Jeremy wrote:
] I think there is a message in here about the evolution of our
] interaction with media... we are collectively suffering from a serious
] case of attention deficit disorder...
]
] Music used to be an event, not a product. For the iPod
] generation, music as Art is being increasingly devalued, even
] as it becomes pervasive to the point of ubiquity.

I no longer read books really. I read the internet. I read MemeStreams. And I hate long winded articles like Al Gore's recent speech. I want everything to be fast. I don't have time for details because there is so much else to look at. I like Aqua Teen Hunger Force, cause its 15 minutes, as opposed to West Wing, which I have to devote an hour to. And my TV is cut up by my Myth TV. I watch it when I want to and not when shows are programmed. And even so, when shows pile up on my mythTV and articles pile up in my memebox I feel like I just have a lot of work to do. There is no way in hell I'm going to read quicksilver. It seems unfit for the times. It seems like my life is just more hurried then it was even a year ago.

Where is this heading? Is this progress or regress? I have so many shiny things competing for my attention that I can't really delve into any of them... Are we loosing out ability to think deeply, or are we simply trying to break things up into smaller time slices so we can task switch more effectively?

There was a book i read a few years ago (which, alas, i can't recall the name of... where's my knowledge manager dammit) which discussed the issue of accelerating pace of life in modern western cultures. i thought it was a good read - discussing a lot of what you mention -- the inability, or lack of desire, to really spend the time to get into something in depth. we want our information now, digested, summarized and cross referenced and the fast paced culture has extended even to our entertainment -- wanting to cram as much as possible into as short a time as possible.

it's turning us all into twitchy, uncomfortable, neurotics, if you ask me... it's impossible to enjoy so many things, because you constantly feel like there's something else, better, more important, more fun or more interesting that you could be doing. i think it's kinda dangerous, because there are too many things that don't translate well to a condensed experience -- things for which the time spent is part and parcel of the experience. i like books for this very reason... i don't read fiction because i want "entertainment content". I read fiction because i want to hear a story, i want to delve into another world for a while and experience what it has to offer, from a perspective that is, perhaps, very different from my own. if i'm reading fast, it's because the story is taking me to places i *really* want to go, not because i want to finish and move on to consume another.

i'm not throwing myself into the luddite camp, of course... i think there are many aspects of life that benefit from being summarized, aggregated and digested quickly -- news items, for the most part, don't need to be discussed in great depth. articles and papers can usually be shortened, allowing partially interested people to get the short version, and the truly interested can read the whole thing. interpersonal messages are far more effective when kept short and frequent -- that increases connectivity, i think.

for me though, i try to stay on guard for feelings of anxiousness that seem to come from nowhere. when that happens, it means i'm falling into the trap of overload -- it's a hamster wheel, and i'm not so much interested in being locked into it. there are a lot of things in this world to see and know and absorb -- when i was young, i used to tell adults that my goal in life was to know everything there was to know. part of maturing was realizing the impossibilty of that task, even if i were to live to be a thousand. but, as i've grown up, using and learning about technology, i've also seen the possibility to learn more than i'd thought was possible, certainly more than any previous generation could ever have hoped to know. we are heading for a world in which the base of common knowledge will be far, far greater than ever before, because it's so easy to see and hear new things. i just don't think that should ever become a substitute for taking the time to invest in something particular... you may be missing out on a few new bits by focusing on just one, but i think it's a worthwhile tradeoff. sitting down with my ipod and a glass of scotch and just listening to a record would seem like a waste of time to many, but to me, the focus is part of the experience.

flynn23 wrote:
] Which brings me to an ultimate conclusion: what if you really
] can have anything you want, anytime, anywhere? What if you
] really could have every song, movie, book, performance -
] instantly at your fingertips, all the time? Would that be
] better or worse than not having that capability? For my entire
] life, I have wished for this ability, but when I really think
] about it - sometimes it was the lack of exposure; the lack of
] acessability - that made something truly valuable. Sometimes
] it was having to imagine(!) what something would've
] sounded/looked/felt like that helped me to create things for
] myself. Maybe that's better?

inignoct wrote:
] ... we are heading for a world in which the base of common
] knowledge will be far, far greater than ever before, because
] it's so easy to see and hear new things...
] ... sitting down with my ipod
] and a glass of scotch and just listening to a record would
] seem like a waste of time to many, but to me, the focus is
] part of the experience. [emphasis added]

The base of common knowledge will be enormous, but it will be "common" only in the sense that it is accessible by all. A person's individual experiences could become ideosyncratic and shared more closely with a self-selected group of friends than with some vase undifferentiated mass. A work or experience would be valuable to an individual not because it is scarce or expensive, but because one has invested personal effort in finding and appreciating it.

