A Brief Tirade on Degrees and Barriers to Entry

I was talking to a friend of mine today about college and the like, and I actually got a little worked up about something that I will now allow to spill onto the pages of my unsuspecting blog.

I've been told I can get long winded, so if you wanna get to the point, it's at the bottom in bold.

When I first started going to college as an industrial design major, I was 19 years-old, and I had figured out that in my 5-year program I would be 23 by the time I could graduate and become a fully-functional human being. It freaked me out a little, but I didn't sweat it because that's what I had to do. Now I'm 23, and what I didn't take into consideration is that by the time I actually graduate and become financially independent, with a job, I will be turning 24.

Now, this may not be a big deal to some, and I'm probably being a little too dramatic about it, but to someone who has never turned 24 before, it's a little weird.

So then I started to think about the fact that I will have spent almost 24 years in 'preparation.' 24 years! Populations in the past might have been fortunate enough to merely live this long. If I were one of many people who had to pay their entire tuition, I would have several more years of indentured servitude just to pay off the damn loans, either that or I just would not have been able to go into the program I did.

What pisses me off are the standards we've set up for ourselves. The degree is a pre-requisite, and not having it is just an opportunity for discrimination. The attitude is "show me the degree, and then we'll talk." Sometimes it doesn't even matter so much the grades you've recieved, as if potential employers just want to see that you threw a lot of money away to prove you are responsible (what?).

Seriously, the past two, if not three years of my own education have been a joke. I'm not only saying that because the work experience has has given me a different perspective, but simply because we haven't learned a god-damn thing, and if I were supposed to, it certainly didn't make any difference in the outcome of the class. When we return from internships and co-ops, we essentially are made to do the same thing, designing something as students for a real client, except now we're not getting paid for it. Returning to college from working is like going back to high school from college. It all seems so narrowly-scoped and petty.

The first two years? Yeah, totally worth it, virtually no complaints. The last two? Utter bullshit.

So what happened to these guys like Raymond Loewy who come over on a boat with change in their pockets and become one of the most (deservedly) famous designers in the world? Well, now we've got fifteen layers of bullshit and bureacracy built up (and not just in my profession), to where there's no precedent for getting by on sheer skill and hard work anymore. Not, of course, that companies can hire on sheer skill anyways. The experience gained and the pace of things learned at work is out of necessity, and GREATLY overshadows that which can be learned in school.

You might say, like my college (DAAP at University of Cincinnati) alludes to, that in structuring the industry like this, we're ensuring the best, brightest, and most capable become the designers of tomorrow. If I were a mindless leftist drone, I would piss my pants and just start shouting about unfairness. Since I'm not though, I'm going to reasonably suggest why this really is unfair bullshit.

It's like opening a business. Do massive taxes, restrictive zoning laws and convoluted rules and regulations ensure better businesses? I would argue that it ensures more mediocre businesses. For the most part, anyone really willing to make a risk has to already be wealthy enough to be able to fail, which means they won't necessarily work as hard, and all the guys with great ideas that can't scale the giant barriers to entry are totally screwed. Just like the structure of many other instututions of society, risk, ingenuity, passion and conviction take a back seat to bureacratic nonsense. Likewise, giant tuition fees, compulsory dorm residence, stubborn professors, and in some schools an inability to practice in the profession until graduation, screws over all the people who could be great designers, but will never get the chance because the professor is always right, apprenticeship is dead, and working hard toward such a goal is at odds with making enough money to eat.

I'm not trying to say that I'm one of the people with potential getting screwed, I'm saying I think it's bullshit and it makes me sad that if someone thinks they can work hard to break into the industry without a degree, they're going to get laughed out of their next interview. But then, what do I know.

Art and Reality As It Relates to Contemporary Society: A Reactionary Examination

Although it may affect the lucidity of any message I may be attempting to convey, I feel it is a more valuable exercise for me to run with a thought, and try to work it out in text (as in my most recent article). My mental processes may be more apparent, but after all, though I naturally believe in pretty much anything I'm going to be writing, I certainly don't want to come off too pedagogical, since for the most part I will be only writing my opinion.

While I was making some less-than-satisfying eggs this morning (read: afternoon), I had a thought about art and music as a reflection of society. Since I am not an art major, and because I inadvertently slept through a good deal of art history, I'm not entirely aware of the discourse regarding "art reflecting life" or "life reflecting art." From my perspective, the two go hand in hand, and I am not overly concerned about the degree to which one reflects the other.

