De-naturing the great outdoors at Yellowstone National Park

May 22, 2013

Walker Percy’s ‘double deprivation’

YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK — We arrived at Old Faithful at approximately 1:20 pm, and spectators three rows deep already were gathered at the perimeter the designated viewing area. Our (faculty) group quickly decided to join the throngs, anticipating with them the next eruption.

Old FaithfulI typically gravitate to shade, so I joined a group of older ladies eating a picnic lunch under a large conifer. Knowing our larger mission today (I am participating in a “City as Text” institute), I struck up a conversation with the woman nearest me resting on a fallen timber. After the typical “Where are you from? When did you get here?” questions, Old Faithful started to send up sprays. We each readied our cameras, anticipating an impressive demonstration of power and pressure. But she didn’t blow; the geyser just kept sputtering. So the nice lady from Orlando and I began to wonder aloud, together, if this sort of squirting and misting were all we could expect to see. Surely not, right? Why would the National Park Service build a $27 million cathedral of a visitor center facing and, from the inside, framing the geyser if the every-90-minute show provided merely a 20-foot spout?

As we were preparing for disappointment, the spurts quickly became more aggressive, culminating in the 180-foot water tower we came to see, the spectacle that inspired Congress to make Yellowstone a national park in the first place. Then the ladies left, immediately, en masse, before Old Faithful had finished what had become the 1:45 showing. They had each snapped a photo, recording on their own cameras a visual of the big event. Mission accomplished. Time to leave.

I didn’t get a chance to ask my new, temporary viewing friend why she and her friends had waited so long simply to take a snapshot of the eruption, rather than sticking around to experience it. Maybe they were late for their bus. Maybe they’d seen it before. Or maybe, thinking about the quote from Walker Percy (see the bottom of this post), the geyser spout was simply a visual commodity to be consumed, then re-packaged in the form of a photo to be consumed and shared, Facebooked, Instagrammed, and Snapchatted later. Talking with Marisabel later, we compared notes on this, because she had noted the same phenomenon closer to the action; groups of people leaving after snapping a photo.

There is evidence for this commodity theory. Old Faithful isn’t the most impressive of even that immediate caldera area’s attractions. But it is predictable, like the once-per-hour pirate ship battles of the Mirage Hotel in Las Vegas. And the park service has built around Old Faithful, from the visitor center to the viewing area, to the eating and lodging options rimming that main attraction’s launch pad. Consider how close to the attraction you can park. Consider how more impressive is, from this consumer perspective, the rustic, pine-log interior of the Old Faithful Inn. Jeff asked me what most impressed me, and only half-jokingly I replied, “Lunch!”

In our van, we also discussed how progressively fewer people could be seen the further along the trails we journeyed, despite the collection of different sorts of sights along these trails. Gemstone blue abysses, burbling mud pots, burnt orange bacteria mats, and, as Ted noted, whole ecosystems of insects within the larger hot spring ecosystem that is the Old Faithful caldera. We (Ted, Krystal and I) had the mile-high viewing area to ourselves. The sights you had to work a little for, sights dazzling in their diversity, attracted no crowds. No, the “tamed” tiger of Old Faithful got far more attention, at least until it lived, de-natured, in the pixels of viewers’ cameras, than the less-packaged bubble pots and bacteria mats of the rest of the park stop. According to the park service’s own statistics, four out of five visitors to Yellowstone come to see Old Faithful, or approximately 80 percent of 3.3 million tourists annually.

So Percy was dead on in his analysis of the double plight of consumer visitors to national parks and their anticipated national park “experience.” We’re told not to even step off the boardwalk because we might instantly melt. We’re told to beware of bears. But it all seems so incredibly safe, even sterile at times. Inside the Inn, bears are personified in window etchings as party-going socialites, and in the gift store as cuddly toys. Nature here has been carefully packaged for consumption. Call it Caldera Light.

Paradoxically, just outside this carefully managed, choreographed, meticulously planned “experience” are some of the 800,000 acres destroyed in the fires of 1988 (thanks, Alix, for all the great background on this horrific summer 25 years ago). Nature can be tamed, managed, but only to a degree; it cannot be controlled. Lightning strikes started an inferno that turned more than a third of Yellowstone into ashes and ghostly white conifer stalks punctuating what today are still, even today, small replacement pines.

We like a hint of danger, the illusion of being in nature, but we expect that nature to be packaged, managed, and served up on time.

