We often talk about how “high” and “low” culture, once two distinct things, have increasingly become intertwined. Wether it’s a pop star singing with a full symphony orchestra, or a fashion house doing a collaboration with a sneaker company, high and low have been coming together with a greater frequency over the last 25 years, and certainly since the start of the 21st century.

But what I think is also interesting, and maybe more recently has been gathering momentum, is another type of collapsing, this time from what I would call Back to Front.

There was a time when professional and consumers were two distinct entities. Sure, a doctor, advertising exec or lawyer was also a consumer, but those were two discreet parts of her identity.  But those distinctions seem to be breaking down quite a bit. Let me give you some examples:

• Trucks and tools that are marketed as  ”Professional Grade.”
• “Clinical Strength” personal care items.

I don’t recall my father needing “clinical strength” antiperspirant. But it’s not just the tools of the profession, it’s the professions themselves.  Think you could be a good General Manager of a sports team? Fifty years ago that meant arguing over a few drinks in a bar over who the local team should trade for in the off-season. Now, after pouring over reams of data, you build your own fantasy team. Think you could be a Hollywood mogul? Great, play the Hollywood Stock Exchange game.  Want to be a network programmer? Great, go dive into TV By the Numbers and give it a shot.

Walking around Manhattan the last few weeks, I’ve seen a lot of posters like these:

There is another one, I can’t remember the cable network right now, but the copy even jokes that you should watch the network, even if you don’t know what an upfront is. Yes, it is that time of year, and these ads will be gone in a few weeks, but the fact that these are no  longer confined to the pages of Variety and Hollywood Reporter is interesting.

Another example? Sephora has partnered with Pantone to create a new cosmetics line. How many people even knew what Pantone was a few years ago, other than people in design, house painting or publishing?

When everyone has the means of production, we’re now all looking for, expecting really, access to the tools of the trade. When you have this sort of back to front collapsing, combined with the collapsing of the high and the low, you get another aspect of the Cultural Singularity. Here now is a different kind of divide. Some people thrive in this new environment, where the rules have been effectively thrown out the window and the barriers have been removed. Others are completely overwhelmed, paralyzed by the seeming confusion brought about by this collapsing. “If everyone can do my job, or have access to my tools, then what, or who, am I?”

How does a Film/TV critic at The New York Times grapple with this: Style in The Wire is a 36-minute film that breaks down the brilliant HBO show to breathtaking levels of detail and erudition. Or how about this 20-minute masterpiece called In The Cut: The Dark Knight, a critical look at director Christopher Nolan’s choices during one critical scene in the film. When amateurs can produce criticism of this level, what do I need the professional critic for? For that matter, what do I need The New York Times for? And that’s why you see institutions clinging to tradition. They can’t handle the Cultural Singularity.  Can you?

Beware the Huey Lewis Effect

For brands, knowing when to hop off, and on, the cultural merry-go-round can be tricky. Knowing what clothes, food, music, toys or books people are still interested in, or will be interested in next year, is a difficult bit of business. The trick is to align your brand or product with the cultural zeitgeist at just the right time. I call this the Huey Lewis Effect.

Huey Lewis and the News were an extremely popular music act for a very specific period of time. From 1983 to 1986 you couldn’t turn on a Top 40 radio station or watch MTV and not see these guys. Huey and the boys were the right band at the right time. They came right before the Cultural Singularity Paradox exploded everything. 1983-1986 was a period of time when there was still musical distinctions. Hip Hop was for an ‘urban’ audience. New wave was for weirdos who wished they were English. Hair bands were still an L.A. thing. But the massive middle needed something to listen to. Something they could do the White Man’s Overbite to, maybe even belt it out in the car or reasonably hope to sing at the office karaoke night.

Huey Lewis and the News had put out two albums before 1983 and nobody cared. They put out five more after 1986 and people didn’t care too much about those either. Huey Lewis and the News had a formula for the most part, and they stuck to it. It was a great sound in 1985. In 1981 or 1991? Not so much. Think of Huey Lewis and the News and culture as being to lines that intersected once, never to meet again. Now compare that to, say, Madonna. Her line has intersected with culture about 10 times over the course of her career.

The question it would seem for brands is how can they be more like Madonna and less like Huey Lewis and the News? But in reality the question is “How can we be Huey Lewis in 1985, Hootie and the Blowfish in 1995 and The Dave Matthews Band in 2005?” It’s easy to get distracted by the Lady Gagas and Nicki Minajs out there. But if your brand appeals to the massive middle, you’ve got to ride out the peaks and valleys of boy bands, heavy metal and grunge and keep your eye out for the next Billy Joel (the Huey Lewis of 1975).

Trends may come and go, but the underlying truth will always be there. The clothes, music, movies or sports are just the current manifestation.