One of my favorite artistic movements (and one that is inspiring a painting I am currently working on), early 20th century Italian Futurism, is an interesting example of art as a movement, to not only reflect the ideology of the artists, but also to influence the direction of the future of society (in a way that I don't necessarily agree with, for the record). However, like all artistic movements, it arose as a reaction to something observed in society (and/or artistic sensibilities at the time). Futurism particularly, emphasized speed, brevity, technology, and a disdain for tradition, seeking to uproot society from the past. This excerpt from the Manifesto of the Futurist Painters creates a pretty clear image of this sentiment:

"The cry of rebellion which we utter associates our ideals with those of the Futurist poets. These ideas were not invented by some aesthetic clique. They are an expression of a violent desire, which burns in the veins of every creative artist today. ... We will fight with all our might the fanatical, senseless and snobbish religion of the past, a religion encouraged by the vicious existence of museums. We rebel against that spineless worshipping of old canvases, old statues and old bric-a-brac, against everything which is filthy and worm-ridden and corroded by time. We consider the habitual contempt for everything which is young, new and burning with life to be unjust and even criminal."

It is extremely interesting to me that in observing movements in the history of art that there is a trend that tends to move away from the static and all of the notions therein, and into the realm of the dynamic, the youthful, and transient, as well as delving more deeply into the human condition. Additionally, art has transitioned from a rare and commissioned service, to a universally attainable commodity, often directly involved in the goingson of society, aided in part by a gradual deconstruction of the definition of art. Likewise there has typically been a parallel in music, if not a trend toward convergence of many different artistic formats and media. Of course, there were counter-movements to these, but I am merely highlighting the manifestation of departures from convention that were previously absent.

For example, impressionism broke away from the conventions of academic painting, focusing on conveying motion and the passage of time by painting outdoors, fully engaged the subject matter - a feat enabled by advances in technology which yielded paint in tubes.

Expressionism, though not perhaps a proper movement, distorted the image of reality to evoke a snapshot of the emotional landscape of the artist and his/her subject matter.

Art Deco, shared Futurism's admiration for technology, speed, and 'progress,' and was widely popular during the 'Roaring Twenties,' an era characterized by the vibrant spirit of modernity.

The emergence of Pop Art and Dada (related only chronologically) emphasized the artist's ever-present ability to take the familiar and make it unfamiliar, or show us an image of our world in a way that we otherwise may not have seen it. Pop Art isolated the most transient products of our consumption in a way that removed them from their utilitarian context. Dada, a convoluted informal movement, acted as a means to criticize war and approached aesthetic with a deliberate disinterest, diverging from art in a way that causes some to label it "anti-art"

Bauhaus and Modernist art reduced the visual aesthetic to it's most fundamental elements. The pragmatism and relative static nature of this movement may stand in contrast with the aforementioned, but the truth reflected in it's reductionist practice reflects, to me at least, a kind of objectivism that has overseen the advancement of secular society.

Postmodern and contemporary art represents the culmination of the amalgamation of art, design, architecture, music, literature, performance, and perhaps other forms of expression. One of the more recent artistic mediums that has gained mainstream popularity is graffiti, which speaks to the emphasis of youth, transience, and the human condition, as well as (although perhaps not quite as recent) performance and installation art, which serve to inspire a response or create an experience for a short period of time, as a departure from the otherwise "real world."

Within the realm of music experimentation and creativity have exploded into a variety of genres, cross-genres, and undefinable genres.

Of course, the advancement of technology has had a profound influence of all elements of art and society. Within the realm of computing, there is a phenomenon known as "Moore's law," which describes the roughly exponential advancement of technology's complexity.

Personally, I have been tossing around the idea that this might be applicable not only to technology, but to the whole of human society. This cannot, of course, be measured mathematically, and in truth I don't believe it to be an exact corollary, nor am I necessarily referring to the idea of the Omega point. But, in general terms, it seems we are continually broadening that which we find acceptable, enjoyable, or at least tolerable.

