Please come have a look at my post today on the Harvard Business Review blog.
It’s about how we interact with people at point of sale.
(And I tell the story of a recent trip to Whole Foods.)
Please come have a look at my post today on the Harvard Business Review blog.
It’s about how we interact with people at point of sale.
(And I tell the story of a recent trip to Whole Foods.)
Poetry is one of my favorite magazines and not just because it gives me the opportunity to demonstrate how very sensitive, cosmopolitan and fascinating I am.
The March issue reveals why the publication exists in its present form. It turns out that the Poetry Foundation was generously funded by Ruth Lilly.
Recently, to my surprise, Christian Wiman, Poetry’s editor turned on Ms. Lilly and her gift. He says,
I felt shocked and thankful that, because of the will of one woman, the great roaring engine of American capitalism had been made to serve the interests of learning, healing and art.
Oh, brother. The artist insists on making a dichotomy where in fact there is a lot of continuity. In this long-standing cultural construction, culture and commerce are made mutually exclusive categories, one ranked high, the other put low.
Between them goes a death valley, through which only the most intrepid undergraduate is prepared to pass. In our culture, thanks to the tyranny of this idea, the undergraduate is obliged to choose: lofty or vulgar, true to our best aspirations, or false and falsifying.
In fact, capitalism is a learning exercise. And I don’t just mean a brute experiment, Schumpeter’s “creative destruction.” Capitalism creates rich, various and changeable problem set in which nothing is ever still. Learning here takes an order of intelligence and accomplishment that would humble the most gifted poet.
Capitalism is a healing system. Religion, folklore, politics, and even art has made themselves faithful students of orthodoxy, failed imagination, emotional and existential stasis. Capitalism does doesn’t do orthodoxy. Not for long anyhow. It is constantly searching, in Levi-Strauss’ language, “for that other message” and it is prepared to reform thought entirely to get at the code from which the message springs. (That learning thing again.)
Capitalism does healing in another way. Now to evoke Fernand Braudel, surely it can’t have been merely by coincidence that the societies that let people out of the captivities created by geography, race, age, ethnicity, outlook, religion, subculture and lifestyle are also vibrant marketplaces.
Finally, capitalism is art, a transformational exercise that turns meaning into value and value back into meaning. Ovid would have been impressed. So were the Elizabethans who read him so avidly.
Take the case of John Wheeler, the author of A Treatise of Commerce published in 1601. In the opening pages, Wheeler observes how much of his world is now part of the marketplace.
For there is nothing in the world so ordinary and natural unto men, as to contract, truck, merchandise, and traffic one with another, so that it is almost unpossible for three persons to converse together two hours, but they will fall into talk of one bargain or another, chopping [i.e., bartering], changing [i.e., exchanging], or some other kind of contract.
Wheeler concludes with an Ovidian observation, “all things,” he says, “come into commerce and pass into traffic.” Consider the number of conversions a bolt of cloth must undergo to pass into traffic, take on significance (fustian!), find a seller, find a buyer, adorn the wearer, define a household, fashion a self, appoint a community, with the value so created winging its way back into “some other kind of contract.” I dare say no contemporary poet has tried.
The thing I like about poets is how sighted they are, seeing things invisible to the rest of us. And I like how nimble they are, running the riggings of our culture pretty much at will. Except here. Where Wheeler sees things changing shape, Wiman is “shocked,” “thankful,” and the captive of orthodoxy.
References
Braudel, Fernand. 1973. Capitalism and Material Life, 1400-1800. New York: Harper and Row, pp. 235-236.
Carey, John. 2002. The Intellectuals and the Masses: Pride and Prejudice Among the Literary Intelligentsia, 1880-1939. Academy Chicago Publishers.
Wheeler, John. 2004 (1601). A Treatise of Commerce. Clark, New Jersey: The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd.
Yesterday I did an interview with USAToday on the t-shirts, coffee mugs and other memorabilia that greeted the death of Osama bin Laden. And seconds ago I did an interview with the BBC.
The USAToday approach was “what are we to make of these crazy t-shirts, the ones that read things like “Obama got Osama. You’re an anthropologist, you figure it out!”
I welcomed the challenge and fell to thinking how useful t-shirts are as a kind of bulletin board. They are cheap, cheerful, and almost instantaneously available.
