 TLC Home 
Background  Conversations 
Timeline  Resources 
Vision Plan 
Site Map
|
Local writer, transmedia and Web designer; iBooks July 15, 2000 IRC log started Sat Jul 15 12:10 *** Value of LOG set to ON *** dbauler has joined channel #tlc <dbauler> (i am here.) <mpg> if'n you want to finish reading, i'm cool; i'm not finished with the playground article, www.nytimes.com/library/arts/071500playgrounds-sameness.html <dbauler> yeah, i might skim through real quick, but i'm ready when you are, basically. <mpg> that is amazing.. <mpg> there is a discourse about just about everything <mpg> thanks for the short notice/reminding me <dbauler> i've *written* about this, about McPlaygrounds... <mpg> excellent, where? <dbauler> i did a research thing in waterloo about the parks commission...it's not online, i'm not sure if i have it with me... <mpg> the other day i was talking to my dad about that; he said he was envious of today's kids <mpg> wrt McDonald's playgrounds <dbauler> because of safety? <mpg> no - they look fun to him :) <mpg> the safety thing is... interesting - it's like the playground is supposed to babysit <dbauler> what i found, and what isn't at all suprising, is that with the parks commission, "safety" is sorta a surrogate word for "cost-effective"... <mpg> so that the grownups don't have to be engaged <mpg> wow. <mpg> no maintenance, i'd guess? <dbauler> right, cheap setup, cheap insurance, they're all the same so replacing broken parts takes all of five minutes... <mpg> mm - plastics are easier to manufacture en masse <dbauler> which is...if you think of the playground as a kind of center for neighborhoods, think of what that says... <mpg> what does it say? :) <dbauler> it says that the idea of the distinct neighborhood is not cost-effective, and therefore obsolete. <dbauler> waterloo, after the second world war, went on this public works spree, putting up these weird parks, large-scale designs, robinson crusoe park, ghost town park, the alice in wonderland park. they became distinct elements of the surrounding neighborhoods. <dbauler> those are all gone now. <mpg> on the impetus of "safety"? <dbauler> yep. money and safety. also gone are most of the piaget-style "forts". it's all primary-color plastic garbage now. <mpg> oh, man! <mpg> it's the same back at my elem. school <dbauler> it's shameful. it's just disgusting. <mpg> (to rein this in...) how do you see that particular use of technology (plastics) <mpg> is this an example of using technology to express certain values? <dbauler> being able to design a litigation-proof series of playground equipment and mass-produce them on a large scale, selling this design to cities, bright colors replacing chipping paint and rotting wood...it's definitely brilliant salesmanship. <mpg> heh <mpg> ok - i think this definitely illustrates a connection between economy/ technology/culture <dbauler> i think it is. we equate plastic with softness and childlike primaries with safety. it's definitely a statement of priorities. <dbauler> agreed. <mpg> how do you see that dynamic playing out elsewhere? <mpg> (ie, salesmanship influencing our centers of culture) (hehehe) <dbauler> certainly the use of safety as a selling point has become an unavoidable part of american culture, particularly over the last twenty years. <dbauler> ongoing notions of "keeping our children safe from internet pornography" through the use software creates a new market, much as the home security boom of the '80s did. * mpg nods <mpg> hm, is there no safety issue there, ought it be approached differently? <dbauler> by taking a genuine concern, blowing it entirely out of proportion, and connecting it to a product, it's easy to create new markets. the hygene craze in the fifties, for instance... <mpg> ah! <dbauler> there is a safety issue, certainly, but it should be balanced through an ongoing notion as to what play is for. why do we let children go to playgrounds? is it to get them out of our hair for a while? is it to help them develop socially through contact with other children? <dbauler> is it to develop physically? to stimulate imaginative play? i don't think any of these things are considered at all with these cookie-cutter playgrounds. <dbauler> it's just "we have to give kids a place to play, so let's make it as safe as possible". these people don't see a trade-off at all. <mpg> do you see any analogous lessons where computers and kids are concerned? <mpg> like - for what reasons would we encourage, or not encourage kids to use computers.. <dbauler> certainly. as a society, we think it's important for children to develop a knowledge of computers, as their careers will most likely involve computer use of some sort. when i was going to school, this basically meant we played oregon trail for an hour a week. * mpg laughs <dbauler> i think (i certainly hope) computer education is better developed now than it was then, but i think there's still a black spot with a number of educators as to exactly *why* it's important for kids to understand