A little like McSweeney's Lists, 5ives has some very funny lists.
37signals has an interesting review of Flickr's sign up page, the down-to-earth (non-technicalese) language it once had, and how the "feel" of that page was rendered much less pleasurable by Yahoo! after they purchased the photo-sharing site.
(My, that was a long sentence.)
(My, that was a long sentence.)
In Thomas Frank's The Conquest of Cool you'll find a compelling story of a shift in advertising in the 1960s that began to use revolutionary language and satire to celebrate youthful hipness. The irony, as I've mentioned before, is that we are continually feed cold left-overs of rebellion. The desire to sell often falls back on notions of cool. Even the design professions themselves succumb to this archaic train of thought.
A few years ago, HOW magazine (a graphic design periodical) ran an article about creative vision. On the cover was a designer-type decked out in a goatee and funky glasses:
It made me wonder if designers are calling up such worn notions of "creativity" and the creative individual. If so, we are in trouble. And it is not just HOW. I visited a successful product designer friend of mine in the summer. The first thing I noticed about him was his textbook hipster appearance. It made me wonder if his design work also followed such stereotypical and, frankly, uncreative fifty year-old ideas. The hipster aesthetic borrows much from the Beatniks and the stereotypical image (see my illustration above). The Beatniks, along with the rebel ab ex artists like Pollock and writers like Kerouac and Ginsberg, sort of set the stage for marketable concept of rebellion. There is no coincidence that their rise to notoriety coalesces completely with Frank's timeline.
We are often sold this notion about designers being super creative but the need to find the next cool thing, to me, seems a recipe for disaster as the cooptation leads to a rapid death spiral into what or an endless loop of historical references. Will design follow art? If so, what happens when graphic design, for instance, is pure concept (no form)?
I predict that the next few years will be interesting. Will we rehash the past forever and keep buying the ideas of the radical? OR will design become more shock oriented? OR quiet? OR...
Whatever happens, let me know when the hipster is dead so I can shave my beard down to a goatee.
Dennis send this frightening account of the struggle to survive and the law enforcement response in New Orleans last week.
Jeff Sellen, at Washington State University, puts things into perspective with this set of figures.
The NY Times reports that Bush and the Republicans are worried about growing American resentment over, gee, what is it? Oh, yeah:
- the Iraq war
- gas prices
- health care prices
- the state of our environment
and, of course:
- the government's mishandling of the Katrina relief.
The usual approach, gloss it up with a photo op and vapid promises, is wearing thin.
At a party last night, someone made an announcement about where to send relief dollars. A friend from Bangladesh interrupted and asked, "Is America no longer the richest country in the world?"
There was silence. He continued, "It makes sense for Americans and the world to support relief efforts in Sri Lanka or Indonesia where they might need more money. But here?"
I got what he was saying. I have felt it too. In the richest country in the world the government should've been down in the delta on Tuesday. Heck, they should've spent the money to pay for the levee repair. It would've been insurance. Now, we are expected to pay for this administration's muck ups.
Someone remarked that a relative in Canada (who happens to study the oil industry) cannot understand why the price of oil in his country rose with disaster in Gulf coast. That is a sentiment mirrored in some European countries as well.
I figure Bush now has to balance giving gifts to oil buddies, molding his legacy, and laying the ground for another republican administration. But the state of the war, the price of gasoline and health care, the inaction on Katrina relief are all things that have already happened. The latest news, the growing frustration across the country (feelings felt across the world for some time) are exposing what us on the left have always known: this president and the neo-con right need to go so that we can heal and start planning for a future that is more inclusive, egalitarian, nurturing, and forward-thinking. Sure, these things can be mimicked in a photo op. But New Orleans has now ripped open the facade. Hopefully, Americans are taking a good look inside.
- the Iraq war
- gas prices
- health care prices
- the state of our environment
and, of course:
- the government's mishandling of the Katrina relief.
The usual approach, gloss it up with a photo op and vapid promises, is wearing thin.
At a party last night, someone made an announcement about where to send relief dollars. A friend from Bangladesh interrupted and asked, "Is America no longer the richest country in the world?"