When people refer to our "modern lives," (typically marketers) they give the distinct indication that life is more complicated and hectic than ever. Part of this, as I alluded to, is a marketing ploy, but part of it seems to be true. While I don't think we necessarily work more than previous societies, both sexes are more involved in the workforce than ever before, our tasks are certainly more abstract, and there is a tangible disconnect between our efforts and our rewards. Priorities are sometimes juggled back and forth, and our relationship with the concepts of family, happiness, religion, nature, sex, and civilization are constantly changing. It is undeniable that our lives are more fast-paced - we often have to physically be in many different places, but more importantly there is a vast amount of information and stimuli that we must inevitably process on a daily basis.

Not only is our concept of labor and reward abstracted as we've transitioned from agrarian to contemporary metropolitan life, becoming more like cogs in a machine that spits out our fruits rather than the machine itself, but our notions of reality itself are abstracted. People will anxiety disorders now have an outlet for interpersonal communication through instant messaging, social networking websites, and virtual chat. Feelings of real-world adventure and discovery is now emulated virtually, and has become widely popular in the form of MMORPGs, and the two intersect with software like Second Life. Videoconferencing has advanced with Cisco's TelePresence to a point of remarkable accuracy, and realistic haptic technologies are just around the corner.

My roommate was recently involved in a studio that poses the question: "will virtual interaction ever replace real human interaction?" My initial response was that each new generation embraces technologies and societal trends that the last rejected. In fact, in many cases they are not only embraced, but taken for granted. Moreover, i think the question is a bit simplistic, in that it assumes that there will always be a definitive line between reality and virtual reality. The concept of genuine and meaningful human interaction varies from culture to culture and over time. It is likely that not only will our concept of reality be abstracted, but our concept of self will follow suit (and seems to have been on the way for some time now). I suppose the real question is whether physical proximity will ever take a backseat to virtual proximity. Again, I believe that technology and advancements in the understanding of the human mind will eventually blur the line between the two, along with notions of tactile and sensory feedback and perhaps intimacy. In a way, it scares the shit out of me, but I'm willing to bet that won't be the case with my children, and each successive generation. Even electric light was recieved with superstitious revulsion at it's inception.

But what does all this (admittedly tangential) talk have to do with art? Well, there are aspects of postmodern and contemporary art and music that seem to operate under the idea that "anything goes," and intentionally or unintentionally seems to reflect a sense of societal disillusionment. Of course, if I am to be a responsible thinker, I must remind myself how subjective and myopic my perspective is. The generation that grew up with big band and crooners like Sinatra I'm sure viewed Rock and Roll with a similar sentiment. Hip Hop, even without it's obvious 'controversial' subject matter, rebelled against one of the most conventional elements of song - melodic vocals, as well as being produced sometimes without conventional instruments. Consequently it's acceptance was relatively sluggish. There is also the question, regarding some types of postmodern art and music, of whether they intend to shock with the intention to make any communicable point, or simply to get noticed?

Regardless, I personally see a connection between my own observations of societal disillusionment and contemporary art, resulting from many elements of contemporary society - an inundation of marketing and pop culture, growing popularity of pornography, abstractions of traditionally recognized notions of life, growing awareness of global issues and suffering and farther reaching government and industry (which may result in feelings of powerlessness), continuing environmental degradation, aversion to a political climate with no significant means of recourse, and infinite possibilities for distraction, among many other phenomena. Consider the wildly popular art of Kaws, a former graffiti artist, who now sells canvases painted with depictions of spongebob painted with his characteristic 'cross-bones' around the head and X-ed out eyes. From another artist, say Banksy, this might be a clever statement about a variety of questionable societal practices, but I get the distinct impression that that is not the case here.

I suppose the question I'm trying to get at, though it may not be all that evident, is thus: Are there undeniable elements of our nature and our psyche that are adversely affected when our reality is abstracted and the paradigms (and aims) of human life and interaction are so drastically shifted (over such a short period of time)? Or, are we merely clinging on to remnants of the past for our own sense of comfort and familiarity, and the world is better (or at least no worse) off with each new paradigm shift and tradition jailbreak? Either way, although I think it worth rumination, questions of this nature have been proven moot time and time again throughout history. Humanity's progress, if it should be referred to as such, is as perpetual as the dawn of each new day, lending validity to the old (or perhaps only old to me) expression "lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way."

Ah, what an appropriately nihilistic conclusion.

Judgment

I had a thought today, in fact just a moment ago, which I am uncharacteristically going to try to flesh out in text rather than simply transfer a fully-formed thought from my brain.

