This blows my mind. Me and Björn had a discussion about Internet flame-hate-wars-things, where people dedicate a lot of time to hating and insulting each other, and came into webcomics, which are a hot potato. Encyclopedia Dramatica points out that lulz and anti-lulz complement each other, which seems to be true in the case of webcomics as each webcomic with a fanbase has a complementing anti-fanbase of approximately the same size. For everyone who loves a certain comic enough to read it often, there is someone who hates it enough to spend lots of time bashing it.
Now observe how self-referential our culture has gone. This is a truly stunning example of how impossibly convoluted Internet Culture can be.
First we have the webcomic, Dominic Deegan. Following this up, the people of the Internets have made a parody on Dominic Deegan, called Dominic Durgan., presumably due to disliking Dominic Deegan and wanting to poke fun on it. Then, this very same guy has made a review of his own comic which is done to parodize his review of Dominic Deegan. And then, finally, this.
This baffles me to no end. Our entire culture has gone ouroboros. It's like we've built up this cultural tower, slowly, during the centuries, and now are speed-building a rickety cultural skyscraper on earlier foundations. Now it's culture to bash people who bash artworks which in turn are impossible to understand outside our cultural foundation. If we finally make contact with aliens, they'll have to read, watch and play every work of fiction since the Bible to even make some sense out of us. Wow.
6 kommentarer:
The art of passing on history down generations was bound to backfire on us sometime. I mean, imagine people who go to school year 2500. How damned much history will they have to learn? If the history teachers of the future have the same average skills of today, the future will have problems.
Wait... how did that relate to this... oh, right. Reading millions of stuff to understand one little thing. Hopefully, aliens will be smart enough to sort out the stuff they need to understand, and the stuff that's just people with too much time and too little brains. ^^
Well when it comes to future history lessons, I don't see how that would be a problem. Nowadays we don't learn everything in history, we have to make a selection of what's important for us in this age to know. A hundred years ago they also made this selection, but with a different result. It has always been a matter of priority.
I hope they prioritize webcomics, then...
But the more people prioritize, the bigger the risk that it gets totally fucked up. Kids today already learn completely fucked up stuff instead of real history, and much end up in them knowing a date and a name but not really what happened or why.
I'm sure 11th century historians had a similar conversation; it must have appaled them that by the 16th century, people would not longer study in detail the specific reasons why the upper nobility of Exeter County was less willing than the rest of England to contribute financially to the Second Crusade. It probably did not occur to them that by the 21st century, most people would no longer study the Seconnd Crusade at all.
My point is that history filters out what is relevant, which is a good thing, not a bad thing. Yes, by 2500 A.D. things we find important today will be neglected by history courses. The very simple reason is that they will no longer be relevant, and perhaps they never were. Rather, historians will see with greater clarity which events were consequential and which were impertinent. The passing of time strengthens, rather than weakens, history as a discipline.
I guess you're right. Well, I blame my comment on my complete mistrust for society, as well as myself getting old... I keep saying things like "kids today"! *grumble*
Skicka en kommentar