computers. <dbauler> i'd argue (not one of my more popular positions) that this is a fairly broad phenomenon. "are you online?" "no." "but you *have* to!" "but why?" "because everybody else is!". <dbauler> there's certainly a "we don't fully understand it, but we know it's important" rush over the past few years. for some people that's paid off; the corrent bubble of tech-business people, for instance. but i think there's definitely a segment of people who are waiting for something, wondering why they spent two thousand dollars to send mail with their friends. <mpg> mm <dbauler> (i'm not certain this is going in the right direction...) <mpg> Do you thing that new media (web, email, or other applications) require new ways of reading, writing, thinking? should schools be prepared to provide an education in new literacies? <mpg> (oh, worry not!) <mpg> (maybe the first question is a whole conversation..) <mpg> (what i'm getting at is... maybe the people "waiting" just don't know how to "read & write" yet..?) <dbauler> possibly. certainly there's an adaptation to protocol. email places less of s strictness to grammar and spelling than common letter writing, but i don't think that's necessarily inherent in the technology. <dbauler> there is a difference, but i don't think it's as critical a difference as people believe. <dbauler> the idea of distribution to a (potentially) near-infinite faceless audience certainly takes some getting used to, and has been mentioned countless times, it redefines who your neighbors are. <mpg> how about creation in new media, even hypertext? is it new? <dbauler> i don't think the technology itself is prohibitive. i do think that there are potentials for new forms of conceptualization and communication possible through this technology, and by making use of these sort of practical applications we can create reasons for people to want to use computers, rather than relying on a kind of faith. <dbauler> there's definitely a history of hypertext, beyond things like xanadu. multiple-timeline narratives go back through cortazar's "hopscotch", through the oulipo...the argument that talmudic interpretation is the birthplace of hypertext. but certainly the technology changes the physical act of reading. <dbauler> what interests me about the current state of new media is how much it can pick up and utilize seemingly dead ends in prior art forms, such as early radio, randomized performance, illustrated texts. <dbauler> we're at a point where not only can this rich history of experimentation be directly utilized, it can be utilized by anyone at marginal cost for creation and distribution. the early oulipo computer experiments are things anyone can do with even a limited home system. <dbauler> hypertext is an interesting topic, mostly as an example of overtheorization. * mpg laughs <mpg> how does "new" media influence the older forms, say, the novel, theatre, visual arts? <mpg> is the novel dead? (heh) <dbauler> i can speak most clearly as to the connection to the novel. new media won't kill the novel any more than photography killed painting. in fact, the two played off each other immensely, from rather obvious examples like cezenne taking photographs of models rather than having them sit for him to duchamp making use of muybridge's time-lapse photography to extend his visual application of fourth dimensional geometry. <dbauler> certainly man ray's photography owes a considerable debt to painting. in fact, the line between the two blurs there, becomingly increasingly unclear, bringing us up to digital manipulation, where painting, photography and new media merge. <dbauler> i think what we'll see is the notion of the novel as a sort of narrative spine, from which online texts branch outward, extending and altering the ideas of the core text. <dbauler> this is an interesting framing technique: through print, you claim a certain body of work essential, allowing yourself to explore alternate readings (sometimes subverting the primary reading entirely) through hypertexted/cross-media materials. <dbauler> (this is just one option of many; i'm not trying to predict some sort of great trend. it's just the option which seems ideally suited to the current state of technology.) <mpg> hmm.. could you elaborate on "through print..." ? <mpg> i got it up till then <dbauler> for most readers, a hardbound book carries more authorial weight as a solitary text than a series of online documents. by using a book as a center, you can create a reading experience which stands on its own or also ties in to your web site, where you can embellish certain aspects, go off in different directions thematically, tie in with other things you've written. <mpg> eeenteresting <dbauler> to me, this is far more interesting than the sort of promo site with a sample chapter and author bio. that's not making use of the medium, that's thinking of a site as being like a trade journal. <mpg> yes <dbauler> think of, say, a gravity's rainbow site with annotations, with additional stories (the further adventures