There was silence. He continued, "It makes sense for Americans and the world to support relief efforts in Sri Lanka or Indonesia where they might need more money. But here?"
I got what he was saying. I have felt it too. In the richest country in the world the government should've been down in the delta on Tuesday. Heck, they should've spent the money to pay for the levee repair. It would've been insurance. Now, we are expected to pay for this administration's muck ups.
Someone remarked that a relative in Canada (who happens to study the oil industry) cannot understand why the price of oil in his country rose with disaster in Gulf coast. That is a sentiment mirrored in some European countries as well.
I figure Bush now has to balance giving gifts to oil buddies, molding his legacy, and laying the ground for another republican administration. But the state of the war, the price of gasoline and health care, the inaction on Katrina relief are all things that have already happened. The latest news, the growing frustration across the country (feelings felt across the world for some time) are exposing what us on the left have always known: this president and the neo-con right need to go so that we can heal and start planning for a future that is more inclusive, egalitarian, nurturing, and forward-thinking. Sure, these things can be mimicked in a photo op. But New Orleans has now ripped open the facade. Hopefully, Americans are taking a good look inside.
There's been a lot about the flickr set that supposedly showed bias in reporting of the looting in New Orleans. When African-Americans were shown in images, certain news agencies called it 'looting' and with whites it was 'finding'.
It doesn't take a genius to see that many of the people left behind in New Orleans were the poor and many, of course, were African-American.
In regards to my last post, this is an interesting article about the imbalance of gender in tsunami deaths from Wikipedia in March.
It doesn't take a genius to see that many of the people left behind in New Orleans were the poor and many, of course, were African-American.
In regards to my last post, this is an interesting article about the imbalance of gender in tsunami deaths from Wikipedia in March.
While the images of the destruction caused by Katrina are pretty remarkable and sobering, I think that comparison with the tsunami is a little off. I think the blow to New Orleans' levee system (and subsequent flooding) and its impact on oil production will make it a very expensive, if not the most expensive natural disaster in this country's history. It seems like Americans sort of want a bigger disaster.
But in terms of scale and death, the tsunami was really something quite awful. Well over 200,000 dead if not more. It is ridiculous, however, to compare misery. I remember the cover of Newsweek with the woman crying over a dead family member - an image burned into my brain. Today it's the woman mourning her husband, his body wrapped in a blanket. She couldn't get him oxygen in time. Death is death.
But in terms of scale and death, the tsunami was really something quite awful. Well over 200,000 dead if not more. It is ridiculous, however, to compare misery. I remember the cover of Newsweek with the woman crying over a dead family member - an image burned into my brain. Today it's the woman mourning her husband, his body wrapped in a blanket. She couldn't get him oxygen in time. Death is death.
There are a lot of "iconic" images of the 20th century but probably the most enduring and significant is this picture of Che Guevara.
This image, like so much that represented the rebellious individual during the middle of the 20th century, has been commodified and sold back to us. There is no such thing as cool anymore. If you didn't get the message, oh, say 1989 then look at what passes for cool these days. Not only are we sold archaic notions of the outsider, we see it perpetually reinvented and sold back to us yet again.
Napoleon Dynamite is the new Che Guevara, in spirit anyway, simply because he can satisfy the corporate need for an outsider icon and reinvigorate our ideas of rebellion. When bearded Marxists look a little too much like the Taliban and the image is so well worn that everyone who wants instant rebel pedigree papers mimics the image of Che, its time to look toward the low income, scrawny white kid with an afro.
The Argentinean guerrilla's family is now trying to control the use of the image. I am afraid that it is too late. We have long ago absorbed the image into our collective unconscious. What can they do? Rent Napoleon Dynamite, of course.
For a good analysis of the use of Che's image read Rick Poyner's Obey the Giant.
The song goes something like this:
Do you know what it means to miss new orleans
And miss it each night and day
I know I’m not wrong... this feeling’s gettin’ stronger
The longer, I stay away
About 3 million people are missing home as they have been evacuated. Nearly 500,000 in NO proper. New Orleans, as we all know by now, sits below sea level.
