transience and media consumption.

I've recently gone through a birthday, a move, and my last undergraduate exams, so things have been a little scattered in the broken gent world, of late. What I'm finding interesting is the change in my habits that has come with less ease, and less personalisation, in my media consumption.

Put simply, when I lived in a tiny room, in a house filled with university students, I was online constantly, never behind on my RSS items, speedy with response to emails, and generally as active as is reasonably in online life. This is apparently something that those who know me had grown accustomed to, as I'm not unfamiliar with being mocked for always being online, and to responding to links and forwards with 'saw that last week'. I'm an information junkie, and the way I use my time is inarguably a response to that.

Moving, and having wrecked the wireless card of my semi-functional PC, means that I've become a tech nomad, using my parents machines, only being online when sitting at a desk, and reducing myself to binges on information when I can find the time. It baffles me that I've gone from waiting for RSS items to appear and devouring them, to having hundreds piled up by the time I get to them. This wouldn't be shocking if I was busy, but at the moment I'm doing a credible sloth imitation before I redecorate my space, and begin the job hunt.

What is shocking is that the internet is no less accessible, but the loss of MY machine, MY bookmarks and presets, and MY hard drive has completely changed the way I read, watch, and listen. I suppose this would only come as a surprise to someone like me, who has only been deeply addicted to this lifestyle for the last 4 years, coinciding with my ownership of the same computer. The current situation is a nice window for me into the inadequacy of publicly available terminals for a computer literate society.

This situation, I think, is why there are so many people convinced that one laptop per child is going to be a driving force in the future of Africa. However, there is something interesting that I've noticed. I'm still keeping up with the online section of my life, but at the same time, I'm getting more done (not in terms of blogging or writing, but in terms of physical tasks) as man-without-pc, than I would as man-with-pc.

This was more rambling than intended, my apologies. It's also got me thinking, as someone who has always been desktop bound, how a laptop would change my consumption patterns even more.

[Expect a post about mobile internet access, cell phones, etc, and media consumption shortly.]

[EDIT: Upon reflection, some of the content of the above post could make it seem like I'm against the OLPC (one laptop per child) concept. While I like the idea, part of me wonders whether this is directly beneficial, or whether it is a case of trying to skip ahead in international development and give another society the tools / toys that are arguably essential in ours. Basically, I wonder whether making laptops and ad-hoc networking available to the children of the developing world makes sense at all when in so many cases drinking water and food are in short supply.

It's like giving a drowning man a car. It's nice, but it really isn't going to fix the immediate problem, regardless of how useful it will be if he can get to land.]

domain move.

So, we've moved. As such, I'm not sure what still works, and what's broken. This is mostly a test post.

Carry on with your lives.

gorillaz.

[Disclosure: I love the Gorillaz, fictional though they may be. I have all four releases (which should point out the level of obsession, because who digs for dub remix albums that no one else knows exist), two of the dvds, and the book. ]

So, it's all ending. Hopefully it will end with us getting an animated Gorillaz movie, and the score to it, as indicated here, but ending all the same.

I found the theory behind Albarn and Hewlett's experiment more intriguing than the music at first, but only at first. The idea that pop had become so fictional and so false that cartoons were the perfect basis for the music. The idea was held to so strongly in almost all press related to the band, and it was stunning to read the two competing narratives behind the music, the 'actual' one according the the band itself, and the reality.

The amazing thing was how well it worked, at least in my eyes. Not musically, but as a means of distraction from all the other crap that comes with pop music these days. Albarn was already massively famous for his years in Blur, but it felt to a somewhat objective observer that the taking of a step back from the 'role' of artist as pitchman for the music made it all a glorious play, instead of the usual picking apart and tabloid style coverage. Albarn and Hewlett created fake people, fake lives, and did so artfully and intentionally. Murdoc, Noodle, Russell and 2-D are messed up fictional individuals, a mixture of parody and homage for the music worlds stock personalities.

In many ways, I link this to the promotional campaign for Year Zero, the new Nine Inch Nails album. In both cases, one of the elements of the music business that leads to consumers feeling either cynical or irritated, was replaced with something carefully orchestrated to be useful content that people would want to enjoy. Instead of allowing the Entertainment Tonight / US Weekly style media outlets to define the 'creators' of the music, Albarn and Hewlett carefully orchestrated that element of the music experience. Instead of focusing on billboards to generate interest, Nine Inch Nails (and whoever was in charge of the massive game / conspiracy / promotion) created an experience that had the side effect of making people want the music.

I'm going to miss the Gorillaz, because I didn't really care about the actual, I cared about the fictional (and I'm a massive fan of all of Albarn's work, and Hewlett's comics, illustrations, and animation). The brilliance of it was that it wasn't, in my estimation, about managing interest in the real world creators, or minimalising the association of their real world lives with the music, it was another element of the experience created, with beneficial side effects. The care and detail that went into the creation of the Gorillaz characters is why they work so well, and also the proof, to me, that they were created for a loftier purpose than to do some PR heavy lifting.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to watch the video for El Manana again and again and again.

on my long absence.

I was distracted by finishing undergrad, and as a consequence haven't posted anything in a criminally long time. The most recent post I deleted later on, partially because I'd stopped feeling the way I did in the writing of it, and partially because I realised later that the stances and opinions I was seeing were more of less to be expected given the probably demographic breakdown of the site in question, and social networking sites in general. This is probably impenetrable to those of you who didn't read that post.

Anyways. I've finished university for now, as of yesterday. So, more content coming forthwith.

well said, nothing to add.

Saul Williams responds to statements made by Oprah, and questions asked, about Hip Hop, and the negative behaviours that are often associated with it.

Saul Williams has always impressed me, since I first read some of his work. I'm not a poet, although I've spent far too much time writing about possible meanings, but he gets to the heart of an issue I was dancing at the fringes of.