I figured you could say at a minimum that t-shirts have three functions from an expressive point of view, that allow us to share in the event, in this particular case, they give the wearer an opportunity to diminish Osama culturally, and finally, to reuse the words quoted in the USA Today article, people wear these things “to inflict a final indignity on bin Laden.” Functions 2 and 3 are a little close, I agree. I would nudge them apart by suggesting that function 2 says, in effect, “you are now a t-shirt,” and function 3 says, “you are now a punch line.”
The BBC phoned to ask for an interview. As a child raised at the knee of the CBC, I was happy to oblige. But I must say I drew breath when the interviewer said his Skype handle was “opsbush.” Was this to be an interview or an ambush?
It turned out to be an interview. And I am sorry to say that I rambled in answer to several questions. Worse than that I stumbled once or twice. It was one thing to be bad television, and I believe my Oprah appearance demonstrates that I can be very bad TV indeed. But to be bad radio. Really, what excuse can you possibly have?
I opened by saying that most Americans were feeling conflicted, that most people felt the occasion called more for solemnity than joy. But this was not the point of the interview.
Acting as if I had not just said that Americans were feeling conflicted, the interviewer pressed on to ask whether these t-shirts were not perhaps “a little sick.” To which I replied something like “Americans had suffered cruelly as a result of Osama. Perhaps it was not be surprising that they should feel relief and even joy at his death.”
There was one of these long silences that only the English do with real gusto. (We Americans say nothing comes of nothing, speak again.) I had delivered exactly the answer hoped for in these circumstances. I had confirmed the English suspicion of our barbarity.
To which I say, again anthropologically, that one of the differences between the US and the UK is precisely on this side of the ocean we own our emotions, even the ones of which we are not especially proud.
Someone called Veronica commented on the HBS Blog post “The War for the Soul of Advertising.” She suggested that my interpretation of the ads in question is sexist. (I don’t think I have the right to reproduce Veronica’s comment here. I will have to ask you to go here to see it.
My first reply, written last night around 11:00, was a little intemperate.
Veronica, I can’t help feeling this is a drive-by accusation. The use of this language judged by context and not by the instincts of an inquisitor is appropriate. I don’t object to showing someone as a “competent leader of outdoor expedition” but I wouldn’t have thought it wouldn’t take much interpretive skill to see that the ad in question makes the character in question look like a complete and utter idiot. (I mean, really, is the guy behind her actually made more secure by “watch your step.”) As to your difficulty figuring out “exactly” what my argument is, I would suggest reading it again. Thanks, Grant
My second reply, written this morning, was still more intemperate. So much for the clear light of day.
Veronica, I wanted to follow up on my original reply, my last night in haste about 11:00. As it turns out I am a fourth-generation feminist. My great-grandmother saw to that. I point this out not to argue that I am incapable of sexism. This is so deeply embedded in our culture and in our upbringings that I wouldn’t dare make this claim. I point it out to argue how seriously I take your accusation.
So let me give you a more detailed reply than the one I gave you last night. First, “brittle and shrill” is my reading of _a woman in an ad_. I am not imputing this to a real person! Second, it is the guy _in the ad_ who is “suffering” a call from his wife. Go back to the ad and you will see that _it is the ad_ that makes this guy nonchalant. And now to defend the creatives at BBDO. I believe they have made him so in order to set up the embarrassment that is to follow. I am not imputing his indifference, the ad is. And the ad is not doing it out of sexism, it is setting up the story to follow.
Having accused me of sexism, you carry on to diminish the men in the ads…as middle school boys and people with the memory of a goldfish. This is so shockingly hypocritical as to test belief. You can’t accuse me of sexism and then engage in it.
Then to leap to the conclusion that I “don’t relate to ads with strong women in them” This is, well, a leap, isn’t it? Pray have a look at my blog, specifically a post called Lighting It Up at the Coca-Cola Company, February 17, 2006. This post lauds Mary Minnick then the CMO of the Coca-Cola Company.
[I begin with this quote from Hein and Sampey] “The strategy for the global Coke campaign is to make choosing Coke a purposeful act,” said Mary Minnick, the head of marketing strategy and innovation. “We don’t just want to be entertaining or be different, we want to be more relevant. We want to build a relationship with consumers, not hold a mirror up to them.” (from Hein, Kenneth, with Kathy Sampey. 2006. Pouring It On: Coke Unveils New Tagline, Products, Philosophy. Brandweek. December 08, 2005
[the post continues] This is an interesting model that marketers may with to conjure with. In the meantime, we may admire the recent Diet Coke ad (“Haircut”) that seems to me to capture and perhaps illuminate Minnick’s philosophy.
