Cultural Stagnation
Kurt Anderson wrote an article in Vanity Fair where he makes the claim that our culture is stuck.
For most of the last century, America’s cultural landscape—its fashion, art, music, design, entertainment—changed dramatically every 20 years or so. But these days, even as technological and scientific leaps have continued to revolutionize life, popular style has been stuck on repeat, consuming the past instead of creating the new.
As an aside – if you want to hear a great discussion of this article there is a podcast episode of the Slate Cultural Gabfest that inspired my article. In fact, they publish weekly, and I greatly endorse adding it to your podcast queue.
He points to styles, and how if you think of the 50s to 60s to 70s to the 80s you could easily pick out what decade they were in. But between the 90s and today it would be harder. He makes the obvious musical reference of the year – pointing out how Lady Gaga is simply warmed over Madonna. He even points out that after the rise of hip hop, no big musical swing has taken its place.
Make a couple arguments for why this is. Perhaps we have simply reached the pinnacle of design in many cases. Cars haven’t changed that much in design, but under the hood the technology is moving quickly. So while the appearance is stagnant, the workings change, but I suppose that isn’t culture.
Or, we have the ability now to portray our past and explore decades and the style of history like never before with costuming and technology. This might cause us to not look forward and instead gaze longingly backwards.
Why is this happening? In some large measure, I think, it’s an unconscious collective reaction to all the profound nonstop newness we’re experiencing on the tech and geopolitical and economic fronts. People have a limited capacity to embrace flux and strangeness and dissatisfaction, and right now we’re maxed out. So as the Web and artificially intelligent smartphones and the rise of China and 9/11 and the winners-take-all American economy and the Great Recession disrupt and transform our lives and hopes and dreams, we are clinging as never before to the familiar in matters of style and culture.
However, I tend to focus on an idea that he only gives short service to – one small line in the second to last paragraph.
And yet, on the other hand, for the first time, anyone anywhere with any arcane cultural taste can now indulge it easily and fully online, clicking themselves deep into whatever curious little niche (punk bossa nova, Nigerian noir cinema, pre-war Hummel figurines) they wish. Americans: quirky, independent individualists!
He dismisses technology almost wholesale. However, with the internet and shifting to new forms of media, we can connect with new people that we weren’t able to before. You might be the only fan of some certain band in your group of friend (and good for you!). Or, you might be the only emo kid in your town. However, through social networks you can find a whole community of people out there who share your passion.
This allows us to appreciate our own preferences, and not adapt to a greater “mass zeitgeist” of what is cool. My theory is this: You can’t imagine a national cultural concept because we are too fractured now. There isn’t one cool thing to listen to, or one cool way to dress. There are niches that are appreciated by small pockets. It isn’t that we stagnated, its that we branched out and became unique.
Fair v Objective
I think our society has taken being “fair” to an extreme. We have confused the freedoms we have to be an excuse to be able to have a stupid opinion and for that wrong opinion to be worth as much as a correct valid opinion supported by facts.
The is most evident in being “fair” in media reports. The media is so concerned with being labeled biased, that they give equal time and weight to stupid opposing arguments. This is best summed up by the popular quote from Paul Krugman:
The media are desperately afraid of being accused of bias. And that’s partly because there’s a whole machine out there, an organized attempt to accuse them of bias whenever they say anything that the Right doesn’t like. So rather than really try to report things objectively, they settle for being even-handed, which is not the same thing. One of my lines in a column—in which a number of people thought I was insulting them personally—was that if Bush said the Earth was flat, the mainstream media would have stories with the headline: ‘Shape of Earth—Views Differ.’ Then they’d quote some Democrats saying that it was round.
This is the key difference in being objective. Being objective means not letting personal biases change your reporting or opinion of something. If something is obviously true, you shouldn’t say it could be false just because that fits your world view or would benefit you in some way.
Stop being fair. Be objective.
Difficulties of Copyright
Admittedly this title is a bit of link bait. Most people will click this post thinking I am going to go on a rant of how stupid and difficult copyright law is. But I’m not.
