Archive for April, 2009

The Long Tail of Multiculturalism

What effect does the web have on immigrants and minorities living in the West?

The following article appeared in the March/April issue of THIS Magazine, a publication the New Yorker recently called “Canada’s equivalent of The Nation“. In the off chance you want to link to the article, please use the link at the (new, greatly improved!) THIS site.

kiran07_verticalAs in so many immigrant families, weekend mornings in my house always meant one thing: “our shows” on TV. We are of Indian descent, and the sounds of the latest Bollywood hits were a staple of our Saturdays and Sundays, as much a part of our weekends as omelettes and the newspaper. But for all the nostalgia, we had little choice. For years, if you were an immigrant looking for your own media, your only other option was one of the “ethnic” grocery-cum-video stores that still pepper neighbourhoods today. And while these shops function as impromptu community centres, there was always something a little unsettling about having to drive to an out-ofthe-way plaza only to pick up a poor-quality knock-off DVD.

It was a disquieting state of affairs that only added to the isolation so common to the immigrant experience. But thanks to the web, things are changing. Minorities are no longer confined to gathering around a TV on weekends or driving to the nearest bazaar. With the mainstreaming of the internet, immigrant minorities have exponentially more access to film, music, and literature from their root cultures.

The difference in diversity between traditional and online outlets is striking. Zip.ca, Canada’s most popular online DVD service, currently has 728 Bollywood films available, which, last time I checked, is approximately 727 more than at my parents’ local Rogers Video. Walk into a Best Buy or HMV and you will be lucky to find a handful of “world music” CDs. In contrast, eMusic.com, Canada’s second-largest online music seller behind iTunes, currently has more than 33,000 artists under their international category. The disparity is staggering.

At the core of this pluralist promise is the “long tail.” Coined by Wired editor Chris Anderson, the term describes how the web’s massive capacity as a distribution network, coupled with its greatly reduced cost of delivery, allows online retailers to offer a much greater variety of content than bricks-and mortar stores. Rather than relying on selling huge quantities of a few blockbusters (the head), the theory suggests that online stores can thrive by selling just a few units each of a huge catalogue of titles (the tail). But though most of the technorati have focused on the long tail’s economic benefits — which might not be as lucrative as once predicted — few have yet to think through its impact on minority cultures.

After all, beyond merely having more choice, what does it now mean to be an immigrant in the face of this greatly expanded access to culture? My parents’ generation spent much of their life in a sort of cultural limbo. Unwittingly alienated by a majority culture, they sought out the familiar and the known. Yet, the trips to dingy stores around the margins of cities were more symbolic than anyone cared to admit and, despite a growing immigrant population, quality, selection, and currency were all lacking. Put off by mainstream culture and unable to connect with the contemporary culture of their homelands, they were stuck.

Flash-forward to today, and my mother can watch the most current movies from Bollywood at full quality, a few even in high definition. My father has a large MP3 collection composed of ghazals and classical Indian tracks he never thought he would find again. This is just the start: it says nothing of the radio streamed from Taiwan, the news sites from Somalia, the poetry from Pakistan, or the podcasts from Jamaica. The internet allows immigrants to engage in the currents of the cultures they know with an immediacy and range that simply could not have happened before.

The obvious danger is increased ghettoization. But in an unexpected way, the web allows for an equality of participation. The ebb and flow of media, the contemporary pulse, was once privy to those with Globe and Mail or Saturday Night subscriptions. But, though it is perhaps anecdotal, it seems no coincidence that, after finding Bollywood clips there, my mother also turned to the web for reports on the U.S. election or video from Oprah.com. Suddenly a part of the swirl of popular culture, my family’s cultural isolation lessened.

If minority alienation is a question of access and inclusion, then perhaps more than anything, the long tail means that the choice between assimilation and traditionalism has ceased to be an either/or proposition for immigrants. When one is no longer forced to cling to an imaginary past but can instead engage the cutting edge of both cultures, the movement to the contemporary Canadian becomes degrees easier and less threatening.

