Posts Tagged ‘doomed’

the girlfriend effect

There is a vocabulary to the emotions of human relationships and feelings. There are a lot of books about this; many firm, concise sentences have been declared. We may explain ourselves as a single word written one thousand times, or as many do, we may write nothing. There is a certain versatility to the absence of words and the ambiguity of potential explanations. There is a perfect complexity to the formless abstractions that have conquered the uncivilized and turned our fears into markets. I like these a lot. I prefer to think that the mathematicians and physicists keep key formulas ridiculously convoluted so that only a minority finds them accessible. Their language, their syntax, their symbolism just as complicated as the equations that drive our global economy or our interpersonal relationships. Systems as complex and potentially unknowable as the weather. However, the wonder of our contemporary world is not in what we’ve found, but in what we’ve determined we cannot find. Our everyday reason is beginning to move in similar directions.

Listen: I have a lot of things I can’t discuss because the discourse would destroy them. A lot of things that can’t be talked about because they’re too obscene or not obscene enough. I’m wasting time even mentioning them, and it’s a problem we all have, every single one of us whether we know it or not. The variables are all best left as unknowable Greek symbols, inverted in cube roots and imaginary numbers. For the sake of my argument, we are going to substitute the language of mathematics with a bastardized English. I’ve wanted to create a thousand verbs to elaborate upon them. A hundred dozen nouns of materials, shapes, forms borne of emotions, expectations, assumptions, revelations. I’ve wanted to enumerate these visions and graph them from a million data points, between social capital and synthesized personalities. Big numbers to keep me company, wrestling these tiny fragments caught up in pockets of the dark. Hopefully we’ll never be able to do this. These are transformative ideas rather than explanatory ones: these struggles are the conversations we should be having, and we are beginning to realize their importance between hashtags and occupations.

READ MORE…

What’s Wrong: Kanye West and/or America

I don’t like Kanye West. As an artist, at least. I don’t know him personally. (Though I’m sure there’s at least one person in the world who does.) I think he’s a great producer, but a terrible standalone act. Through my examination of why Kanye sucks so much, (thanks to friends who keep insisting he’s worth listening to,) I’ve discovered something quite tragic: Kanye West serves as a wonderful allegory for why America sucks right now, too.

Presently in American culture we are obsessed with loving things that are inherently awful. Most people know this, but few do anything about it. Things like obscene reality television, dime-a-dozen CSI-wannabe shows, the autobiographies of our corrupt politicians, Katy Perry, mindless shows about home improvement and/or food, and the art of becoming super rich. We’re boisterous, without merit, shameless and bored. Our cultural expression reflects this, and it damns us. We’re dredging the bowels of our culture, seeing just how low we can go before something snaps. Unfortunately, I don’t believe anything will “snap”. During the Bush years people often thought just how far our reach had to extend before people would start really protesting. That flavor of American individuality is gone from our rhetoric, I suppose, never to return, or at least not until food prices go too high.

seriously folks

Our American government and civil culture is equally distorted. We’re protecting the rich while punishing 99.7% of the population. We keep giving money to people who have proven they’re only going to continue raping us with it. We keep voting for people who are clearly idiots. Our economy, as it stands right now, is inherently awful. Bored, greedy people running corporations that just want more profit at whatever cost. They know they’re awful, we know they’re awful, but we keep buying into their lies. I mean, even Ron Paul is looking like a better option every day. Anything radically different must be better than this!

READ MORE…

What’s Wrong: Social Information

Besides the obvious commodification of social information, the bigger problem is social information itself.

Coming from a web development background, when I see Facebook, I don’t see people: I see rows in a database. I see people being reduced to fields in a form; status updates, Likes, and other such mechanizations of personality, all of them simply a mass of data. The debate 3-5 years ago (and it goes back much further) was about how we (our individual selves) choose to be represented on the internet. This debate was founded on the idea that the self chooses to represent itself when staring at a computer. This was a reasonable assumption back then, when the majority of computer users were adults who had (somewhat) a capacity to distinguish online from offline. And it was largely true; when you logged in to a chatroom, you were vaguely aware that you could create any identity you wanted to. There was a separation.

For several decades psychologists have known that in many ways, we as people do not really consciously choose how we represent ourselves in real life, even though we’re made to feel that we choose who we are. We really don’t. We’re amalgamations of the people around us, our family, our genetics, and how culture affects us. This is all sub/unconscious, very little control is conscious (though it can be made into a more conscious process with meditation/self-understanding). Who we “are” is highly contextual, abstract, and relative. Who we are shifts constantly over time. Conversely, the more you realize and accept this, the more in control you become (though you can never truly be in control).

The internet is the first medium to truly defy this in its most fundamental form, because computerization of the self requires normalization and, therefore, definition. There are no abstract concepts in a database, facebook’s rows of information are broken down into data types: integers, strings, text blobs, relational foreign IDs leading to other databases, et cetera. There is no room for the amorphous ideas of friendship: there is only a row which links the unique identifier for me to the unique identifier for you. That is friendship to facebook, and it is becoming friendship for all young people.

READ MORE…

I CAN HAS PART 2: LULZ IN A BUBBLE

“Pool’s Closed.” – old internet adage

“Look at these sad trolls.” – Charlie Sheen

Another Epic Introduction

Why don’t you have a seat right here. We’ve fallen a long way, haven’t we? I’m rather disappointed. Yeah, I know I broke rules 1 and 2 when I wrote my research paper on “the lulz” almost four years ago. I look back, reading it again, and I’m surprised by how naive I was. But I had some good ideas, I was following the right path. Perhaps the internet itself was so young and unknown, as I was, trapped in a shifting world not yet bound by concrete intentions. Things on the internet simply existed, without real intentions, moving along a path we felt was a good one.

