posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 04:55 PM
The concept of the cultural paradigm has been largely anonymized: we don't have to wait for "thought leaders" to introduce a paradigm shift or
identify it when it happens, but in consequence we've also lost the ability to pin-point specific subcultures as the engines of prevailing thought.
One hundred years ago you could point at a single small circle of cafe-goers in a city somewhere in Europe or America and say "These crackpots, what
are they trying now?" and of course what that really means is "These are the vanguard of the next movement in thought." But we can't really do
that anymore, because, through the internet, thinking is a part-time job. Full-time creators are increasingly dominated by for-profit creators, and
their works are designed to suit the market (think Hollywood). Amateurs have unprecedented opportunity, these days, to be the leaders in their fields,
but nobody is going to remember their names.
This isn't just the case in cultural fields, by the way. The same changes are happening across society--what was the last major "popular"
scientific discovery to be attributed to a single person? When the last generation of "classical" (in the cultural sense) physicists dies out, when
the Penroses and the Hawkings are gone, who will we hold up as our "geniuses" then? The more important a paper these days, the more names cover its
first pages. Principle Investigators be damned, everyone gets to take turns.
I think I've diverged from the topic at hand a bit, but I hope you see what I'm getting at.