The web in itself might not be a magical panacea, but when immigrants are neither asked to constantly look back, nor entirely conform to an alien present, perhaps the ideal of multiculturalism has found a practical friend in the long tail of the internet.

Note: The pic here is of Kiran Ahluwalia, a Canadian-born, Indian-trained musician who has taken the up the ancient form the ghazal and reworked it with a slight jazz, ‘world-music’ inflection. While most Ghazals use established, often Sufi poetry, Ahluwalia has called on the few poets in Canada who write in Urdu to create some of her songs. It’s the sort of fusion that differs from the usual notion of blending and does something very cool – after all, to much of her audience, the newness of her approach remains entirely invisible.

, , , , ,

Leave a Comment

In Defence of Criticising Twitter

twittersucks_zIn what was almost certainly a response to Maureen Dowd’s silly, cringe-inducing interview with the founders of Twitter, today Jason Kottke has written a defence of the service. I’m glad he did, as the increased mainstream coverage of Twitter has only encouraged the exasperatingly stupid criticism that suggest all Twitter amounts to is millions of people telling each other what they had for lunch (hey, here’s a hint: it’s not). In addition, Jason takes the time to suggest the seeming inanity of Twitter is actually one its main strengths, which is great.

I have frequently defended Twitter and have argued that, beyond the often delightful sense of ‘ambient intimacy’, Twitter is both a place for generating conversations and a way to produce a charmingly fragmented public text of oneself. That said, I’m also a little troubled by the ‘us versus them’ mentality that springs up whenever someone prominent criticises Twitter. While I am as guilty of it as anyone else, rather than just encouraging an unfortunate sort of tribalism, this kind of group-think might also be preventing legitimate criticism of Twitter from ‘within’. There are, after all, very real criticisms to be made.

As Rex notes, part of the objection to Twitter stems from a minor paradigm shift as both bloggers and ‘non-techies’ try and deal with the conversational, networked, rhizomatic nature of twittering. Blogging may be far more interactive than print, but it’s still a one-to-many model. Much of Twitter’s success can be attributed to the way it enables and encourages a gloriously messy, non-linear sort of communication, one that refutes ideas like the original post and the original idea. But another part of Twitter’s appeal is that, quite simply, it’s the place people have shifted to in order to talk, a phenomenon that the blogosphere likes to label ‘the movement of the conversation’. When Twitter suddenly became the cool thing (say, 18 months ago?), the conversation moved, and if you wanted to participate, you moved too.

What the move to Twitter prioritises is the form of communication, its immediacy, its intimacy, and I think it is for this reason that it has become so popular with ‘people who are connected’.  But, at the risk of sounding like a kooky crank, what may have been left by the wayside, however, is the content and the depth.

But wait, wait. Isn’t it silly to suggest that? Isn’t it that one shouldn’t use Twitter for conversations – that it’s merely a place to begin them? Twitter didn’t destroy blogging or books or magazines did it? Of course. But I think that argument misses a kind of cultural ‘weight’ or ‘push’ behind our desire to follow others on to the next thing. In moving to Twitter, we exhibit a semi-conscious will to be where others are, to have our words blend into the words of others ‘who count’. Perhaps the move to Twitter isn’t only because of its inherent strengths as a new medium, but is also about a desire to be where the action is. And what are the effects of that?

Well, here’s what I’d say: the confluence of a communication medium and a social phenomenon results in a situation in which communication is ‘voluntarily’ constrained by the material, technical limitations of the newest trend; to wit, I want to be where the cool kids are, so I’ll keep my thoughts under 140 characters.

