“We disagree on the ability of the individual to enact controls to render an acceptable residual risk.“
I think we may be speaking at cross purposes here. My point (however poorly made) is that Cardi B represents the continuation of the slide into moral decay and that slide is perpetuated by the failure of individuals to, in your words, “enact controls” (demonstrate social responsibility toward their neighbors).
On another note, the very definition of art and the artist has changed (from producing that which is ennobling to a “pushing the envelope” attitude). That we are sitting here and may be entertaining the notion of things like WAP being “art” or people like a Cardi B being an artist says everything one needs to know about where we are as a society.
And they banned Amos and Andy. This crap is promoted by record producer executives. In a meeting with Bill Bennet one walked out because Bennet used the B word. In order not to offend anyone I’ll only describe it as the name of a lunch meat and a city in Italy.
“Since naught so stockish, hard, and full of rage, (like a block of wood; stupid.)
But music for the time doth change his nature.
The man that hath no music in himself,
Nor is not moved with concord of sweet sounds,
Is fit for treasons, stratagems, and spoils.
The motions of his spirit are dull as night,
And his affections dark as Erebus. (often conceived as a primordial deity, representing the personification of darkness)
Let no such man be trusted. Mark the music.”
I *do* agree, that Cardi B is way worse than Brittany Spears and way worse than Madonna, who in their day were way worse than their predecessors. I also believe culture is generally more coarse nowadays than 40 years ago. Finally, if I had a young teenage child, I'd keep that child as far away from Cardi B (and most bands on XM Octane).
However, it's not a slam dunk that Cardi B's getting 120MM views on YouTube is prima facie evidence of the moral decay. To wit: how do we compare this level of morality with that of young teenagers in the 1970s who didn't have YouTube to stream pornographic imagery? To be sure, they were likely looking at Dad's Playboys (and worse) but we weren't getting a continuous tally of Johnnys around the world peeking at Miss June on TV in 1976. Maybe there WERE 120MM instances of teenage guys looking at Dad's mags...if so, would that mean that our level of moral decline isn't all that awful?
The impact of technology on morality is an important consideration. But it has to be a multi-dimensional discussion. The technological advancements that bring filth to our phones also bring us Mass on Sunday during lockdown an explosion of office productivity begotten by Excel and Word (PowerPoint is poison, however), the ability to stay in touch with grandparents in a manner whereby they aren't as lonely (and children stay connected to their elders), and homeschool easily, so on. Cardi B is certainly repulsive, and 120MM views is disconcerting, as is a whole Billboard article on this trash. But more people are able to provide more for their families and educate them away from government schools. Are we net-net, more decadent?
Prescinding from that discussion, I think what passes as 'art' today is pretty much the same as it was in the 1960s. The advent of "modern art" stretched the boundaries and, in large measure, with decent results. Personally I love ancient Greek pottery AND Andy Warhol. But while there will always be a market for really awful things like Mapplethorpe and this 'performance art' from Yoko, no serious human of which I'm aware consider this crap or WAP to be 'art.'
Thanks for listening.