We live in a world inundated with content—endless streaming series, algorithm-amid pop hits, reboots, spin-offs, and now AI-generated fluff. In such a deluge, many critics have grown weary of mediocrity: the sanitized, bland “safe bets” that define modern mainstream culture. The Guardian article argues that perhaps cultural snobbery — once scorned as elitism — deserves reconsideration in the fight against “slop,” soulless imitation, and formulaic art.
That argument is compelling, but incomplete. To understand whether snobbery has a role — and what kind — we must go deeper: into power, economics, aesthetics, technology, and how culture evolves.
What the Guardian’s Essay Gets Right
The original article raises several potent points:
- The Rise of “Mid TV”: Critic James Poniewozik coined “mid TV” to describe shows that are polished, competent, but risk-averse — safe, low on ambition, designed to retain eyeballs rather than challenge. The Guardian cites House of the Dragon or Mr & Mrs Smith as examples of this genre.
- Algorithmic Content & Slop: The piece connects AI’s capacity to generate derivative, imitation content (what some call “slop”) with broader cultural flattening. If AI churns derivative shows and music at scale, the risk is that blandness becomes dominant.
- A Return to Standards: It suggests that we shouldn’t dismiss cultural snobbery entirely: perhaps snobbery used to uphold some aesthetic guardrails, pushing back against vacuous content, reinforcing values of depth, innovation, and risk in art.
- Contextual Irony: The essay notes that snobs have themselves become maligned — that in a culture where “let people enjoy things” is a sacred phrase, even raising aesthetic criticism is viewed as elitist or unkind.
These points are sharp and resonant. But the landscape is more textured. Let me sketch additional dimensions.
What the Essay Overlooks (or Undercovers)
1. Economics, Platforms & Incentives
Culture today is shaped by platforms whose incentives are scale, retention, ad revenue, data—but rarely risk. The danger: platform economics push toward formulaic, lowest-common-denominator content, because safe returns are preferred to risky innovation.
If a show must satisfy retention, ensure bingeing, minimize churn, or guarantee ad metrics, it’s less likely to push stylistic boundaries or thematic complexity. Even “prestige TV” is increasingly pressured into brand safety. This structural tilt is partly why mid TV proliferates.
AI content exacerbates that: low marginal cost, high scale, derivative patterns—these allow platforms to fill feed real estate cheaply. The economic axis is as powerful as aesthetics.
2. Taste, Power, Elitism & Exclusion
Cultural snobbery historically served power structures: literacy, class, gatekeeping, colonial cultural hierarchies. Any call to “resurrect standards” must reckon with cultural diversity and who gets to define “good.”
What is “culturally snobbish” for one community may be vital and authentic for another. There is real risk that snobbery can re-inscribe exclusion: dismissing non-elite cultural forms, marginal voices, vernacular styles, folk traditions.
3. Evolution & Experimentation: Some Mid Becomes Canon
Many works once scorned as lowbrow or formulaic later become classics, or valued for their sincerity. Games, pulp fiction, pop songs, genre media—all have been dismissed before being canonized. The line between “safe mediocrity” and “accessible genius” is porous.
Blanket snobbery may stifle experimentation and voices working in less conventional forms. Some art must succeed in bounding form before being elevated; dismissing them early loses possibilities.
4. Audience Agency & Participation
Audiences today are not passive. Many gravitate toward comfort, escapism, or nostalgic formula for reasons—emotional, social, psychological. Demand is real for mid or familiar media. Snobbery must reckon with why bland or formulaic works succeed (cultural identity, community, shared tropes, escapist comfort).
Similarly, fandoms and subcultures often turn “trash” content into deep, resonant meaning. To rail against slop is one thing—another is eroding what people draw joy from, even among mid-tier works.
5. Technology, AI, and Hybrid Culture
The Guardian touches on AI slop, but we need more depth:
- Synthetic culture arms race: As AI generation becomes better, we may see “deep slop” — AI that imitates cultural tropes so well it mimics emotional texture, complicating distinctions.
- Hybrid works: AI may assist real creators (e.g. co-writing, styling, generating textures). Some of what looks mid may be AI + human mashups.
- Curation & filtering tech: Platforms might deploy AI to identify high-quality content, surface underappreciated gems, or apply taste filters. The battle is partly algorithmic.
6. Mental & Cultural Health: Brain Rot, Attention, and Depth
The essay mentions terms like “brain rot” to connote how constant shallow content consumption may degrade attention, critical thinking, curiosity. We need more on long-term cultural health: how too much mid and slop might hollow public discourse, weaken cultural literacy, degrade tolerance for aesthetic risk.
Can Snobbery Be Reimagined? A Proposal for “Critical Taste”
If we want the virtues of snobbery (rigor, depth, aesthetic ambition) without its liabilities (elitism, exclusion), we need a recalibrated model. Call it Critical Taste.
- Standards + humility: Uphold critique of superficiality, but remain open to new forms and diverse voices.
- Curatorial frameworks: Use hybrid curation—critics, communities, AI filters—to surface ambitious work.
- Dialogic criticism: Encourage public conversation rather than gatekeeping judgment. Invite dissent, surprise, and rethinking.
- Protect safe spaces for experimentation: Subsidize risk-taking content that may not garner mass metrics immediately.
- Educate media literacy: Teach audiences how to read, critique, appreciate art beyond passive consumption.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| 1. Isn’t snobbery just elitism in disguise? | It can be. But when self-reflective, snobbery becomes critique of mediocrity rather than dismissal of diversity. The key is awareness of power and context. |
| 2. Will calling for standards alienate audiences? | Possibly. The tone and framing matter. Critique should enrich conversation, not belittle enjoyment. |
| 3. Could too much snobbery stifle popular culture? | Yes. If gatekeeping becomes rigid, it may choke emerging voices. Standards must evolve dynamically. |
| 4. How can we judge “good” art in a plural cultural era? | Use plural criteria: originality, craft, depth, risk, voice, emotional resonance. Avoid single-metric judgment. |
| 5. Can platforms use AI to surface better art? | Potentially yes. Taste-aware algorithms, curator-AI hybrids, and recommendation systems that account for novelty or depth could help. |
| 6. Should consumers care about mid TV or slop? | Yes—because consumption shapes culture. But also critique responsibly: enjoy what you love, but question blandness when widespread. |
| 7. How do we balance enjoyment vs critique? | Practice both: allow yourself emotional enjoyment, but reserve space for critical reflection. Critics and fans both matter. |
| 8. Is the age of “great art” over? | Not at all. But it’s harder now to climb above the noise. That’s why intentional curating, criticism, and support for ambitious work remain vital. |
Final Thoughts
We’re living in a media moment dominated by the formulaic, the safe, and the derivative. AI slop and mid TV may crowd out riskier voices. In this climate, cultural snobbery (reimagined with humility) might not be regressive elitism — it could be a tool of resistance.
But snobbery must evolve. It must embrace plurality, question its own biases, and open space for emergent voices. The goal isn’t to gatekeep culture, but to demand challenge, depth, and surprise—so art doesn’t become a bland echo chamber, but continues to expand, provoke, and enrich.
Sources The Guardian
