I came across a heady essay by Corey Robin in The Chronicle – ‘How Intellectuals Create A Public.’
More than a tangential source perhaps, but nonetheless, it contains some choice pieces of wisdom for Adland:
Publics, as John Dewey argued, never simply exist; they are always created. Created out of groups of people who are made and mangled by the actions of other people. Capital acts upon labor, subjugating men and women at work, making them miserable at home. Those workers are not yet a public. But when someone says — someone writes — “Workers of the world, unite!,” they become a public that is willing and able to act upon its shared situation. It is in the writing of such words, the naming of such names — “Workers of the world” or “We, the People,” even “The Problem That Has No Name” — that a public is summoned into being. In the act of writing for a public, intellectuals create the public for which they write.”
That’s also how public intellectuals work. By virtue of the demands they make upon the reader, they force a reckoning. They summon a public into being — if nothing else a public conjured out of opposition to their writing.”
We have the means, we have the material. What we don’t have is mass. We have episodic masses, which effervesce and overflow. But it’s hard to imagine masses that will endure, publics that won’t disappear… And it is that constraint on the imagination and hence the will that is the biggest obstacle to the public intellectual today… the fear that the publics that don’t yet exist — which are, after all, the only publics we’ve ever had — never will exist.”
Rather good, I thought.
Corey Robin, ‘How Intellectuals Create A Public’, The Chronicle, 22.01.16
The masks were everything, of course. They are still. Without the masks the music wouldn’t exist. They provided a vehicle for years of restless, relentless creativity. Anyone who does creative work knows this to be true: that lots of the time you just need a really good way to get out of the way. Ever stuck? Try out a persona. They let you express an idea differently.”
Source: James Craig
If only we got out of our own way more often.
Over the years I had come to feel faintly queasy about portraying people as “consumers.”
I worried that it squeezed all empathy and understanding out of our perspective, reducing people to the moment of purchase or consumption.
To mere mouths and wallets.
Then I read this exchange:
Magazine: Who are your heroes in real life?”
Artist: “The consumer”
The choice of language felt deliberate – no predictable mention of “the audience.”
It’s made me change my mind.
And made me think that at least the language of “the consumer” offers a more honest perspective than that of “the audience.”
For it reminds us that is people who ultimately determine the terms of engagement – it they who determine what is successful, and is not.
It reminds us that by and large, people are not waiting or looking for what we put out – as Gossage reminded us all those years ago, “When advertising talks about the audience, it doesn’t mean its audience, it means somebody else’s, gathered there to watch or read something else.
It reminds us that people will have a choice – that if not satisfied, they will move on.
That we are not the only ones in their lives.
That what we make occupies but a tiny portion of people’s attention, enthusiasm, time, and lives.
That as seasoned exercisers of choice and discretion, people are smarter than we often given them credit for.
It reminds us that they consume US .
That they are not OUR audience.
And that if we truly wish to have them think of us, value us, and keeping coming back to us, we’re better off giving them something wonderful, rather than something merely adequate.
Then again, a fresh, divergent, more brave, honest and enlightening perspective is what David Bowie always offered us.
Source: Vanity Fair
There is a dark secret lurking behind every critique of technology, and the secret is us. Smartphones, CPUs and algorithms may indeed be inescapable in modern life, but they are ubiquitous because we demand them. We like our newly endless capacity for self-photography. We like our ability to weigh in, to be consulted, everywhere, all the time. We like the friendships we develop online, however odd, thin or ephemeral. So it isn’t the machines that are coming for us. We are coming for ourselves.”
Michelle Dean reviewing Speak by Louisa Hall, Guardian, 21.07.15
Bureaucratic procedures, which have an uncanny ability to make even the smartest people act like idiots, are not so much forms of stupidity in themselves, as they are ways of managing situations already stupid… As a result, such procedures come to partake of the very blindness and foolishness they seek to manage… At their best, they become ways of turning stupidity against itself… But stupidity in the name of fairness and decency is still stupidity.”
Source: David Graeber, The Utopia of Rules: On Technology, Stupidity and the Secret Joys of Bureaucracy