Batfort

Style reveals substance

Month: June 2017 (page 2 of 3)

Who needs a hero?

Interesting clash of perspectives today.

I’m working on a project at my job (large corporate-type situation) with an internal process improvement consultant. One of the major issues that we’re encountering with this project is the fact that things get done through the herculean effort of certain members of our staff. They get faced with a nearly impossible task, and do it.

Our job is to take that herculean task and process-ify it until it comes with a mission, vision, guidelines, step-by-step guides, and (my favorite) best practices. Basically we’re sanitizing, streamlining, and Disney-ifying it so that anyone can do it. Which is the point, really. We need more of these tasks done. The point is to break it into a step-by-step process so that people can just “go with the flow” and the institution will get what it wants out of it.

But I found myself using the phrase “extreme ownership” in relation to this task (the extreme effort expended I think leads to extreme territoriality over the end product). Now, I haven’t yet read Jocko Willink’s book on the subject, but Jocko is a military man focused on leadership. A hero.

And it occurred to me: there is a HUGE subset of media focused on urging people out of the “go with the flow” mentality into a hero mentality. Gorilla Mindset, Four-Hour Workweek, Extreme Ownership, Unleashing the Giant Within…whatever you want to call it, there a huge demand for people to be coaxed into the hero role.

So why am I fighting to take them out again? Doesn’t a competitive process produce good results, as iron sharpens iron?

Perhaps if there is also loyalty, and the herculean effort doesn’t cause people to break down, hate their job, and quit. But there is no loyalty at a corporate-style institution.

On the one hand, I feel like I’m removing a chance for people to prove themselves. On the other hand, there’s a huge giant problem around this issue that might get fixed with standardization.

Now I feel the need to seize the means of production.

 

Bonus question: Are people who need a class on how to be a hero really heroes anyway?

Steak, Sprints, Sleep

Did my first bike sprints today and I’m feeling pretty good.

Eating a ribeye with a side of shrimp and feeling pretty sated.

That pillow is calling my name so I can sleep like a lioness after a hunt.

 

If you think (or Future Me ever thinks) that alcohol, sloth, and staying up all night is fun…let this post stand in contradiction.

On Aesthetics and Truth

There’s reality. Layer 0. Reality is Truth with a capital hard T. If you don’t run with it, it will smack you in the face. Or kill you.

Then there’s words. Layer 1. We use words to communicate, to build things. Words add another layer of meaning. We joke with words, deploy irony, twist meanings. There are a lot of fun things you can do with words.

But, while words are “real” to an extent that they make other, physical, things happen…words aren’t real. Most words are sophistry, painting a picture of a real thing over Layer 0 so as to obscure Layer 0. The best words clear away the obstructing Layer 1 debris to uncover the Truth beneath.

This can be a painful, dirty process, which is why people kill truth-tellers like Socrates and Jesus.

That leads us to the crux of my thinking, the thorn in my side: “The Word became Flesh.”

Jesus, LOGOS, became man to walk among us. LOGOS, truth. LOGOS, words. Jesus is the reconciliation between Layer 0 and Layer 1. Jesus is the anti-sophist. Jesus is the embodiment of Truth in Words. So to be like Jesus, you need to also become Truth in your words. If you tell lies, or “bear false witness against your neighbor,” you are not pointed in the direction of Layer 1 bearing witness to Layer 0. That is, Christ.

And that leads me to aesthetics. We communicate also with pictures, through art and advertising, design and memes and architecture. There are lots of ways to convey messages non-verbally. Many language-oriented academics deny this, a fact that got me thinking about this subject when I was in graduate school. They claim that all thought is mediated through language. I content that they’ve never been emotionally moved by a true, deep color or played music ever in their lives. It is entirely possible to communicate without words. In fact, there’s a whole movie built on that premise (Close Encounters with the Third Kind).

But I digress. Reality is Layer 0. Words are Layer 1. Words build culture, a shared understanding. So that can be Layer 2. Culture builds up law, Layer 3. And so on. All of those are socially-based things, intangible things.

(This is also why I’m so interested in words and how they are physically formed with typography and the like, because words are intangible so to make them physical is one of the ultimate Acts of Creation, see “Word became Flesh,” but again I digress)

Where does that leave us, though, with the visual? Man made cave drawings before writings. We communicated through visual medium before the written word (although we probably had spoken words at that time). The written word is a subset of a visual medium.

