
Kom over en interessant diskusjon av fenomenet hype. Nettmagasinet n+1 ser på den evige runddansen med opphausing, avstandstaging og så ny kanonisering i musikken med et blikk for omdømmeøkonomien i det hele:
No, the problem with hype is that it transforms the use value of a would-be work of art into its exchange value. For in the middle (there’s no end) of the hype cycle, the important thing is no longer what a song, movie, or book does to you. The big question is its relationship to its reputation. So instead of abandoning yourself to the artifact, you try to exploit inefficiencies in the reputation market. You can get in on the IPO of a new artist, and trumpet the virtues of the Arctic Monkeys before anyone else has heard of them: this is hype. Or you issue a “sell” recommendation on the overhyped Arctic Monkeys: this is backlash. But there are often steals to be found among recently unloaded assets: “Why’s everybody hatin’ on the Arctic Monkeys?” says the backlash-to-the-backlash. The sophisticated trader is buying, selling, and holding different reputations all at once; the trick in each case is to stay ahead of the market. And the rewards from this trade in reputations redound to your own reputation: even though the market (i.e., other people) dictates your every move, you seem to be a real individual thinking for yourself.
Det virker kanskje litt kynisk, men det grunnleggende poenget i essayet er at fokuset på hva andre måtte tenke kommer i veien for en «ekte» opplevelse av kultur. Nå kan man jo si at troen på en slags «ekte» måte å oppleve kultur på («jeg hører aldri på mp3-filer») også er falsk, men er det ikke noe slående her likevel? Som det står i essayet: «The strange thing is that we are not glad when other people like what we like, or vice versa.» Enda godt ingen leser denne bloggen, ellers ville vel vi vært medskyldige i hype-maskineriet på et eller annet nivå…
Kommentarer