inside/out culture

improv everywhere is a NY-based outfit dedicated to causing “scenes of chaos and joy in public places.” while similar to “flash mob” style escapades–large numbers of people appearing in a public place and then disappearing suddenly–improv everywhere’s goals for its “missions” extend beyond just organizing fun for the participants, but also focus deliberately outward to all the various bystanders caught along the way:

“We bring excitement to otherwise unexciting locales and give strangers a story they can tell for the rest of their lives. We’re out to prove that a prank doesn’t have to involve humiliation or embarrassment; it can simply be about making someone laugh, smile, or stop to notice the world around them.”

i just watched a video of their latest mission, the MP3 Experiment Four, in which participants all downloaded an MP3 of an “omniscient voice,” all convened in a park in lower manhattan, pressed play at the same time, and were all simultaneously guided through something like a cross between a game of simon says and a scavenger hunt.

what i found most fascinating about the whole process was the relationship that develops between the people “in” the game, and the unsuspecting random strangers who get caught up in it by accident. at one point everyone listening to the mp3 was instructed to point to the tallest building they could see. below is a picture from improveverywhere.com where someone not part of the experiment decided to join in and point as well, presumably without any idea as to why or at way exactly he was pointing, simply playing along with what everyone else around him was suddenly doing. (perhaps he wanted to see what the point of pointing was all about? maybe there would be a prize? or maybe it was just a case of monkey-see-monkey-do?)

during another part of the experiment participants were instructed to see if they could give a stranger a high five as the group walked from one location to another. anyone on an NYC-street knows what a high-five is all about, although it’s definitely not the kind of thing one expects to get from a random passerby. yet when so many people are doing it it becomes apparent that it’s not just some weird isolated incident, but that there is some kind of underlying code going on for this group that you are not aware of.

living in a polyglot, globalized world we’re prepared for the constant encounter with cultures and behaviors unlike our own, to the point that these different cultures around us have become almost like exhibits in a museum. vividly on display to us, but not to be touched by the tourists. in the same way we tend to just tune out the advertising that is not specifically directed at us and our culture. but is there a way for a message to manage to catch the attention and the interest of people outside of the group for whom it was specifically intended? like the way that the results of the instructions in this MP3 experiment swirled strangers up in a kind of cultural dust devil as it passed by. for a moment all the “tuning-out”–especially necessary in a place like new york–couldn’t stop an unexpected bit of strange behavior from compelling you to interact with it.

interesting stuff to consider especially in terms of how it applies to marketing messaging. how are the people on the “outside” interacting with a message targeted to a specific group? and even if they are passing it by without so much as a high-five, what are they hearing in it about the community for whom it is intended (and the brand)?

MP3 Experiment 4
Part 1:

 

Part 2:

    



Subscribe for more like this.






the significance of the man burning early

a play about cross-cultural communication:

burner – played by someone who is part of the burningman community.

non-burner: played by someone who is not.

– – –

burner: OMG! the man burnt early!

non-burner: what?

burner: have you ever heard of burningman?

non-burner: hmm… looks like some crazy festival in the desert?

B: yeah. they also burn a statue of a man. that’s why they call it burningman.

NB: well, i don’t really get the point of that but…ok….

B: so someone set it on fire last night. and now everyone’s all upset.

NB: i thought you said they’re supposed to burn it.

B: no… this was arson!

NB: what’s the difference?

B: well, first of all, it’s not supposed to get burnt until saturday night.

NB: what do you do with it before then?

B: nothing, really, you look at it, and ride by it and stuff.

NB: can you climb on it?

B: not recently.

NB: so it’s just a decoration basically?

B: well, i mean, it’s someoen’s ART.

NB: oh damn! who’s the artist?

B: the burningman organization.

NB: so it’s kinda like… corporate art? dude, i don’t know… there’s some tacky shit up in the lobby i wouldn’t mind…

B: hey! just because it’s produced by the burningman organization doesn’t mean it’s not someone’s creation.

