The Age of Standards: How did the humanity come to a boring, bureaucratic existence
Why is everything so bland lately? Why does everything look the same? Where's the creative approach, the spirit of your favorite things you once loved?.. ..I'm sure these kinds of questions did appear here and there from time to time.
And now, we mostly see those mass-produced corporate: Movies, music, food, games, trinkets, well, even entire subcultures. And if that's not enough, get ready, 'cause the people themselves are starting to look bland and unsophisticated! It's as if they're soulless machines, sitting in their smartphones...
...well, I'm basically re-iterating some of the rants typically uttered by the people of older ages - those who haven't abandoned their typical pastimes, such as watching TV/getting drunk in a pub/going outdoors, in favor of the virtual world, and now they're (semi-legit) complaining about people losing themselves in virtual entertainment.
But hey, sometimes they do have a point. Nowadays, creativity have largely retreated (but not disappeared) from the society, and the mainstream culture looks increasingly... standardized. Music which sounds all alike; movies exploiting the same tropes over and over and over again; videogames with standardized (and frankly unsophisticated) gameplay; the abundance of fast food "which tastes all the same"; lack of design diversity in household appliances, cars, etc.; well, if I stop enumerating the things which look all alike, the general thought is - the mainstream culture is, indeed, being plagued with mediocrity.
And instead of whining like a bitch about that, I'll try to explain it.
1. Most humans aren't interested in art, design, creativity, or aesthetics much enough
First and foremost, these humans are interested in price, convenience, and whatever limited functionality they seek. They want cheaper things, they want more convenient things, and they want the things to do what they want them to do. Long as the product satisfies these demands, it's fine for them. From the manufacturers' or creators' view, putting additional effort into aesthetics or design sharply increases the product's cost, especially when we're talking about creativity, the first-order activity which isn't subject to any rules and standards. Therefore, putting additional effort into these tasks would cost extra money - which would make the product more expensive - which would reduce its attractiveness in an ordinary customer's eyes. Whether we're talking about gadgets and devices, or cars, or movies, or music, or videogames, or food, or basically everything else - there is simply no incentive for a manufacturer to put extra effort (which means - time and money) into making a product if a less intricate one will satisfy the customer just as well
l.Of course, this doesn't mean the creativity is gone. After all, there is a serious demand for aesthetics and creativity, albeit it is comparatively small - and to meet the demand, there is a limited supply of corresponding goods, services and amenities - but since it is comparatively small, there is a picture of mediocrity overflowing the mainstream.
Some small indie developers and manufacturers are handling this sort of demand. And that's basically it; a behemoth which grabs loads of money from happy customers by manufacturing loads of mediocre shit needs not to even waste time to even consider putting extra effort into a product, since in many cases, such ventures will decrease their effectiveness, by creating an extra strain on them.
2. Creativity and commerce don't go along very well
That's it. Creativity and commerce have, at their core, different and incompatible purposes.
Creativity in itself isn't even a tool for earning anything - it is more like a mental leisure, a hobby or an entertainment of sorts (for some persons). It is a means to satisfy one's own mental needs, express and improve one's own personality and capabilities; in that regard, it's more like an entertaining pastime, not unlike playing videogames or hunting (though unlike the previous two, far less persons enjoy that).
On the other hand, commerce is exactly a tool to earn money. While the goal of creativity is to satisfy one's higher mental desires and goals, the goal of commerce is maximization of the profits. The goal is nt to create a beautiful work of art, but instead something that has the optimal ratio of resources spent to profits gained. As a result, pretty much whoever's in business of making games for profit strictly or predominantly, would not be concerned as much with art and creation as with manufacturing a product which sells well enough. Whether this product will be a masterpiece or a mediocre unsophisticated entertainment, it doesn't matter - long as it grants profits.
Long as there is a population which enjoys watching endless serials about zombies or medieval kingdoms, playing graphics-focused FPS games with typical storylines, unsophisticated gameplay, primitive design of playing area and numerous cutscenes, using smartphones which all look the same, and eating pretty much the same fast food, there is completely no reason for mainstream manufacturers to even consider doing something more elaborate.
Speaking about creativity, it tends to either degrade, mutate into something unpleasant, or get shoved to the lower priority as soon as the creator starts prioritizing commercial concerns over artistic ones. There are many, many things a creator would love to express; however, they might be controversial, offensive, weird, they might go against some established cliches and standards, they might be poorly understood, they might be something displeasant, well, they might be something that'll lower your profits if you incorporate them in a commercial product. Therefore, the creators are faced with a choice of keeping creativity a hobby (and finding some other way to obtain money) or stifling their own aspirations and making their product more mainstream-friendly. Which, of course, curbs or outright kills one's creativity.