A young woman enters a very old fashioned barbershop. She emerges triumphant. The risk has paid off. She went into the shop a great beauty. She emerges a great beauty who has claimed her beauty with an act of daring and imagination. [end of post passage]
I believe this establishes that I admire strong women in ads, and as makers of ads.
Best, Grant
I pressed on to suggest that Veronica seemed to me to be practicing the blogging equivalent of “vexatious litigation” (as Wikipedia defines it: “legal action which is brought regardless of its merits, solely to harass…”) but by that time I was feeling a little less irritable.
Last note:
I’m not sure exactly why I sharing this with you, to be honest. Your comments, please.
Please leave comments!
Hats off to BBDO Atlanta for their brilliant work.
I have been digging around doing research for the new book. And I just came across a not-agency called Breakfast. It sounds like a Culturematic powerhouse.
It is also very likable. Breakfast has done several brilliant things, including:
1. A bike called Precious that reported its experience was ridden across the country.
“Precious’s brain is an on-board device that captures all of his experiences, combined with a cloud-based system that analyzes those experiences. Put this all together and get a bike that’s able to express itself in his own words. He shares his up-to-the-moment thoughts and has a subconscious which allows him to dream about all he’s been through.” (from the Breakfast website: http://www.breakfastny.com)
2. A red phone that they leave with prospective clients. The client only needs to pick up the phone to be put in touch with one of the Breakfast partners.
I am honestly not sure how this works, but I think the idea is that Breakfast leaves the phone at the clients without much explanation. Who can resist picking up a red phone, especially when it has a blinking red light?
Client reaction? Here’s one, transcribed from the Breakfast website. It is the Senior Vice President of Entertainment Marketing at Turner. She says “This is the coolest thing I have had any agency send! This is awesome!!!”
3. All of this is done in a manner of that is as seeking, forthright, and scientific as possible. See the “full disclosure” diagram above and especially its “seperatory funnel” and “client fluid.” The Breakfast website sums things up:
Just like the brilliant Edison and Bell discovered, inventing groundbreaking technology doesn’t happen first go. Think, draw, prototype, break. Then do it all again. We take pride in the fact that we break a lot of things. With purpose, and in an effort to invent new and unique ways to help clients reach people.
For more on Breakfast and co-founders Andrew Zolty, Mattias Gunneras, and Michael Lipton, go here.
Have a look at this “Food for thought” card, please. There it is at the bottom of the screen. It appeared recently with my store-bought pizza.
Optimism, action, imagination and conversation, all of these are good things. And I agree that food is an important link with the world.
But I was a little surprised to hear about them from my pizza box. Yes, I get it. Food, planet, environment, this is a new trinity. Respecting this trinity through an overhaul of lifestyle is the new desideratum. Check. Caring about this thing and encouraging other people to care about it too, this is the new orthodoxy. I not only get this. I subscribe to it.
But there is something unseemly about being instructed in this sort of thing by a brand. There is presumption of familiarity. For the brand to speak to me in this tone means that the brand must know me. There is also a presumption of asymmetry. In our relationship, the brand knows better. Finally, there is that recitation of the new cosmology: that stuff about food connecting us to the world.
I agree with everything being said (give or take). But I am a little uncomfortable when these things are being said to me…by a brand.
Unless of course there really is a new orthodoxy and certain powers are entitled to recite this orthodoxy and the rest of us are obliged to listen to it. And if that’s the case, someone forgot to tell me.
Apparently, I missed that box.
As the Royal wedding approaches, there is a Tsunami of Kate Middleton coverage headed our way.
Much is being made of her social origins. Not grand enough, apparently.
Indeed, Kate is being called a climber.
“Kate and [sister] Pippa were dubbed the Wisteria Sisters
because, as one wag put it: “They’re highly decorative, terribly
fragrant, and have a ferocious ability to climb.”” [Daily Beast]
But this made me think of the wonderful comment someone made about Eton, that it was not so much a school for gentlemen as their fathers.
Britain has always been a place of status mobility. Despite the 16th century claim that it takes 5 generations to wash away the “taint” of commonality, people would rise much more quickly, sometimes make the transition in two generations.