By itself, this is fine. There are plenty of other outlets for thought. But taken in the aggregate, and considered in light a certain kind of cultural capital attached to ‘the latest thing’, this is a problem. After all, the fragmentation of post-industrial society often forecloses sustained critique of broad social trends, and the combination Twitter’s brevity and popularity may only add to this. While I will still defend Twitter’s benefits, we would be wise to not forget that there are inherent limitations that form part of a larger social situation in which reduced analytical depth sits alongside the culture of the soundbite. We need to at least acknowledge the potential of the popularity of Twitter to exacerbate, rather than alleviate this problem.

Clearly, there is a need to defend the near-real-time, networked nature of Twitter from those still clinging to their fountain pens or Livejournal accounts. But that means that those of use who use the medium daily, who have been immersed in its cultural effects for some time, have to be the ones to mark out its flaws, to say ‘this is where Twitter succeeds and this is where it fails’. A knee-jerk defence of Twitter, or a refusal to see it as part of broader social trends is just asking for trouble.

So let the Dowds of the world make their idiotic critiques. Let’s just make sure our responses aren’t as equally banal, reactive and short-sighted.

, , , , ,

Leave a Comment

The Apatow Oeuvre

There’s a solid post over at the great (and bravely named) The Weblog that attempts to sketch out the conventions of a Judd Apatow movie in a more robust, academic manner than your average Slate or Salon article. I’ve only seen a couple of Apatow flicks, and have been as disturbed by them as I have been amused. Knocked Up, for example, invokes a kind of ‘realism through explicitness’ (“we’re just showing how guys and gals speak”) as it simultaneously moves into allegorical territory through an often uncritical representation of male fantasy. I did find parts of the movie very funny… but then, hasn’t this odd attempt to blend verisimilitude and fable into comedy been the core of misogynist representation?

I’m not sure I agree with the whole analysis. The passage I’ve quoted here seems to privilege the male gaze that is simultaneously critiqued. [Update: Actually, I take it back: I think this passage is actually critiquing the male gaze of Apatow's films. Just ignore me and my impulse to critique rather than praise.] Still, it’s a good read and there’s an interesting conversation going on the comments.

It seems to me that this ending is functionally the same as all the others: the male friendship is “always already” dead. That also explains the casual misogyny of Apatow movies — it’s not directed at women as such, but at women as representatives of the normalizing forces in society that are depriving the men of their more meaningful bonds. I think that may be what motivates the fear of homosexuality in the end, too, insofar as homosexuality is increasingly modelled on heterosexual normality — it’s not so much the homoeroticism as such that’s the problem, but the idea that this relationship would become “just another” marriage.

Of course, at the same time, I probably shouldn’t critique Apatow films too much. When pushed, I have to admit: their stunted, adolescent male leads are often all too easy to relate to.

, , ,

2 Comments

Wax Interlude: Inspiring Trials and Life at a Thousand Frames Per Second

Just a quick post to share two amazing videos. The first is some incredible trials/stunt biking in Edinburgh by Danny MacAskill that comes via GOOD. It’s set to some great music, which makes it all the more awe-inspiring. I am amazed whenever I can still bunny hop a branch thicker than a couple of inches; this guy rides backwards down trees. (By the way, if you’ve never visited Edinburgh, do so in the summer, and let yourself drown in the eerie historical ambience, the flashy modernity, and the drunken violence and sex that spill over into the streets as the night begins).

The second video is from David Coiffer [via] and showcases video shot at a thousand frames per second. Nope, not a hundred. A thousand. Every second. It’s sorta’ incredible. I’d say that “you’ve never been so mesmerized by the movement of a woman’s hair” but then, for some of you… that’s a total lie. Enjoy!

more about “I-Movix SprintCam v3 NAB 2009 showree…“, posted with vodpod

1 Comment

Dear Susan Boyle: Welcome to the Desert of the Real

EU BRITAIN SINGING SENSATIONIt has been difficult – though perhaps impossible might be a better term –  to ignore the kerfuffle caused by Britain’s Got Talent sensation, Susan Boyle. And while the excited chatter has been both widespread and diverse, if you were so inclined you could probably divide the reaction into two general camps. And, well, since I am so inclined, here goes.