3. Standards are just so damn convenient
So basically, there are several options when solving a problem or designing something.
Option one, design it from scratch and/or creatively using some other blueprints. Option two, use an already existing blueprint, modifying it a little if necessary.
Basically, option one requires a lot more effort, time and sometimes resources than option two. Of course, manufacturers would prefer option two to option one, but if forced or incentivized, they could switch into creative mode; but as for most customers, it's all the same. Why try to use a creative approach if there's already a blueprint solution, which only needs some modifications to be applied?
Most humans, while solving any problem, go for this way; they seek an already-existing pattern which would help them solve a problem, and if necessary, they apply miniscule changes. Almost no one ever tries to use any creativity or originality, if not forced to.
4. Standards give a sort-of illusion of reliability
Partially because they're widely advertised as so, but still. In many cases, the word "standard" is subconsiously associated with high quality, good reliability, guarantee of robustness, functionality, or power.
Standards are usually something that was accepted presumably because it was tested well and proven to be reliable; for this reason, they enjoy widespread trust and appreciation. There is, of course, a flip-side to them: since they're so static and are mostly the result of limited observation, analysis and testing, they can be indeed faulty and treacherous - but unless their faulty side reveals often enough or is elsehow too troublesome, the shortcomings of a standard are rarely addressed. This is also why many humans outright oppose flexibility and choice: they believe these things to be "faulty" as they do not provide them the illusion of reliability they want.
A more extreme view, spurring from false dilemma, is that, since standards are giving you some high-quality guarantee, then what is not according to a standard, is by default unreliable and faulty. Therefore, if someone opposes the standardization of everything or does not closely comply with those standards, then it only seeks to do harm and destruction. This particular view is not used in any mainstream industry since it is obviously a detriment to progress, but instead it serves as a basis for highly authoritarian ideologies such as fascism or socialism.
While such views are indeed fallacious, as standards are not only faulty, but also not very flexible, and therefore usually create issues when the society's status and focus naturally change over time, they're a very simple solution...
5. Standards make all things simple for the end user
A plentitude of already-existing blueprints, guidelines, instructions, etc. reduces the need for someone to actually think and solve problems in order to achieve something. Though it's a grief fore more creative persons, it greatly increases the quality of life of a normie, by eliminating the need for them to spend time and effort to solve their needs.
And the less creative and independent someone is, the more demand they have for external instructions. Naturally, with most humans being semi-sapient and heavily reliant on their community, the amount standardization of their lives is immense, and only seems to increase as they want a simple, carefree life where they would do nothing but what they're told.
What do you think normal humans would choose out of two most often? Finding their own path in life, seeking ventures and venues which could allow them to become richer, or just follow the school-college-job-kids-death pattern conveniently developed by someone for them? Plan their own house, or just hire a designer? Fix their own vehicle, or just hire a mechanic's services? Resolve the conflicts and disputes with their neighbors by themselves, or just rely on the law to determine who's right and who's wrong?
And the examples can go on and on, and on and on and on... But I guess the thesis is sufficently expressed with just this.
Conclusion
Demand creates supply. A demand for an easy and carefree life, coming from normies, creates a supply of things which aim to make life easy and carefree - that is, standards, guidelines, and norms.
And depending on the nature of problem, a standardized approach can actually be useful not only to the normies. A purely technical task which addresses a demand coming from beings both simple and intricate, such as housing or food, could be at least temporarily solved with standards - providing a sufficent housing for the normies, and a temporary one for the intricate ones, until they improve the solution on their own. Standards can be applied flexibly, too; depending on the demands, they can be used as widely as needed. A normie would love to live in the world where everything, including their own thinking and decision-making, is standardized to make their life as easy as it is possible; at the same time, an intricate or creative person would surely hate the standards dictating their own thinking, or basically the most of their affairs, but then again, they could sometimes use that help if they need some quick solution and they don't particularly give a shit about customization of results in this occasion.
And since the majority of humanity is made of "normies" who aren't even sapient, the majority of human culture and society is standardized, templatized, and guidelined. One's life is being dictated from the start, one's views are being forced on them by the society, and they do not only see no problem with that - they actually embrace it, since it makes life so easy and leaves them with the task of sometimes making simple choices. Their entertainment is bland, their tools and amenities look all pretty much the same - and they embrace it, and they enjoy that life. Their activities are mostly pre-set by the society - and they're happy, since they'd have a hard time finding what to do by themselves.
And honestly, why don't we embrace the fact that the mainstream is bland and boring? Let's make our own community and make it vivid, creative and blooming.