Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

Novelty

No star here laces

13:03 / 12.11.01

What's a good comic?

"Breakthrough" "A new frontier in graphic storytelling" "stunningly original"

What's good music?

"Sounds I've never heard before" "innovative" "pushes the envelope"

What's good generally?

"radically different" "outside the box"

[b]NEW[b]

In our culture new=good. Art is assessed on how unfamiliar it is - the less it resembles anything we've seen, heard or read before, the better it is and the more talented the creator is considered to be.

And, handily enough, this is a very neat fit with the commercial pressures of the modern world.

Need to sell TVs but everyone's already got one? Doesn't matter because new=good.

Need to sell cds but there is already enough back catalogue out there to fill anyone's requirements? Doesn't matter because new=good.

Defend your attachment to novelty.

autopilot disengaged

15:26 / 12.11.01

it's fun.

(uh: i'll post a more thinky answer later).

19:02 / 12.11.01

So where does that leave the thrift-store, grunge-and-antiques, shabby chic generation?

01:10 / 13.11.01

I think autopilot's response is sufficient.

Other things that popped into my mind:
*It's sexy (same response)
*NEW helps the economy we live in (reason for encouraging people to like the new, but not for liking the new yourself)
*Vertical Memes suck. (explanation of new success for the idea of novelty over tradition)
*What are you talking about? "Novelty" is SOOO twentieth century. Get with the times. (Expression of irony coupled with a wink to Grant Morrison's concept of post-nowism)

01:13 / 13.11.01

Oh, incidentally, I keep my copy of Dante's Divine Comedy on the same shelf as the INVISIBLES as well as my Crowley Books. (It makes sense to me) so there's still something to say for classics.

The Sinister Haiku Bureau

06:15 / 13.11.01

In information theory, 'information' is mathematically defined by the inverse-probablity of that particular piece of info ocurring- ie how novel it is. Since all art, be it sonic, visual, or narrative is ultimately a form of information, it seems logical that a high-info-content item is better than a low info-content one.
This info-theory approach also bypasses your post-neo-marxist, created-needs angle regarding it being in the interests of capitalism. Since televisions (in themselves) don't really constitute information, except in the most abstract sense, the need for novelty as you express it is not relevant to this example. Similarly, for grant's comment, since we're ultimately dealing with functional goods, information content is not entirely the point. Also, the act of going for old stuff is, in itself new, and a source of novelty (in the information sense), rather than newness (in the brand-spanking-new-fresh-off-the-assembly-line-smelling-of-plastic sense).

Hope that made sense, I'm kinda in a rush at the mo...

The Return Of Rothkoid

10:38 / 13.11.01

Where would the idea of "retro" fit into this? Is it the process of making something new by repackaging and recontextualising for a new audience, or is it something different?

No star here laces

12:19 / 13.11.01

Surely the interesting thing about retro is that it's an issue at all.

I mean, it's not considered being deliberately 'retro' to like Dickens, is it? Because Dickens is canonically designated as 'classic' and 'quality'.

But post-war cultural items, to me, are constructed fundamentally differently to older cultural items in that novelty is one of their main aims.

So in order to justify liking a piece of postwar culture that is no longer novel we have to invoke a kind of knowing recontextualising approach and call it retro.

My issue with novelty partly revolves around the creation of culture with novelty as a primary goal. I think this throws up an abundance of deeply shallow, poorly constructed art that very quickly hits its sell-by date.

The Return Of Rothkoid

12:32 / 13.11.01

But what if it's that shallow shit that crops up and dies that comes to be recontextualised as retro-cheese? I mean, what if the doldrums in which this critically weak stuff languishes for years and years, before revival, act as some kind of cultural wine-cask in which they mature, or change?

Not saying it's a good thing - just wondering if this is a valid description of the process? That today's disposable shite will gain a heavier status, or more important status in time to come when it's been reinterpreted or repackaged? And could this be operating without any links to culture per se? What if it's all about cash, not about enduring statement on the cultural landscape; does that remove it from culture, or does that only mean that the thrust behind its creation was financial, and some effect on culture is merely a side-effect?

No star here laces

13:10 / 13.11.01

If I've learned one thing from advertising, it's never underestimate the effect that cash has on culture.

If BT can make men talk to each other more by slapping Bob Hoskins on the telly, what effect does it have on people to be constantly bombarded with the message that only novelty will suffice?

The other thing to note about retro is that in the main it is about people going back to the period of their lives they enjoyed most. So the first serious period of 70s retro in Britain started in the early 90s just as the generation who'd been teenagers in the late 70s were hitting 30 and feeling out of touch and out of date - they go back to what seemed novel at the time. Similarly 80s nostalgia kicked off a couple of years ago, and we're now seeing early 90s nostalgia come to the fore ('Old Skool' compilations, remixes of classic house in the charts) as the original rave generation hit the setting-the-table lifestage.

Secondly, it is very easy to parcel this off as a phenomenon that only affects the purely commercial side of culture.

I'd argue that this is actually the least affected field. 'Pop' is virtually unchanged. There is no attempt by the likes of Westlife to be novel.

(side note: novelty here refers to newness, not comedy value for any special boys in the back row)

But intellectual pop music, visual art and, to a lesser extent, narrative artforms are obsessed with 'pushing boundaries' and innovation. Novelty here is seen as an intellectual validation - if it's different it must be creative.