Art reflects society, I think in a much larger way than society reflects art. Anyways. He says it better, and deeper, and with an eloquence that can shut me up with awe. Go read it. Regardless of your opinions of the musical tradition in question.

charles is the best character in webcomics.

Yes. This is accurate and wonderful, like most of Diesel Sweeties.

artificial everywhere (2)

AVC: You're a very candid interview. You often speak openly in a way that a lot of Hollywood actors won't. Have you had people trying to rein you in?

SL: [...] Sometimes perception is almost more important than the skill level of an actor. [...] So this [Gestures at himself.] is a representative. This is far too important a conversation, it's far too important, for me to be real with you. It's just too important to my career. Too important to the things that I love. So this right here is just this representative I've created, and I can talk all day in this character, this is just another form of acting. It's closer to what I am, but what I am is too much for any kind of selling of a project. There's too much money riding on this interview going well for me to be completely candid. So it's just a creation.

AVC: But even the fact that you're able to talk about that makes you candid.

SL: Right. Well, I don't know, I know where I'm at right now, it's been pretty successful so far, and this is just what I've been doing. I think it would be strange for me to start shutting down. I don't think I'd enjoy it as much.

from the Onion AV Club interview with Shia LaBeouf.

The thing I find most interesting is that the image of him as genuine is persistent enough that when he DIRECTLY STATES that he is not being a real person in this interview, but a construct, the interviewer still feels the need to ask the second question. This reinforces the idea that the perception of LaBeouf as a candid interview is a reasonable one, although the actor himself basically just said 'I am not going to be myself, because this is too important. This is a role.'

I would also ask that you consider the state of the world we live in where admitting that your persona is artificial is responded to with respect. We've come to expect the people we define as notable to manipulate their identity. When are we going to start expecting this on a basic interpersonal level?

Sooner than you think, would be my guess.

artificial everywhere.

If you like good ideas, or comics, or know who Warren Ellis is, take a look at the teaser page of script for his new series Doktor Sleepless that went up today.

Artificiality is showing up everywhere, because I suppose it has become obvious to anyone who's looking that being real is no longer a viable option given the state of modern media.

I am very excited about this book, mostly because Ellis is writing it, but also because I want to read his take on the benefits of being a constructed persona rather than a 'real' person.

[I really need to get back to the Artificials Manifesto.]

weighing in on imus.

I'm not going to ramble on about this for as long as everyone else seems to be willing to, but someone needs to make the obvious point in response to the backlash on the Don Imus debacle.

What I'm reading in the media everywhere is that the real problem isn't radio personalities making racist statements on the air, and that making this a major issue is a waste of time. What I'm hearing instead is that the real problem is in the perpetuation and commodification of sexist and racist attitudes in the Black community, and especially in hip hop music. To be honest, I've never before read 50 Cent's name so many times in a story so tangentially and tenuously related to music.

The difference is, as much as I agree that there is something poisonous in the self-loathing that I think underlies these images and attitudes, in the music world, comparing Imus to a rapper is a bullshit move. What we are discussing is someone directly insulting a group of students with his racist commentary. He was speaking about individuals. That's a little bit different that a song that suggests disrespect for an abstract group (rarely aimed at all black women, and almost never at a specific few for no reason).

And that is ignoring the very obvious point that music isn't the same thing as talk radio. You can complain that The Velvet Underground encouraged drug use with the song 'Heroin', but if you ask me to believe that I should be madder at him than I am at the guy who is telling people directly to use the stuff, I will have a lot of trouble respecting you.

I have many, many problems with the content of much mainstream hip hop. I agree that the reflection of this in Black culture is something that needs to be addressed (and despite constant reports to the contrary, despite your or my opinions on them, Sharpton and Jackson have been addressing this for years, to far less media attention) but at the same time, I think suggesting that it's hypocritical to go after Imus is a little weak. There are cultural issues that need to be addressed, there is no arguing about that. But suggesting that we shouldn't fight racism in the real world, and instead focus on eradicating it from an art form, is similar to the people who believe that it is more important to fight videogame violence than real violence.

When we start blaming the depictions in art for all of the problems in the real world, we effectively tell parents, educators, and real world role models to give up. Saying that it's hypocritical to ignore sexist and racist arts and aggressively fight racist and sexist behaviour in the real world is saying that art and expression should be limited to what is socially acceptable, because people can't separate reality from depictions. Some of the reasoning behind this is surely based on the authenticity that is a part of hip hop music, the emphasis on these depictions being true to life. I get that. Art is not just supposed to show you how to be. Sometimes it shows you the horrors of how we are. This is where other socialising influences are important. I have good parents, and was raised with boundaries in terms of what behavior was acceptable. I've also listened to Clipse's latest album at least a dozen times, and yet I'm not selling crack.

If I was selling crack, would it make more sense to blame me, or the album?

Blaming the music is no different than blaming the xbox, or the movie, or the comic book. Suggesting that holding people accountable for their statements shouldn't have different rules between art and talk radio (which is essentially opinion broadcast wide) is idiocy.

[For transparency's sake, I should point out that I'm half-Black, and not just rambling about a community I have no connection to, or know nothing about.]

[EDIT: I just realised that I may not be clear to readers who don't listen to much hip hop, than the Clipse album is, in large part, about selling drugs. I was in no way suggesting that this is the defining feature of hip hop.]

just because you should see it.

The last post received a long, thoughtful comment by David Mack about the nature of his work.

Read it here, or go look into the comments for the last post.

It leads me to consider whether almost any art form can be considered complete until it has been interacted with by another individual. This will most likely keep me up nights, in the best way. Communication instead of expression. That's something sure to make me smile for a while yet.

Thanks, this made my day.

[EDIT: Link corrected.]