Similar, yet different
-
Vincent, I agree with your point that our view of the past (and the products of it) is filtered by the test of time. I do not see that as proving my original point wrong, though. I am not aware of any profoundly brilliant and groundbreaking music being produced these days. I do know that in the past such things happened. While pondering your lucid argument, I realized an important piece of the puzzle. The "lives" of music and software (to speak figuratively) are very different. Music evolves while software progresses. The distinction between these two concepts is subtle, but important in this context. Evolution is not necessarily directed or aiming to acheive some form of perfection. Evolution is the process of adapting to changing circumstances in the best way possible. Art evolves. It is a reaction to the social climate, the passions, the hardships in life. On the other hand, software progresses. The life of software is, largely, directed toward processing information and providing services to people, businesses, etc. Software is intricately linked to money. Software has a very different place in this world than art (despite the fact that software can be art!!). Of course there is overlap between the two realms, but I definitely see the two entities as existing in separate spaces. This distinction ties into and supports my original argument, yet forces me to modify it somewhat. I can no longer say that the future of music is eternally dismal and bound for endless pandering, but that it is in a slump. Concurrently the life of software (that constant ascent into betterment) is inevitably looking better and better. Could the artistic slump I'm describing be attributed to this society's fleeting interest in the arts? By the same token, is that a reasonable explanation for why the life of software improves faster than you can say XAML? :) Or perhaps I'm just superimposing a self-critique onto the "outside world"... Josh
I'm not sure that it doesn't take distance to recognize a work as profoundly brilliant and groundbreaking. Shakespeare's audience at the time probably left the theatre with not the faintest clue that 400 years later people all over the world would be performing the play they just saw. Ditto for all the classics, Bach to Zappa. And you can't even apply the "pandering" standard to determine great music; Mozart wrote operas in "vulgar" languages, purely to appeal to the masses. Shakespeare's plays are pretty much all aimed at the popular audiences at the time -- full of sex, murder, and all those other fine things upon which pop culture is constructed. The level of craftsmanship in their work is one of the things that has allowed them to live on, but it seems like there's more at work. I think the present (and future) of music just seem dismal because we're constantly being bombarded by the 90% that is crap. I hope that's it, anyway. Interesting point, BTW, regarding evolution vs. progression. I think the definition of evolution that you give -- the process of adapting to changing circumstances in the best way possible -- is actually an aspect of extreme programming, so I'm not sure that's how I would differentiate the two. I do like the word "directed", though. Most art is not directed, most programming is, but the sets are not discrete. I've been a part of some directed art projects, and some (even intentionally) undirected programming projects.
-
You do realize that the Internet version of Sturgeon's Law is "99.997% of everything on the web is crap"?
Software Zen:
delete this;I think Sturgeon's law should be refined to reflect current observational data. The 99.997% figure does seem about right...