I say Twitter is to the digital communications revolution what Jackson Pollock is to nonrepresentational art or John Cage is to experimental music: an idea taken to such an extreme that it's no longer remotely enjoyable outside of the fact of the weirdness of the idea itself. Facebook departs from the form (and by extension, the functionality) of its progenitors (ie, conversation, written correspondance, etc) in the same way that cubism departs from the form and function of realist painting. Both are controversial in their unconventionality, but the fact is that Facebook and cubism do something in and of themselves. They're new ways of accomplishing recognizable goals -- those goals being, respectively, facilitating interpersonal communication and realizing a certain self-encapsulated vision of the world on canvas. Cubism may strike you as a bit of a waste of artistic talent, and Facebook may make your skin crawl (it seems to for most of us), but at least you can see the appeal.But Twitter? What possible purpose does it serve? How does it qualify as communication? Why is 4'33'' considered music? I don't like Jackson Pollock, I'm sorry.
This makes no sense, and I'm really sleepy. Time for coffee!
3 comments:
Summing up Cage's career within the course of 4:33 is like saying that "rage against the dying of the light" is the only poem Dylan Thomas ever wrote; these compositions are simply the most well-known to popular culture and represent a very small part of the creators' overall careers. In fact, they encapsulate little of the artists' philosophy and instead speak to insular moments in their lives. I believe (and this is just from an Intro to Music class) that John Cage is better known for attaching objects to piano strings to produce different sounds and making use of chance in his compositions, some of them actually sound pretty neat. I suppose context is what makes something something and something else nothing. As for Jackson Pollock, I like the way his stuff looks but I don't really care about his philosophy. On other hand, I hate Andy Warhol.
I never said I was summing up John Cage's career. I don't really know much about him, but what I've heard of his prepared piano pieces is equally unenjoyable-sounding. Not that I'm knocking the man in general, even (I know he also composed a good deal of music that actually DOES sound like music, although I can't remember if I've ever heard it or liked what I heard); I'm just saying that there's a point when innovation for the sake of innovation (whether artistic or technological) becomes absolutely absurd.
Benji, I fully understand your view of Twitter as functional specialization to the point of irrelevance/impotent self-justification. It exists the same way for me. But, it is not so for everyone.
The appeal of Twitter and like "what are you doing now" apps is only realized when one exists with in a community that uses them frequently. As a concept, it does not seem particularly interesting or effective. But when everyone you know uses it, when it passes the "tipping point" as it were, it then becomes a great utility. Its devotees update from their cellphones via SMS with a regularity we reserve for scratching our heads.
Have a interesting idea waiting in line to buy milk: twitter it. Many o of your friend, like devoted to checking their SMS every ten minutes, might respond to that idea by the time you've swiped your card.
It's at its best when used to broadcast moments in our consciousness, whether "thinking about seeing Sunshine" or "I just had x idea about a new way to do y". The interesting part of it is that in the act of twittering, these moments are interjected into others consciousness, and responses are received at a delay of mere minutes, wherever one is. See, the devetees of twittering are also devotees to checking their friends twitters.
Again, I've not been able to use it in this way because a.) I can't afford that kind of data exchange for my cellphone b.) none of my friends can, so c.) none of my friends use it. But for the technorati on the West coast, it has developed into, I think, a legitimate and interesting phenomena.
Does this light change your view abit, or is it still informational wankery like Pollock's splatterings?
Post a Comment