Intro

I've wrote extensively on Disney and the current state of Hollywood, among other companies responsible for most modern media, but as they say "don't hate the player, hate the game" -- I believe it's perfectly fine to hate the player, but it's still more important and impactful to criticise the root cause of an issue, which is why I've written this essay. I'm of the belief that contemporary art's artificial feeling is due to capitalism.

Before I properly explain this stance, I must make other things as clear as possible. When I say art, I mean literature, cinema, music and video games. They are what primely dominate our culture, and thus the most relevant. To say that art has been killed is also over dramatics -- you most likely raised your eyebrows at such a claim as there is of course the indie scene. I'm fully aware of independent creators, but indie projects are more niche and one has to go out of their way to fine those projects. Media produced by large companies also overshadows them, and reaches the wider audience unlike independent art. I don't believe that art is yet a corpse, but rather on life-support and on the verge of having the plug pulled (though having that as the title would be no where as near as catchy and quite lengthy).

For some reason, people immediately assume that criticism of one system means you have absolute belief in the opposite, and so anyone who has a slight distain for contemporary capitalism is smeared with the label "communist" as a way to refute any point said person has. For a start, there are different branches of communism, with the USSR having been Leninist-Marxism and eventually Stalinist. This was a totalitarian system which couldn't be called communism as there's still a socio-economic class, but much more drastic then what we're used to. There are branches of communism which aren't totalitarian and reject Leninism, Stalinism and Trotskyism, such as libertarian communism. Communist shouldn't be a word which immediately scares someone and is often falsely attributed to things. I'm also not a communist anyway, though still fall into the socialist label.

Finally, this is most likely the first of many other writings within this subject. I have much more to say in relation which would most likely feel out of place here, so I'd rather have it be a separate essay. Please view this merely as part of a bigger discussion and view, rather than being completely self-contained. With all of that out of the way, let's begin.

A brief look at the current state of art and entertainment

From the 2010s there has been a noticeable shift within media. A gradual change from original works to remakes, sequel, prequels and other expansions to an existing property has took place and now dominates movies. Any cinephile will tell you that this is the case and you've most likely noticed this yourself. Rather than seeing a trailer for a new and unique Disney movie, you'll be greeted by a CGI "live-action" remake of a beloved classic you have nostalgia for [1].

This is also observable in the videogame industry. To argue that they re-use the same characters would be low-hanging fruit: due to constant technological enhancements and new hardware, it makes sense that a company would want to use a character in a different way. For example, the NES was a very limited console and so the original The Legend Of Zelda was affected: with later instalments they created larger worlds and added much more to the Zelda experience. This is the case with many first entries in a game series: they're more so experiments in what a series could be like than an over-and-done experience. Instead, what I wish to point out about videogames currently is the remasters and remakes, and also over-saturation of the same franchises (e.g. annual releases of Call Of Duty, Fifa games, etc). A new Nintendo Direct was released recently and I was rather shocked by the pure amount of visually-upgraded Switch ports of older games.

Hollywood and videogames are the most noticeably affected by this nostalgia disease, but it is present within music and literature. The music industry is bloated with Swift's presence alone, who's had her foot stuck in the door for years and is currently re-releasing all of her old music whilst slapping "Taylor's version" onto each song, but besides from her what artist truly sticks in your mind from recent years? Name one which has truly revolutionised the scene -- you may say BTS or some other idol group, but I'll combat that in a later part. So, besides that, within online spheres music is plagued by the existence of "revival groups" which do nothing with their existence besides wishing to emulate some other band from decades ago. They don't want to be different, they don't want to innovate or be unique: they're satisfied with their position as a worse version of Metallica.

Today's literature is sanitised slop -- look at the best-selling novels of recent years and notice the covers utilising a corporate, soulless art-style. Each book has a plot highly reminiscent of each other (to be lenient of course, for it's better suited to say they're all the same novel).

Thus is the end of a quick refreshment of how things currently are, as means of providing context for all that I will say. Now, let's go through how capitalism has caused these results in each case.

Capitalism's affect on cinema, explained

Everyone is aware of the constant remakes, sequels and other abominations gracing the silver screen and I believe it should be obvious to all that the reason for this is that it's an easy win for a studio to make projects based on existing franchises.

Let's place ourselves in the shoes of Disney to understand why a company would have their actions despite constant fan backlash. At the end of the day, Disney is a business and wishes to turn a profit. They own many IPs and each time something new has been added to these franchises they have had nothing but mountains of money, even as fans complain they continue to buy tickets at cinemas in order to view the movie purely to criticise it -- but they are still giving the business their money, thus encouraging the content. It's completely logical for a monopoly like Disney to continue as they have been, as it's been continuously successful.

This may seem like a criticism of Disney as a company rather than a criticism of capitalism, and you are somewhat correct: but, if Disney weren't a group having to survive and hold relevance in a capitalist system, they would never have resorted to this tactic.

Within capitalism, the highest priority for every company is to make a profit. Even if Disney initially wanted to make a genuinely great piece of art, the work is a product first, good movie second. A product's worth is then evaluated by how much it sells, and in order to sell more, they must market to the widest demographic possible.

