Going Roque

Let Me Tell You My Opinion

Going Roque
  • About Me

Standard

February 15, 2013 by Rachel

The art of selling out

fiddlehead

In an op-ed today in the NYT, Lance Hosey makes the pragmatic case for beauty:

“Take color. Last year, German researchers found that just glancing at shades of green can boost creativity and motivation. It’s not hard to guess why: we associate verdant colors with food-bearing vegetation — hues that promise nourishment. This could partly explain why window views of landscapes, research shows, can speed patient recovery in hospitals, aid learning in classrooms and spur productivity in the workplace. In studies of call centers, for example, workers who could see the outdoors completed tasks 6 to 7 percent more efficiently than those who couldn’t, generating an annual savings of nearly $3,000 per employee.
In some cases the same effect can happen with a photographic or even painted mural, whether or not it looks like an actual view of the outdoors. Corporations invest heavily to understand what incentivizes employees, and it turns out that a little color and a mural could do the trick. Simple geometry is leading to similar revelations. For more than 2,000 years, philosophers, mathematicians and artists have marveled at the unique properties of the “golden rectangle”: subtract a square from a golden rectangle, and what remains is another golden rectangle, and so on and so on — an infinite spiral. These so-called magical proportions (about 5 by 8) are common in the shapes of books, television sets and credit cards, and they provide the underlying structure for some of the most beloved designs in history: the facades of the Parthenon and Notre Dame, the face of the ‘Mona Lisa,’ the Stradivarius violin and the original iPod.”

Bill Hicks took this line of reasoning to its logical extreme decades ago; it ends with a beautiful woman, preferably nude, in fully saturated color, selling Coke. And the truth about whether sex really sells, or if it just angries up the blood is, of course, more complicated than the conventional wisdom might admit. But the way the question is framed is problematic. Does beauty in art or nature need justification, a practical purpose, an angle to exploit? Is the ultimate measure of everything whether or not it can be used to turn a profit?

Jackson Pollock, “Number 8”

Now. Some people become very fidgety when, for instance, their favorite song turns up in a car commercial. I have little patience for the sort of purist who prefers their idols starving and struggling; as Nitsuh Abebe wrote in a very good profile of Grizzly Bear last year, artists have mortgages to pay and heroin to buy, like the rest of us, and while I personally would never always illegally pirate music even though it is easier and faster as well as free-er, you know. Kids these days. However: egregious brand clashes between band and product are certainly cringe-inducing (remember that painfully awkward Iggy Pop ad for a Royal Caribbean cruise?). On the other hand, the use of Walt Whitman in this Levi’s ad makes me want to high five Don Draper.

It is certainly a marvelous side effect for an artist to have his paintings featured in a movie, or a song used to sell iPods. There is, in fact, a compelling argument to be made that the demands of marketing can make one a better writer or visual artist. There is undeniably a fertile, profitable overlap between commerce and creation. Still, the concept that the value of not just one’s work, but even physical or natural beauty is market-based…that freaks me out. Maybe it’s just because nobody ever pays me for my paintings.

Posted in Existential Crisis, Information Processing, Public Square · Leave a Reply ·

Standard

February 12, 2013 by Rachel

SOTU Liveblog

6:08 PM: Everybody got your drinking games prepared? Who will be the camera hog as POTUS approaches the podium?

6:12: Al Sharpton is old.Tweety is possibly drunk, as always. Late breaking no doy! You don’t say!

6:14: Haha, John Boehner is so miserable. Every time he reluctantly stands, take a shot! Every time he cries, finish the bottle!

6:17: Starting off with foreign policy, didn’t see that coming

6:20: Pelosi, Warren, Biden, and Waters all serving Power Purple realness

6:19: Al Franken! Did you know he can draw a map of the US from memory? Like, flawlessly?

6:23: Clearly, POTUS has been taking notes from Explainer-in-Chief Clinton.

6:24: Tax reform! The kids LOVE THAT stuff!