of pig bodine!), with connections to v, with actual ig farben documents...playing off the notion of research as narrative. <dbauler> (this also lets the author be vicious with editing, knowing all that great material that just didn't quite fit in with the pacing and shape of the book isn't all going to waste.) <mpg> indeed, yeah.. coool. <mpg> so that the novel-text-book embodies more essentially that mediums strengths, you think? <dbauler> yes. by doing the sorts of things you can't physically do in a book you strengthen the text by making it a more open system; by giving the online site a center you help keep a consistency to the material, a point of reference, which has always been one of my problems with hypertext works. <mpg> am i on the right track - ahh <dbauler> you also allow for randomness and interaction, two things which interest me greatly in this regard. <dbauler> it's in these senses, more than hypertext (in my opinion), that the abilities of new media narratives take shape. <mpg> i wonder now.. about how a liberal arts new media program might take some of this in.. <mpg> starting broadly, though - <mpg> what in your opinion are the most important purposes of a college education? <dbauler> certainly the use of computers to learn about and experiment with intermedia projects, to develop techniques through collaborative projects, learning how different... <dbauler> hmm. <mpg> yeah - <dbauler> being able to not only provide technical training, concept development and abilities to experiment in a non-commercial context, but to see how these things all fit together, how they assist each other. <mpg> well, you've mentioned historical aspects of all this, as well as ethical <dbauler> i've never been good with learning programming, for examle, unless i can imagine a context for using what i'm learning. at the same time, i've never dealt well with purely conceptual notions without having the actual skills to apply them myself. being able to utilize both without having to be immediately productive in a business sense is certainly the primary aspect of college which has helped me. <mpg> ok <mpg> a schooling might provide contexts for learning, or maybe nurture awareness of contexts? <dbauler> i came into college thinking of myself as a writer, though. i wanted to explore other media and develop practical skills, but i never had that "what am i doing here?" notion other people have... <mpg> mm <dbauler> certainly. <mpg> now, thinking about the context of the university in all this.. do you feel it prepared you for the kind of life you envisioned for yourself? <mpg> or, was it supposed to? <mpg> (btw, feel free to tell me to skip it if you want) <dbauler> hmm. in that it offered me access to materials (the library, the art museum, the dada archive, the writer's workship), particularly thorugh independent study. on the other hand, the computer science department at iowa was screwy; pascal was a requirement, it was strictly for hardcore programmers. there was little new media work taking place. <dbauler> certainly my experience with college was based on a "make your own secondary curriculum" notion, where i'd make use of these (often incredible) resources in a personal way, not for classes. the freedom to do that was incredible. <dbauler> unfortunately, i never found a way to fit this sort of research into the academic world, so my classwork suffered. mostly because i hadn't learned to balance. <dbauler> during the occasional times when these two areas overlapped, such as undergrad workshop, it was ideal. <mpg> so much of your work wasn't formally recognized, and you suffered? <dbauler> which is to say i learned a lot through my college experience. often despite my classwork. <dbauler> i don't want to make a "i blame the system!" argument or anything... <mpg> no, no, that's not - <mpg> nix the "and you suffered" then ? <mpg> :) <mpg> much of your work wasn't formally recognized ? <dbauler> but certainly if i could have found a method of taking the things i was interested in (collaborative intermedia, computers, art history, and certain areas of general history and philosophy) i definitely would be better equipped to do what i do now, and certainly would have thrived in an academic environment. <mpg> let's imagine that we could completely redesign a college education from the ground up - can you describe what your ideal would be? <dbauler> certainly if i could have gone to an instructor and said "i'm fascinated with this raymond roussel guy! how about i develop an online hypertext version of his 'new impressions of africa' with background information!" and get back "excellent! here's a reading list of roussel's influence on the surrealists, particularly duchamp, and here's a couple essays by john ashberry on his influence of postmodern poetics!", man, i woulda been golden. <mpg> hehehe <dbauler> i don't know what sorts of things other students would need. i can only really speak for myself, as far as idea education. <mpg> sure.. <dbauler> i'm fairly self-motivated, i