Instead, I’m going to point to an example of why it is important and necessary and that it is difficult because it is very hard to be an artist and make a decent living by selling your works when we live in the age of the internet and easy copying and distribution.
Louis CK is a fantastic comedian. He was wildly popular as a “comedian’s comedian” for a long time during the early 2000s, but is finally getting some big recognition. Check out his early hour long HBO comedy specials, or his FX show “Louie”.
Many don’t know that he actually directs, shoots and edits “Louie” himself. He has explained how he puts it all together on his own mac which lets him express his creativity and keep his budget low or allow him to use it on other things, like a freaking helicopter in the pilot.
Anyway, he recently decided to put out his latest stand up special out on video using his website as the distribution method. And, he is doing so against lots of strong opinions that he is being dumb. See this disclaimer on his own website:
To those who might wish to “torrent” this video: look, I don’t really get the whole “torrent” thing. I don’t know enough about it to judge either way. But I’d just like you to consider this: I made this video extremely easy to use against well-informed advice. I was told that it would be easier to torrent the way I made it, but I chose to do it this way anyway, because I want it to be easy for people to watch and enjoy this video in any way they want without “corporate” restrictions.
Please bear in mind that I am not a company or a corporation. I’m just some guy. I paid for the production and posting of this video with my own money. I would like to be able to post more material to the fans in this way, which makes it cheaper for the buyer and more pleasant for me. So, please help me keep this being a good idea. I can’t stop you from torrenting; all I can do is politely ask you to pay your five little dollars, enjoy the video, and let other people find it in the same way.
Sincerely,
Louis C.K.
Already he is admitting it is almost futile to fight pirates who are going to steal his material. It is rare to see an artist address it so openly. Normally, they want to appear cool to their audience, so they let the distribution arm take the heat of enforcement.
In order to make a living, an artist needs to sell their work. But in order to do that in a digital world, it takes money and requires technology that restricts easy usage. That makes the product cost more.
Louis CK is in a unique position because no one (other than his kids) rely on the profit from this experiment. If it fails there is little risk of big loss. But, when a big media studio makes a film requiring a director, several writers, actors and technical experts like editors to pull together the risks of putting something out without protections are far too great.
I would also argue that people feel worse when it feels like a more direct stealing of a piece of work. When you illegally download this special you are very aware you are taking money from Louie. When you download the latest studio film from some faceless corporation it is far easier to rationalize that no one is getting hurt.
Edit: A few days later and Louie’s experiment seems to have paid off. He has sold many copies. However, I still argue this is an outlier. Giant media corporations couldn’t pull this off, for exactly the reason I articulate in the last paragraph above. And Louie agrees:
Fascinating, wide-ranging group interview with Louis C.K. On piracy and bootlegging:
To steal from someone and not feel bad, you either have to be a sociopath or view the act differently. One way is to remove “Someone” from the equation. You’re not stealing from a person. Big companies do a lot to help people view them as less than human. I heard a speech by Noam Chomsky who said that corporations are like super humans. They cannot be hurt like a human can and they never die. They are not susceptible to scrutiny or accountability. This makes them more profitable. If companies want to enjoy these benefits to some degree they have to live with what else comes with being not human. You miss out on compassion, forgiveness, camaraderie, empathy, trust all kinds of shit.
Pure Google Experience
Google is in the midst of releasing the 4.0 version of their mobile OS, Android. As with all of their releases, many of their older legacy devices that have come out even in the last few months won’t be upgraded to the latest version. This means you could be stuck with a phone your purchased in July that you will have for 2 years on contract that will be stuck with an older outdated OS that can’t take advantage of new features, and likely won’t be able to run some apps that need the new 4.0 code.
