Years ago, I remember seeing a documentary about New York City that contained a scene with former well known mayor Ed Koch. Koch was the city’s mayor during the 1980’s, which was a difficult socioeconomic time for the city. It was a time of urban decay, rising crime rates, and the impending crack cocaine epidemic. The scene with Koch was either him speaking during the 1980’s, or speaking about the time at a later date. Either way, the story he relayed was thought provoking. He recalled an elderly woman coming up to him on the street and saying something like, ‘Mr. Mayor, please make the city like it used to be’. Koch responded to the woman by saying, ‘Ma’am, it wasn’t as great as you remember it’.
Nostalgia is a powerful mental concept in human life. Especially in 2024, when the world seems to be chaotic and unmoored. Older generations often look back in time and yearn for the ‘good old days’. A vision of time that prompts them to believe everything was better years ago. There is an aspect to nostalgia that seems to be imposed on us. We tend to fondly remember cultural items like movies or music simply because we encountered them in our youth. Yet there is also an aspect to nostalgia that can be a true description of change. After all, nothing stays the same. The only question is whether that change can be truly deconstructed and identified in its qualitative nature.
Some aspects of our reality are easily defined as being superior in the past. If, for example, a law is passed in modern times that greatly restricts the rights of a citizenry, then it can be safe to say that the times before the law were probably better. Or if there is an environmental change that causes basic hardship on a population; then it can be safe to assume that population will deem the past time of environmental stability as better than the present. Yet most of the cultural categories that are the subject of nostalgic feelings are less distinct. They are complex, amorphous, and prone to subjective opinion.
In our current time, one of the overarching metaphysical questions is whether humanity was better off before the invention of the smartphone, or digital technology in general. This is a deep and wide ranging question that I will return to later. Though it should be acknowledged that some secondary cultural items cannot be discussed without mentioning the impact of digital technology.
One of the largest reservoirs of nostalgic feeling in our lives is the medium of film. Movies have tremendous cultural force and influence in human life. We almost always look back fondly at certain movies simply because we viewed them in our younger years. We can sometimes be fooled into thinking our nostalgic feelings are a direct response to a particular movie in itself. But if we look deeper, we realize our feelings in the present are actually a response to feelings we had in the past.
In 2021, well known movie actor Matt Damon was asked on the ‘Hot Ones’ podcast why it feels like Hollywood isn’t making movies ‘for me anymore’. The ‘for me’ in this case is intended to represent the average movie watcher. While the sentiment of the question refers to movies that connect on a personal (and a deeply human) level with the viewer. This line of inquiry aligns with a general sense some have that ‘cinema’ isn’t what it used to be. Damon would respond by mentioning how years ago DVD sales were a huge part of Hollywood’s revenue stream. He remarked how this allowed Hollywood to make movies that didn’t have to make all their money during a theatrical release. Yet when DVD’s were made obsolete by the digital age, this began to limit the kind of movies Hollywood could make. Damon described the situation like this:
‘I did this movie ‘Behind the Candelabra’, and I talked to the studio executive who explained it was a 25 million dollar movie, and he would have to put that much into print and advertising to market it. So now he's in 50 million dollars, and he has to split everything he gets with the exhibitors - the people who own the movie theaters. So he would have to make 100 million dollars before he got into profit. And the idea of making 100 million dollars on a story about this love affair between these two people - he loved everyone in the movie, but it would be a massive gamble. It wasn’t such a gamble in the 1990’s when they were making all those kinds of movies; the kinds of movies that I love; and were my bread and butter.’
Damon’s story is a specific example of a general principle: the fact that over time, technology and capitalism tend to undermine the health of artistic mediums. Each of these have brought the world of movies to a place where there is overwhelming amounts of content, yet questionable amounts of quality. The amount of content alone has affected our view of the past. Thirty or forty years ago, the movies that were nominated for best picture at the Oscars were widely known by the general public. Much of this simply had to do with the limited amount of options for viewers. As well as the fact that ‘going to the movies’ was one of the few entertainment options in the days before digital cable, and streaming services.
The widespread recognition that movies of the past have, gives us a sense of shared memories. Shared memories of a movie that had broad cultural resonance usually manifests itself as warm feeling nostalgia. This again is a response to the impact the movie had, not necessarily the movie in itself. With the amount of entertainment options in our current time, it's very hard to recreate the same experience that arose from the days of limited content.