A house is four walls and a roof, but there are many different styles in which you can put together those components. You can build a mud hut, or a house out of bricks, or a cookie-cutter Victorian or a modernist concrete structure. Style changes over time, depending on the available technology and materials, plus the people to put them together and their history.

Physical artifacts of history, like old forks that are dug up from archeological sites, and paintings and book printings, and more interesting to me than historical records. For one, written historical narratives can LIE LIE LIE like people do with Layer 1 (and if that Layer 1 is built only on an understanding of Layers 2 and 3, rather than a firsthand account of Layer 0…God help us).

That is why Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of the Truth. He is the conduit to Layer 0 so that we don’t get confused and lose our way.

Old forks give us a physical representation of Layer 0. These are things that people used to live their lives, and they give us clues to how the world was around them. Paintings and novels are as a physical artifact Layer 0 but as a commentary, Layer 1 or higher, because they run Layer 0 through the brain/worldview/of the artist. So you get an idea of how they view Layer 0 (unless they are a third-rate mind looking only at Layer 3 or 4 or 5).

This is why social media gets us into so much trouble. At that point, we’re on Layer 6 or 7 or 8…so far removed from Layer 0 that we’re in danger of floating off into the ether.

I’m circling my point but I’m never actually getting there.

The Style of a Thing is not always the substance of that thing, but it is an integral part of that thing. And the style of that thing–how the creator chooses to present that thing to the world–communicates a lot. Fancy or plain. Baroque or brutalist. Intuitive or overly complex.

How does that point us to the Truth, or obscure it? Is there a true “style” of Truth? Some Christians have believed that a thing needs to be stylistically plain to avoid distracting from the truth (looking at you, Puritans, with all due respect) but at the same time, I also understand why icons and statues and other things are needed in the Church–especially in a time when most people were illiterate.

Is a true aesthetic one that points to the reality of thing it decorates, rather than misrepresenting it? IE, putting fancy packaging on a cheap product in order to charge a higher price for it.

For example, the biggest “tell” that a charcoal face mask that Tati and Jeffree Star reviewed recently was a fraud was how cheap the packaging was on the product–that nasty gold thread with the cheap bottle. That is an example of untruthful style. It is a crooked thing that doesn’t stand up straight so that the claims, price, product and outcome all stack on top of each other with a straight line to Layer 0.

In one sense, a facade can be a lie, because it obscures the actual product behind it. Think of the buildings in the old west that made one-story buildings seem taller, or the set on a movie that’s only looks like a skyline when in fact it’s just cardboard.

On the one hand, these things are a lie. On the other hand, just like art, they are used as a representation in Layer 1 or greater to (sometimes) get us to look at Truth in a new light.

That is my mission: to investigate the relationship between aesthetics and Truth.

I am not sure if aesthetics/style is another layer in the stack, but I doubt that because different styles can apply to every layer. Maybe style is a kind of force-multiplier? Sometimes style is used to obscure truth, and sometimes style is mistaken itself to be the truth. But style is just a manner in which we do things, a manner in which truth (or any subject) is presented.

Side note: as mentioned earlier, style changes with time period and people group and available technologies (such as the brightly colored Victorian dresses that sprang on to the scene when synthetic dyes were developed). I doubt that one aesthetic style can be of more truth-value than another…right? Another thing to investigate.

I’m sure some philosopher somewhere has already covered this to a much greater extent than I already have, and hopefully I will read them someday. But I also want to work through it on my own.

Hopefully I’ll add value to someone else’s search for truth, because it really bothers me that most people who write about style do not include much substance. There’s IYI-level academic analyses, and breathless magazine writeups, but not much that’s thoughtful and in the middle. Much of my favorite cultural analytical writing is done by graphic designers, which strikes a good balance of thoughtfulness and experience, but as I’ve pointed out in my About page, most of those people are on the left somewhere.

There are lots of political commentators on the right, and to an extent social commentators and persuasion commentators, but there aren’t many design commentators. And while I am loathe to call myself an authority on anything (trust me, I’m not), and don’t really want to become a “commentator,” I’m still curious and figure–why not make a fool of myself in public? All truth-tellers do.

