I guess picking a favorite historical point and then screaming at clouds seems to be the preferred attention-getter. Perceptions of cultural stagnation are highly subjective and depend on one's values, interests, and the aspects of culture one deems most significant. What one person sees as a lack of innovation, another might view as a period of rich, albeit less conspicuous, cultural evolution. Cultural movements and their impacts are usually easier to recognize in retrospect. What might seem like a stagnant period could be laying the groundwork for future cultural explosions that we're simply too close to see. Maybe we've created an environment where survival takes precedence over cultural innovation, or where creativity is stifled by commercial pressures and the pursuit of profit over artistry (which has never suddenly been a "new" thing). Seems like a lot of pearl-clutching to me.