NB: you’re right… that’s true. it is pretty crummy that someone burnt it.

B: yeah at least they caught the guy… you wanna see a mugshot?

NB: oh my god! that guy looks CRAZY!

B: well….

NB: what?

B: well, he kind of… a lot of people wear crazy outfits and makeup and stuff there.

NB: so this guy, he… fits in there?

B: well…i mean… yeah….

NB: i dunno…. if there’s a bunch of crazy tattooed people all running around in war paint and stuff–

B: hey! this whole thing is ABOUT “radical self expression!” that’s the whole idea…

NB: but… doesn’t what he did then… doesn’t that kinda count as pretty radical expression?

B: what? NO! look, radically self expressing means like… like… i spend the whole time there wearing a tutu and a cowboy hat simultaneously. ok? i don’t take away something from everybody who comes to the event just to see the man burn. that waits for this all year long.

NB: but they destroy the thing anyway!

B: you can’t destroy it until they say so!

NB: you know… all these rules sound really complicated and confusing.

B: it’s really not. it’s really all just about art. you know, people spend so much time and energy creating amazing art to bring out there and share with everyone, and this guy just–

NB: wait…you think maybe this was his art?

B: what?

NB: well, i bet this took a good deal of planning beforehand, and it’s certainly a statement–

B: what the hell kind of statement does it have?

NB: i don’t know… maybe something like, about culture jamming or somethig? it seems like there’s a message it’s trying to get across maybe, and it–

B: that is ridiculous. that isn’t art with a message! THIS is art with a message:

 

NB: oh. hm…. how much fuel you think it took to trasnport and construct atll tha?

B: ok. you know what…. i have to go finish packing now.

NB: ok. see ya. have fun!

B: thanks!

    



Subscribe for more like this.






the education experience

i’ve been driving past this construction zone on the corner of vermont and washington for the past two years every time i need to get to the 10 onramp, only recently was the hard-hat area gauze removed to reveal what this building actually is: a school.

 

A School Even Teens Will Love

a couple of days ago i heard a really interesting bit on KCRW about a new kind of thinking that went into the construction of a particular school building, and before they even mentioned the location, i knew immediately which building they must be talking about. west adams prep.

among a lot of other great ideas they discussed on the show, the developers talked about approaching the creation of this facility for learning by researching the kinds of places that kids in l.a. actually LIKE spending time out of their own free will, and modeled the space to provide the same kind of “hanging out” experience as popular L.A. malls. they also asked the students to participate in various school-identity decisions like school colors and mascots. these are just some of a whole number of very conscious steps taken not only by the architects to create a space that would deliberately create a great experience for those in it, but also by the administrators to turn the school itself into a “concept” that kids would feel a part of and identify with in a positive way.

so basically they took the same kind of experience-creation and interaction/community-development approaches that brands are using in their strategies to win over the affections of the coveted high school demo, and applied it to–HOLY SHIT!–creating a high school.

you can listen to the full piece HERE. and you should. really cool stuff.

    



Subscribe for more like this.






even more queer once you’re used to it

image

this weekend was the 27th annual sunset junction music festival, a kind of cross between oldskool urban summertime carnival and indie rock block party. think: stale cotton candy and amusement park rides, local shops and art galleries trapped in the warpath shelling beer, dancing in the streets to mobile soundsystems, and the major stages blaring serenades by such haircut stalwarts as she wants revenge, autolux, blonde redhead, hot hot heat and so on.

sunset junction is the most fun you can have at a locally nurtured street festival tradition south of pink saturday in san francisco, which, if you haven’t been, is a complete free-for-all of music madness and making out that takes place the saturday night before san francisco’s gay pride parade every year. which is kind of a good segue to where i’m heading with this entry. because what struck me the most about this year’s sunset junction had nothing to do with the music (at least not directly). about half an hour in, i thought i saw something that no former san francisco resident has any right to get confused about: two straight guys holding hands.