This is largely because Google makes the OS software, but not the phone hardware. It licenses it out to third party manufacturers like Samsung, HTC and Motorola to put on phones. However, each manufacturer likes to add special code on top of Google’s. While they aren’t explicit in explaining this, they likely do this to differentiate their products from competitors. How else does Samsung make their 4.3 inch 16GB 4G smartphone different from Motorola’s? This takes time, money, and effort to code, and in many cases it doesn’t make business sense to do so. (See Sony’s explanation of the process and you get an idea of the onerous task)
Google has made a habit of releasing a clean version of its operating system on one phone with each new release. They call these the “Nexus” devices. They convince one manufacturer to release a non-messed-with version of the new phone in exchange for getting early access to the Operating System code. Tech savvy users who refuse to go to Apple flock to these devices because they are guaranteed to get upgrades first and are the best user experience in the Android world. (I find it funny that these devices are the most Apple like with Google operating with the most control of putting out a unified hardware and software experience)
The question is why more manufacturers don’t just put out clean pure Google Android versions of phones? What should stop Motorola from simply releasing a no add ons version of one of their phones? I think they fear the same thing that is happening to the Android Tablet market – with just specs to compete on, its a price war to the bottom, destroying profits. In fact, it is the Amazon Kindle fire Tablet – which uses a heavily customized version of Android – which is winning in that market.
But, this shouldn’t stop a small second tier manufacturer from releasing “pure” phones. It would save them a lot in programming to not need software coders, so they could operate on a leaner budget. These smaller OEM manufacturers simply make cheap phones that are re-branded anyway. HTC started off this way, making windows smartphones branded as “Verizon” phones, before establishing themselves as a brand upon themselves. Huawei is in the process of following that same path now.
Subtle Signs of Luxury
I’ve written about this before, but I’m writing about it again because I am particularly fascinated by this topic. Slate has an article up about how during the recession the most wealthy are focusing on more quiet signals of luxury. Instead of flamboyant branding and logos, more subtle designs and a distinct lack of branding is popular. No reason to eschew the high priced goods, just don’t flaunt them.
In a last-ditch attempt to escape the guillotine, the top 1 percent are resorting to ever more devious tactics. First and foremost, they have adopted a bizarrely nondescript way of dressing: It’s spare simplicity with foncy labels; it’s a white gold Rolex that resembles a plain old tin Timex; it’s L.L.Bean-style basics with haute-couture prices. Simply put: The 1 percent are occupying Hermès (the luxury retailer most synonymous with understated extravagance).
This breathy, low-key mode of camouflage is described by its proponents as “quiet luxury.” It speaks in a modulated voice, and only to fellow Quiet Luxurians. It’s an Upper East Side/Mayfair/Palm Beach kind of a thing. It’s not a Gowanus Canal kind of a thing, or, God forbid, a Zuccotti Park thing. No Zuccotti denizen would be capable of decoding the subtle nuances of this particular style. That’s how deathly quiet it is.
Last week I clocked a Quiet Luxurian boarding a plane for Florida the day before Thanksgiving. To the untrained eye, her sensible and discreetly accessorized slacks ‘n’ sweater ensemble rendered her all but invisible. Her monochromatic, tawny, fawny outfit was severely ascetic and suggested a raging antipathy toward self-indulgent glamour. And yet… My estimate of the total cost of her outfit, including T. Anthony nylon tote,Hermès purse, Tod’s drivers, and gold bangle? A quiet 25 grand.
I noticed this even back in college. But back in the middle 200s it wasn’t trying to blend in. No, pre-recession it was about trying to separate the truly wealthy from the newly rich.
People with more cultural capital in a particular domain prefer subtle signals because they provide differentiation from the mainstream. Such insiders have the necessary connoisseurship to decode the meaning of subtle signals that facilitate communication with others “in the know.”
Different motives, same method.
Movember Wrap Up
aka My Friends Are Awesome
This year I participated in the Movember movement. Movember is the idea that much like October is breast cancer awareness month, November can be a month for men’s health issues, so it is prostate cancer awareness month. Instead of a pink ribbon, guys rock a mustache. Hence Movember. Then, when people ask “uh, whats up with the stache?” you can explain to them what you are doing and have an opportunity to ask them to donate.
This is my first year participating in a while, and so I didn’t have high hopes. However, my friends came through beyond my wildest speculations. I raised over $400 $435 with a pretty simple campaign of twitter, facebook, and email harassment with a few pictures to showcase my embarrassment.