This contrast between how we experience the medium of film now versus the past is probably the main source of any nostalgic feelings we might have. Despite Matt Damon yearning for Hollywood’s ‘good old days’; it’s not like ‘Star Wars’, ‘The Godfather’, ‘Back to the Future’ or ‘Pulp Fiction’ don’t have modern counterparts of equal quality. It’s that the cultural, metaphysical, and technological waters surrounding these films allowed for a more impactful experience. In decades past, the universe had aligned to position the human mind where it could be fully impacted by the medium of film. Whereas today, our minds are positioned to consume movies as content; rather than have impactful experiences.
Along with film, music has the same, if not more cultural influence and impact. This means it also contains a huge reservoir of nostalgic feeling. For many people, the popular music of their youth is the music they identify with the most. The nostalgic feelings associated with music from our formative years are usually more intense than those associated with movies. Music can conjure up memories of experiences, and feelings surrounding certain times in our lives. Though it is primarily a medium of sound, music expands in our minds through memories to touch almost all of our senses.
Like the realm of film, the nostalgic feeling surrounding the music of our youth is separate from the question of whether past music was better than current music. In a general sense there is probably a case to be made that music from past decades was better than much of what is produced in modern times. Yet like our feelings about past movies, our feelings about past music aren’t just a product of the music in itself. They are a product of the metaphysical, cultural, and technological situation surrounding past music as it was being created and disseminated.
In modern times, there are musicians like Taylor Swift or Beyonce who have achieved worldwide superstardom and wide cultural recognition. Yet when we compare the modern musical landscape to that of the past, it feels like there are fewer musical icons today than 30 or 40 years ago. You could mention bands like The Rolling Stones, Queen, The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Guns N' Roses, or Metallica. Or singular performers like James Brown, Aretha Franklin, Tina Turner, Madonna, Michael Jackson, or Elton John. Either list could go on, but the point is clear; the past was filled with numerous larger than life musical performers.
Much like how the metaphysical waters surrounding films of the past allowed for widespread cultural impact, the same could be said for musicians of the past. We remember the way musicians of the past made us feel because reality was aligned to create those feelings. The world was slower and our minds were less dispersed, which allowed musical artists to grab our extended attention. Before the digital age, music wasn’t just something we heard, it was manifested in physical objects. Records, cassette tapes, and compact discs impacted our minds in much different ways than digital files, mp3’s, or Spotify streams.
Anticipated album releases were important happenings, trips to the record store were routine, FM radio was a primary focus of our listening habits, and music videos were cultural events. All of this helped create a metaphysical environment where musicians could become larger than life. Yet this isn’t the only source of our nostalgic feelings, because there was something different about the music. In the past, there was less opportunity to ‘fake it’. There wasn’t any sophisticated technology to hide mediocre talent. Singers had to be able to sing, musicians had to be able to play their instrument, and performers had to be able to perform. This meant that talent was a premium that often rose to the top of the musical culture.
It could also be argued that popular music of the past was more substantive than its modern counterpart. Maybe we have certain feelings about past music because the music itself was better at spurring those feelings. There is a difference between music that stirs the heart, soul, and mind versus music that simply aims to be popular. One creates memories in our minds that last, and can breed nostalgic feelings. While the other functions kind of like a sugary treat. It provides an immediate rush, but has no lasting, or substantive nutritional value. It should be noted that like movies, the digital age has primed our minds to treat music as disposable content rather than something we deeply connect with.
Recently, on the ‘Stephen A. Smith’ show, the iconic rapper Ghostface Killah talked about his feelings concerning how the genre of hip hop music has changed over the decades. Ghostface would say:
‘I remember coming in, and even listening to the greats, it was like we had something to say. We had, you know, it was character - we had topics. I feel that we lost a lot of that. Like everything is more simple now - I know things never stay the same, so it was bound to happen. When we did ‘C.R.E.A.M.’ and all the other songs we (Wu-Tang Clan) did - we talked about the struggle, and made it where it was still cool, and those were our biggest records. When you look at the generation that’s right now, everything is naked females - it’s simple rap to me. Don’t get me wrong, I’m down for a black man to always go get his money, black women and everything. But I think there are ways you can still go about it.’
The trajectory of hip hop is an interesting example when it comes to nostalgic feeling. As one of America’s most authentic art forms, it began in earnest in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Initially it contained four elements: deejaying, breakdancing, graffiti, and MCing (rapping). By the 1990’s MCing had risen to prominence, and artists like Nas, Biggie Smalls, Tupac, and Jay-Z began to rise to fame. The 90’s era of hip hop is considered by many hip hop fans to be the ‘golden era’ of the genre. This also makes it a time that is viewed with tremendous amounts of nostalgic feeling.