6:28: Oh snap, he just called out manufactured crises in general and the debt ceiling nonsense specifically. Democrats go wild! Republicans look like they are holding back farts.

6:30: Tim Cook, your most memorable feature is that you are not Steve Jobs. But thanks for bringing back manufacturing, that FoxConn situation was a hot mess.

6:34: Nobody will ever convince me that Henry Waxman is not a cartoon mouse transformed into a human by a powerful, benevolent wizard.

6:35: Climate change! OMG finally. Thank the sweet baby Jesus. Now – policies? “Bi-partisan market-based solution” doesn’t actually mean anything. But, an executive order? Hey now. HEY now.

6:45: Listening to second half of the SOTU on the radio on the way home. I miss Joe Biden and John Boehner’s ridiculous expressions.

Education reform! I am surprised by the scope of this speech, he is swinging for the fences and flattering the red states while he’s at it. This is legit making my bleeding heart sing.

6:49: Yes. For-profit scam schools need to get handled.

6:50: Immigration reform! Violence Against Women Act! Paycheck Fairness Act! Big ups to Joey B, a series of less-than-subtle digs at Congress!

6:53: Raising the minimum wage and tying it to cost of living? You must mean CLASS WARFARE. Get up in there, Bam Bam.

6:57: Long, significant chunk of foreign policy. Symbolically, the radio cut out and I could only catch “Afghanistan…al Qaeda…drawdown…cyberterrorism…trade agreements…eff you, Assad…always stand strong with Israel…” So obviously, I assume that means all our problems are solved and handled.

7:08: Gay soldiers! Women in combat! Voting suppression! GUN CONTROL! Somebody got his swagger back like whoa – bringing the police chiefs into it is a really, really smart move.

7:11: Powerful repetition. “It deserves a vote.” Gabby Giffords, Aurora, Newtown, Oak Creek, on and on, deserve a vote. Emotional/rhetorical heart of this speech.

7:15: Classic liberal message: we don’t have to achieve perfection, but we have to attempt improvement. This was a ballsy, ambitious speech from a president with a very serious agenda in his lame-duck term, cobbled together with a goodish number of meaningless platitudes around some pretty significant policy; global warming, gun control, immigration AND education reform.

Posted in Ideology, Throwing Shade · 2 Replies ·

Standard

February 2, 2013 by Rachel

The ‘Wizard of Blogs’

Nick Denton, 2010

     Nick Denton has written precisely one book, a 1996 exposé of the collapse of Barings Bank called “All That Glitters.” It did not perform particularly well commercially, nor did it receive outstanding critical acclaim. His work as a journalist for the Daily Telegraph, Financial Times, and the Economist was, if not unremarkable, at least unremarked upon. Despite his own sterling academic bona fides as a graduate of Oxford, the class he co-taught at Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism with an academic and former Hungarian legislator from his Financial Times days, Peter Molnar, proved to be an unmitigated disaster. Denton abandoned the project mid-semester and no longer speaks to his former colleague. Similarly, his transition from traditional print media to online properties, First Tuesdays and Moreover Technologies, made him rich through fortunate timing with the dot-com bubble, but failed to satisfy his developing ambitions. At a glance, the man who now gleefully refers to himself a pornographer and gossip merchant is not the most obvious heir apparent to, let’s say, beloved American satirist/moralist Mark Twain.

