Archives for the month of: November, 2011

Do you want to be famous? Do you want to change the world? Do you think you can change the world by being famous? Do you have a plan? Do you stay up at night thinking about how exactly you’re going to become famous? Do you fall asleep with a faint, uneasy feeling that fame may, for lack of a better word, suck? Do you dream about sleeping next to someone else who is famous? Do you mind if they’re more famous than you? Do famous people dream of unfamous people the same way unfamous people dream about famous ones? Do you have a point? Do you think changing the world is cute but extremely naïve? Do you even know what the world is? Do you know for sure in a few years time there’s even going to be a world worth saving? Do you think about yourself a little too much? Do you think about yourself not nearly enough? Do you think in first person? Do you ever refer to yourself in third person like you’re a character in a film that’s based on you? Do you have the rights to the documentary on how you will become successful? Do you have your own website? Do you have an App available yet on the Apple Store? Do you have plans to change your name? Do you believe the Chicago-based economist who says that certain names bring success while others condemn you to socio-economic penury? Do you have parents that can help you in ‘the industry’? Do you measure success by Yen-signs or by how many people ‘LIKE’ your Facebook page? Do you Tweet enough? Do you Tweet about the wrong things? Does your name trend yet? Do you have a Google+ account already? Do you think it’s civilised to send an email bulletin every-day? Do you have a database you are proud of? Does your avatar faithfully reflect whom you are or whom you want to be seen as? Do you desire a portfolio-career? Do you think careers ever make sense looking forward—or only when looking back? Do you personally know enough influential people? Do you know if they generally know who you are? Do you feel comfortable calling them by their first names? Do you network enough? Do you plan on networking more vigorously? Do you ensure every social engagement you make might yield professional advancement? Do you hand out business cards or type directly into your iPhone? Do you hold that it’s necessary to hire a P.R. agency soon to represent you? Do you know what and how they charge? Do they know your work? Do you work? Do you have it neatly archived yet? Do you have your press release ready to go? Do you have an up-to-date CV on your MacBook Pro? Do you think your press release could be your CV? Do you take out an ad? Do you try and get media sponsorship? Do you mind being branded? Do you have a name for your brand yet? Do you go to enough casual ‘in conversation’-type events with advertising gurus? Do you mix-up your Saatchis? Do you announce that you’re ‘digital-first’: The Guardian said it is. Do you have a book out yet? Do you know for sure you’ve got the right person to blurb for the back of the thirteen edited books you plan to publish with cutting-edge, independent presses in the next 18 months using two graphic designer studios from the former Easten Bloc and two who graduated from Yale? Do you think long titles work best or should you stick to one-worders? Do you know if exclamation marks are still hip or completely crap now! Do you find Julian Assange heroic or annoying? Do you think he did everything to become famous or to seek revenge? Do you think more people know who Assange is than Ashton Kutcher? Do you think Demi did the right thing? Do you spend too much time on things that won’t really help you escape the rotten pit of anonymity? Do you have someone to ask? Do you confide in them? Do you look fat in this? Do you actually care what I think or just pretend you do? Do I care? Do you? You do.

Commissioned by the AA’s weekly news-sheet, Fulcrum.

From the Autumn issue of Tank magazine (Volume 7, Issue 3)

Have you watched the news lately? War? Famine? Rioting? Economic crisis? Make that crises. One is never enough! History repeating itself, as Marx would say, in all its tragic and comic fullness. The news amply reminds us, on a daily basis, that the world is a shitty, dangerous and dysfunctional disappointment.

Try as they may, No number of whooshing motion graphics and tribal drum effects can truly dull this fact. Not even a ‘feel-good’ item featuring a precocious ferret saying the word ‘Fuck!’ on cue. In that time, another bomb somewhere has detonated. Someone’s mother, father or child becomes a sound-byte primed statistic. Without numbers—or more precisely, body counts—the news couldn’t be the news.

How and why the world is such a pitiless shit-pit does depend on whose news you’re listening to. But does it matter what language they’re telling you it in? For many of the emerging economic—and therefore political—powerhouses in the world, the answer gleaned from surfing satellite channels today is a resounding ‘Yes’.

Once upon a time, not so long ago, one of the very last things The West was able to export to The Rest of the world was its moral superiority. Acclaimed news titles—BBC World Service, The New York Times, Le Monde, Der Spiegel, etc.—embodied Enlightenment values, wielded sword-like: truth, reason, rigor. This was media made to make everyone without a ‘free-press’ feel deficient, envious.