I dunno, just interested in kicking this idea around some. Clearly we need new stuff. But this whole idea of new=good seems to be so utterly pervasive. (and any hippie fuck who speaks up about how they always buy secondhand is completely missing the point if he has a bookcase full of IDM cds and cutting-edge fiction)

13:37 / 13.11.01

quote:Originally posted by Tyrone Mushylaces:
But post-war cultural items, to me, are constructed fundamentally differently to older cultural items in that novelty is one of their main aims.

I'm not entirely sure that this is true; I think the consumption of luxury goods has always been characterised by the pursuit of novelty (usually stemming from a desire to beat the class neighbours). It's just that we notice this type of consumption more these days, partly because so many more people can afford to indulge in it, and partly because communications have improved so exponentially over the last fifty years.

Retrospective cultural artefacts have been around for some time - fashions have often imitated older, 'obsolete' forms (e.g. off the top of my head - Arts and Crafts, 'Liberty' style, Regency classicism, etc). But I really think that the current short turnaround for recycling nostalgia as commercial business can be attributed to increased spending power and (as Ty says) businessmen exploiting the desire to look good, which involves looking new and/or expensive and/or different.

Regrettable Juvenilia

13:51 / 13.11.01

A cultural obsession with novelty is definitely not a recent thing - it can be traced back at least to the Restoration, and comes complete with built-in doubts and questioning about what this obsession with novelty means, even then. And once Haus resurfaces, I'm sure he can tell you that it was around even earlier...

The Return Of Rothkoid

13:59 / 13.11.01

Would you argue, Ty, that there has to be a bad/new event/incident to further culture? Or, rather, something that's unacceptable to most people, but is novel - in order to keep culture percolating? Or in order to break the idea that newness is always necessarily good?

No star here laces

14:10 / 13.11.01

Um, I'm not sure I'd argue anything. I don't really have a position on this.

Basically it comes down to a personal belief that what I find facile and irritating in modern culture often has its roots in the search for novelty.

But then there is probably a good psychological argument that people are probably wired to seek out novelty, so...

14:28 / 13.11.01

not to mention that the search for continued novelty is one of the driving forces behind comodity culture...

The Return Of Rothkoid

16:24 / 13.11.01

Fly; I think in ascribing the search for novelty to the trends exhibited in Regency or earlier times, one may well run the risk of confusing it with the process of development, whether of the "make it new!" sense, or in terms of building-upon-what's-gone-before.

Also, I think it'd be useful to hammer down precisely what the word novelty entails. I can see that it'd be pretty easy to label things as either being a) novel(ties) or b) steps in a development process - the only difference being, surely, the position you're taking to look at it? (ie: at the time the thing is released, or sometime after that). I think it's a confusing area, with (currently) lots of blurring that makes it difficult to work out what's going on.

Ty: Just as regards TVs being bought because they're new - doesn't planned obsolescence come into things like TVs, CD-players and cars moreso than other objects? I think that sometimes, their newness isn't necessarily linked with their novelty - you get a large chunk that're bought as replacements because the manufacturer's planned it that way, surely? Is the newness of high-end televisions diminished by manufacturer plans to retain their market share by building limited lifetimes into their products?

18:58 / 13.11.01

quote:Originally posted by Tyrone Mushylaces:
But then there is probably a good psychological argument that people are probably wired to seek out novelty, so...

To seek out strange, new worlds.....

I think the "newer-is-better" phenomenon is probably linked to technology, especially the recent advances in computers & everything computerized. The transition from Industrial Culture (where solidity and reliability were of prime importance) to the Information Culture (where the latest development so quickly outstrips last year's model). I mean, who uses a 33k modem anymore??
The promise of convenience.

But I still think there's something going on with the shabby chic trend. Maybe it's just reactionary, but in a certain section of society (which includes both my 60-something mother and 40yo young lady) Shabby Chic and Antiques Roadshow are top-rated TV programs.
Call it part of the Martha Stewart phenomenon - making do with things around the house, turning old discards into new objet d'art, traditional homemaking arts.

Maybe it's the appeal of nostalgia. The retro thing did grow out of the thrift store-grunge thing, though.

03:28 / 14.11.01

quote:Originally posted by Tyrone Mushylaces:
Basically it comes down to a personal belief that what I find facile and irritating in modern culture often has its roots in the search for novelty.

Perhaps a list of said would be a more effective method of discovering truth here?

No star here laces

11:09 / 14.11.01

Okay, the way that people who see themselves as intellectual seek out the 'ground-breaking' rather than the 'quality'.

Examples might be: Add N to X, "Timecode".

Also defending bad art by saying "yes, but he was the first one to do it..." So what? Being the first one to produce a pile of steaming faeces is hardly a distinction to be proud of.

The denigration of old people for being 'stuck in their ways'. For fucks sakes: they're 'stuck' in those ways because over the course of a long life they've found that those ways suit them.

People who don't keep up with cultural minutiae being categorised as 'out of touch'. They're in touch with something, just not the new stuff.

The way those big corporate feelgood ads are always saying the company is 'radical' as shorthand for 'good'.

The way every minor development is hailed as a 'revolution'.

The way people always want to believe that right now is the first time something has happened.

With obvious caveat that this is simply a personal list, and that I am certainly as guilty as anyone of expressing these sentiments at some point...