“The situation of the tourist at the Grand Canyon and the biology student are special cases of a predicament in which everyone finds himself in a modern technical society — a society, that is, in which there is a division between expert and layman, planner and consumer, in which experts and planners take special measures to teach and edify the consumer. The measures taken are measures appropriate to the consumer: The expert and the planner know and plan, but the consumer needs and experiences. There is a double deprivation. First, the thing is lost through its packaging. The very means by which the thing is presented for consumption, the very techniques by which the thing is made available as an item of need-satisfaction, these very means operate to remove the thing from the sovereignty of the knower.” — Walker Percy (a graduate of UNC Chapel Hill)


How much is enough?

March 1, 2013

moneyTyler and I chatted this past week in my office, and in that discussion, a few really important questions came up. I’d like us as a class to chew on these questions and see what wisdom we might be able to produce or share. First the set-up.

We talked this past week about what sorts of ‘dreams’ or futures we imagine for ourselves, and several of us shared them. Rachel laid out a common dream, which is to acquire a little more than our parents — from a tw0-story house and two cars to three stories and a three-car garage, for example. I think her description is accurate.

But making money and acquiring stuff can’t be our chief goal, right? Making more money can’t be the goal or even a priority of pursuing a good life, or can it? I ask because there is no reason to have money other than to spend it, and we can’t “spend” our way into meaning or goodness or significance. Growth, even financial growth, ultimately fails to make us happier. Oh, and it’s environmentally destructive, even disastrous. It’s senseless as a goal in and of itself, and even as a means to other goals unless it is achieved at some point on the way to those greater “good”s.

The banking crisis of 2008 (and since) showed us that our economic system relies on the motives of greed and acquisitiveness, which are morally bankrupt. Our best hope? To do what we’re doing. To figure out what a ‘good’ life looks like, and how to pursue it. To un-do our society’s distortions of ‘good,’ and to pursue a morally good life that is sufficient unto itself. (Some of these distortions include ‘competitive spending,’ or acquiring to keep score; ‘snob goods,’ or goods acquired simply because they differentiate one from the less-well-off; and ‘bandwagon goods,’ or goods we want simply because others have them.)

So, my questions for you, and I think they are just critical to what we’re doing in the course:

  • What is wealth for?
  • How much money do you need to lead and pursue a ‘good’ life? (a moral, virtuous life in community and where exemplars ‘flourish’)

Deadline for your comments to this post: noon, Tuesday, March 12

CREDIT for many of these ideas goes to the new book, How much is enough? by Skidelsky and Skidelsky.


A “good life” thought experiment

February 13, 2013

socratesBorrowing from the Mitchell reading, and zero-ing in on the first sentence of paragraph 20 (“That usually I believe . . .”) as a means to analyze ideas, here’s what I would like each of you to do:

List five of your beliefs or feelings that you currently have (or had in the recent past).

Discuss how you come by those ideas or beliefs?

Look to apply other points of analysis from paragraph 20 to your beliefs.

What happens?

This should be really, really interesting. And feel free to comment on others’ reactions here so we extend our discussion. We have so little time in our class sessions; let’s leverage the blog to unpack some more of what I believe to be two of our more critical readings. Let’s set a deadline of 9am Tuesday, Feb. 19, which will give me a chance to read them before class in the afternoon (hopefully).


Thinking about immersive, natural, experience-based multimedia journalism

February 12, 2013

snowfallWhew, that’s a long title, but an important one. For this thought experiment and journalism safari, I want you all to spend some time with “Snowfall,” a six-chapter multimedia feature story from the New York Times on an avalanche in Washington’s Cascade Mountains, a project that required six months and more than a dozen journalists to produce.

As The Atlantic magazine pointed out, “Snowfall” isn’t “the future of journalism” for lots of reasons. But it is a cue of what is to come, of at least a part of the future of journalism. It’s not THE future because it took six months and a dozen journalists to produce. And because not every story needs or warrants this sort of immersive experience. Most news stories don’t. But some do, especially process journalism, the most difficult kind.

What I find most notable about the slick, easy-to-navigate, layered feature is how natural it seems. If Apple did journalism as it does phones and computers, “Snowfall” is about what I imagine Apple might create. The feature smoothly and naturally transitions from element to element, giving the “reader” (or interactor) information when it makes sense to begin incorporating the new layer but without interrupting completely the narrative flow or arc. It’s an experience, in other words.

So, I’d like us to study “Snowfall,” and to do that we’ll crowdsource, we’ll divide and conquer. Group 1, I’d like you to “experience” the “Snowfall” feature on an iPad and bring back notes of that experience. How did it “work”? What’s best about the feature on iPad, and what might be improved? What might this signal to us about a part of the future of storytelling in digital environments?

Group 2, I’d like you all to compare “Snowfall” with another immersive, graphics-intensive feature, from Pitchfork, and one of a very different sort. The “cover story” looks at author Natasha Khan and her approach to (fictional) storytelling.

Group 3, do the same, but with the ESPN feature from “Outside the Lines” on the very colorful long-time Pittsburgh Pirate pitcher, Dock Ellis.