There’s this layer of meme magic that I’ve become aware of during the past year and a half (shoutout to Pepe here) that I think plays into this whole aethetics thing, as well. Are memes at like, Level 10? The whole “oversoul” or “shared consciousness” idea? The forces of fate that are outside our control–those shape a lot of the aesthetics of the age. And what does that mean? Can we help shape or control those things? Or do they control us? We are all trapped in our own time, and some of us who are prescient can see glimmers of the future, but most of us can’t. Those of us who are wise will learn from the past, from the other time periods that we have access to. But we have to learn from Layer 1 or greater, because it is not possible to access Layer 0 of another time. Only of our own time. Layer 0 is the present, always.

Because this is my own blog and I’ve decided to not limit myself to any specific topics, I’ll write about other things like my diet (which is related to Layer 0 and contributes to my own personal aesthetic…hah) and probably Time, which fascinates me. Also Christianity, which I believe to be the Truth. So it all really relates together on some level.

I honestly believe that everything relates to everything eventually, and part of the fun of living is trying to tie disparate things together. That’s what the “Pulling at Threads” category is for.


Lol forever

The “S” is giving me problems.

Milk Bar, Mad Men, and Nostalgia Porn

Nostalgia. Does it make the world go ’round?

Often it’s disguised as “innovation.”

I like Christina Tosi, and Milk Bar treats are something I wish I could have tried before going gluten- and sugar-free (along with Salt and Straw Ice Cream).

 

But there’s a fundamental difference between Salt and Straw and Milk Bar. Salt and Straw is recreating a common food (ice cream) with interesting flavors. Many other people are doing the same thing, but Salt and Straw is doing it well. Allegedly (having never tasted it).

Milk Bar, on the other hand, is doing some interesting things (I like the “naked cake” idea with the formula for a good balance of cake/texture/filling) but with a patina of nostalgia–the cereal milk, all the cornflakes, the birthday cake flavors. All things that take people of a certain age (Old Millennials, like myself–in their 30s) straight back to their childhoods.

All the comfort of Saturday morning cartoons, bowls of sugary cereal and the box cakes that our moms made for us on our birthdays–but that we’re too sophisticated for now, of course. We’ve moved to The City and identify as Progressive and have left that parochial lifestyle behind (except, of course, when we haven’t).

I think of it as “nostalgia porn,” which first occurred to me while rewatching an episode of Mad Men. It’s the second episode of the entire show, and the setup maybe acts as a thesis for the rest of the series*

As Betty pauses from gossiping to chastise her daughter, our minds leap immediately to the warning we see now on every plastic bag–NOT A TOY! KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN! DANGER!

So when Betty prioritizes her clothes over DANGER, we laugh. (Thanks, cognitive dissonance.)

But we also have the opportunity to feel smug. How could Betty love her clothes more than her own child?! What a spoiled bitch! Everybody knows ™ that Sally could DIE playing like that! Look at how safe we keep our children now! And smoking around children??? Quelle horreur! We have come so far! I would never do that!

A show like Mad Men allows us to cast the past in a glamourous light while simultaneously decrying how backward it was. We feel good for “progressing,” and also can pat ourselves on the back for emulating the style (or creating the style, for the older generation.

That is what I think of Milk Bar, to an extent. We would never think of eating sugary cereal for breakfast anymore (think of the! it would throw off my macros for at least three days! and Lucky Charms aren’t available at Whole Foods anyway!)–but we can indulge in cereal milk on cheat day.

We’re raiding the past to make ourselves feel good while simultaneously also feeling good because we’re more progressive now.

Christina Tosi credits her midwestern roots for much of her inspiration. Her grandmother’s recipes form the basis of many of her most popular offerings like Corn Cookies or Crack Pie.

At the same time, it’s not enough simply to recreate those recipes. They must be deconstructed and reinvented. Rainbow chip birthday cake used to raise the profile of The Rock. Would Christina Tosi’s grandmother vote for The Rock? (I don’t know.)

I could see this being used for good–to wake people up to the fact that many of our core values come from a more wholesome time and place. Perhaps it could be the start of a reawakening.

Considering the way that Coastal Elites view flyover country, I see this as yet another iteration of disdain for American values. Taking the enjoyable core of something and twisting it beyond recognition to fit into their progressive paradigm.

(Let us put aside for a minute the issue of rainbow chip birthday cake being sold to us by the corporate-industrial complex as an easy-but-soulless alternative for delicious, homemade cake, also subverting culture. It’s turtles all the way down, people.)