The result could just as easily be the balkanization of mass culture rather than the homogenization and trivilization of culture. That would be a more intersting world than one where everyone had the same shared experiences.

Jeremy wrote:

] I think there is a message in here about the evolution of our
] interaction with media. Popular music is a dominant cultural
] currency, but in an age in which spending an hour just
] listening to an entire album (without simultaneously running,
] driving, eating, playing, or otherwise) seems like an
] exceptional commitment, the individual "track" has become the
] denomination of choice. When an outstanding five minute song
] needs a sub-four minute "radio edit" in order to even compete
] for airtime, we are collectively suffering from a serious case
] of attention deficit disorder, coupled with a "super size!"
] programmer mentality that selects two mediocre-but-short
] tracks over one great-but-"long" track.

indeed, it's a dangerous precedent to set -- art is becoming a backdrop for your life, rather than a reflection of it, or a part of it.

] Music used to be an event, not a product. For the iPod
] generation, music as Art is being increasingly devalued, even
] as it becomes pervasive to the point of ubiquity.

i'm not sure i'd blame this on digital music, although the process is accelerating now. we've been moving towards this state steadily for many, many years. MTV gave the trend a big kick 20 years ago, by emphasizing the single... i think we're actually in a better position now, because people can sample the other tracks without buying the record, or finding a friend who has it, and download some other tracks, without being tied into the whole album. it bodes ill for the Album as Art, but it's probably better for exposure of more good music. at least, that's my hope...

Jeremy wrote:

] I think there is a message in here about the evolution of our
] interaction with media. Popular music is a dominant cultural
] currency, but in an age in which spending an hour just
] listening to an entire album (without simultaneously running,
] driving, eating, playing, or otherwise) seems like an
] exceptional commitment, the individual "track" has become the
] denomination of choice. When an outstanding five minute song
] needs a sub-four minute "radio edit" in order to even compete
] for airtime, we are collectively suffering from a serious case
] of attention deficit disorder, coupled with a "super size!"
] programmer mentality that selects two mediocre-but-short
] tracks over one great-but-"long" track.
]
] Music used to be an event, not a product. For the iPod
] generation, music as Art is being increasingly devalued, even
] as it becomes pervasive to the point of ubiquity.

LOL! Oh you sooo hit the spot my friend! This is a SERIOUS issue, the commoditization of art. And even for people who are very art friendly and supportive, it's an issue. You cannot unplug yourself completely from the world around you. As little as I watch teevee (I TiVo everything except hockey games), and I listen to no radio except Vanderbilt's college station or NPR - but I was bowled over a few weeks ago when I listen to an entire album all the way through, non-stop, in a darkened room, by myself.

Not only was the experience deeply spiritual by its content and context, but I realized at the end that just the method of this experience was something that was foreign and almost anachronistic. I felt like I had just sailed an ocean or made my own tools or something. It was incredible.

But that leads us to the world at large, which is probably not even in a position to understand the huge change that has occured. It's so easy to produce 'art' now that it's diluted its value, almost to irrelevancy. This goes part and parcel with several other trends that I've noticed over the last few years, but it's basically the over commoditization of everything.

There is nothing rare these days. Nothing shocking. Nothing provocative. Any time something happens, or someone creates something, everyone knows. Instantly. Whenever something is even moderatly innovative, it's copied and branched so fast and so deeply as to render the original explorations moot. And this constant loud hum is what has caused everyone to not notice when something truly provocative does happen. Because it sounds/looks/tastes just like everything else that is happening.

In some ways this is great, because as a person who appreciates art and creativity, it allows me the greatest amount of choice and exposure for very little investment (of both time and money). But it never really sinks in as an effect of injesting it. Sure, I'm hearing new and interesting things all the time. Some of which stick in my head. But I'm never really given the time for it to transform my consciousness or impact me in a meaningful way, because I'm onto something else too quickly.

Which brings me to an ultimate conclusion: what if you really can have anything you want, anytime, anywhere? What if you really could have every song, movie, book, performance - instantly at your fingertips, all the time? Would that be better or worse than not having that capability? For my entire life, I have wished for this ability, but when I really think about it - sometimes it was the lack of exposure; the lack of acessability - that made something truly valuable. Sometimes it was having to imagine(!) what something would've sounded/looked/felt like that helped me to create things for myself. Maybe that's better?