If that first image didn't do anything for you then think storm surge and take a look at this image followed by this. The latter states that Category 4 storm surges can produce 13 to 18 foot surges. Katrina is a Category 5, I believe.
Yikes!
(BTW, the song above is Louis Armstrong not Katrina and the Waves)
Our leaders are holier than thou. According to the press anyway.
An interesting read in the Harvard Gazette (by way of kottke.org). A snippet:
"...It's the turn-of-the-century photographs that Jacob Riis took of the slums on the Lower East Side, it's the Pruitt-Igoe housing project in St. Louis that had to be torn down in the 1970s. It's the image of the huddled masses, of disease, crime, congestion. But the statistics show that density is not a leading factor for these conditions. For example, the TB statistics show that the key elements are new immigrants and poverty. Similarly, it's poverty and the lack of job opportunities that drive crime and not density, per se."
The article highlights the benefits (and, well, joys) of living in the city. These include less environmental impact, better tax-base, and nearby high-quality institutions and cultural resources.
"...It's the turn-of-the-century photographs that Jacob Riis took of the slums on the Lower East Side, it's the Pruitt-Igoe housing project in St. Louis that had to be torn down in the 1970s. It's the image of the huddled masses, of disease, crime, congestion. But the statistics show that density is not a leading factor for these conditions. For example, the TB statistics show that the key elements are new immigrants and poverty. Similarly, it's poverty and the lack of job opportunities that drive crime and not density, per se."
The article highlights the benefits (and, well, joys) of living in the city. These include less environmental impact, better tax-base, and nearby high-quality institutions and cultural resources.
Discover magazine has an article by Steven Johnson about Dodgeball - a chimerical tool made up of mapping/wayfinding and social networking technologies.
While it is an interesting little article that brings up the notion that more urban centers better cater to niche groups than rural or small suburban areas (a premise that is hard to argue against), the discussion implicitly follows several assumptions that I find a little problematic.
The gist of my criticism concerns the narrow definition of socializing and the implied socio-economic class and age of those that are assumed to be using Dodgeball. It is clear that the technology described is created for young, semi-affluent, somewhat tech-savvy users.
To go to a bar and hang out and meet "crushes" speaks loads about who this product is intended to serve. Johnson, in his analysis fails to mention the age and socio-economic factors. Johnson instead uses the example of a button store saying that it has a better chance of succeeding in the city due to higher numbers of button freaks. Sure, niche button stores in small towns don't make it but, really, mainstream grocery stores often struggle as well (although, I must say, the rubber stamp/stationary store in my town is not only still around after a couple of years but seems to be doing quite well). It often seems that the reason small town businesses struggle is that younger generations are sold on a mythology that life is better in the city and often that mythology aggrandizes and legitimizes the congregations of big capital and cultural institutions that benefit from being near well-established commercial routes (and those big business). This, of course, comes about as we moved away from small-scale farming towards large-scale agri-business. We are still holding on to the idea that to remain in the boonies means that we need to work on a farm.
I find it immaterial to argue against the reasons that urban areas grow and their importance in general but what I do argue is that we keep pushing the city on children and I think in the future it might be a pretty stupid thing to do. We should look at building all sorts of opportunities and institutions for all ages and socio-economic brackets in rural areas as well.
Johnson remarks:
Dodgeball suggests an intriguing twist on long tail theory. As the technology increasingly allows us to satisfy more eclectic needs, any time those needs require a physical presence —whether it's sipping your cold soup or meeting your crush in a bar —the logic of the long tail will favor urban environments over less densely populated ones. If you'’re downloading the latest album from an obscure Scandinavian doo-wop group, geography doesn'’t matter: It's just as easy to get the bits delivered to you in the middle of Wyoming as it is in the middle of Manhattan. But if you'’re trying to meet up with other fans of Scandinavian doo-wop, you'll have more luck in Manhattan.