First, there were those who thought “oh my God, I am so surprised and inspired that a simple, ordinary-looking person could do that, you should, like, never judge a book by its cover“. Conversely, there were those who said “wow she’s a great singer, but why is everyone so surprised just because she’s ‘homely’? Isn’t this all just a little shallow?” (Though I admire their grit and commitment, I will, for the time being, ignore the third ‘who gives a fuck?’ camp). If it isn’t obvious, I’m more partial to the latter response than the first. That said, I think there’s something more interesting going on here than shallowness.

We have, after all, become very accustomed to the idea that popular, talented singers are attractive. While we know it’s probably a little superficial, we accept that not only do we like to look at people who are pretty, but that we also understand the economics of the media biz: it makes more sense to promote someone who can sing, but is also easy on the eyes – though the more cynical (and probably more accurate) argument is that it makes sense to sell someone who simultaneously appeals to one’s heart and one’s loins. Sure, I quietly admit, I might be in love with Kathleen Edwards‘ gritty, heartbreaking lyrics, but my addiction to her music might also have something to do with how pretty she is in press photos.

So Susan Boyle contravenes this little pattern of economics and desire that we’ve set up and, in doing so, provides a little inspiration for us all. Yay! See, talent can come from anywhere, we all say. Fair enough. Here’s the problem though: we know that physical attractiveness isn’t a terribly good predictor of talent. We know that how hot someone is has no relation to how well someone can sing. Hell, how many of you know someone personally who, while not a potential model, can sing beautifully or has some other artistic talent? So why on earth are we all so surprised?

My take? We are surprised because the unending torrent of images that have linked beauty to singing talent has superseded the ‘real world’, or, at the very least, the idea that attractiveness is not related to singing talent. This has happened so effectively that what was once a self-evident fact – that ‘ugly people can sing really well too’ – needs to be reasserted as a revelation. And I dunno’, maybe I’m incredibly naive, but this bears repeating. To counteract the dominant mode of thinking, we needed to be reminded that physical attractiveness is not a marker of talent, but is, rather, a form of currency. That’s just a little fucking insane.

The point – other than being another reason I think Baudrillard will only become more relevant as the internet grows and grows – is that the media constitutes reality for us in a manner that is at odds with certain, inarguable ‘facts’, and is so successful in doing so, that even statements that are obviously true need to be  propped up and defended against the enormous stream of images that suggest otherwise. And unfortunately, as the web increases the dissemination of images so that they have an even greater reach and presence, moments like this faux-celebration of Boyle and her success will only continue, expand and get even more surreal.

,

3 Comments

Is News Still Waiting for Newsprint’s Successor?

So, the world’s biggest newsprint producer just filed for bankruptcy protection, and, as historical-cultural symbols go, it may as well be a giant frakkin’ bonfire, replete with people dancing the ‘death of newspapers dance’. Or maybe not. Perhaps it’s a credit crunch thing. What I guess I’m saying is, either way, it’s eerie.

The question to my mind is whether or not ‘the news biz’ is waiting for the successor to newsprint. Maybe it’s just me, but as I said yesterday, I don’t think the website is cutting it. But if it was the cheap and plentiful availability of newsprint that allowed newspapers to become such central parts of our culture and lives, are we waiting for a similar revolution in both technology and distribution for the next phase of news? And is ‘newsprint’ a good meatphor for the future? Or is tainted by the ‘print thinking’ of the past?

What I have occasionally envisioned is that the future of news lies in mobile, Kindle-esque devices that serve as a (sorta’) standard platform for delivering news. The device is one part of the infrastructure; the wireless/delivery system is another; and the payment/advertising part is the final piece of the puzzle. In my little dream, newspapers would still retain their institutional and organizational character – in which companies like the NYT are sites that aggregate talent and construct an editorial bent – but simply switch delivery mechanisms from paper to screens and wireless.