love research. so a system by which i can design projects and be guided towards connections i didn't know about and assisted in thinking of these disparate elements as part of a larger whole would be ideal. <dbauler> closer to mentoring than general clasroom structure, i imagine. which obviously isn't practical, but a classroom where connections are made between students: "darren, you know, james is working on a study of foucault, who wrote a book on roussel, maybe between the two of you a project can be worked out"... <dbauler> one thing new media is teaching me is how these "unimportant" or "dead-end" avenues of research become incredibly relevant later, in different contexts. so to have a system where you're trusted in following the things you're interested in, rather than having to stick to a canon of relevance... <mpg> righ, right <mpg> although, would there be a place for any foundation, that say, both darren and james would have? <dbauler> certainly this sort of communications technology has taught me all sorts of things as to collaboration. to be able to do the sorts of things i've done with online projects in an academic setting would add relevance to the idea of the importance of computers as well as... <dbauler> i'm not sure i understand that question. <mpg> well, a freshman curriculum, say. <dbauler> this might not be the best answer, but... <dbauler> for me, the idea of being a writer is fairly broad. it's not just writing and editing, but research, graphic design, distribution, fontography, so on, using my core interests as a means of approaching other areas, of finding common ground. thus, even if i don't directly make use of these areas, i have a better understanding of how they work, how they affect what i do. a core curriculum can make use of these areas of interest to connect one's-- <dbauler> drive to learn with things outside the general scope of what they know about. thus, when darren and james later on in their studies collaborate, they have a shared body of knowledge each can use not only to relate to their own projects, but to each other. <dbauler> the core isn't something you learn because it's abstractly important, but because it allows you to further your understanding both of your interests and those around you. <mpg> right right <dbauler> i guess it's a question of interaction. tech buzzword ahoy! <mpg> (let me know when you want to end - it's been long) <mpg> haha <dbauler> likewise. honestly, i could do this for hours. <mpg> (there's actually so much more content f2f! it's a good contrast..) <mpg> (but it's auto-transcribed, a plus :) <dbauler> is there any other specific area you wanted to hit? <mpg> ok - what do you think are some important questions we should be asking about the rlship between technology and culture? can you imagine research projects that might expand our understanding of that relship? <mpg> i'm sure you can.. :) <dbauler> are we teaching technology as a means of developing understanding and assisting skills, or as an end in itself? are we teaching concepts or software? how can we be sure that we provide relevant instruction without essentially becoming salespeople for product designers? <dbauler> is computer education necessarily interconnected with planned obsolescence? how can we assist students as seeing both the environment around as well as each other as potential resources? <dbauler> (i'm still thinking) <mpg> k! these are great.. <dbauler> do we really have answers for freshmen who harp about "what do i need to take x, y and z for"? we should certainly research how people actually use technology; not what do we think they're doing with it, but how it truly functions. like an office environment is seemingly a network specifically at use for office-specific agendas, but really everybody's playing quake and ircing. god knows most of my time at the weeg computer lab at iowa-- <dbauler> wasn't spent writing class essays... <mpg> heh <dbauler> people learn technology quickly in these "unsanctioned" environments, often developing incredibly elaborate environments, without any sort of official training. can that method of learning be utilized in any way within the classroom? <dbauler> (in one of these interviews, somebody compares this to the distinction between taking a writing class where word procesing software is used and a 'learning the word processor' class.) <dbauler> that's dead-on, as i see it. <mpg> ah yeah, playing the piano vs. playing the stereo! <dbauler> right, exactly. so much computer education is playing the stereo. and it's worthless if the company you work at uses different software, whereas if you've learned "to play the piano", you can adapt to different environments a lot easier. <dbauler> it's funny, this notion of the "great unwashed masses" i tend to get from technology people, these are people with incredibly developed abilities in certain areas, people willing to do the hard work of learning on their own, but because they don't wanna learn to play the stereo, so to speak, they're