FIFTEEN "NANOSECONDS" OF FAME?

In the later part of the last century, Andy Worhol coined the phrase, "Fifteen-minutes of fame." He was pointing out that media was such a strong force in the world, that everyone on the planet would have fifteen-minutes of notoriety . . . that would be all.

The media is powerful enough to reach everyone on the planet, but it will not provide any single individual with lasting fame. That was then, when the world was slower and less media-intense.

Andy died before the Internet was a available to the masses. I am sure he would have something clever to say about the proliferation of new forms of media these days. Perhaps he would think there would only be fifteen nanoseconds of fame. Fifteen minutes is an eternity by comparison. I mean, just think of how many Youtube spots there are to view. How does any single video rise to the top of that dog-pile? And, who in the world has the time or the opportunity to view them all?

In conversations about the arts and entertainment, I have often heard people comment about how nearly impossible it is to make anything that is meaningful to the masses, in any long-term sense. Ours is a throw-away society that tastes everything and digests nothing. All it seems to produce is massive amounts of waste. I wonder, are we receiving any nutrition from our gluttonous consumption of everything new?

My son-in-law, at lunch today, quoted someone who had said that there use to be one-hundred great bands, each with ten-thousand fans. Now we see ten-thousand bands, each with one-hundred fans. It is true. How can fame find anyone in a world such as this, yet our culture continues to morph in this fashion.

So, is any form of longevity possible . . . for art, for knowledge, for culture, for society, for religion, for individuals? Is it possible to leave a legacy for the generations that will follow us? Or, does this contemporary pastiche mean that all that which was classical and time-honored is no longer relevant? Does relevance exist for anything that is not part of the wave of the nuevo-culture?

If only that which is new and novel is valued, what hope is there for cultural continuity through time? Is cultural continuity even a value in this nation anymore? What will the perpetual-change-machinery of pop-culture, technology, and media produce for our world in the next fifty years? Will this tsunami of the "new" wash away earlier cultures and replace them with anything worthy to be called culture . . . in the old sense of that term? Is history relevant?

I'm reminded of the words of Jeremiah, the Jewish prophet, who said, "This is what the LORD says: Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls. But you said, 'We will not walk in it.' Jer 6:16 NIV

What does it mean to be out-of-date, old-fashioned, antiquated? Is there such a thing as "going-back" in order to go forward? If one misses one's intended off-ramp on the freeway, is it "progress" to keep going? Is it enlightened to think that all off-ramps lead to the same destination? If you were going to keep something from the past in such a world of change as ours what kind of thing(s) would you keep. What ancient things might one always consider to be contemporary?

Any nanothoughts?