Yes you’re probably right, the ‘end of history’ perspective that the West has settled into probably has a lot to do with it, too.
I think it can also be explained by the business mindset that’s increasingly applied to creative industries.
I remember once David Cameron encouraging the British film industry to ‘make more films like Harry Potter, because it’s so successful’. Completely failing to understand that creativity withers under that kind of imitative approach. Although in business terms I guess you could argue that he was onto something given the revenue generated through all the superhero films.
Anyway, thanks again for covering the book. Enjoy your weekend... and the new Dolly Parton album.
Just finished listening to the episode and feel I have some explaining to do to justify my suggestion of Ghosts of My Life. Firstly, I should say that I enjoyed listening to your take on the book, even though you weren’t overly keen on it. I think Mark Fisher, at times, uses very relatable cultural examples to explain ideas and concepts that would otherwise be less accessible to non-academics. The part of the book where he uses Amy Winehouse and the Artic Monkeys is a good example of this. Wherein he notes that this ‘new music’ was indistinguishable to him from music released decades earlier. And how this new-but-old sound can serve to make time feel out of joint. But I agree with Tom that he often leans on unnecessarily complex philosophy that doesn’t serve to explain much, certainly not to those of us without a background in Derrida, Foulcault, etc.
It’s been a while since I read the book but the hauntology idea he laid out did help put an explanation to a sense of cultural stagnation I’d felt for some time. The idea that music (and film, tv shows, etc.) has a direction; artists progressively build off one another while also trying out new things - things that often reflect and interpret what is going on in the world at that time. Punk music would be a decent example. It was very much of its time, in that it was addressing the politics and it’s effects during that era. However, some time at the beginning of the 2000s that directionality stalled. As he argues, a lot of music began to look backwards, not for inspiration but more so as imitation or pastiche. This helped me to understand the ‘time out of joint’ quality modern music can have. Many of the musical signifiers The Artic Monkeys, for example, ape in their music belong to a time that has long past. And I think that cultural content stripped of its connection to its time period helps explain why there can be an eerie timelessness to it. That perhaps we don’t have a sense of the new pulling us forward, culturally, as much as we once did. Instead things are stalling. As he says, where are the Kraftwerks of today? Bands who bring something out that feels entirely new and fresh. (There probably are a few examples that exist but I not aware of them).
The explanations he gives for this phenomenon, such as the politics of austerity and the increasing corporatisation of cultural output, did help highlight how capitalism might be affecting music, tv and films today. The book probably suffers from the specific examples he references, because like you, I found most of the music he draws upon for inspiration to be pretty, well, uninspiring.
But I think your mention of nostalgia in relation to Fisher is not that fitting. I don’t think he’s nostalgic for the past, but instead keen to have a present and future that can continue to put out fresh and exciting new content as he felt he had when growing up. To me that’s not nostalgia, he’s just using personal examples to highlight the processes that gave rise to stuff he likes, and how that process and has eroded, and culture has to some degree stagnated as a result.
Anyway, that was my longwinded and tepid defence of the book’s main thesis. But nevertheless I do agree with most of your criticisms, too. Thanks for taking up my suggestion, and I’m looking forward to further episodes because, yes, I am a regular listener :)
Yes you’re probably right, the ‘end of history’ perspective that the West has settled into probably has a lot to do with it, too.
I think it can also be explained by the business mindset that’s increasingly applied to creative industries.
I remember once David Cameron encouraging the British film industry to ‘make more films like Harry Potter, because it’s so successful’. Completely failing to understand that creativity withers under that kind of imitative approach. Although in business terms I guess you could argue that he was onto something given the revenue generated through all the superhero films.
Anyway, thanks again for covering the book. Enjoy your weekend... and the new Dolly Parton album.
Just finished listening to the episode and feel I have some explaining to do to justify my suggestion of Ghosts of My Life. Firstly, I should say that I enjoyed listening to your take on the book, even though you weren’t overly keen on it. I think Mark Fisher, at times, uses very relatable cultural examples to explain ideas and concepts that would otherwise be less accessible to non-academics. The part of the book where he uses Amy Winehouse and the Artic Monkeys is a good example of this. Wherein he notes that this ‘new music’ was indistinguishable to him from music released decades earlier. And how this new-but-old sound can serve to make time feel out of joint. But I agree with Tom that he often leans on unnecessarily complex philosophy that doesn’t serve to explain much, certainly not to those of us without a background in Derrida, Foulcault, etc.
It’s been a while since I read the book but the hauntology idea he laid out did help put an explanation to a sense of cultural stagnation I’d felt for some time. The idea that music (and film, tv shows, etc.) has a direction; artists progressively build off one another while also trying out new things - things that often reflect and interpret what is going on in the world at that time. Punk music would be a decent example. It was very much of its time, in that it was addressing the politics and it’s effects during that era. However, some time at the beginning of the 2000s that directionality stalled. As he argues, a lot of music began to look backwards, not for inspiration but more so as imitation or pastiche. This helped me to understand the ‘time out of joint’ quality modern music can have. Many of the musical signifiers The Artic Monkeys, for example, ape in their music belong to a time that has long past. And I think that cultural content stripped of its connection to its time period helps explain why there can be an eerie timelessness to it. That perhaps we don’t have a sense of the new pulling us forward, culturally, as much as we once did. Instead things are stalling. As he says, where are the Kraftwerks of today? Bands who bring something out that feels entirely new and fresh. (There probably are a few examples that exist but I not aware of them).
The explanations he gives for this phenomenon, such as the politics of austerity and the increasing corporatisation of cultural output, did help highlight how capitalism might be affecting music, tv and films today. The book probably suffers from the specific examples he references, because like you, I found most of the music he draws upon for inspiration to be pretty, well, uninspiring.
But I think your mention of nostalgia in relation to Fisher is not that fitting. I don’t think he’s nostalgic for the past, but instead keen to have a present and future that can continue to put out fresh and exciting new content as he felt he had when growing up. To me that’s not nostalgia, he’s just using personal examples to highlight the processes that gave rise to stuff he likes, and how that process and has eroded, and culture has to some degree stagnated as a result.
Anyway, that was my longwinded and tepid defence of the book’s main thesis. But nevertheless I do agree with most of your criticisms, too. Thanks for taking up my suggestion, and I’m looking forward to further episodes because, yes, I am a regular listener :)