I think this is intentional in Mad Men. I doubt Christina Tosi is thinking about intentionally subverting midwestern values. Obviously this approach sells well. I personally take the bait–I greatly enjoy Mad Men and would 100% eat at Milk Bar if I could.

We have our cake and eat it too…but at what cost?

 


*Put a fork in that one, I’m going to have to explore it further. Maybe an excuse for a Mad Men rewatch?

So Amazon bought Whole Foods

Where I live in Portland, I’ve used Amazon Prime Now to get groceries delivered from New Seasons Market, a local Whole-Foods-type chain.

New Seasons doesn’t partner with Instacart, which I also use. Whole Foods does.

Because of the buyout, I assume that Whole Foods will someday soon deliver via Amazon.

Where does that leave New Seasons?

+++

Ordering groceries online has its ups and downs. For the most part it’s great: quick, convenient, and because I don’t have a car–incredibly less cumbersome.

But you pay for it in money (fees, tips) and also in lack of choice or care. The Anon shopping for you doesn’t have any skin in the game, so to speak, about picking the best produce and certainly doesn’t have your particular dietary requirements in mind when swapping out replacements.

For instance, a while back I was not eating dairy, soy, and sugar, but occasionally would like a 100% dark bar of chocolate. I added one to my Instacart order, but the brand I had picked (and researched online to make sure that all the ingredients were legal for me) was out of stock–the brand that the shopper chose as a replacement was sugar-free, but had dairy.

No incentive for them to care.

Or, for instance, the steak that I had yesterday was probably 1.75 pounds but came with a “sidecar” steak that’s about a half-inch thick–because I had ordered 2 pounds of steak. Nobody thought to get two one-pound steaks?

The best experience I’ve had with grocery delivery has actually been ordering directly through Safeway’s website. The quality of the produce and meat that I got through them was by far superior, but the delivery fees were higher. I suspect that this is because Safeway was not using a “gig” setup with random Contractor Anons doing the work.

Safeway didn’t let you tip the delivery guy.

Day 24 of Zero Carb

I ate a steak tonight (or rather, part of a steak–that thing was a beast of almost 2 pounds). I haven’t eaten a steak in a few days. Maybe that’s why I’ve been so tired.

Here is what I learned:

Even with eating zero carbohydrates, it’s just as important to get the bulk of your nutrition from a “real” meal (aka BEEF) before indulging in tasty but less nutritious treats.

Chicken is a snack.

Eggs are a side dish.

Pork is candy.

Cheese is dessert.

Pepperoni is fun but you can’t make a meal out of it.

 

But beef…

Beef is what’s for dinner.

Source

What is Johnny wearing?

In case you hadn’t noticed, there’s a strong military theme in NCT 127’s latest comeback, “Cherry Bomb.” (Hint: it’s in the title.) You can see in the video that the members are wearing various types of camo, and the sets feature lots of cool military-style vehicles, airplanes, and a helicopter. In typical K-pop style, none of the military gear is interpreted literally.

This is especially true when you consider NCT, whose stylists clearly enjoy mixing color, pattern, and genre when dressing the members. But no matter how wild and far-reaching the stylist’s decisions get, they always follow the theme. The “Cherry Bomb” visual style seems to be following an 8-bit/military theme so far (we’ll see how it plays out in promotions over the next few weeks). Honestly, I’m tempted to start an entire new category called “In defense of NCT’s stylists.” Their visuals are not perfection, but pretty dangnab close.

Rest assured that Johnny’s wardrobe is neither random nor misplaced. He’s wearing an tactical chest rig, which fits right in to the military theme, AND it’s covered with 8-bit cherry bomb patches. During NCT 127’s showcase, Taeyong called it a “bomb jacket.”

Regardless: BOOM.

Doyoung, Mark, JOHNNY, Jaehyun, Taeyong, Yuta, Haechan, Taeil, Win Win

This type of gear typically used to carry ammo, grenades, or other survival-type supplies. Possibly even cherry bombs. Maybe snacks.

Our Johnny, though? He’s carrying around 5 pairs of socks.

Johnny, sock, Haechan, Mark

Good thing the Rambo-style bandanna makes up for it.

LOL.

Older posts Newer posts

© 2024 Batfort

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