The English are very good at two things. Theatre and History. And they are particularly good at using the first to reinvent the second. If you can act the part, mastering the codes of behavior, clothing, housing, language, all, you may rise. Efforts will then be made to “paper over” the speedy ascent, and Bob is no longer your uncle. Now his name is Robert.
It is just possible that the industrial and consumer revolution happened in Britain because Britain allowed upward mobility in a way that France and Spain would not. And so was a contradiction managed: a status system intertwined with a meritocracy.
Go, Kate, grow.
Reference.
Pearson, Allison. 2011. Citizen Kate. Newsweek/Daily Beast. April 11.
Acknowledgment.
Image of a ruler is from the Noun Project at http://www.thenounproject.com.
In her comment on the NCIS recasting post, Jean Latting said she thought she might ask her class to have a go.
And I thought, “but of course, this is an excellent Minerva contest. Why didn’t I think of that?”
So here is the question. We are phrasing this one in the form of a Harvard Business School Case study:
“Don Bellisario, the creator of NCIS who left the show in 2007, has decided to return. [This is false and asserted here merely to supply a compelling pretext.]
Mr. Bellisario wants to freshen the show with some casting changes. What should he do?
From the Culturematic given below, please choose 1 new actor and tell us what effect it would have on the show. Specifically, what difference would this difference make to the show, the dramatic and cultural terrain it can now cover.
Now choose 1 actor from the list you would NOT cast, and tell us very specifically why he or she would be wrong for the part and the show.
Now give us your ideal 5 choices and explain these actors bring to the show individually and as an ensemble. How would NCIS now speak from and to contemporary culture?
Conditions:
One thousand words.
Point form ok.
Be imaginative, concise and interesting. Find your assumptions and express your assumptions. Show off your knowledge and mastery of popular culture
Winner gets a Minerva (as pictured) and a place in our Hall of Fame.
deadline: one month from today, i.e., May 13, 2011.
Judges:
To be announced
Backgrounder:
The Minervas were created to encourage people to ask cultural questions and craft cultural answers.
Winners so far:
Juri Saar (for the “Who’s a good doggie woggie?” contest)
Reiko Waisglass (for the “Who’s a good doggie woggie?” contest)
Brent Shelkey (for the “Who’s a good doggie woggie?” contest)
Daniel Saunders (for the “JJ Abrams vs. Joss Whedon” contest)
Tim Sullivan (for the “Karen Black vs. Betty White” contest)
Lauren LaCascia (for the “Showtime vs. USA Networks” contest)
Diandra Mintz (for the “Showtime vs. USA Networks” contest)
Mark Boles (for the “Antique Roadshow vs. Pawn stars” contest)
Indy Neogy (for the “Nordic Noir” contest)
Judges so far:
Members of the faculty of the SVA (School of Visual Arts) ‘masters in branding’ program,
specifically:
Debbie Millman
Pamela DeCesare
Dan Formosa
Tom Guarriello
Scott Lerman
and Richard Shear
Also:
Rick Boyko, Director and Professor, VCU Brandcenter
Schuyler Brown, Skylab
Bryan Castaneda, Attorney At Law
Ana Domb, C3, MIT
Mark Earls, author, Herd
Brad Grossman, Grossman and Partners
Christine W. Huang, PSFK, Huffington Post and Global Hue
Steve Postrel
Hello to those who just heard me speak on WGBH. I was grateful that Callie mentioned this website, but I am a little unprepared!
Please have a look around.
Those who are interested in following up my argument about American material culture might like the following essay:
McCracken, Grant. 2005. “‘Homeyness’ A Cultural Account of One Constellation of Consumer Goods and Meanings.” Culture and Consumption II. Indiana University Press, pp. 22-47. Available on Amazon here.
Thanks for listening!
Please come have a look at my HBR thoughts on the future of experience marketing. Here.
I am a big fan of Being Human, the US version, that recently appeared on SyFy.
It’s a wonderful “what if.”
What if there was a vampire, werewolf, and a ghost living in a house together? I have to say that my initial response was puzzlement. As in, “um, er, I don’t know. What would happen if they lived together?”
Some part of the show comes from how well the producers work out the “what if” in a manner that satisfies my sense of the plausible and takes me places I never would have guessed. Being Human works a productive balance between “oh, that makes sense to me” and “wow, how interesting!”