morons. that particularly frustrates me. <mpg> piano/stereo? <dbauler> a lot of technology education, particularly if you're no longer of a college age, it's a bit demoralizing. you can't help but feel out of touch because you don't know word, or because you don't know how to use a mouse. and rather than provide reasons to learn such things, as one gets from something as non-academic as "hey, here's how to get an email account" or "here's how to download mp3s", which they may well excel at, it's a -- <dbauler> "this is important because it's important" situation. you never learn real skills you can use in other areas, you only learn how to use this crappy piece of software which apparently everybody on the planet knows but you. <dbauler> you don't have to dumb down your approach. you need to provide relevance. <mpg> earlier you said.. <mpg> <dbauler> is computer education necessarily interconnected with planned <mpg> +obsolescence? ... is this -- <mpg> how you mean, that often computer instruction is too often lacking relevance? <dbauler> if your company can come out with new software every year, and can command enough of a market hold to get companies to buy it, and you've taken this stupid adult education class where you learned to use Pointless 5.0 and here this company is using Pointless 6.0, and rather than grasping a general notion of writing documents via computer your class was basically a training manual for this one obsolete item...when i talk to my cousins and friends, <dbauler> this is the sort of things which pisses them off as to tech classes currently. <mpg> ah, yeah. <dbauler> of course, the company will sell your school a training kit and discount software, so it'll really do all the work for you, and plus it's cheap, so the school basically becomes a pitchman... <dbauler> obviously this isn't always the case, but it's happening. <mpg> okay.. changing gears.. <mpg> what are some concerns (if any) you have about the impact of technology? <dbauler> technology itself, or technology as a market for massive multinational corporations? :) <mpg> aha! <mpg> well - do tell what you think the implications of that are! <mpg> ie, one student i spoke to was primarily concerned about the fetishist aspect of new products, etc <mpg> others have had environmental/community impact concerns.. <dbauler> (hmm. are you gonna be around later? i'd love to continue this, but i shd eat) <mpg> ahh! <mpg> oh yeah, maybe we can finish up f2f for a half-hour or so <mpg> speech has higher bandwidth :) <dbauler> (plus which a little time to mill these things over would be excellent... indeed! cool, let's do that, then.) <mpg> exellent, thanks <dbauler> (i'll be interested to see how the two halves compare...) <mpg> happy accident experiment :) <mpg> ok, see ya *** Signoff: dbauler (Leaving) IRC log ended Sat Jul 15 15:38 (face to face, same day:) (about 30 minutes of poorly-recorded conversation omitted; I may go through it as time permits and pull what I can. What follows was recorded with a new tape and new batteries.) D: I think, certainly with certain people, there's a notion that, because of immediacy of communication now, this sort of digital approach, that we no longer have any connection to prior notions of communication; that, while I would argue that things are somewhat different than they have been in the past, by thinking of them as being sort of completely different, that, "all the old rules no longer apply!" (laugh) "It's the new digital marketplace, and anything is justified, and the stronger eat the weaker." It reminds me in a lot of ways, in the business sense, of a sort of situation that occurs oftentimes in war, where, more current markets no longer apply, because there's a situation going on that sort of circumvents that. And, unfortunately, what tends to happen, a lot of times, in these situations - (recording problem) M: So you think that there's a fundamental - it's a perception thing - of what the technology - about what's changing about communication (D: yeah.) and about the economy? (D: yes.) That, it's easily manipulable and easily - I mean, is it high time for pirates? (D: Yes, definitely.) And - D: I think that we're definitely at a point where - I don't know, it's interesting - the extent to which our notions of technology have any real connection to the actual technologies themselves. And the example of this is virtual reality - which, in any real context, is all but worthless, and there's been this, this small, tiny cottage industry, if that, at best; that it's - Yet, at the same time, if you talk to people who are involved in such things, but ignore people who are involved "in theory," it's sort of this Grail. Because it - the amount about of papers, and notions, and the thought that's gone into virtual reality is massive - far more so, than it's actual application, both now, and probably in the near future. I think a lot of that is a sort of - the - being able to fit our current notions of what we would like to see, into this sort of - public discourse - M: You're talking about this sort of folklore - (D: Yeah.) All these ideas that have kind of possessed the culture. D: Yeah, definitely. Yeah, and like much folklore, there's a certain amount of connection to actual events, but that connection is definitely not - I mean, it definitely kind of goes off from there, into complelety fictitious sort of realms. I think that part of why this both an interesting and a potentially dangerous time, in that regard, is that there is definitely still a notion that these sort of beliefs are - they have a validity to them - that they are actually, sort of "true." Probably the easiest place to see something like that is in a business school - that these sort of things are - they definitely sort of penetrate into sorts of different areas. And, we can - there's obviously a long, long, long history of these - of current technology as a sort of model for how we understand different processes, whether it be the marketplace, or whether it be human thought, or what-have-you, or the cosmos. This sort of notion of the "clock-work universe," which comes out of - I think, often, these notions, as models - they can be informative, and can definitely lead us into interesting fields of research. But whenever we start to think of them as this pinnacle - that we've cast off old, superstitious notions, and now we come to a bedrock truth, that these things are often quite self-serving. Darwinism is the perfect example of that; we can see how the use of Darwin, that poorly-understood "survival of the fittest" theory in various areas is questionable, at best, and it's led us now into some incredibly, incredibly dark roads, in this society as a whole. It's my - I don't want to necessarily say fear - but it's definitely my concern - that our current notions of how we see technology, how we see the Internet, how we see the importance of these corporations who deal with this technology, as this "truth," this unquestioned authority, that we're definitely - I don't know, I don't think it bodes well. M: By "authority," do you mean - I mean, that could be understood in a lot of ways. I guess I'm thinking of - what kind of response can people make to that, having awoken to that caution? (D: Right.) What could people do? I think there's a large number of people - for example, in the Linux community - who seem - that's an active, creative response (D: Right.) to these - they're very real things - and they might be unmanifested fears, but - D: Yeah, I definitely don't think, particularly in that case, that - I mean, they might not necessarily all come to fruition, but I think it definitely is a wise approach to be cautious. Not cautious to the point of paralysis, or this sort of rampant paranoia - like, "Bill Gates wants to rule the world," but definitely - That's an interesting case, in that I think, while people look at Microsoft in a certain way, and generally, a very negative way, they often don't take that sort of skepticism in other areas. That they sort of see him as a fluke, and once Microsoft has been broken up as a company, that this sort of thing won't possibly happen again; I think that's not necessarily the sort of thing we should be nervous of. I think that the ability to transact - in a business sense, the ability to transact business, and be able to be incredibly cavalier about the way that you effect the lives of people both in your community and people around the world - I mean, to be able to manipulate, I guess, entire countries in such a way as to both create marketplaces and cripple the economies in such a way that they basically depend on your company to come in and support them, in order to help them pay off these debts that you have caused. M: Are you thinking of some specific - D: I'm trying to think of some specific examples. Probably more, as how this ties into technologies, is the fact that with a lot of - right now, we're at a point where certain technology companies are undergoing this immense - in the past five years, they've seen this immense boom - they've seen a huge influx of capital come in to - and these companies have grown incredibly quickly. And, I think, because of that, a lot of people in positions of power in such companies are not fully - I can definitely see where it would be very difficult - to sort of take sort of young entrepreneurs who have the knowledge and are able to come up with certain technology and - I guess to be able to use people in very unscrupulous ways. On the other hand, I think what is possibly one of the upsides to this technology is the fact that with this sort of communication, people as a whole have a better understanding of the effects of this sort of thing. To be able to get information directly from people in these positions, people who - to use a - to work in a company where, I guess, unethical business practices are taking place - to be able to get information from employees within the company, to how they've been mistreated. People in the community, to how they've been mistreated, to