I would argue that the nostalgic feeling surrounding the 90’s era of hip hop isn’t just a product of perceptions created by the metaphysics of the time. I would argue that this era was actually better than where the genre is today. In the 90’s, hip hop wasn’t as widely accepted as it is today. In fact, it was demonized by many in government and positions of power. This meant that it wasn’t as profitable a business as it is in modern times. It existed in a place where it retained aspects of artistic authenticity, creativity, and purpose. In a general sense, 90’s hip hop resembled the situation Matt Damon described around 90’s movies. Money was not the overriding factor in the genre. There was still room for true art that connected with the minds of listeners. This in turn has created nostalgic feelings decades later that are more than simple products of youthful encounters.
The artistic spark of hip hop emerged from the metaphysical landscape of New York City in the 1970's and 1980's. The city at the time was a cultural cauldron of authenticity and creativity. That is to say that life in the city wasn't completely subsumed by unfettered capitalism. Neighborhoods held together by resident relationships, small businesses, and reasonably priced dwellings still existed. This kind of authentic city life created the ingredients and the space for artistic creation and experimentation. As writer Fran Lebowitz once remarked, people enjoy cities because they are interesting - despite the fact they are noisy, crowded, and dirty.
The authentic city life of 1970's and 1980's New York wasn't all wonderful of course. The city was riddled by social decay, crime, and a rising drug problem. Hip hop itself was born from the effects of urban neglect (and racist policies) in poor, minority neighborhoods. As mentioned at the beginning of this writing, some older New Yorkers yearned for the past. For some, the New York of the 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's represented the apex of ‘good’ city life. These time periods in the city are often depicted with romantic nostalgia in popular films.
The trajectory of city life in New York follows the same general contours of city life in other major Western cities over past decades. In the 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's, neighborhoods were places where everyone pretty much knew one another. In fact, relationships were so intertwined that it was socially acceptable to discipline another family's child if you saw them misbehaving on the street. Most of the shopping for goods was done with small businesses where the owner was part of the community. Compared to today, the cost of living was far from prohibitive. This doesn't mean everyone was comfortable and rich. It just means city life wasn't completely molded by the effects of capitalism.
Throughout the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's, ‘white flight’ began to take hold. This was the phenomenon where white city dwellers with means fled city neighborhoods for mostly white, ‘safe’ suburbs. Urban decay in city neighborhoods began as drugs moved in, and good working class jobs became harder to find. Violence and crime began to tick up, and urban centers were often demonized along racial and class lines. Yet despite all this, cities were still ‘cities’. The social fabric might have been weakened, but they were still places where authentic lives were lived, and culture was created.
The late painter Chuck Close once remarked how you could ‘shoot a cannon’ down Hudson street in early 1970's New York and not hit anyone. The idea of a street in Manhattan being desolate today is difficult to conceive. When Andy Warhol arrived in New York in 1949, he had something like $200 in his pocket. Warhol would begin his journey as a commercial illustrator by carrying his drawings in a paper bag, while cold calling advertising agencies on Madison avenue. Today, this kind of action would seem more appropriate for a small town than one of the most important metropolises in the world. These stories about Close and Warhol describe a kind of city life that was socially flexible, and economically open. Yet in modern times, much of city life has become neither.
Somewhere around the early 2000's, the primary dynamics that shaped city life ceased to be social ones, and instead became economic ones. Instead of counteracting the social ills of past decades with bold social policy, those in power turned towards the ‘benefits’ of unfettered capitalism. Economic development was seen as a panacea that ushered in safe streets, big business, and high priced real estate developments. Yet the flip side to city revitalization via capitalism alone was that cities began to feel less ‘city-like’.
In current times, every piece of land in a city is squeezed for maximum profit. This usually results in the construction of neighborhood killing luxury condominiums instead of neighborhood conscious urban planning. Corporate retail chains have replaced small businesses that added character and personality to city blocks. While the skyrocketing cost of rent has turned many cities into exclusive luxury locations. The lack of economic breathing room has forced many cities to lose small places of authentic culture. Long standing music venues, galleries, restaurants, bars, or neighborhood stores have a habit of disappearing. This in turn creates a city with a shiny economic surface, yet lacking in depth of culture and character.
Considering all of this, it cannot be argued that the metaphysical reality surrounding city life hasn't changed since decades past. The question is whether the city life we remember was actually better than what we have today. Or, like what Mayor Koch said to that woman many years ago; maybe it was ‘never as good as we remembered it’. This line of inquiry was a frequent discussion point between myself and the late Vito Acconci while I attended Brooklyn College. Using Times Square as an example, I would complain to him that much of New York had turned into a ‘Disneyland’ type attraction. While after living in the city for most of his long life, Vito would counter by saying, ‘well you could barely walk down the fucking street without being mugged thirty years ago’.