The new media consumer is especially fond of things that satisfy a sense of the plausible and the possible. (We get to keep a foot in the familiar and one in the new.) Managing both is key…and difficult. (I was able to predict the death of The Good Guys early because it was clear it could not find this balance.)
When Pam got me Apple TV for my recent birthday, I was thrilled to see that it contained BBC America and that this contained Being Human, the UK version.
What a delicious opportunity to consume what Henry Jenkins calls “transmedia,” one story told in more than a single form. (I know someone is going to object that both shows are TV and this is not transmedia. Saying that British and American TV are the same medium is like saying British and American football are the same game.) This transmedia opportunity is sweetened by the fact that the media in question are transatlantic. With their special relationship, the UK and US continue to be, for certain purposes, variations on a theme. How interesting then to see what these two cultures would do with the same cultural artifact.
The first thing to notice is a bit stunning. In the old regime, the American version of a transatlantic exercise would feature actors who were more beautiful and less talented. This is NOT what is happened in the case of Being Human. The UK actors are better looking and the US actors might actually be the better actors. (They may be tied on the acting question.)
This tells us that American TV is getting better or at least ballsier. Not to lead with beauty, or (to think of this as the trade-off it probably it was) to go with talent even when it costs you beauty, that’s a big shift for an American culture producer.
The second point is harder to assess. Being Human uses diversity to propel itself out of genre. By this time, we have a pretty good idea of what and who vampires are. Indeed, the genre is starting to congeal and now takes quite deliberate innovations (True Blood) to sustain life (all puns intended). Ghosts too. As a culture we have gone from having no idea what a ghost is to having a pretty clear script. (Blame Whoopi) Goldberg. Werewolves, not so much.
So Being Human has a built-in “refresh” feature. Just as we are beginning to think “been there, done that” about any one of the subgenres, we are obliged to follow the story line as it crosses these subgenres. Or, less abstractly, just as we are thinking “vampires, yawn” we are obliged to watch a vampire interact with a werewolf and then a ghost. New life returns to the vampire. (ditto). And definition comes to the werewolf.
In effect, Being Human is an interesting and successful TV series because it is not the product of the grammar that comes from genre. It is interesting and successful because it contains a grammar that helps it escape genre. It is not generated but generative. Being Human contains the secret that characterizes all the culture we care about these days. It is both familiar and unpredictable, both from genre and beyond genre.
(please read yesterday’s post before reading this one)
The point of the Culturematic is that it can “think” things we cannot.
Barry Bonds and David Brooks, these two people are worlds away. I would submit that there are virtually no naturally occurring circumstances in which their names would appear together.
More to the point, they are disparate elements in a very diverse culture, so that even if we were to find these names sitting together, we would dismiss this as noise. Actively making a conjunction between them? Unthinkable. No, really, I mean this literally: unthinkable.
What I needed then was a simple program that would make random combinations. I can’t program. I don’t even know the basics of HTML. (Sad, really, but there you are.)
So I was going to have to find one on line. It took all of Saturday and most of Sunday, hunting first for the right search terms and then for the code.
Eventually I found The Virtual Professor. This is a wonderful invention of someone at the University of Chicago Writing Program. The VP creates spectacularly inflated pieces of academic rhetoric. The author claims his/her intent is not rhetorical. Hmm.
I lifted the code from TVP and I downloaded a trial version of Adobe Dreamweaver. So now I was working with code I did not understand on a program I did not know.
