<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress.com" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>unnecessary-analysis &amp;laquo; WordPress.com Tag Feed</title>
	<link>http://en.wordpress.com/tag/unnecessary-analysis/</link>
	<description>Feed of posts on WordPress.com tagged "unnecessary-analysis"</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 25 Dec 2009 05:43:11 +0000</pubDate>

	<generator>http://en.wordpress.com/tags/</generator>
	<language>en</language>

<item>
<title><![CDATA[Fimoculous on Wired's 15th: How Cloudy was their Crystal Ball?]]></title>
<link>http://scrawledinwax.com/2008/02/08/fimoculous-on-wireds-15th-what-they-got-right-and-wrong/</link>
<pubDate>Sat, 09 Feb 2008 04:54:52 +0000</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Nav</dc:creator>
<guid>http://scrawledinwax.com/2008/02/08/fimoculous-on-wireds-15th-what-they-got-right-and-wrong/</guid>
<description><![CDATA[I know I&#8217;ve been linking to Fimoculous a lot lately. I think it&#8217;s partly out of a sense ]]></description>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class='snap_preview'><p><img src="http://scrawledinwax.wordpress.com/files/2008/02/feb_04_sm.jpg" alt="feb_04_sm.jpg" align="left" height="253" hspace="4" width="211" />I know I&#8217;ve been linking to <a href="http://fimoculous.com">Fimoculous</a> a lot lately. I think it&#8217;s partly out of a sense of karmic duty &#8211; and partly just lingering regret over a missed opportunity to hang out with Rex and <a href="http://dashes.com/anil/">Anil Dash</a> when they were in Toronto last year. But I felt I<i> had</i> to link to <a href="http://www.fimoculous.com/archive/post-3813.cfm">Rex&#8217;s piece on <i>Wired</i>&#8217;s 15th anniversary</a> if for no other reason than it exemplifies that Sorgatz is at his best when he&#8217;s a cultural critic. The article outlines the significance of <a href="http://wired.com"><i>Wired</i></a> as a cultural linchpin and historical marker of the early internet age, examining how, among other things, the magazine consolidated and nurtured the then-tiny &#8216;geek culture&#8217; and became its most mainstream mouthpiece. It&#8217;s an amazing read even if you, like me, only read Wired sporadically, and to steal from Mathew Ingram&#8217;s <a href="http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/02/08/a-tribute-to-wired-magazine-age-15/">response</a>, it contains just the right amount of nostalgia and critical distance.</p>
<p>Of course, this wouldn&#8217;t be <i>Scrawled in Wax</i> if I didn&#8217;t perform some half-assed &#8216;analysis&#8217; and so, in a salute to never learning from my mistakes, here are some generally random tangents that struck me as I read the piece.</p>
<p>1) <b>Who gets to decide what&#8217;s Wired and Tired</b>? In many ways, the &#8216;Wired and Tired&#8217; section hailed the rise of a technocractic elite. While the theory of influentials has <a href="http://scrawledinwax.com/2008/01/29/influentials-and-the-tipping-point-arent-dead-yet-heres-why/">recently been challenged</a>, a &#8216;technorati&#8217; was/is only possible due to the ever-increasing economic and cultural import of  technology. Why do Apple announcements get so much play in the mainstream press? Because they are not merely product launches &#8211; they are cultural events. They speak to the growing confluence of technology and popular culture in ways far more intricate than the staff of Wired &#8211; or any of us &#8211; could have imagined. People like Gates and Jobs and their &#8216;Web 2.0&#8242; successors influence our day-to-day lives in microscopic ways &#8211; from how we communicate to how we listen to music, these people are forces of culture as much as they of business.</p>
<p>2) <b>Negroponte&#8217;s misguided &#8220;HDTV is irrelevant&#8221; bit</b>: What Negroponte couldn&#8217;t have foreseen was twofold: 1) the brief &#8216;anti-mainstream&#8217; bent of the early nineties would go up in smoke (around Cobain&#8217;s death?) and consumerism would hit new the-eighties-tweren&#8217;t-nothin&#8217; heights &#8211; people wanted stuff more than ever before, and they wanted to make sure others saw it; 2) related: no-one could have guessed that technology would become <i>the </i>marker of both financial and cultural success. Seriously, what point is a Benz if it isn&#8217;t full of gadgets and if you aren&#8217;t driving the thing home to a 60&#8243; plasma? Nobody knew that people would start to care much more about identifying <i>through</i> items of technology rather than what technology would allow them to do. (There are other things to be said about wealth producing elevated expectations and home-theatre becoming a viable alternative to cinema but you&#8217;ll have to look to another blog for those.)</p>
<p><b>3) So why did the age of hyper-personalisation never arrive?</b> The hyper-personalised age never arrived because its proponents missed one simple fact: differentiating oneself has its limits. Why, I suppose, depends upon how cynical you want to get. The positive spin? The example of watching a baseball game from your very own angle is simply <i>too </i>personal, robbing individuals of the pleasure of collective experience. The negative take is that mass-commodity-culture performs an odd double move of celebrating individualism while promoting conformity. Perhaps customising a <a href="http://netvibes.com">Netvibes </a>page is about as much personalisation as people want, preferring instead to buy the same clothes as everyone else and then choosing to wear them with a different hat.</p>
<p>4) <b>Can we still talk of a clash between culture and technology?</b> One of <i>Wired&#8217;s</i> most prominent tropes was and is that of &#8220;the clash of culture and technology&#8221;. But the thing that struck me &#8211; and I&#8217;m pretty sure I&#8217;ve read Rex say the same thing &#8211; is that the dichotomy itself is becoming outmoded: that technology <i>is </i>culture and vice versa. While one can <a href="http://www.amazon.ca/Big-Switch-Nicholas-Carr/dp/0393062287">debate the relative merits or pitfalls</a> of that fact, I think their inextricability is pretty incontrovertible in the richer parts of the world.</p>
<p>If you have any thoughts about these ideas or the article, hit the comments and engage in some half-assed &#8216;analysis&#8217; of your own <img src='http://s.wordpress.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
</div>]]></content:encoded>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