     And yet, upon deeper observation, Denton represents not just a new kind of journalist, but a new kind of public intellectual; one who prizes radical authenticity over objectivity, the democracy of pageviews over the preferences of the media elite, and the clarity of an outsider perspective over access to the powerful. As the media mogul behind the Gawker Media family of websites (Gawker, Jezebel, Gizmodo, Deadspin, Lifehacker, io9, Kotaku, Jalopnik and the soon-to-be-resurrected Valleywag; and formerly, Wonkette, Idolator, Consumerist, the wildly NSFW Fleshbot, Defamer, Gridskipper, Sploid, Cityfile, Oddjack, Screenhead, and Gawker.TV), Denton has tied the digital future of media to its historical roots in the sensationalism of “yellow” print journalism. In a profile in the New Yorker, Ben McGrath writes:

“Like all gossip merchants, Denton fancies himself a truth-teller who relishes flouting the conventions of good taste and privilege. He grew up in London, where the Fleet Street tabloid culture is cutthroat, and he shares the Murdochian view of American journalism as effete, earnest, and uncompetitive. ‘The staples of old yellow journalism are the staples of the new yellow journalism: sex; crime; and, even better, sex crime,’ he wrote in a memo to his staff. ‘Remember how Pulitzer got his start.'”

     In fact, Denton’s clearly defined editorial voice and eye for writing talent spread throughout the nascent blogging platform like a virus. Young editors and writers steeped in Gawker’s trademark outsider snark have made their way into an astonishing number of traditional, ‘legitimate’ outlets: Alex Pareene to Slate, Emily Gould to the New York Times, Jessica Coen to Vanity Fair, Ana Marie Cox to MSNBC, Gabriel Snyder and Richard Lawson to the Atlantic, Doree Shafrir to Rolling Stone, Gabriel Sherman to the New York Observer, and on and on. Clearly, this pattern of migration is unique to Gawker among gossip hawkers; one will not find a similar revolving door between the New Yorker and TMZ, for instance.

     Additionally, former Gawkerites Choire Sicha and Alex Balk, after making the rounds of New York media (NYT, Radar), began their own blog, The Awl, which began turning a tidy profit in an astonishingly short amount of time. They have since expanded to a family of sites (specializing in comedy, feminism, finances, and technology) which resemble an early incarnation of Gawker in both tone and design. In terms of influence, there can be little doubt that Denton’s peculiar sensibility has issued a challenge to the media establishment that they have been forced to answer. However, while pure influence may be enough to qualify him for a regular table at Balthazar’s and the literally rarefied air of the Aspen Ideas Panel, does it truly make him a public intellectual?

     In a 2008 New York Times post, Barry Gewen argued that the old ways of evaluating who is and is not a public intellectual – and by extension, whether or not public intellectuals as a class are in decline – from a classic postwar, New-York-centric perspective are still superior to the overly-inclusive definition of modern academics. Between the lines pulses a disdain for a laxity of standards, this new group of wildcat intellectuals who will, as he writes, practically let anyone into the club, so long as they have written a book. The old guard, however, had standards:

“Broadly, they viewed the public intellectual as someone deeply committed to the life of the mind and to its impact on the society at large. Irving Howe refers to the pursuit of ‘the idea of centrality’ among the writers he knew, and the yearning ‘to embrace . . . the spirit of the age.’ That is, public intellectuals were free-floating and unattached generalists speaking out on every topic that came their way (though most important for the New York Intellectuals was the intersection of literature and politics). They might be journalists or academics, but only because they had to eat. At the most fundamental level, ideas for them were not building blocks to a career….Drezner includes, for instance, Fareed Zakaria and Samantha Power. I yield to few in my admiration for these two writers, but for them to be considered public intellectuals in the old New York Intellectual sense — with its commitment to cultural “centrality” — I think they would have to demonstrate greater breadth than they have so far displayed. Zakaria would have to write, say, a thoughtful essay on the novels of Philip Roth and Power a book on the history of the blues.”

     He continued on in that vein, approvingly discussing the shame that the Great Old Ones had if they were forced to find gainful employment. How too, terribly bourgeois. This served, he theorizes, to maintain tension between academia’s demands that one actually be an expert at something, and the conflicting belief on the part of the New York intellectuals that people who have jobs are simply not that cool.

