Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
I don't really think it's worth debating the first two slots. I think the more interesting debate is the third most relevant cultural city. I think the ordering of culturally relevant will naturally change over time, but I'd say 3 cities have had a legitimate claim since the start of the 20th century:
- Chicago- Easily the second most culturally relevant city prior to the 1970s, and third most relevant until at least the 1990s, if not still today.
- Detroit- I'd argue was the third most relevant from the 1920s until the 1960s or 1970s when L.A. really established itself as America's second city.
- Philadelphia- I'd argue it was easily the 3rd most relevant in the early 20th century until the 1920s.
|
I don’t really like the idea of cultural capitals in the modern era.
Prior to internet and mass transportation, you could convincingly argue that a single city and it’s immediate hinterland was producing
culture.
Nowadays, your average “culture-producer” has moved 5-6 times between completely different regions and has received media from all corners of the globe from birth.
I would agree that NY and LA the chief distributors of pop culture products, but pop culture’s effect on American culture as a whole is debatable.
Using Michael Jackson as an older example. He grew up in Gary, In, performed around the Midwest, moved to Harlem, relocated to LA, and so on. Yet average Americans don’t exactly moonwalk when they dance,
I could argue that the most important aspects of culture are what your house looks like, how you get around, how you speak, what you eat, how you behave, and how you worship.
These are areas where NYC and LA are not that representative or influential at all.
Tokyo more resembles Nagoya and the rest of Japan, than LA resembles Dallas.