this wasn’t some 4 am e-puddle at a rave cir. 1998. this was around 6 pm on a sunday afternoon in 2007, and while queer eye for the straight guy had mainstreamized the revolution in gay-straight male relations, metrosexual had become a house-hold word, and looking stylish was now par for the course for any sophisticated urban male, there’s still one thing that straight guys simply do not do as a fashion statement, and that’s hold hands.

yet “straight guys holding hands” was the first thing that instinctively passed through my mind. followed immediately, of course, by knee-jerk confusion: that’s not….right…. so then…. what the fuck?

the problem was that they didn’t look gay. not that there’s a certain kind of way that gay guys look that straight guys do not, but rather there are definitely certain ways that straight guys look that gay ones wouldn’t–or at least… there used to be.

what threw me off was that this seemingly-straight hand-holding couple were wearing plaid shorts that looked like swimming trunks found in a florida retirement home, and were sporting sloppy 60’s style columbia-university protester haircuts–the kind that 40 years ago just sort of grew out on their own, but today are no doubt cultivated under the careful attention of a hairdresser to look appropriately “period” vs. “politically active.” essentially, they were dressed like guys dressed before any kind of particularly gay aesthetic EXISTED, when less than 25% of men’s apparel was bought by men anyway. women used to buy 75% of it. (and you can imagine who was buying that other 25, right?)

for the rest of the night i kept seeing the same story repeated: all kinds of gay couples that didn’t look gay aside from the the fact that they were hardcore making out. (true story: at one point, towards the end of the night, when the real minority at sunset junction had become the sober people, one of a trio of guys walking in formation with their arms around each other’s waists backed up into me, and hiccuped, “oh! a girl! where’d they come from?” and i realized i was indeed hard-pressed to find an answer.) there were even mexican dudes in big white t-shirts and shaved heads going at it, that you know blast the radio when down’s “lean like a cholo” comes on. on a sidenote: do people outside of calexico even know what reggaeton is? after a while you start to go a bit blind to the contours of local culture’s idiosyncrasies when they are so prevalent….perhaps this is what has also been going on in the expression of gay identity as well.

one of the things that virtually all my gay friends have in common is a professed dislike of other “gay guys.” which is pretty telling of a major generational rift in the gay community.

the generation coming of age in the 70’s, in the wake of stonewall fought first and foremost for the rights of their community. the chant was “we’re here. we’re queer. get used to it.” the assertion of an individual gay identity, one that has the luxury to be vague, and even profess distance from the rest the gay community, is one that was only achieved through decades of pre-will and grace civil rights struggles.

in a 2005 article from the NYTimes style section, sensibly titled “Gay or Straight? Hard to Tell” bruce pask, the style director of cargo magazine, talked about why especially younger gay men don’t want to feel or look that different: “They didn’t need to assert their place in society, their right to be who they are. They’re not fighting for visibility. We got it; they don’t need it.”

perhaps that’s the issue my gay friends have with the established gay community: they do not feel that this community which is primarily defined by sexual preference is a viable forum for expressing their individual identity.

“if you can hang out with your straight buddies and be part of the group,” said brendan lemon, the editor of out, in the NYTimes article, “why would you feel the need to look different as an assertion of identity?” lemon suggested that for a generation that grew up watching “The Real World” on MTV, in which the gay and lesbian characters were no more or less flamboyant in dress or persona than their straight counterparts, being gay carries neither the stigma nor the specialness it once did. that, he said, has also altered the landscape of men’s style.

“it’s easier for gay men to come out of the closet as slobs, just as it’s easier for straight men to be dandies.” said lemon. “one of the things that’s breaking down how gay guys are seen is that people know more kinds of men who are gay.” but this dissolution of any one gay sensibility seems to be developing not just from the way in which the outside world sees gay men, but from the way gay men themselves want to be seen. as individual as any straight people would consider themselves from the rest of the “straight community.”

in a certain sense, even the breeders have been affected by the coming out of a whole generation. claims that the gay agenda to turn even the straightest of the straight gay by using the media to subliminally refashion their very notions of what they find attractive in women to resemble a male figure aside for the moment, this is the lifestyle that invented the CONCEPT of an “alternative” lifestyle (as opposed to simply a “counter-cultural” rebellion). it set the precedent. as all the rest of us participating in the greater culture now likewise face the burden of defining our own identities (whether we’re conscious of it or not), we all sorta ended up becoming queer…

and wouldn’t you know it, as soon as we did, they just turn around start lookin’ straight.

bastards.