people in other areas around the world, to how they've been mistreated, and so on and so on. That how other businesses have been unreasonable forced out of business through these sorts of actions, that by doing so, by keeping aware of such things, that both as individuals and as institutions, in the case of - in the colleagate sense (laugh) that people can definitely be much better aware than they ever have been, as to how these actual things take place. As well - the idea of, I guess, finding - (pause) M: Do you think a lot of those social forces are - that you're talking about - finding their outlet? I think it's not really inherent in the technology, but that the - those things - grassroots efforts, like you were talking about, or - (D: Right.) I'm sure those things always existed, and they're not - it's not a technological things, but it's - D: Certainly we've - in the past, these sorts of forces have made use of technology as it's come along, in various ways. With - the notion of student revolts in China and their use of both tape recorders and fax machines. Certainly it's not - I don't think that those forces were necessarily inherent within the technology, but the abilities that such technology had in order to meet these sort of uses is definitely there. I think probably what I have the largest problem with, is not so much that these sort of actions - these unscrupulous actions take place, though that's obviously not a good thing, but that by saying that sort of practice is inherent in the technology, it almost becomes a sort of excuse for this sort behavious. And certainly, we've seen a number of tech companies who don't behave that way at all; that are understanding and supportive of local communities and proper environmental action as a whole; who treat their employees well, who do not - I mean, I don't think that that sort of thing comes out of the process - I don't think that the marketplace mandates that sort of thing has to happen. I think it's just an excuse for this sort of thing, and they're using it an excuse for their - not any more valid. M: That's kind of the direction we're going - there's a boom in Austin, and at the same time, it may be adversely effecting the place. What do you see as the - how does this high-tech phenomenon become something that has a positive effect - less of an anomoly and more of something that positively effects the place - (D: Okay.) And Austin doesn't become Silicon Valley? That's basically my question - how do we keep it from being a pillaging thing, such that it becomes something that can improve the culture, the society? D: Right, yeah. I think one of the potentially positive aspects, of Austin, in particular, is the fact that, while there's certain aspects of tech businesses that have been going on here for an extended amount of time - I mean, that hasn't been a focus, so there's not the notion to come in, and - businesses coming in to Austin don't have that - "It's already a Silicon Valley, there's no reason for us to make the attempt. There's no community there, anyway, it's just endless offices - " There's definitely not that feeling here. Austin is a city that thrives on its notion of both community and I guess, individuality. That it doesn't see itself as - I guess, hopefully - this is my perception, and I could be wrong - but I'm hoping that Austin - this city is not the sort of city that'll sort of roll over and pander to business interests. Though at the same time, obviously, any city wants to develop a solid business sense; a solid economic structure. And, I'm hoping that the notion is not a fly-in-the-pan thing, that we are - the sort of things that we design are - I guess I'm hoping that in a larger sense, that we, as a society, get over the notion that we're designing now. That this sort of thing - that these things are not intended to last - and if you're going to support a business that's going to last 20 years, 30 years, 40 years, that if you're going to be a part of the community in which you live, in which your employees are going to speak to the world at large in a positive sense of what you've done, both as a business in general, and in a more hands-on sense, with the people who work for you, that you just can't act that way. To put it bluntly, you can't shit where you eat. Austin is in a good position, I'm hoping, because - certainly a lot of the businesses that are here seem to want to take a very hands-on approach, both in a public-affairs way and hopefully in an interesting - in the education - both on a public and on a sort of college aspect. To be able to consider this as a - to realize that behaving in such a way is doing nothing more than helping a company and strengthening your position -- It's literally nothing but - even in the most, I guess - even in the most cynical of aspects, that it's nothing but "good press" to behave in such a way, I mean, it does nothing but help your company. I think we're not going to see - we're going to be seeing certainly less of these sort of "quick