Can pop culture become “history,” and how?

[Kleine Scheiße]

I took a course on the Beatles in my freshman year of college and received history credits for it. I noticed many of my colleagues in the class understood the Beatles and Bob Dylan especially as historical figures and not artists people were still organically engaging with.

This reflection made me take pause as I’ve been treating those artists as artists and not cultural symbols for as long as I can remember. I don’t really follow developments in contemporary music, not out of disdain but disinterest. Yet, I’ve noticed that pop culture figures like the Beatles have been sort of run into that role as a symbol of “days past,” or some ancien regime of old.

Will we see JFK as a primarily “pop” figure decades from now? What processes in historiography and “here-and-now” academic treatment create this? Ayn Rand in particular also stands out to me as a pop figure which hasn’t been properly understood — and I wonder why.

[HillGoose]

Yeah.

In the future kids will learn about Stefan Karl Stefansson in school.

[dead0man]

because most humans are shallow?  I don't know if I understand what you're asking.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

How does one define "pop culture"? Hell, William Shakespeare was basically a popular author (more like screenwriter, if you want a modern analogy), writing for the public amusement. But he's remembered as one of the greatest classics. The same applies, though to a lesser extend, to the likes of Dumas Pere.

[Peanut]

Pop culture, as by definition culture, will become our artistic footprint in history. Yes, pop culture will become history. As mentioned, Shakespeare and the Dumas were popular writers, now considered historical. It's all perspective.