     Stephen Mack counters with another perspective on what it means to be a public intellectual which addresses an important angle of Gewen’s “dynamic tension” requirement by tackling another form of snobbery:

“Donatich’s smugly theatrical notion of a ‘conflict,’ a popular view within the intelligentsia, is both wrong and wrong-headed. It is wrong in the sense that it traffics in the self-serving fiction of American anti-intellectualism. And it is wrong-headed in the sense that it undermines the value of citizen responsibility by subordinating it unnecessarily to the most elitist argument for the public intellectual, the one grounded in the myth of an aristocracy of experts…. what is sometimes identified as anti-intellectualism is in fact intellectual—that is, a well articulated family of ideas and arguments that privilege the practical, active side of life (e.g., work) over the passive and purely reflective operations of the mind in a vacuum. Hence, for example, when John Dewey built his career as a philosopher on a thoughtful, systematic, elegant, and sustained repudiation of the Cartesian notion of mind and, instead, argued for ‘experience’ as the foundation of human endeavor—he was hardly exposing himself as an anti-intellectual bigot. ‘Nuff said.”

     Within the interplay between these writers on who deserves to be called a public intellectual, what role experience in the material world plays, and crucially, who decides who gets into the club, a commonality emerges. As Mack puts it, “public intellectual” is not a class or a type – it is a function. The most important duty of a public intellectual, the work they must do, he claims, is “…to keep the pot boiling.” It is difficult to imagine any current figure who serves in this role of pot-stirrer, critic of the mighty, instigator, and general shit-starter better than Denton. In a 7 page long article reacting to brutal mockery from Gawker for her overly precious wedding announcement, New York Observer writer Vanessa Grigoriadis explored her own professional and personal discomfort with Denton’s model:

“Of all the ways in which Gawker is antithetical to journalistic ethics—it’s self-referential, judgmental, ad hominem, and resolutely against effecting change in the world—it pushes its writers to be honest in a way that’s not always found in print publications. Little is repressed; the id, and everything else, is part of the discourse (including exhibition and narcissism). Even the Gawker office, a kind of journalistic boiler room, can serve as a metaphor for transparency, open for anyone to see, operating behind a plate-glass window in a Crosby Street storefront. Some of Denton’s bloggers are onboard with this mission: ‘Quite frankly, fuck discretion,’ writes Moe Tkacik, a former newspaper reporter, on Denton’s newest site, Jezebel. ‘Discretion is how I didn’t figure out how to come until I was 24 years old; discretion is why women’s magazine editors persist in treating their fellow humans like total shit; and when you’ve spent a career trying to catch others in their own indiscretions, discretion just feels a little dishonest and superior.'”

Tellingly, Grigoriadis opened her piece with: “At the risk of sounding like a wounded old-media journalist…”

Alan Dye illustration from NY Mag article, “Gawker and the Rage of the Creative Underclass”

     For Denton and his staff, the accountability of page views are an inoculation against the myopia and elitism that plague old-media journalism. Although a cursory search will turn up oodles of photographs of Denton hobnobbing with Arianna Huffington, Cory Booker, and Bill Maher, publishing private emails from Brian Williams, or and toasting champagne with Janine Gibson, Denton believes that chasing after access in return for favorable coverage is the true form of selling out. Though he has become a fixture of the Manhattan cocktail party circuit, he is widely considered to be ‘skunk at the garden party’- as he was in his time as a relentless, ruthless reporter. His obsession with providing readers with what they really want, rather than what he or any other expert might think that they should want, has resulted in higher traffic on his websites than the LA Times, Time, the Washington Post, or USA Today.

     It has also resulted in experimentation in technique and methodology, including “traffic whoring,” which naturally spiraled into additional obsessing from media observers, as well as interest from large, shady investors which Denton was able to leverage into an election year scoop of the Republican candidate’s former business. It has, of course, also provided him with a Greek chorus of media figures who relish the opportunity to put him in his place; after Ben McGrath’s profile ran, his colleague John Cassidy aggressively dismissed any claims that Denton might be the next Murdoch in a follow up piece:

“Denton has moved beyond the stage of running a cottage business, but suggestions that he has joined, or is about to join, the ranks of moguldom, where revenues are measured in the hundreds of millions, or billions, are absurd….That said, he runs an innovative little company that has some well-known online brands, and he has bigger ambitions.”

