Timeliness
More and more I seem to enjoy entertainment, and aspects of life in general, that are not timely. Not necessarily things that are timeless, but things that don’t have to be experienced right away lest they fade from consciousness, only to return on viewing an episode of some VH1 blast-from-the-past TV special. Maybe it could be described as what separates pop culture from art, but I don’t think the two can be defined that easily. Maybe I simply feel that if something is worth experiencing, then the time to experience it should be flexible. Whether it is watching a television show that aired 13 years ago on DVD, reading a book written 40 years ago, or listening to music composed 200 years ago (see my next three entries for examples of each), if it was worth experiencing when it was first created, then it will still be worth experiencing now and in the future.
John R. Frangakis replied:
Very interesting entry, Bob! I guess the one comment that I would have is that while things may still be worth watching, time may not be as kind to them. I guess it is this whole pop culture vs. art debate.
I believe a prime example of this is the Shrek series of movies. I have heard many people state that Shrek 2 and most likely Shrek the Third (coming this May) were/are far better than the first Shrek movie. However, I feel the original was much less rooted in pop culture and current events, and as a result will stand the test of time much better.
April 28, 2007 9:57 pm at 9:57 pm. Permalink.
bobsala replied:
Shrek is a good example, as the first movie was more of a fairly tale and the second was filled with turn of the 21st century references.
But I am also referring to enjoying things that don’t need to be experienced right away. Even two years later you can still enjoy Shrek 2. But two years later, who wants to watch The Apprentice Season 2? Not me, even though at the time I was very interested in watching The Apprentice and made sure I tuned in every week.
April 29, 2007 10:45 am at 10:45 am. Permalink.