You can check out my Movember page where I accepted donations and posted different things. I did a big push at the end after I raised over $250 where I’ve promised to keep the mustache for an extra day for every $10 over 250 I raised. So, unfortunately I will be keeping my new fuzzy friend through mid December! At least my upper lip will be warm!
Anyway, big thanks to all my friends who donated, you are awesome!
LA is Making Me Soft
First, the weather is so temperate, even slight fluctuations are unusual. I now complain of being “cold” if it dips below 60 degrees.
Second, while the lack of humidity makes for quite comfortable summers, in the winter it is incredibly dry, and my skin is suffering. I am peeling on my face.
On that note: any suggestions for a masculine moisturizer I could use to prevent my face from peeling off like that scene in American Pyscho?
Specs Don’t Matter
Post from TechCrunch has summed up what has been true about the computing and smartphone world for a few years now: Hardware Specs, like how fast the processor is, or how much RAM the machine has, etc, don’t really matter any more.
As computers have gotten faster, and more work is done over the web, the importance of the speed of your processor has mattered less, while your bandwidth has greater impact. The world of specs and having the best computer is limited to a few niche markets now: video editors, gamers, and enthusiasts.
I draw an analogy to cars. No one really cares about horsepower or torque anymore. When someone buys a car they look at dependability, status, and comfort. With tech its not about mghz and RAM, its about realiability, status, and ease of use.
Verbal Fast Food
Admitted this post is a bit grumpier than usual. Think of it as a tribute to the recently deceased Andy Rooney.
One of my biggest pet peeves (and turn offs in girls) is when people use curse words too freely. I’m not some puritan who doesn’t want my precious ears tainted by a strongly worded tirade. However, I cannot stand when people insert swear words into their dialogue at every other word. It comes off as lazy to me. The speaker comes off as trying to insert emphasis, but without the vocabulary to back in up, thus relying on a weak crutch to pack a verbal punch. Its the cheap, easy way out. It’s the fast food of word choice. And just like food, its the least healthy choice.
The question is not whether this is bad. I do not think anyone would argue an increasingly vulgar and limited vocabulary is better. The question is what is to blame. I come down to two theories.
First, I could argue this is a failing of our education system and a worship of celebrities who, quite bluntly aren’t bright. We hold up celebrities and athletes of Jersey Shore and their ilk, who can barely form coherent sentences when they are sober, much less during the drunken stupor they spend most of the show in. Our generation equates stupid with cool. It is cool not to care. And using big words even less cool. So we emulate that, if there is even that much credit. I would suggest that we can’t even come up with the proper words to adequately describe our feelings, or worry that it wouldn’t be understood by our audience, so we rely on the easy obviously choice.
However, I also tend to put this problem in the same category as our generation’s overuse of the word “like” in sentences as a place holder while we think of what to say next. One of my friends suggested a second theory that dovetails with this more. He suggested that our generation has gotten accustomed to online and text based communication methods. We aren’t used to verbal discussions as much. Being less practiced than previous generations in the art of conversation, we don’t have the skill to put together complex language. “We dont have control over all facets of the communication, and cant present to the world exactly what we want to project.”
Does it bother you when someone cusses for no reason, or am I just being extra picky about this? Perhaps I am just becoming too old, and cursing is one of those rebellious things we do in youth to show we aren’t just kids anymore. Maybe we all grow out of it eventually. Hopefully my generation is just on the cusp of losing this habit. But I fucking doubt it.
Childish Gambino
Saw Donald Glover (of Community fame) in concert last night under his musical alter ego Childish Gambino.
Sometimes you feel like you are listening to his therapy sessions set to music. But I also think this unbridled license to explore raw emotions is what allows fans to connect to Gambino unlike other artists they listen to.
Fantastic show. Sharing two songs off his album which drops Tuesday. You can listen to it in its entirety at NPR. You can also buy it over at Amazon.
First is my current hype song – You See Me. Filthy, misogynist, braggadocio which is exactly what you want in a hip hop psych yourself up to go out song.
Second is what is Gambino’s strong point. Emotional songs about girls. Check out both to see the complexity and lyrical skill of this up and coming rapper.