Ahem.

     Whatever the case regarding revenues, Gawker has made it a point to expand their targets from just celebrities and old media, taking on hackers, Vladimir Putin, closeted tycoons, Apple, football players and their fake dead girlfriends, topless congressmen, and soon, the world. Denton has shown that he will not only tolerate, but actively cultivate a reputation as an outsider, even as his experiments provide a microcosmic view of the evolution of media; as he told NBC News, “This is going to sound really, really pretentious, but I believe in the larger truth and I believe that the truth is arrived at often in a rather messy fashion.” There is no more precise way, in my view, to define the function of a public intellectual.

Posted in Information Processing, Public Square, Throwing Shade · Leave a Reply ·

Standard

January 26, 2013 by Rachel

How is the imminent threat of communism like a rainbow?

…whether or not you can see it, and how clearly, depends almost entirely on where you stand.

In a fascinating paper (subscription required) on the similarities between left- and right-wing radicals, Herbert McClosky and Dennis Chong argue that if one drifts far enough, the political left-right continuum becomes more like a ring, rather than a straight number line. If this concept seems counterintuitive, imagine the wariness of ‘the male gaze’ that a women’s studies major and a Christian or Muslim fundamentalist might share. Other, similar attitudes spring to mind where the extremes on the left and right share a common stance (natural child birth, maintaining your family’s food supply, other expressions of dissatisfaction with the mainstream status quo).

But crucially, it’s the zealotry, inflexibility, intolerance of dissent, and affection for conspiracy theories – the frameworks for political thought and action – that truly unite the fringes of both sides. The self-image as a “persecuted minority” who are disrespected, passed over and mistreated on the individual level is shared by both sides of the political divide. So too is a lack trust in electoral outcomes generally, and in other individuals specifically. It is funny that this generalized distrust of institutions, characterized as corporations (including the media) and the wealthy by the left, and the “entrenched liberal establishment” (academia, the media, and government bureaucracy) by the right, leaves both ends of the spectrum so susceptible to the conspiratorial fantasies that thrive in the fever swamps.

Thus, you end up with both sides certain that our once-great, beloved nation is hurtling towards a political extreme which is anathema to their views. According to Chong,

“…the radicals of the left and right insist on the more dire conclusion that America is approaching the abyss represented by either communism or fascism – depending on the ideological vantage point of the doomsayer. Such apocalyptic forebodings symbolize the crude and indiscriminate political analysis habitual among extremists of both sides.”

Translating for the truthers, birthers, occupiers and tea partiers: your belief in the takeover of America by hostile forces says quite a bit more about you, than it does about the state of the nation. Also, please stop forwarding me emails.

Posted in Ideology, Public Square, Throwing Shade · Leave a Reply ·

Standard

January 23, 2013 by Rachel

This is how it’s done.

Posted in Side-eye, Throwing Shade · Leave a Reply ·
Newer posts →

Recent Posts

  • Is Austerity a Mistake?
  • Tokenism 101
  • Six Ages of the World: the Role of Faith in the Development of the Calculus
  • Lifestyles of the Rich and Shady
  • Representative sample

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Archives

  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013

Categories

  • Corruption
  • Existential Crisis
  • Ideology
  • Information Processing
  • Public Square
  • Reform
  • Religion
  • Side-eye
  • Throwing Shade

Recent Comments

  • Jay Sneed on Is Austerity a Mistake?
  • Ryan Cohn on Representative sample
  • Andrew Stames on Tokenism 101
  • Nelson Allen on Is Austerity a Mistake?
  • Andrew Stames on Six Ages of the World: the Role of Faith in the Development of the Calculus

All content © 2021 by Going Roque. Base WordPress Theme by Graph Paper Press