But it is undeniable that there are certain periods, often quite brief, during which cultural expression flourishes in distinctive ways. What makes this possible? The bear is advancing a half-baked theory, that Change, Sincerity, and Freedom are the necessary ingredients.
Change, because the reproduction of static forms, no matter how perfect, does not result in new art or new combinations. This is why all art eventually congeals (becomes Jell-O really). Look at classical, jazz, or rock music, all essentially gone today as vital genres where one might expect to find new discoveries.
Freedom, because, well, you have to be able to get those new thoughts out. Often this freedom is delayed, especially with writers writing "for the drawer", putting down their most intimate thoughts that could not pass through the censors or find acceptance in their own times. Bulgakov, Babel, Kafka, Platonov, the list is quite long... But the artist must create with freedom. The Soviet works deformed by censorship were much less interesting that those written "for the drawer".
Sincerity, which is perhaps the most interesting ingredient. This does not mean that the artist must be upbeat, positive, or even truthful. But they must create with a true belief in the meaning of their art to express, make change, or even just entertain. This is related to the process of decadence in art. The commercial imperative can often destroy sincerity, since it introduces another layer into artistic decisions other than passion and belief. When a genre is new and growing, the commercial imperative can often be satisfied without constraining sincerity, but that usually does not last.
Ok, end of theory. What about some examples?
Why has American/British pop/rock music gradually faded away to irrelevance after peaking in the late 60s? Because Change/Freedom/Sincerity in popular music were also all at their peak in the 60s. And by repeating the same forms, newcomers cannot hope to exceed the early exemplars whose elan evoked such excitement. Hendrix > Hynde > Hives.
Why did Russian Popsa/Estrada music undergo a similar, if much briefer flourishing? Freedom came late, but many took the opportunity and the music burst forth as if under pressure, with Kino (Кино) leading the way. Under this environment, even blockbusters can express sincerity [think Brother (Брат) with Nautilus Pompilius (Наутилус Помпилиус)]. Then a gradual descent, through some still entertaining sounds, because they still had sincerity. Nearly last in this line is something like Koshki Mishki by Cuba (Кошки-мышки/ КУБА). [Another aside, apparently the lead singer of Cuba has resurfaced, singing a cover of a better original by Gorod 312/Город 312]
And in the end, creativity wanes and a cynical shock value emerges, "celebrating", if that is the word, the most banal elements of life. Exhibit A for this is the horrendous Стиль собачки by Потап и Настя (and Бьянка), which I will not dignify with a link or a translation. Or Anaconda, or any Miley Cyrus exhibition. It doesn't really matter what talent is brought to bear at this point, if the end is just making money by attracting eyeballs.
I am afraid K-pop will reach this point at some point as well, and I will have to jump off, leaving only bright memories. Right now, there is a virtuous circle of growing interest, growing experimentation, and waves of talent with the requisite "sincerity" (some are more sincere than others). To use "freedom" in the context of K-pop is not quite right, and perhaps the lack of freedom results in a lack of deep meaning in K-pop, but K-pop is at least in a free phase of its evolution. But one can see the vast commercial machinery surrounding the industry ready to clamp down and push towards tawdry sensationalism. At least this is not the dominant trend there yet.
Perhaps NJ Kpopper will revisit this topic in the future with more film and literature examples.
