Demographic Determinism

From the late 1970s to the early 1980s, Britain experienced a cultural renaissance that continues to reverberate through contemporary art, fashion, and music. It was a time of transition as punk’s raw energy giving way to the stylised flamboyance of the New Romantics and set the template for much that we recognise today.

Chroniclers like Dylan Jones and Robert Elms have captured the spirit of this era, while figures such as Rusty Egan, Grayson Perry, Michele Clapton, and Michael Clark – once emerging voices – now stand as towering icons of the creative world.

The influence of that period is unmistakable. Exhibitions at institutions like Zandra Rhodes’ Fashion and Textile Museum, Tate Modern, the Design Museum, the National Portrait Gallery, and the V&A have reignited interest in the aesthetics and ideologies of that time. The resurgence is not merely nostalgic – it is demographic.

The generation that came of age during that cultural shift is now in its prime as consumers, philanthropists, and cultural gatekeepers. Many benefited from the economic boom between 1985 and 2008, and unlike previous generations, they are redefining what it means to age – remaining active, influential, and deeply engaged in cultural life. Their tastes, shaped by the radical creativity of their youth, now shape the programming decisions of major institutions.

Meanwhile, younger generations – those born after 2000 – navigate a vastly different landscape. For them, the pre-digital world is a distant memory, if not an unknown realm. Yet the spirit of that earlier era, its queering of gender norms, its DIY ethos, its resistance to conformity, resonates anew. In a time marked by economic precarity, climate anxiety, and social upheaval, the cultural codes of the past offer both inspiration and a mirror.

The first generations to pay for higher education, to graduate into the aftermath of the 2008 crash, and to live through austerity, Brexit, and a housing crisis, are now forging their own creative responses, often with fewer resources but no less urgency.

In this context, demographic determinism offers a compelling lens: it reminds us that cultural production and consumption are not just matters of taste, but of age, wealth, memory, and lived experience.

What does this mean for arts and culture?

Alongside the challenge of relevance to diverse audiences, cultural organisations are also facing the twin threats of rising costs and diminishing financial support.

Should they charge for access to cultural goods?

What cost will cash strapped younger generations bear?

My prediction is that the future will start to look much like the past.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose, as the French say.

Tinkering aide, there’s little an institution can do about the rising costs of fundamentals like maintaining and preserving collections, and keeping large and leaking buildings open.

In this context, the mandate of free entry to a permanent exhibition is increasingly burdensome for institutions.

This drives many to invest in the novel, where income can be made. The nature of funding agreements often prevents museums and cultural institutions charging for core activities.

Yet, if we’re not careful, this can lead to a cultural apartheid; a world where those who can pay get access to the full feast and those who can’t get a small taste of the riches beyond the barrier. Of course, this assumes that people who can’t afford to pay want to sample such wares.

Are we also starting to see a divergence between contemporary culture and the elite version preserved in museums?

Culture, and its making, is much more diffuse today, and its makers are often the products of adversity. This time, they are broadcasting raidly created digital content on TikTok. The algorithms which drive social media demand feeding often. The rate of adoption or demise in this medium is rapid and brutal. Audiences vote with finger swipes, they are fickle.

‘Old money’ aesthetics in visual or applied art can seem out of touch in this context – but also lucrative when focused on older, wealthier audiences.

But what about new, younger audiences who might also be looking for experiences … just not the ones their parents or grandparents want?

• Sustainability in its truest and most authentic sense is important for them.
• Relationships, experiences, and community connection are prized over material accumulation.
• Fulfilment often lies in cooperative bonds.
• There’s a movement away from impossible standards toward genuine, imperfect, and relatable human experiences.

These shifts are in line with the focus on authenticity in every aspect of life. People are focusing their energy on local impact, understanding that real change begins at home. Bottom up is alive and well, and it begins closer to home.

By fostering a sense of belonging, supporting local businesses, and engaging in grassroots initiatives, people are nurturing their communities as a way of contributing to a more sustainable and equitable future.

This shift encourages a re-evaluation of what success means.

For institutions, it means choosing to invest time and resources into endeavours which give life to their values and promote a sense of shared purpose. This means rethinking what ‘participation’ or ‘engagement’ looks like. Too often this type of activity has been top down, poorly funded and an afterthought.

Has the time has come to switch all of this around?

There is currently a lively discussion taking place in culture and community spaces about participation and the terms of engagement. This is with good reason.

Consider the recently published Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IoD 2025) – they make for sobering reading. In England, many of the post-industrial, coastal or rural communities which ranked among the most deprived four decades ago still show up at the bottom of the ranking.

The map of disadvantage has hardened, and with it the pattern of cultural disengagement.

Damian Etheraads – Culture’s Uneven Map: Why participation isn’t enough

Damian Etheraads wrote a powerful series of posts in the wake of our second summer of street protests. Of these, the latest – Culture’s Uneven Map: Why participation isn’t enough – is a perfect encapsulation of the situation we face in culture and offers some prescriptions too. Fundamentally, for me at least, it also points out how like the past today is.

Sadly, if the dial doesn’t shift, it also suggests how much more like the past the future will be but with less of everything to sustain it.

Suggestions

Cultural spaces can secure their relevance if they seize this moment. They can become spaces where real people from all communities discuss what the future looks like. Institutions in this context must listen and take stock. They should adapt their models to meet the new reality. Perhaps that’s the best way to learn from the past.

While reinvention serves as a way to catalyse relevance now, it also acts as a stepping stone to the future. This process helps in securing consent and buy-in. Perhaps that’s the one way we can make sure that the future is something better than the past.