During the 90s, Disney did have a hold over most of the market whilst still making original projects, as they appealed to the family unit: their movies could be enjoyed by child or adult and involved near universally relatable themes. It may then seem logical that Disney could still have large control over the market by continuing this tactic in contemporary times -- but, unfortunately, it wouldn't work. As time has gone on, more companies have appeared to compete within the animation industry, all of which attempting to gain the most money. Disney has more enemies, and the simple family unit is no longer enough to produce the most profit. Families have a limited amount of money (especially in current times) and will see only a certain amount of movies, some of which not being by Disney. Of course, competitors won't be the only factor: Disney will of course want to continue making more and more money, with the income constantly increasing.

Nostalgia is one of the most powerful ways to entice consumers into wanting your product: by simply viewing their remake or sequel they can once again be a child. Not just Disney, but Hollywood in general have realised this and built an empire based on nostalgia. Regardless of the quality of the product, by playing off the nostalgia of many they can secure as much profit as possible.

Even though cinema is objectively a form of art, because it is produced and governed by businesses it is diluted to a product and means of making profit. The product doesn't need to be of any artistic merit as long as it makes money, and this is why the current state of Hollywood feels soulless.

This problem of art being made by businesses leaks into music, videogames and literature also, and is what I'll discuss next.

Capitalism's affect on videogames, music and literature, explained

I believe that in the previous chapter, the reasoning which I used can be applied to any art form managed by a business, not just Hollywood, but I think it'd be best to provide other examples outside of this, to demonstrate that it's a phenomena apparent in other industries.

As stated in chapter two, videogames are currently polluted with remasters, remakes, sequels, and things of the same ilk. If a game isn't from a pre-existing franchise, it's made to be as marketable as possible. First-person shooters, racing, etc, tend to have a lack of story (or, a lack of detailed and interesting story, to be more accurate) and are quick to letting players get in on the action to satisfy the demands of the majority. The difficulty is significantly lower than what it used to be, so players' attention isn't diverted and to allow constant feelings of success to the player by not allowing them to lose or get frustrated. If this formula wasn't marketable to most people, then Call Of Duty wouldn't be anywhere as near as popular as it is. If videogames didn't follow this, then each game would have a smaller, more niche fanbase, which would result in less profit for the business. This would be undesirable, and so these more niche games aren't commonly made.

Music is an interesting topic in relation to the quality drop found in most modern art. Music is perhaps the most subjective form of art, with what some would call great being deafening to me and vice versa, but I believe I speak for most when I say that music from the last decade has had an artificial sound. Besides Swift's dominance, the most notable newer artists are those within the K-Pop and J-Pop scene. Alas, they are also corporate. Throughout the decades, idols and boybands/girlgroups have risen. Each member being a highly manufactured personality, bearing more resemblance to a fictional character than human, in order to market towards as many people as possible. Songs aren't written by the performers but, most commonly, a hireable songwriter who works to create the most catchy, sanitised song which matches the manufactured personality's image. It may seem like "Swedish songwriters" is thrown around, but there is considerable truth to it. For example, Swift has worked with the Swedish songwriter Max Martin to write her song "Shake It Off" [2]. In fact, Martin is a song writing machine, having worked on songs for Maroon 5 and Katy Perry.

Once again, this highly manufactured way of making music is the result of it being a business, and music is viewed as the product intended to be sold to as many as possible, rather than a work of art.

Saying that literature is being affected by capitalism may raise the eyebrows of those not well acquainted with the current happenings in the scene, but I can assure that it's true. Those who are active in "BookTok" and "BookTube" feel inadequate as readers if they don't buy many books within short amounts of time, even if they don't read these books. The publishing industry has noticed the pro-consumerist atmosphere of the community and have took advantage of this, by publishing any trash they can find, making the cover pretty and selling them as special editions in order to make profit off of people who never end up reading that book and thus will never discover it's actually trash. To make matters worse, the publishing industry is currently dominated by Amazon. Having one business have complete control over an industry is never a good thing: for a start, it means a lack of diversity in the genre and story sense, as the business will most likely pick favourites in what it wishes to sell. Also, it means that anyone who doesn't wish to publish under Amazon has no chance in finding an audience for their book, as no one will find out about it. This means that Amazon can control what everyone reads, which means what knowledge the public is allowed. If a book is critiquing a certain ideology Amazon aligns with, they can simply not publish it so no one will hear this critique regardless of how valid that critique may be.

Conclusion

I will conclude by repeating myself once again when stating that by having a business produce forms of art it instead becomes nothing more than a way to profit than a project imbued with passion. I believe that with the examples of different industries I have here, this is quite evident. Capitalism views each and every thing as a good to be sold and nothing more, and due to the system's constant need to make more and more products to make more and more money, it results in these products being artificial and marketable to all yet none. This is incredibly concerning as to the state of art and expression of individuals, as it's continuously suppressed in the name of profits. This is why there has been a visible decline in the entertainment industry.

I believe that in order for art to be returned to a former glory, it must be removed from the grasp of businesses.

Notes

1: Even when there is an original work being released, it's been known that Disney avoids advertising it. This is most obvious in the case of Strange World, which received almost no promotion, resulting in no one paying to see it in theatres as they weren't aware of it's existence. Instead, remakes and sequels receive high amounts of money for advertising. There're of course exceptions: "Wish" had a rather high budget and a little promotion, but it pandered to it's viewers by constant throwbacks to previous Disney movies, making the company believe that it had a higher chance of succeeding in the box office as it used nostalgia bait.

2: Despite personal bitterness towards Swift, she does work on quite a few of her own songs. She may have help from other songwriters, but not to the same point as other modern musicians.