Even now, as the European Union faces systemic, contagious crisis, America’s credit rating was ‘downgraded’ for the first time ever, and the Murdoch empire sullied by phone-hacking hijincks, do we not all turn to the very same stable sources to find out what is happening around us? Probably not.

A proliferation of state-funded, English speaking news channels from Doha to Beijing has expanded available choice (which is surely one of the hallmarks of our time; apparently infinite choice, but the same finite number of hours in a day). It has ushered in new forms of International English borne from diasporic traces of international education aimed at like minded citizens.

The news-studios’ brightly coloured layouts, anchors’ sleek desk designs, their groomed suits, the ticker-timer running across the bottom of the screen desperately updating you with what’s now right now. All these are visual, aural, informational tropes that have been taken up from Tehran to Mumbai. They signify ‘this is Serious Objective News,’ comparable to BBC World Service, The New York Times, Le Monde, Der Spiegel…

Despite a third of the world’s population being Chinese or Indian (a convincing argument surely for Cantonese, Mandarin or Hindi as the next universal lingua franca), the colonial language of choice—English—now serves a cunning post-colonial purpose. English’s purported neutrality smuggles through all manner of vested political propaganda and regional hysteria.

Watch simultaneous coverage of the same news-story on several channels, and not so subtle nationalistic differences of perception present themselves—in the polite garb of Malay or Columbian accented English. The form says one thing, the words another, and the hybrid accents something else yet again. If the world is not flat, the use of English to describe it on a daily basis makes it look as if it is.

Here is a selection of what’s out there.

PRESS TV
There is a fine line between myth-busting and paranoid conspiracy mongering. And this is the very line that Iran’s state-controlled Press TV builds an entire news-mandate from. It is fired by the same anti-Imperialist, straight–talking vim that fuels Iran’s casually attired president, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. No opportunity is missed on Press TV, and many are created, to lambast America’s political hypocrisy and meddling interventionism. In fact a whole programme is dedicated to this pursuit: Afshin Rattansi’s Double Standards. Imagine Jon Stewart’s Daily Show, but with hand-drawn cartoon piss-takes of American politicians. Rattansi’s English could pass as indigenous at Eaton Boys’ School, but this all the more arms him to satirize the West’s follies from within. The Kaiser Report—which is also aired on Russia Today—extends the America bashing to the endemic corruption inherent in the greed-fest that is also known as the global financial marketplace. Is it ironic that American accents are aplenty across all the channel’s presenters? Or mocking? As in, ‘Look! We can find American educated people to defame the country that gave them this accent!’ Press TV’s male anchors never don neck-ties (an Iranian no-no) and sport well trimmed beards; while every female correspondent, Muslim or not, is required to wear a hijab, thus exporting the revolutionary dictate of the Iranian Republic to secular countries worldwide. Last but not least, George Galloway’s late-night phone-in rants surely evidence the channel’s stated plight to ‘Encourage human beings of different nationalities, races and creeds to identify with one another.’ That is, if they can decipher Mr Galloway’s perma-irate, Scottish pronunciation.

RUSSIA TODAY
‘The channel is government funded but shapes its editorial policy free from political and commercial influence… We’re here to bring you another story.’ The Cold War may have officially thawed 20 years ago, but its legacy lives on in Russian media. Russia Today (RT) opts for citrus green as chromatic background, inverting any assumption that Russia is, or was, Commie Red. Stories of border disputes with former Soviet satellites remind you that the Union survives in idea if not in international law. Vladimir Putin appears with calming frequency—clothing optional—to share his nation’s schadenfreude at America and Europe’s economic and military woes. News anchors: chiselled in appearance, their delivery of English tinged with Eastern bloc stoicism. During the Ratko Mladic trial, RT chose to highlight a different narrative than the Srebrenica massacre where 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys had been killed. Instead it chose to ask about the deaths of Serbs at Bosnian hands, insinuating that similar genocides had taken place but without the disapprobation of the international community. They did promise ‘another story’, didn’t they?