First, I replaced TVP noun list with the following
Noun = new Array();
Noun[0] = “Mel Gibson”;
Noun[1] = “Hulk Hogan”;
Noun[2] = “Bono”;
Noun[3] = “Barry Bonds”;
Noun[4] = “David Letterman”;
Noun[5] = “Hillary Clinton”;
Noun[6] = “Martha Stewart”;
Noun[7] = “Tyra Banks”;
Noun[8] = “Janice Jackson”;
Noun[9] = “David Brooks”;
Noun[10] = “Jon Stewart”;
Noun[11] = “Tom Ford”;
Noun[12] = “Oprah Winfrey”;
Noun[13] = “Arianna Huffington”;
Noun[14] = “Mos Def”;
Noun[15] = “LL Cool J”;
Noun[16] = “Mark Harmon”;
Noun[17] = “Bryan Singer”;
Noun[18] = “Judd Apatow”;
Noun[19] = “Jennifer Lopez”;
Noun[20] = “Jon Stewart”;
Noun[21] = “Malcolm Gladwell”;
Noun[22] = “Sean Combs”;
Noun[23] = “Christopher Hitchens”;
Noun[24] = “Graydon Carter”;
Noun[25] = “Kathy Griffin”;
Noun[26] = “Barbara Walters”;
Noun[28] = “Henry Kissenger”;
Noun[27] = “Skip Bayles”;
Noun[29] = “Joss Whedon”;
Noun[30] = “Johnny Depp”;
Noun[31] = “Francis Ford Coppola”;
Noun[32] = “Tom Cruise”;
Noun[33] = “Lorne Michaels”;
Noun[34] = “Diane Swayer”;
Noun[35] = “Katy Perry”;
Noun[36] = “Quinton Tarrantino”;
Noun[37] = “Madonna”;
Noun[38] = “JJ Abrams”;
Noun[39] = “Tina Fey”;
Noun[40] = “Charlie Sheen”;
Noun[41] = “Stephen Hawking”;
Noun[42] = “Natalie Portman”;
Noun[43] = “Hugh Laurie”;
Noun[44] = “Clay Shirky”;
Noun[45] = “Tiger Woods”;
Noun[46] = “Jay-Z”;
Noun[47] = “LeBron James”;
Noun[48] = “Jennifer Aniston”;
Noun[49] = “Howard Stern”;
Noun[50] = “Glenn Beck”;
Noun[51] = “Ryan Seacrest”;
Noun[52] = “Kenny Chesney”;
Noun[53] = “Robert Pattison”;
Noun[54] = “Cameron Dias”;
Noun[55] = “Stephanie Meyer”;
Noun[56] = “Stephen King”;
Noun[57] = “Sarah Jessica Parker”;
Noun[58] = “Lil Wayne”;
Noun[59] = “Julia Roberts”;
Noun[60] = “Brad Pitt”;
Noun[61] = “Richard Branson”;
Noun[62] = “Bill Clinton”;
Noun[63] = “Lady Gaga”;
Noun[64] = “Sandra Bullock”;
Noun[65] = “Simon Cowell”;
Noun[66] = “Pink”;
Noun[67] = “Dr. Phil”;
Noun[68] = “Beyonce”;
Noun[69] = “Taylor Swift”
Not a perfect list. I was watching the English version of Being Human on Apple TV (my birthday gift) and who knows what effect this had. Two days later, its clear to me that this list ought to have cast the net more widely than it does. More sports heroes, politicians, journalists, captains of industry and so on. I mean “Rupert Murdock,” how could I miss him?
I contemplated the idea that I should combine two names and a pretext. So I added some pretexts or “modifiers.” As with any Culturematic, I wasn’t really sure what it was I was trying to do. As with any Culturematic, the idea seemed to be to “try it and see.” As I noted in yesterday’s post, one of the output here was:
Lady Gaga and Glenn Beck struggle to establish a parent-child dynamic.
And I liked this a lot. I could engage in the wildest thought possible and it would take me years and years to think of something so successfully strange. (The simpler option would be to take one name, not two, from my noun list. I didn’t test this.)
But was this combo when that was useful for any useful purpose? That will take some conjuring. I think it tells us at least that the postmodernists are wrong when they insist things have been draining of meaning. If this were true, this output would be less strange, less distant, less hard to put out.
Here is my list of pretexts. They are a bit daft. Again remember I was watching Being Human. (They sound now like vaguely like David Letterman “top ten” lists. But you have to try.)