Is it too linear though? Is the entire concept of ‘the delivery of news’ a soon-to-be anachronism? It does rests on the notion of a central hub and a network of delivery, of dissemination and distribution. But are the web and its related technologies too inherently Deleuzian, too fractured, too decentralised for information to fit this centre/margin, hub/spoke model?

Just a random thought – one that wouldn’t fit in 140 characters. Any thoughts?

, , , , ,

Leave a Comment

It’s 2009: Why are Newspapers More User-Friendly Than Websites?

sunday-paper-coffee-cupAs a committed technophile, I frequently find myself defending the web to my charmingly contrary literary friends.  While I’m pretty sure it’s done nothing to help my chances at a bar, as soon as someone romanticises the printed book or the ‘weekend ritual of the coffee and the newspaper’, I, in an almost knee-jerk fashion, trumpet the superiority of the internet in response. It’s deliberately polemic and probably a little silly, but is also sorta’ necessary when most of your friends are arty luddites.

But the incessant recent buzz about the newspaper has gotten me thinking, and my passionately nerdy defences have run into a rather sticky problem. Despite the fact that we are well into the ‘next revolution in news’, every time I stumble across an actual copy of, say, the Globe and Mail, it seems that physical newspapers still have significant advantages over their online counterparts.

Now, I’m not saying that “newsprint is just, like, more real, man”. When reading a newspaper story, I cannot do any of the following things: cut and paste; look up historical events or the meanings of words to clarify a story; email a piece, either to myself or a friend; and I can’t search without spending ten or fifteen minutes flipping through the damn thing. So, I don’t mean to overstate the usability of newsprint purely for the sake of nostalgia or familiarity.

But if one is to think of the experience of actually using your average, multi-section daily, there are some distinct benefits. For instance, after picking up the bundle of newsprint that just thudded at my front door I can, quite quickly, read the headlines on the front page and see the important stories inside I want to read. Similarly, after flipping through the stack of sections, I can then very quickly see which of the ‘speciality’ pieces I wish to peruse. All of this can be accomplished in about 30 seconds. Read the rest of this entry »

1 Comment

How the iPhone and My Attention Span Became BFFs

iphone-bookI don’t know about you, my fellow blog-readin’, RSS-subscribing, Twitter-updating friend, but in the last four or five years my attention span has, to put it mildly, been destroyed. While I could once perform slightly insane feats of focus – like, say, reading Kate Chopin’s The Awakening and then writing a 20-page paper on it all in the space of 36 hours – that is no longer the case.

And while it’s true that it probably has something to do with ‘the profound epistemological differences between the paper page and the screen’, my rapidly decreasing ability to pay attention to anything for more than a few minutes might be better attributed to this, more basic fact: there’s just so fucking much out there.

There is, in fact, ‘just so fucking much out there’ that, upon opening my browser, I often sit in front of my computer feeling distinctly overwhelmed by the seemingly limitless possibility that sits in front of me. It is for this reason that, to this day, I will never simply browse YouTube or visit Digg, as to do so would remind me of the enormous glut of information I will never reign in, control or master. And though I do rely on personal aggregators like Google Reader and Instapaper, even then I star items – a way of marking articles you wish to read later – only to never return to them. The list of things I need to catch up on keeps growing and my willingness to tackle it decreases at a similar rate.

Imagine my surprise then, when I found myself doing the very things that cause me so much stress – reading old articles, discovering hidden gems on YouTube, and just generally ‘browsing’ – on my trusty iPhone. While I would never do so on my desktop or laptop, I take time on the subway, while waiting for a friend, or even when in bed, to catch up on all those things that I had once resigned myself to abandoning.