CCTV NEWS
Broadcast from its iconic, looped skyscraper in Beijing (designed by the Dutch firm O.M.A. in favour of an indigenous Chinese architect), state-controlled CCTV announces that ‘A new Asia has emerged,’ and this is its voice. Whether the question of Tibet, Google or the Chinese Communist Party comes up, China oft states that the outside world simply does not—or can not?—understand its psychology or principles. CCTV News is an uncharacteristically unbelligerent attempt to project China’s moderated modernism. Its emphasis on Asian interest-stories, and by implication, China’s moral or economic influence therein, is portrayed by a core crew of Chinese news-anchors whose English is openly inflected by Cantonese. Chinese domination of the English language does not involve embodying it entirely, but appropriating it the way the fake Apple Store in Kunming recently revealed the fake iPhone 5 months before it is even mooted to come out. You also find American, English and Australian English speaking reporters to provide that authenticity patina common to all of these channels: Vested Internationalism.

AJ JAZEERA ENGLISH
Between 2001 and 2006, according to the Bush regime, the words ‘Al’ and ‘Jazeera’ were short-hand for Taliban-sympathizers and media-mouthpiece for Al Qaeda. Much of that demonization hinged on Al Jazeera being in Arabic, a language that said ‘terrorist’ as unambiguously as did a turban. Then Qatar launched Al Jazeera English (AJE). Ever since, it feels like the gravitational centre of international news-reportage has shifted eastwards, more so since the start of the ‘Arab Spring’ (which is fast heading into the ‘Arab Autumn’). It’s not only that AJE was formed from the ashes of recently redundant BBC staff, that it pinched well known journalist-personalities like Rageh Omaar and David Frost, but it was the first international news-network to have four broadcast-centres: Kuala Lampur, Doha, London and Washington D.C. As the world turns, so does AJE’s coverage. Ethnicities, skin colours and accents vary across the anchors but the language of English unites them all. ‘Balance’ may be a word once associated with BBC news service, but AJE actively enacts it in programmes like Inside Story, which pits three divergent experts against one another on a single topic for 30 minutes. Like many of the other channels mentioned here, AJE commands a regional focus (the Middle East), but its in-depth coverage of Latin America and Africa adheres to the station’s ambition ‘to balance the information flow between the South and the North.’ So far, so ground breaking. However even this new behemoth has its political blind spots, to be found in what isn’t said about delicate matters in neighbouring Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and its own backyard, Qatar.

The only language universal enough for these instances is silence.

The following excerpt comes from an introduction I made to Momus at a very special AA event, on October 31st, to inaugurate the New Soft Room. Public Image Limited’s bass heavy wail, Careering, provided the evening’s title and theme: starting from Nick Currie’s polymorphous career (a word he would never personally use to describe his own trajectory) outwards into the shapes and significances of inspiring careers (Bowie, Brecht). We were joined by the very talented trio of Victoria Camblin, Zak Kyes and Brian Dillon.

The video recording is here

“The word ‘career’ may not mean what it did 20 or 30 years ago. Specialization has often given way to collage careers, portfolio careers, careers that confuse parents, careers that don’t even know the meaning of the word career.

Seen from a particular vantage point, careers are design projects. They have shape, narrativity, possible predestination (i.e. What did your parents do?) and also serendipitous failure built into their wiring.

You might be a child-star aged six, and by age nine, no one knows your name, not even your own agent/mother.

Your name might be Haruki Murakami and before you became a famous novelist you ran a successful bar with your wife.

Your name might be James Franco, in which case, everything is happening at the same time—actor, artist, PhD candidate, visiting professor, poet—and no one knows whether you’re for real or just a real wannabe.

Your name may have been Muammar Qaddafi, and after 42 years of job security, not only has your career come to a complete, impotent halt, but the phrase, ‘You’re fired’ takes on a mortal, literal, decisive dimension.

We’re sitting in a room at a school. Many of you are pre-career. Do you know the course you’re going to take? Is it important to know? Can you really control it?

Many of you are mid-career. Has it turned out how you imagined? Is destiny still something ahead of you?

Are any of you post-career? If so, I’m very jealous. I want to be you.”

POSTSCRIPT – A future unrealised project is to translate paradigmatic career models into simple graphs, with time on the X axis, and a combination of fame or wealth or repute on the Y axis. Examples will include: The One Hit Wonder; Child Prodigy; Octogenarian Breakthrough; Slow Slump; Constant Reincarnation; Perma-fumbling; Consistent Safety and It Never Really Started Until I Was Dead.