Modifier = new Array();
Modifier[0] = “trying to persuade Les Moonves to back their new show”;
Modifier[1] = “trying to set up a Fair Trade Network in South America”;
Modifier[2] = “consider swapping identities”;
Modifier[3] = “have agreed to sing the National anthem at next year’s Superbowl”;
Modifier[4] = “are thinking about buying an African nation, a small one”;
Modifier[5] = “are starting up a hip little art gallery in the NYC meat packing district”;
Modifier[6] = “are breaking into a Hershey’s factor under cover of darkness”;
Modifier[7] = “eating together in a Paris cafe”;
Modifier[8] = “fighting for a place in line outside an Apple store”;
Modifier[10] = “sharing a Glee episode”;
Modifier[11] = “going to a Harley rally”;
Modifier[12] = “join forces to fight the power”;
Modifier[14] = “ask Bill Gates and Warren Buffett to fund their Tikibar”;
Modifier[15] = “working hard on their syncopated swimming routine”;
Modifier[16] = “take to a lighthouse in Newfoundland”;
Modifier[17] = “driving an Airstream to SxSW”
Modifier[18] = “struggle to establish a parent-child dynamic”;
Modifier[20] = “fighting the tyranny of big budgets”;
Modifier[21] = “consider swapping identities”;
Modifier[23] = “are thinking about giving up tenure”;
Modifier[24] = “consider swamping identities”;
Modifier[25] = “come up with a new peace plan for the Middle East”;
Modifier[26] = “wondering why all men can’t be brothers”;
Modifier[27] = “looking for a future on reality TV”;
Modifier[28] = “surfing the conceptual drift”;
Modifier[29] = “hoping for a show of their own on ESPN”;
Modifier[30] = “in a Paris cafe”;
Modifier[31] = “working the tension between nature and history”;
Modifier[32] = “looking for their own show on USANetwork”;
Modifier[33] = “deciding who has the upper hand”;
Modifier[34] = “think we’ve been a little hard on Tiger Woods”;
Modifier[35] = “wondering how we invented pop culture”;
Modifier[36] = “have had it up to here with ‘high’ culture”;
Modifier[37] = “riding the new train to Tibet, under protest”;
Modifier[38] = “can’t decide: Antigue Roadshow or Pawn Stars”;
Modifier[39] = “putting the industry in the culture industry”;
Modifier[40] = “are thinking of going all artisanal all the time”;
Modifier[41] = “, working on new concepts of civil society”;
Modifier[42] = “thinking someone should send Charlie Sheen a fruit basket”;
Modifier[43] = “committing to post-Hegelian criticism one day at a time”;
Modifier[44] = “trying to decide which one is the Other”;
Modifier[45] = “winning, duh!”;
Modifier[46] = “mining indeterminacy”;
Modifier[47] = “think there is really something rum about the academic world”;
Modifier[48] = “in a Paris cafe”;
Modifier[49] = “sky diving together”;
Modifier[50] = “Venture capital in the intellectual world”;
Modifier[51] = “are wondering, ‘that’s what you’re going with?'”;
Modifier[52] = “think it’s perfectly ok to answer a question with a question”;
Modifier[53] = “think it’s not too late for you to become an anthropologist”;
Modifier[54] = “are building their own Culturematic laboratory”;
Modifier[55] = “wonder if Austin is still as great as it used to be”;
Modifier[56] = “Outward bound”;
Modifier[57] = “believe in disinterested observation”;
Modifier[58] = “an anthropocentric experiment”;
Modifier[59] = “rocking the Dewey Decimal System”;
Modifier[60] = “want two of the roles in Being Human”;
Modifier[61] = “sharpen their chops as master story tellers”;
Modifier[62] = “are they commodified objects? Oh, come on!”;
Modifier[63] = “embrace corporeality?”
Modifier[64] = “looking for triumph in all the wrong places”
Modifier[65] = “famous, but still looking for their mooring”
Modifier[66] = “are not sure in all comes down to factual knowledge, after all”;
Modifier[67] = “still believe in the Red Sox”;
Modifier[68] = “thinking of staring a trailer court in the public sphere”;
Modifier[69] = “went off Starbucks well before you”;
Modifier[70] = “looking for hidden messages and the secret code”;
Modifier[71] = “opening their own digital agency”;
Modifier[72] = “searching for autonomous selfhood”;
Modifier[73] = “have heard some stuff about Area 51”;
Modifier[74] = “still waiting for the Wikipedia page”;
Modifier[75] = “fighting the effects of rank prejudice”;
Modifier[76] = “think LeBron should have stayed in Cleveland”;
Modifier[77] = “thinking about switching homes and lives”;
Modifier[78] = “switched at birth!”;
Modifier[79] = “struggle to remain civil”;
Modifier[80] = “well concealed Amtrak enthusiasts”;
Modifier[81] = “treats celebrity as a contagion”;
Modifier[82] = “exploring materiality in a digtal age”;
Modifier[83] = “learning the rules of a celebrity economy”;
Modifier[84] = “searching for a narrative sequence that does not require a car chase”;
Modifier[85] = “unsafe at any speed”;
Modifier[86] = “boldly embracing romantic inwardness”;
Modifier[87] = “two words; road trip now”;
Modifier[89] = “are not binary opposites”;
Modifier[90] = “still hoping for a chance in Triple A baseball”;
Modifier[91] = “taunting the abyss”;
Modifier[92] = “think Brazil is where the future happens”;
Modifier[93] = “wish that Gen Xers would just get over it”;
Modifier[94] = “really sick and tired of enlightenment rationalism”;
Modifier[95] = “speaking the unspoken”;
Modifier[96] = “mainstreaming marginal worlds”;
Modifier[97] = “knowing the unknowable”;
Modifier[98] = “assault the market place”;
Modifier[99] = “hoping for a spot on TMZ”;
Modifier[100] = “putting celebrity gossip behind them”;
So now the hard part. How to change the Virtual Professor Code in order to make this Culturematic. It’s really just horrible to admit to this. I just kept making changes in the code with the hope of producing the output I was looking for. The Javanese have a metaphor for stupidity: a water buffalo listening to a symphony. Consider me so. Here’s what I “did” to the code.