boom" things, and that's fine. I think a lot of people starting business now realize that that's not gonna happen. That they're looking for a much more reasonable market position. And when you're in that position, when you know that what you're doing is going to last, and that obviously your take on how you behave as a company, and who you connect with what's around you is going to change. Plus which, I'm hoping that companies will realize that more and more often, people will (garble) - just pleased with these "pie-in-the-sky" notions that they're above dealing with people as a whole. That the products are necessary! I think there's definitely a - people will realize - people who are starting businesses are already realizing that there's a backlash there; I mean, there's plenty of online services who have basically carved out a niche for themselves as "not being an AOL." Plenty of software companies have carved a niche for themselves by "not being Microsoft." That people are beginning to realize that doing such a thing on a huge, global scale does not pay off, if you're not willing to deal with you're product, and stand behind what you've done. Hopefully, we'll see more of that. We'll see more of companies who are - I'm hoping with this new ability for communication, obviously business can't be as distant as they have been in the past. There's sort of this "black monolith" of huge businesses, and when you can talk directly, you can exchange e-mail with people who work at that businesses, and say, "This is not right," and to get response back from people who are proud of - or "proud" is not necessarily the right word, but, people who are - people who feel a part of the place where they are working. M: Less press-releases and more interaction... D: Definitely. That sort of thing is definitely possible now. And, businesses who are willing to take that initiative are going to do amazingly well, as far as public notion of respect. The notion of dealing directly with the people that you do business with is obviously - I don't know, I guess - you could see this a local sense, where you sort of - trust the people more that you deal with every day. M: You think that that's a - it's a totally different kind of credibility, than the kind of the television advertising era. (D: Right.) And it's largely due to communication technology. D: I think, as well - it serves businesses well, because it's certainly more effective. I guess to take an example, that X-Man comic (referring to a free comic with purchase of movie ticket), that's completely worthless to selling. I mean, that's not gonna sell anything. It's going to do very little as far as actual getting anything across, and yet it must have cost them a sizeable amount of money. I think that large-scale, throwing money, at a market, in order to try to saturate it, is hopefully coming to an end. I pray. (laugh) I think businesses are going to realize that it's just not cost-effective. It's not getting them - (M: Yeah, definitely. You get AOL CD's all the time - ) Right. And you get them every two weeks, and it's not getting them anything - (M: It pisses people off, mostly.) Exactly. It not only doesn't get you business, it deflects possible business. I mean, I can certainly think of products that I literally don't purchase, just because I'm so sick of seeing them everywhere! (laugh) (recording problem) D: That, I guess, people who are younger, who are sort of feeling that push into the future - I think that - it's interesting to read depictions of technology from the past, and that same sort of notion - Back in the 20s, even in the 19th century, that technology's moving in this ever-increasing sort of "rush," and - I don't know. I think of now, and I think of 20 years ago, I don't think there's all that much difference. I mean, certainly things look different, and, I guess, things are somewhat - would probably change, but I don't think it would take all that long to adapt. I think the notion that we're moving into a future where things are completely different - that we'll be unable to cope, if we haven't learned this method, or - I don't know. I'm skeptical of that. But I'm a cynic. M: It might be that business is moving faster and faster; but I don't know. I think that that's a different - Paul Hawken wrote something real interesting about the WTO, Seattle. It was a little thing, just about - different kinds of time. And that they way that he saw what happened in Seattle, was two different kinds of time clashing; "business time" that had been going unchecked; "cultural time" is much slower - the speed of family, friends - those things take more time. Or just, "culture," generally, doesn't zip around the world, like the NASDAQ. (D: Right.) And "earth time," as well. It was an interesting way of looking at it, because, it really is what - the way that people describe this time in culture - it varies according to what they think is most - whatever catches their attention the most. D: Yeah, totally. I would completely agree with that.
|
|