Before I start explaining how far we’ve gone downhill, let me recap a few crazy facts. In the time since I wrote my cute little research paper, internet usage has gone up to 30% of the world’s population, almost half of which is in Asia alone. WikiLeaks happened. Justin Bieber happened. There were two ROFLCons. We (the USA) are currently in three wars and a recession. Facebook has 500 million users and a movie. Google and Apple have made some mad bank, and all the neat little tech companies of the early and mid 2000s have been bought and are cashing in on multi-million or multi-billion dollar valuations. Twitter happened. Foursquare happened. Tumblr happened. Chatroulette happened. So-called “internet-fueled revolutions” are happening in northern Africa and the Middle East. Anonymous has gone after a lot of targets (cannons were fired). Moot won person of the year (and other great 4chan accomplishments). There’s a whole goddamn list on Wikipedia of “internet phenomena“. BitTorrent happened. Major corporations are “actually listening” to people on the internet. We got Obama, the first president who openly accepts the internet as, you know, actually something.

All this, and tons more, and what has come of it? Has the internet become a better place? A cooler place? A happier place? Well, the simple, extraordinary, and delightful gift of quaint early-millenium web-thinking has blossomed into a jaded, capitalized, and totalitarian internet. The democratization of online culture has lead to its wholesale monopolization, to its abandonment. Devoid of the innovative and cooperative spirit that manifested in early ARPANET, ISPs are ready and willing to limit your internet usage by the byte so they can make a few extra dollars, and people “running the web” are simply designing new and ever-stupider ways of monetizing it.

I dare say, should we be surprised by this? Everything is clear in hindsight, but I am not hesitant to say that we should have seen this coming. I wrote in the earlier work that proliferation was the next step, that the only thing our culture had to do was spread. The unforeseen but historically-obvious cost of this would be its normalization and valuation. On the internet today, we exist in a bubble, wherein a large amount of people are trying to capitalize on what the internet may or may not be. A lot of people are making huge bets, again, but based on new ideas. We made a lot of fun promises in the middle-days, but unfortunately some people took those as ones which could be cashed in. (To the oblivious dismay of academics everywhere.)

READ MORE…

On Writing, lol

I just finished reading Stephen King’s wonderful memoir/manual On Writing. It was a fantastic breeze of a read, being very moving in certain ways. I’ve always had a very fond respect for Stephen King’s work, and have read a great deal of it, because he has always seemed to me like the quintessential writer of the past 25 years who just writes what they like. And doesn’t care if you read it or not, really, but knows enough about writing to figure a lot of people will read it anyway. He doesn’t convey that exact sentiment in the book, he is much more humble, but in my fictionalized world he’s a bit more radical than he appears.

Of course, I haven’t been published, ever, and most of my writing I keep to myself or make very little attempt at promoting. I don’t think I’m anywhere yet ready to seek publication beyond my own vain internet presence (see: this). Though I love writing, and as King repeats: there is no reason not to write. I sat down at my computer one day in late high school and I spent several hours in deep thought after a very revelatory choice came to my mind: writing or programming, which would I choose to follow as a formal education in college? At the time I was looking squarely at a certain college and it had both a New Media program and a Writing program. I knew that I loved both and I couldn’t live without either; the end decision ended up being very practical. I knew that developing things for the web was what I could have a secure future doing. Especially as the eldest son in a slightly patriarchal family, I had in mind that I would be able to make a good living, with perhaps writing as a hobby on the side. Writers, and particularly poets (specifically my choices were New Media or Poetry) have a hard time making steady sums of money solely on writing.

READ MORE…

arcade fire, or, the fetishization of music as a depopularizing force

So that Arcade Fire won a grammy, right? For album of the year, no less. And I suppose that’s a worthy benediction for the once-artful romance of music. I mean, what else was there to give an award to? Lady Gaga? Katy Perry? Does anybody really take this stuff seriously anymore?

Since the onslaught of emo music in the early 2000s, while I was in high school, I’ve been watching the steady devolution of pop from a rigid, monolithic structure to a screaming quorum of hedge-bets and has-beens. With rapidly decreasing traditional record sales, the transition from music as populist rejoinder to a cataclysmic divider has been thorough and remains unfinished. Perhaps, as I am afraid to believe, it will never be finished, like fashion (goddamn social network). This shattering of “music” as we know it in America has come largely thanks to the networking and layering/defining of social life, strictly upon our faith in the omniscient god-machine, life-sustainer and social differential engine.

The parallel is simple to see, but why would anybody want to see it. “Indie music” has come at a time when we are all worried about our social lives more than we’re worried about war or recession (do you remember we’re still in two wars and a recession?). The varied styles of indie music cater to those who would benefit most from their promise of distance; very different from how emo music assured that all of us have our hearts on our sleeves and we’re really all emotionally stunted and clueless, all of us together yearning to be understood. Rather terrifically, and terribly, emo music was firmly supplanted by that it is opposed to; instead of us wanting to be one and together sharing the same depression, now we all want to be islands with our own musical fortresses. I knew Eminem’s story arc before his second album came out, and I’m still surprised he hasn’t shot himself like Kobain did.

READ MORE…