As voluntaryism defines both my political and moral ideology, I am about as socially liberal as it is possible to be. In fact, my personal sentiments take this a step farther in that I believe our judgments built upon our own man-made constructs and categorizations distract us not only from the equal humanity in all of us, but also from the beautiful individuality within each person. I'm appalled by both the superficial notion of compulsory "diversity" and the more traditional institutions of racism, segregation, and assimilation. The mindsets that promote either are on opposite sides of the field, but are in reality playing for the same team. Both serve to divide us as human beings.

Without getting into a whole bunch of scientific talk that I don't know about, I think we'll all agree that there are at least two phases of judgment. The first is the subconscious or semi-conscious judgment, based on your experiences, upbringing, opinions of others (regarding someone or something), initial sensory stimuli, and probably a myriad of other things. The second is your conscious judgment, based upon empirical evidence - personal interaction. In many ways the two overlap, but I like to think that we allow ourselves to let one drive.

For example, several years ago I deliberately conditioned myself to judge people based on my personal interaction with them (or at least observation of them). However, there is an undeniable part of everyone's psyche that summarizes their accumulated knowledge of people that have certain characteristics. The memory operates via association, so you would expect this to be no exception. In my experience, it is the amount that we consciously suppress this impulse as it influences our judgment that makes the difference. Simply put, regardless of preconcieved notions, a stranger should begin with ten points, with only the ability to lose them in the interaction, rather than beginning with no points, and having the ability to gain some.

The critical point is that the groups that we have segmented people into - which to some degree is natural - do not "do" anything that is not central to the definition that we have for them. So, it would be accurate to say that all christians worship Jesus Christ and muslims Allah, or that all "black people" have darker skin than "white people" (I'm not sure this would necessarily be true for "african-americans," in the objective sense of the term). You could say that all gay men and lesbian women are attracted to members of their own respective sexes.

Now, let's test out some of the more insidious stereotypes. Not all muslims advocate violence toward westerners. Some do. Not all catholic priests molest children. Some do. It would certainly be unfair to the peaceful, decent members of these groups to be attacked (verbally, or sometimes physically) for the evil deeds of other members among these groups. With so much faith in democracy, surely some would think that if it were somehow proven that the majority of members of such a group routinely engaged in some unsavory activity that has nothing to do with the group they belong to, that surely all could be condemned. This would again be wrong. Some people seem to think that committing crimes can be inherent in an otherwise peaceful "group," and they ignore the human nature and difference of perspective at the root, demonizing the group as subhuman monsters.

This calls for three large clarifications -

First, if the "group" is by definition objectively immoral, the aforementioned does not necessarily apply. For example, the KKK is by definition an immoral organization. This is not up for debate. They admittedly advocate discrimination against other members of society.

Second, my religious examples actually complicate this whole issue, because there are certain implications in many religious texts that are up for interpretation, which is one reason I don't engage in (organized) religious belief.

Third, and most importantly, it is how we respond to the judgments we make that lends any real importance to what I'm trying (read: struggling) to explain. It would seem to me an entirely acceptable response to abstain from attending catholic masses given evidence that any number of children have been molested by priests. So would avoiding a reportedly dangerous area (more on this later).

There are many examples of the reverse throughout history - internment of Japanese Americans during WWII, vandalization and acts of violence against mosques and American muslims after 9/11. If your judgment leads you to aggressive force against someone you don't know...you're probably doing something wrong.

One of the reasons why government is so sinister is that it attempts, at least visibly, to spread around accountability in a way that deteriorates this dynamic. Thus, when individuals in the military perpetuate a horrific crime against humanity, not only were they enabled to do so by being systematically dehumanized in training, but they are just "following orders," although in some cases acts of extreme violence can emerge from the "mob mentality," catalyzed by the ever-present idea that it's "us vs. them" (see my blog: The Perils of Collectivism). On up the ladder, the general was just acting on "solid intelligence," and so on. Not to mention that war in and of itself is baffling to even the most casual scrutinizer, and for good reason, but that's a separate article (hint: self-interest meets enormously disproportionate power structure).

Believe it or not, I didn't get to the point of my initial thought, but it's lucidity has faded. Hopefully this article is not too tangential - I know it's kind of sloppy. Forgive me.