We’ll then compare our notes to come up with some best practices, or at least some really good things to think about as we think (and re-think) digital storytelling. Let’s think about what sorts of stories merit these kinds of Herculean efforts. Let’s also appreciate how text-intensive all three of the features we’re looking at in fact are; text is not dead; in fact, it’s resurgent. Smartphones are bringing with them the return of the dominance of text, as recent Pew Research study findings suggest.

Back to “Snowfall,” I think it’s important what graphics director Steve Duenes told Poynter Institute about his team’s goals: To “find ways to allow readers to read into, and then through multimedia, and then out of multimedia. So it didn’t feel like you were taking a detour, but the multimedia was part of the one narrative flow.” This is really significant: A single, coherent narrative flow. How do we pull this off when incorporating layers and multimedia?

To the Range Rovers!! Let’s do the safari and then compare our field notes on Friday, Feb. 15. Write up your field notes in some coherent, organized way, perhaps as a memo to your editor (me):

20 February 2013
Memorandum to Dr. Brian Carroll
RE: Lessons from Snowfall
Your report here, in 12-point Times New Roman, single-spaced type. (You will be turning this in.)


The muddiest point so far in pursuing a good life

February 7, 2013

I thought I’d take a quick pulse of the class. Take a moment or two to identify what is for you so far the muddiest point or least clear aspect of the course so far. It can be a term, a concept, a reading, a way we do things, something about the writing assignments — anything that you think is the least clear, most confusing aspect of the course experience thus far in our journey toward a good life. You can write as little or as much as you would like.

To facilitate discussion Tuesday, the deadline for this short post is: 9 a.m., Tuesday morning, Feb. 12.


Next safari: hunting down your favorite design era

November 12, 2012
chair

Mies van der Rohe’s Bauhaus chair in chrome

Due Monday, Nov. 19, a briefing on your favorite design school/era/philosophy. You are to choose one that is established, not one you’ve sort of made up. The ‘history’ backgrounder linked off the course webpage is a good starting place, as is chapter 8 in our textbook. You are free to venture beyond these sources, but, again, make sure the school or philosophy is an established one.

In this briefing, provide:

  • a backgrounder or description of the era/school, including several of its hallmarks or characteristics or repeating elements (a few paragraphs on this)
  • three visual examples of the era (for example, a car, a piece of furniture, a movie poster, a building, whatever)
  • the names of several of this era’s movers and shakers, from any field, but do identify each person’s claim to fame — for example, for Mission style, Frank Lloyd Wright (architecture and home furnishings).

Hunting down type

November 7, 2012

As we sub-divided in class, your job is to conduct one of four typography safaris as listed below.

For the first group, I’m commissioning you to choose a typeface for a 2012 adaptation of the novel Pride & Prejudice. This means an author has re-written the classic Austen novel so that the same story is set in 21st century England. Choose a typeface for the cover, and a typeface for the body text, and provide a paragraph justification for each as to why your choice is THE right typeface for the job. Your priority for the body text type choice is of course readability and legibility.

For the second group, I am commissioning you to choose a typeface for the (not-yet-introduced) iPhone6. You are choosing a type the phone will use itself, for email, texts, etc. Provide a paragraph justification as to why it’s the right typeface for the job. This is a typeface that has to work in really small or tight spaces, so do some testing. Make sure the typeface is readable even when really small, so be on guard against letters that bump into each other (like the Romney logo), and make sure “ones” are distinguishable from lowercase “L”s. Helvetica won’t work, in other words.

Group three, I’d like you all to walk from your dorm room to your first appointment of the day, taking photographs of any signage you encounter in between those two points. Write up a brief narrative of your safari, pointing out especially effective type (and why) and really poor type (and why). You will find that poor display type abounds. Think about signage type as interface. It’s supposed to help you quickly find what you’re looking for. So, ask, does it work? Or are there better choices? (For example, imagine being brand new on campus and having to find, say, Normandy or the cottages.)

Finally, the last group, I’m commissioning you to imagine yourselves running for the office prime minister of Berrylandia, an idyllic and wholesome land of milk, honey and someday soon, football. This executive office makes you an all-powerful ruler. You have to design a campaign poster, like Obama’s Forward PERIOD. And you have to choose a typeface for your campaign. This typeface has to embody and communicate your core values as a candidate. Choose a typeface and provide a paragraph justification as to why it’s the right typeface for your campaign, identifying what those core values are. Give us a sample of your choice if you can.

I’m making these safari catches due at class time on Friday, Nov. 9.

If you need places to experiment with typefaces online, there are several on the class page, in the block for this week. You can also visit: http://www.cubanxgiants.com/berry/300/type.html for some resources.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.