Both lines of thought seem to have merit. One recognizes the ills of a city overtaken by runaway capitalism. While the other recognizes the ills of a city in dire need of urban and economic renewal. Yet, in a general sense, the nostalgia some feel for the ‘way cities once were’ seems to be justified. If we judge city life based on the quality of community bonds, economic flexibility, and culture creation; decades past offer more than just fond memories. It wasn’t so much that city life was all good and happy many years ago, it’s more that it was authentic in nature. The nostalgic feelings that manifest today are a reflection of how that authenticity made individuals feel then.
A past city neighborhood where most residents knew each other leaves a positive impact on the human mind; and creates warm nostalgia. While memories of cheap subway rides, affordable ballgame tickets, single income rents, and local neighborhood jobs elicit more practical nostalgia. Looking back on a time when those who pushed the artistic avant-garde had the economic room to ‘play’ and create, brings further nostalgic feeling. Overall, the city life we remember with nostalgia was a life that reflected more human bonds than economic ones. While far from perfect, it was a life that aligned better with our nature as human beings than what city life in many modern cities has become. This alignment is what seems to be the source of the justified nostalgic feeling many people have for the city life of decades past.
The broadest question concerning nostalgia is tied to the notion of metaphysical reality aligning with our nature as a species. The question being whether humanity was better off before the advent of digital technology and the smartphone. This question revolves around the concept that our technological advancement has outpaced the ability of our brains to adapt appropriately. The idea is that our technology advances at an exponential level, while our minds remain fundamentally the same. This in turn creates a situation where instead of the human mind bending technology to its will; technology starts to shape the human mind in uncontrollable ways.
Again, the nostalgia older generations feel for the world before digital technology isn’t necessarily for that world in itself - it’s for the feelings that world created. Those of us old enough to remember a time before the digital age remember a world that seemed slower. There was no social media, no internet, no swiping, no scrolling, or electronic dopamine hits to stimulate our minds. Time itself seemed to unfold at a different pace as our minds were conditioned only by our own consciousness. There was no ‘digital world’ for our minds to inhabit. The question is why many people look back on this time with broad nostalgic feeling.
It could be because despite all the technology that had come into being before the digital age; the human mind was still conditioned by living ‘actual life’. ‘Actual life’ in this case means a situation where human beings interact face to face, and their experiences are in physical reality. One of the common nostalgic streams of thought for older generations is that they remember social gatherings, parties, concerts, and nightclubs without cell phones. With no digital reality to distract the mind, these pre-digital gatherings were highly focused, ‘human’ experiences. The human mind was forced to be present - while experiencing (or creating) intense feeling and emotion.
This mode of being, experiencing life through the physical world, aligns with how our species evolved over millions of years. It only makes sense that we would only be able to generate true meaning and happiness through this way of existing. If you look back at your life, and remember true moments where you achieved meaning, happiness, or a ‘flow state’; I’m willing to guess that not one came from your smartphone. I’m willing to bet that all of these experiences arose from some type of experience in real life.
Therefore, I do believe that the nostalgic feelings older generations have for pre-digital times are justified. Our digital technology has made us more efficient, created wonderful connections, and created tremendous access to knowledge. Yet it has also seemed to accelerate the very nature of reality, made us become more insular, heightened our worst tribal instincts, and distracted us from actual life. Our minds did not evolve to be able to handle our consciousness being divided between two realities: the physical and the digital. We evolved to interact face to face, play outside as children, create with our hands, and be present in the world with a mind free from electronic distraction.
The nostalgia surrounding movies of the past, music of the past, and even past city life, is probably somewhat related to the difference between the pre and post-digital age. In the pre-digital age, it was much easier to be supremely present in the world. This allowed for movies and music to create tremendous meaning and feelings. It also allowed for a city life that revolved around neighborhoods, community, and face to face interaction; which made city life more meaningful and in turn, nostalgic. Regardless, it cannot be denied that in gaining the digital world, the human mind lost something in return. It is that ‘something’ that fuels most of the nostalgic feeling today, and probably will until certain generations pass on. After that, nostalgic feelings will still exist as a human phenomenon, yet they will be different in focus. A person cannot feel nostalgic about a time they did not experience. And it is the nature of past experience that is key to determining the nature of any current nostalgic feelings.
