An excellent article covering the meaning technology adds to, or subtracts from, elements of culture as it is today. Whether or not culture is truly "monolithic" depends on which parts are considered.
Does the Internet put a different spin on what a culture is?
Instant and ubiquitous transmission around the globe flattens distinctions among cultures, but constantly emerging countertrends oppose the current culture reducing its longevity. 21st century culture is in constant ferment, "pop" cultures have a much shorter, and less distinguished, shelf life.
The idea of an "aura" emanating from a Rembrandt has merit, though comparable art of current era has hardly any value in the cultural or commercial marketplace. Instead, as pointed out, the aura is granted to celebrities in all domains, appearing and leaving, and unlike Rembrandt, there's no museum to view them 400 hours or years after fading from the scene.
The shame is there is no value to assign if a thing can't persist. How do we preserve our artifacts that will tell who we were to people 100 years from now? Those living today can't know what will be important, or called valuable, a century down the road, and we should not try to decide ahead of time because we can't.
IOW our self-evaluation of contemporary culture is hampered by impossibility of seeing what is invisible. The value of the things we produce, of present culture itself, won't be decided for 50 to 100 years from now, if any trace is still around. The jury is out and we won't be around to hear the verdict.
Does the Internet put a different spin on what a culture is? Instant and ubiquitous transmission around the globe flattens distinctions among cultures, but constantly emerging countertrends oppose the current culture reducing its longevity. 21st century culture is in constant ferment, "pop" cultures have a much shorter, and less distinguished, shelf life.
The idea of an "aura" emanating from a Rembrandt has merit, though comparable art of current era has hardly any value in the cultural or commercial marketplace. Instead, as pointed out, the aura is granted to celebrities in all domains, appearing and leaving, and unlike Rembrandt, there's no museum to view them 400 hours or years after fading from the scene.
The shame is there is no value to assign if a thing can't persist. How do we preserve our artifacts that will tell who we were to people 100 years from now? Those living today can't know what will be important, or called valuable, a century down the road, and we should not try to decide ahead of time because we can't.
IOW our self-evaluation of contemporary culture is hampered by impossibility of seeing what is invisible. The value of the things we produce, of present culture itself, won't be decided for 50 to 100 years from now, if any trace is still around. The jury is out and we won't be around to hear the verdict.