    



Subscribe for more like this.






“getting” web 2.0


(not everyone’s a great photographer. da’s ok.)

one of the projects i’m currently working on involves cleaning some wreckage from a web 2.0-style mess that was never resolved, and is coming back to haunt the client. it’s not huge, but it’s a template, i think, for ways in which web 2.0 messes get made in general, and may point to helpful tips in avoiding even bigger spills.

1. NOT EVERYONE GETS / WILL GET / SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO GET WEB 2.0
it’s easy to hallucinate that once we outgrow the infancy of this whole online community development/management process, everyone will just intuitively “get it,” but that’s about as likely as all of us who have never known a universe without cameras being born innately expert photographers. unlikely. community management is a skill. everyone complaining about how all those old geezers don’t “get” web 2.0–what’s going to be the excuse when there are people younger than you coming up not getting it? ok, by “get it” i mean, “trained in it.” specifically how it works from the back end. obviously everyone wants more participation and interaction, but that’s the “front end” of web 2.0. that’s like in the front end of photography everyone does, in fact, now understand what to do when there’s a camera pointed at them. that part’s pretty simple. “getting” the back end of web 2.0 is about understanding how to enable, manage, and not accidentally carelessly wreck these delicate processes. that’s the kind of thing that takes training, much like any other SKILL. are there 700-level college courses on “community management” required for that marketing degree yet?

2. YOU DON’T HAVE TO GET IT. IT’S OK.
ok, there may also be a little bit more to it than just training. one of my best friends jokes that i’m so right-brained i lean. if you and i ever go out to dinner with a lot of our friends i am the last person, literally, you’d want to be asking to figure out who owes how much and how much each person needs to put in for a tip. i don’t get math, and despite what all my high school math teachers insisted, that’s OK. see? now you know, and you will never expect to rely on me to calculate anything for you. it’s ok.

3. IF YOU DON’T GET IT, DON’T MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT IT.
you wouldn’t send out a press release without a publicist’s involvement, so why the fuck would you make decisions about web 2.0-related issues without first consulting an expert? it’s probably because you’re not aware that there is an “IT” to it that you don’t “get,” i guess. i’ve heard that saying “i didn’t know what the speed limit was” is a great approach to take when getting pulled over. this is perhaps the point we’ll get to after the infancy is over. people will at least recognize that there is a concrete, specific “IT” that they may or may not be getting.

4. NOT EVERYONE IS GOING TO KNOW THAT YOU DON’T GET IT
if the receptionist screws up and accidentally transfers someone over to you who was supposed to have gotten connected to the sales dept., and you happen to be a graphic designer, are you going to pretend like you know anything about pitching? probably not! you’re probably going to let the person know you’re not quite the right dept. to be talking to, and as quickly as humanly possible, i’d imagine, get that call away from you to one of those sales people who’s actually equipped to handle it. i hope you see where i’m going with this. just because you’re approached to make a decision about something that you don’t “get” doesn’t mean you ought to. you wouldn’t want the sales folk mucking around with your design.

5. WHOEVER YOU HIRE TO “GET IT” OUGHT TO UNDERSTAND HOW TO FIX IT
this one deserves a whole other post unto itself. maybe a whole other blog. maybe a whole other graduate-level college course, and to be honest, i’m actually pretty exhausted from this day, and from this entry…. but i’ll say this: the web seems to be  almost catholic in its obsession with sin and repentance. so if you done sinned, finding yourself a good priest is the way to go.

    



Subscribe for more like this.