comic pages of the newspaper. The comics, based on familiarity and stability, and are intentionally docile - the furthest thing from entropy in media. People turn to the funny pages to be comforted by familiar cartoon faces. One such face is Jim Davis' Garfield, first introduced in 1978. Online humorist George Ouzounian, creator of the website "The Best Page in the Universe" described Garfield as "the orange merchandising turd that creator Jim Davis pinches out every Sunday in newspapers around the world, traumatizing millions with his bland humor week after tragic week. There's nothing funny about Garfield...Every single comic starts out the same: Garfield sits around being fat, he eats all the food, and his ambiguously gay owner yells at him." Though harsh in his criticism, Ouzounonian isn't off base. Garfield's repertoire includes eating, sleeping, bullying Odie the dog, smashing spiders, befriending mice, and berating his owner Jon who can never, ever seem to get a date. These things may have been funny originally, but in the last twenty-seven years, Garfield's activities have rarely strayed. Honestly, there are only so many funny ways to eat lasagna. Creatively dry for at least a decade, Garfield remains in the comic pages. Why? Because people support the industry that Garfield spawned. Garfield's face is on school supplies, clothing, PEZ dispensers, and even suction-cupped window ornaments. The torch passed from the original vehicle of Garfield's daily strip to the money-making merchandising industry. Other comic strips such as Cathy, Luann, Foxtrot and Dilbert just are not funny anymore. Most jokes stemming from Cathy run along the lines of, "I am a woman who is constantly frazzled - AACK!" Most jokes from Luann are a variation of, "I am a teenage girl who is struggling with issues of popularity and friendship." Dilbert and Foxtrot, like The Simpsons, used to be original, but after all these years of publication all they can muster is the same characters reenacting the same situations with only slight variation. American music also features staggering unoriginality as illustrated by musical trends. Singer Britney Spears became popular in recent years. While her music was far from original, she became so popular that dozens of copycat artists, including Christina Aguilera and Jessica Simpson, cropped up, offering a similar brand of saccharine material. The rock band The White Stripes also reached recent prominence. While their music is essentially an amalgamation of garage rock and blues rock, their execution and presentation is highly creative. Several bands attempted to cash in on this sort of garage rock revival, including The Hives and the Strokes. Neither of these bands outlived The White Stripes' popularity, but the big push to initially release this kind of music illustrates the effect of trends. Trends arise largely out of greed. The thirst for money provides powerful motivation. Though the public initially loves the material, and the bands often make a great deal of money, the trend eventually dies down to pursue another. However so much energy is expended into imitative art instead of creating new, original art, these trends ultimately damage the artistic evolution of our consciousness. If American adolescents listen to imitative music, it results in a subconscious footnote that imitation is equal to creation, that keeping with proven trends is better than the entropy of the unpredictable, the truly original. The cycle self-perpetuates ad infinitum. The two key elements are entropy and stability. Where entropy allows infinite creative possibility, stability allows only regurgitations of well-trodden territory. Without chaos in the picture of popular media creation, all that remains is a stagnancy which benefits nobody and ultimately harms everybody. Hope lives in the David Lynches, Christopher Nolans and Jim Jarmusches - those whose work may be regarded with great esteem by the critical elite but ignored by the general populace. Of course, there will always be the Steven Spielbergs, Steven Soderberghs and George Lucases who will always capitalize off cliches and unoriginality. |
Media's creative stagnancy
Bookmark & Share