Ok. I am surprised this comes from Johnson. I don't think the popular discussions about internet and community were bunk and I would argue that not only does the technology sometimes sublimate for physical proximity (come on, how often would you really go and hang out with Scandinavian doo-wop fans?) it also provides interpersonal distance. And sometimes, if done right, community develops around resources to which people in rural areas connect. Also distance, if you live in the country I would argue, is even perceived differently than in the city. One city block could be 40 miles in the country. I would argue then that people in rural areas are not disadvantaged at all but have an option to remain at a distance and sublimate through technology or can engage by driving *short* distances if they so choose, communicating by phone, or, like me when I feel completely disengaged, visiting cities when I so choose.
To conclude, Johnson's comment about technologies like Dodgeball leading to bigger cities, I think is crazy. As populations age and the technology mutates into something just as meaningful not only for rural and suburban folk but for far older, or younger, or less affluent users it will not draw people to the cities. In fact, it may, with some change in our mythologies revitalize the small town and relieve overburdened populations in the cities.
While it is an interesting little article that brings up the notion that more urban centers better cater to niche groups than rural or small suburban areas (a premise that is hard to argue against), the discussion implicitly follows several assumptions that I find a little problematic.
The gist of my criticism concerns the narrow definition of socializing and the implied socio-economic class and age of those that are assumed to be using Dodgeball. It is clear that the technology described is created for young, semi-affluent, somewhat tech-savvy users.
To go to a bar and hang out and meet "crushes" speaks loads about who this product is intended to serve. Johnson, in his analysis fails to mention the age and socio-economic factors. Johnson instead uses the example of a button store saying that it has a better chance of succeeding in the city due to higher numbers of button freaks. Sure, niche button stores in small towns don't make it but, really, mainstream grocery stores often struggle as well (although, I must say, the rubber stamp/stationary store in my town is not only still around after a couple of years but seems to be doing quite well). It often seems that the reason small town businesses struggle is that younger generations are sold on a mythology that life is better in the city and often that mythology aggrandizes and legitimizes the congregations of big capital and cultural institutions that benefit from being near well-established commercial routes (and those big business). This, of course, comes about as we moved away from small-scale farming towards large-scale agri-business. We are still holding on to the idea that to remain in the boonies means that we need to work on a farm.
I find it immaterial to argue against the reasons that urban areas grow and their importance in general but what I do argue is that we keep pushing the city on children and I think in the future it might be a pretty stupid thing to do. We should look at building all sorts of opportunities and institutions for all ages and socio-economic brackets in rural areas as well.
Johnson remarks:
Dodgeball suggests an intriguing twist on long tail theory. As the technology increasingly allows us to satisfy more eclectic needs, any time those needs require a physical presence —whether it's sipping your cold soup or meeting your crush in a bar —the logic of the long tail will favor urban environments over less densely populated ones. If you'’re downloading the latest album from an obscure Scandinavian doo-wop group, geography doesn'’t matter: It's just as easy to get the bits delivered to you in the middle of Wyoming as it is in the middle of Manhattan. But if you'’re trying to meet up with other fans of Scandinavian doo-wop, you'll have more luck in Manhattan.
Ok. I am surprised this comes from Johnson. I don't think the popular discussions about internet and community were bunk and I would argue that not only does the technology sometimes sublimate for physical proximity (come on, how often would you really go and hang out with Scandinavian doo-wop fans?) it also provides interpersonal distance. And sometimes, if done right, community develops around resources to which people in rural areas connect. Also distance, if you live in the country I would argue, is even perceived differently than in the city. One city block could be 40 miles in the country. I would argue then that people in rural areas are not disadvantaged at all but have an option to remain at a distance and sublimate through technology or can engage by driving *short* distances if they so choose, communicating by phone, or, like me when I feel completely disengaged, visiting cities when I so choose.
To conclude, Johnson's comment about technologies like Dodgeball leading to bigger cities, I think is crazy. As populations age and the technology mutates into something just as meaningful not only for rural and suburban folk but for far older, or younger, or less affluent users it will not draw people to the cities. In fact, it may, with some change in our mythologies revitalize the small town and relieve overburdened populations in the cities.