Are the 1960s more nostalgic or historic?

[M'Sharak]

The hippy thing happened at at the end of the 60s.

To be precise, 1967 was the year of the so-called “Summer of Love” in San Francisco’s Haight-Ashbury district, where the hippie thing started.

And 1967 was the year of the "Death of the Hippie" ceremony, also in the Haight (where the hippie thing started.) The "Summer of Love" scene had a short shelf life.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ But it was part of a longer-term cultural trend that began with the Beatniks and extended into the early 70s.

^^ I agree. Usually there's a cultural renaissance every forty years (e.g. the 20s, the 60s), but the last cycle never happened. It may have been the terrorist attacks that threw things off, or it may be that the addition of the Internet to our culture has disrupted things, I don't know; but I hope the next rebel generation arrives soon.

But maybe it did. What's different about the millennial culture? It's a culture of technological seclusion. We are a culture tucked safely away in our social media, to the point where the average citizen has it on their person at all times. Facebook, internet dating, youtube, netflix, etc...

I can't even get through an 8 hour shift without seeing at least 10 people pulling out their cell, complete with data plan, to do something, & I work at a hospital. That IS our renaissance, just as profound a cultural occurrence as the civil rights protests & drop out Hippie culture of the 60's or the anti-prohibition culture of the 20's were, & I can't even begin to fathom what the cultural reaction to it will be, decades down the line, but I expect it to be equally as profound, & reactionary.

Rest assured, before I die, some 30 to 50 years from now (Hopefully) I expect to see a BIG cultural change, that is a reaction to this current era & it may not be pretty

That occurred to me, but I think the Internet is more akin to the industrial revolution-- a big change, but in a different way. Cultural revolutions, like those of the 20s and 60s, are accompanied by great outbursts of creativity and paradigm shifts. In those terms, this decade has been stagnant. My fear, actually, is that the rise of Internet culture has somehow short circuited cultural renewal.

 

[Venardhi]

Oh, there has been plenty of creativity on display this decade, but one of the major side effects of the internet has been to dilute the importance of art. With the right program I can make a song with little to no musical knowledge or talent. With a microphone I can have a radio show, no matter if I have something worthwhile to say or not. I can publish a story or put up an art gallery of my work and neither has to be any good. It used to be that people got paid to filter out the good stuff for us, now we have to shovel the shit ourselves and see just how much there is.

 

[MANT!]

Temporal Flux said

There is one last thing to consider - television. Television did not hit its stride until 1960 (most notably the first ever televised presidential debate between Nixon / Kennedy). In my opinion, television has made a greater impression on the general public than any other medium before it; and that impression started in earnest in 1960 (going as far as affecting the outcome of the presidential election by many arguments).

I still believe the 60's influence will fade as the generation ages; we are in the last great surge of 60's influence. However , I believe the 60's influence has been more powerful because of television.

I agree, I was born in the very early 60s therefore my view of that decade is rather
stilted..but television shows from that period appear to have a rather long life..after all this board wouldn't exist without one product of 60s TV having sufficent legs to entertain year after year..

 

[RJDiogenes]

Oh, there has been plenty of creativity on display this decade,

There's plenty of creativity in any decade, but that's not the same as having a cultural renaissance.

but one of the major side effects of the internet has been to dilute the importance of art. With the right program I can make a song with little to no musical knowledge or talent. With a microphone I can have a radio show, no matter if I have something worthwhile to say or not. I can publish a story or put up an art gallery of my work and neither has to be any good. It used to be that people got paid to filter out the good stuff for us, now we have to shovel the shit ourselves and see just how much there is.

That's a good thing. There shouldn't be people telling us what's good and what isn't. It's great that independent creators can now bring their material to an audience without having to seek corporate validation-- in fact, one of the best things about the Internet is that it has allowed me to meet so many incredibly talented people who would have remained unknown in the old world. And it's no problem for me to do the shoveling; I'm used to thinking for myself. That doesn't diminish the importance of art-- it gives greater importance to the artist.

 

[Venardhi]

It makes it difficult for the overall culture to glom onto trends and revolution. There is something to be said for "If everyone is special, then no one is."

 

[RJDiogenes]

Everyone isn't special, but the Internet gives everyone the chance to be visible and be judged. But you certainly have a point about it making it difficult for the overall culture to glom onto trends. That may be exactly why the 40-year cycle has been disrupted. The threshold for revolution may have been raised too high.