Jan. 9 marked one of the most anticlimactic happenings in recent Hollywood history: the 79^th Golden Globes Awards.

This year’s ceremony included no hosts, no celebrity guests, and solely live-blogging coverage of the event. It was a flop—and it raises the question of whether mainstream award shows are still relevant.

Even if we weren’t in another wave of this pandemic, turnout at the Golden Globes would’ve likely been equally low.

Many regular partners—including broadcasting company NBC and recurring host Ricky Gervais—have boycotted the Golden Globes due to the lack of diversity within the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA), the nominating committee of the event. The lack of Black members in HFPA and the disregard of the critically acclaimed series I May Destroy You in favour of Emily in Paris, for example,highlight the ceremony’s whitewashed nature.

Furthermore, nominations are frequently out of touch with what the public likes. In the age of YouTube movie reviews and Twitter, anyone can create, discuss, and defend their own rankings of new media regardless of the nominating committee’s decisions. Often, these don’t line up with the HFPA’s picks.

As a result, award shows are evolving into beauty pageants and popularity contests for the industry’s elite—a Golden Globe doesn’t hold as much weight to the average viewer.

There are moments when the Golden Globes remain meaningful. Receiving a nomination can bring prestige and validation of marginalized artists and cultures in the public eye—important and long-overdue exposure.

2022 winner Michaela Jaé Rodriguez, for example, who took home Best Performance by an Actress in a Television Series, is the first trans actor to win a Golden Globe—a big step for representation of the trans community.

With all the criticism the Globes have faced in the past two years, it’s clear its structure and priorities must change if the ceremony hopes to remain relevant.

The Grammys, for example, are one step ahead. Unlike the Globes, the Recording Academy appoints appropriate experts in the music industry as voting members on the show’s nominating committee. This way, artists, writers, and producers receive can be evaluated by a community of experts who understand the effort and the time it takes to create music—and the voting body is over 12 times that of the Golden Globes.

Art, like that celebrated at the Golden Globes, is made to be consumed—not ranked. Although being recognized with a prestigious award is exciting, it shouldn’t be the artist’s main source of validation.

The value of art isn’t defined by its popularity, but by the passion and dedication of its creator. The opinion of a privileged collective isn’t indicative of the true impact of a work on society.

The Golden Globes—and all award shows—must acknowledge the need to shift from popularity contests for the elite to meaningful celebrations of artistry. Otherwise, they’ll remain shallow, misinformed presentations of fame. If the Globes have taught us anything, it’s that shows like this are on their way out.

—Journal Editorial Board