function Pootwattle(){
EraseAll(document.getElementById(“Voila”));
subject = pickAny(Noun);
object = pickAnother(Noun, subject);
bookref = pickAny(BookRef);
reviewverb = pickAny(ReviewVerb);
//The sentences are constructed here:
var PootSays = “” + subject + ” ” +
verb + ” ” + object + ” ” + objmodifier + “”;
var SmedSays = “” + objmodifier + ” ” + “”;
There must be several people out there who can do better than this. Please do better than this!
Acknowledgements
I owe thanks to three inspirations for this exercise.
First, to Bud Caddell for showing me that the spirit, indeed, the genius, of the Victorian inventor in contemporary guise.
Second, to David Bausola, aka “zero influencer,” for his brilliant work creating, to use the fancy linguistics lingo, “syntagmatic chains out of paradigmatic classes.”
Third, to the Writing Program at the University of Chicago. Please would you let me know the name of the author of this program.
Imagine hitting “generate” and getting:
Mos Def and Tina Fey
This is your output from a Culturematic machine.
The machine does something really simple. It selects two names from a list at random.
The point of the exercise? Practically, this Culturematic machine could be used for making culture, specifically, casting movies and TV shows. Formally, it can be used for exploring our culture.
I have run my Culturematic many times now, and some of the outputs are not interesting.
Bill Clinton and Barbara Walters
This isn’t especially interesting because we can so easily imagine one interviewing the other.
Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh
This is not interesting, because, well, you know. They come from the same part of the world.
Madonna and Lady Gaga.
Ditto.
It’s when the Culturematic brings together far-flung worlds that our interest is piqued. (At least mine is. I realize that I am working off my own idiosyncratic reactions here.)
Mos Def and Tina Fey
This is interesting. I can think about Mos Def. And I can think about Tina Fey. Thinking about them at the same time is difficult…and therefore interesting.
It is precisely because they are far flung creatures that we would not normally think to bring them together.
That’s what the Culturematic is for. Because it’s a machine, it doesn’t know from culture. It’s happy to make combinations we wouldn’t think of. And that’s what makes it valuable: for casting and for exploration. (“Date Night” starring Tina Fey and Steve Carell was interesting. Replace Steve Carell with Mos Def and interesting becomes interestinger.)
Version 2
In this version, the Culturematic takes two names and combines them with a phrase. Here are some of the outputs I have got from my Culturematic:
Lady Gaga and Glenn Beck struggle to establish a parent-child dynamic.
Pink and Richard Branson, working on new concepts of civil society.
Christopher Hitchens and Graydon Carter, looking for triumph in all the wrong places.
This is interesting for another reason. It forces us to take our cultural knowledge (celebrities are particularly useful cultural knowledge: shared, vivid, and well distributed) and use it in new ways. We struggle to think about how Lady Gaga and Glenn Beck could have any relationship, let alone a parent-child one.
Ok, I have run out of time. Tomorrow, I will give you the logic and the code for my Culturematic. (Wait till you see how I wired it together. It’s a real mess.) I’m hoping you will want to build one too. (Because I know that you can do a better job.)
Acknowledgements
Thanks for the University of Chicago writing laboratory for their precedent. Full details tomorrow.