The last thing the tech blogosphere needs, of course, is another post praising the iPhone – and I don’t intend to. In fact, though I’d argue it is as revolutionary as everyone says, it’s precisely the limitations of the device that have made it such a boon to me. After all, while the best thing about the iPhone is its multifunctionality, what it cannot do is perform those many tasks all at once. And with the ability to multitask taken away, I find myself finally being able to focus on one thing at a time, a skill that, particularly if one is an academic, can come in handy from time to time. Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , ,

3 Comments

Little Big Metaphor: On the Promise of Video Games

sackboy1How are video games actually ‘different’ and why should we care?

Tell me if this sounds familiar: you are reading a newspaper or magazine piece on “contemporary youth” and, as an example of how much things have changed, the writer laments that kids today would rather play football in a videogame than do so in real life. It’s the sort of soundbite that is both pithy and effective: what better way to describe the ill effects of technology than to suggest today’s kids are happy with a digital knock-off of an authentic experience?

Problem is, as comforting as the argument sounds, it’s based on a shoddy bit of reasoning. It rests on the idea that videogames that reference real-life experiences do so in order to replicate that experience, so that, for example, the aim of a driving game is to recreate real-life driving. But video games don’t try and recreate the world we know; they reference it in order to create their own.

To my mind, the recent release of LittleBigPlanet is a good example of the creative core of video gaming. LittleBigPlanet is at heart a modern version of Super Mario Bros; but more importantly, the game allows you to invent your own worlds to play in. Rather than running through someone else’s vision, using the toolset of the game, you can produce your own, and it is for this reason that, upon the title’s release, it had the video game world in a bit of a tizzy.

This emphasis on creation and creativity works as a neat metaphor for why games, even when they try hard to be realistic, aren’t attempting to replicate reality – and also why this is a good thing. But it might first be useful to look at another cultural form as an analogy and, since literature is (ostensibly) my shtick, let’s roll with that. Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , , ,

2 Comments

Possibility, So Pregnant, When We Sit Together in the Dark

It was the moment that Fight Club ended that threatened to break everything. In the dim light left as the credits rolled, I whispered to my friend next to me, to no-one in particular: “I can’t go back out there“. I was in my early twenties, and my recent exposure to existentialist philosophy, Marxism and the post-structuralists had left me cynical and bitter, but also searching for  confirmation I wasn’t the only one who felt that way. Fight Club finally seemed to give voice to so many of the things I had been feeling and, desperate to hold on to that, I wanted to remain seated in the dark, couched in the possibility this might be the moment I would change my life.

The sentiment passed. When you step out into what is now called the “Scotiabank Theatre“, a garish, overhwhelming testament to consumerism, you quickly forget your plans to smash the state. It was only in that pregnant moment in the dark of a movie theatre that such dreams seemed possible.

All of this, however, is just a poor lead-in to two songs I’ve heard recently that say something about the odd combination of hope and solitude in those moments we sit in the dark together and watch film. The first, “Only Way to Cry” by Casiotone for the Painfully Alone, is a tale of a man who rents an entire movie theatre so that he might indulge in watching a movie by himself. It’s the sort of brief, aching fragment that Owen Ashworth is so brilliant at and an example of why I half-seriously call him the Raymond Carver of our generation.

The second is the alt-country track “Midnight at the Movies” by Justin Townes Earle. It’s again a story of solitude, but the loneliness is tempered by the image of Martha, a girl who comes and sits beside the singer mid-movie and, without saying anything, slips her hand into his. Before the film ends, she leaves in a similarly silent fashion.

I’ve put both songs here on an 8Tracks mixtape so that, if you wish, you can listen to them both. For legal reasons, the site has a habit of randomising the track order, so if they don’t pop up at the beginning, just keep clicking through and you’ll get there. Because an 8Tracks mix requires a minimum of 8 tracks in order to be made public, I also threw in some other bits and bobs. There are some other mixtapes there too, so feel free to listen to those – though, if you’re interested in making your own mixtapes, I’d probably recommed you go with mixtape.me .

, , , , ,

Leave a Comment

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.