Olympic kitsch—nothing more

07/29/2012
The price of the extravaganza was outdone only by its bad taste, which was worse that what propaganda experts churn out for their totalitarian rulers. Britishness at the Games of the XXX Olympiad was close to pitiful. Let’s face it: the Empire is gone. The only testimony that would have deserved to be memorialized is the latest (not yet over) recession. Indeed, with London as the capital of financial speculations—the only lucrative business in what used to be a great Britain—Danny Boyle should have projected real-time images of hedge fund traders. Caliban’s line (from Shakespeare’s The Tempest) would have worked like a charm: “Be not afear’d, the isle is full of noises.” But Boyle preferred 10,000 medical workers jumping on children’s hospital beds, and the parade of Victorian factory workers in a landscape of smokestacks that replaced live sheep and cows. (The show promised: We will let you die of natural causes. No slaughter. Poor animals!—to get old in England with a medical service that will not let you die. For everyone, of course.) Kitsch is the expression of a mentality obvious in any prosperous society. Nothing is too much. Check out the dwarves in German gardens, the “paintings of light,” flags, sports mascots, and all the pageantry of meaningless ceremonials: The Europrix, the Academy Awards, the Cannes film Festival. Even solemn occasions, such as the Queen’s Address to Parliament (“Hats off strangers!”), and even the Inauguration of the President of the United States are reduced to kitsch. Kitsch negates the authentic. It opposes simplicity and advances mediocrity as an aesthetic qualifier. Danny Boyle’s production contained well more clichés and stereotypes than did Slumdog Millionaire. He is getting better at making aesthetic bad taste the “food” of millions who try to lose weight drinking their corn syrup sweetened Coke cold. “Wouldn’t that mean negative calories?” In the grandiose ceremony, there were some authentic moments—the Queen who could not hide her boredom and discomfort, and Mr. Bean—and quite a number of visual effects. The message became the medium (as I like to repeat, but McLuhan is not around to challenge me). Indeed, the NBC of the age of media monopoly shares with Danny Boyle the inability to realize that these times are different. They proved what Abraham Moles ascertained long ago in his text on kitsch: Everything can be made into kitsch. (Lady Gaga was left out, but the only Sir from the Beatles took care of the obligatory karaoke number with gusto.) Comment »

It’s the user, stupid . . . or maybe not

12/15/2008
Digital technology is pervasive and makes so many things possible: from the ubiquitous e-mail to movies downloaded to one’s computer. Computers are part of our cars, they are our cell phones. They are becoming an essential part of the world we live in—and even part of our own bodies. Albeit, the unintended costs associated with too many of the information technology products are, at this juncture, way too high. Identity theft is only one example. It painfully costs the victim money, credit rating, time, and a great deal of hassle. We all lose when the economy as a whole is subject to damage reaching hundreds of billions. The unbearable and growing load of spam, the daily reports of security breaches—affecting millions of people—form the image of an increasingly vulnerable society. Hacking the computer embedded in our cars, or the cell phone through which many conduct some of their business is already on record. Have you ever thought about the security, or lack thereof, of the new prostheses attached to or implanted in our living bodies and which are monitored by embedded computers? How have we gotten to this point and the notion that lack of security of digital data processing is inherent in the technology are no longer mere academic issues. Way too often, the rush to bring innovation to the market leads to a tacit acceptance of half-baked goods. The high of acquiring the latest gadget overrides the patience required to obtain the best possible. This rush is actually increasing in the computer industry, and vulnerabilities are becoming more costly. Instead of providing the highest protection for the user, the computer industry settles for “security through obscurity,” a term that became part of the professional parlance. In laymen’s terms, security through obscurity means “Let’s hope that no one will notice product deficiencies.” Like leaving the back door open under the assumption that thieves will use the front door. And in case someone notices them, lawyers cover the industry through the most egregious terms of use: “We do not warrant that our product will meet your requirements.” (This is the actual text the user has to agree to before using the product.) Blame the user—for not knowing how to work with the product, or for negligence. Instead of designing secure systems and writing secure code, the industry accepts recycled programs, hacks, or tweaks that perpetuate shortcomings excused as inherent in any beginning. And when some malicious—or creative—person discovers the weak spot, the industry issues yet another patch—Windows™ is notorious for them—along with another warning to the users. Quite often, the user ends up being a guinea pig for products not fully tested prior to their release. Debugging is an expensive operation. Some companies save money by literally having their clients, purchasers expecting bug-free products, unwittingly do the debugging for them. Can you imagine the same strategy applied to new cars, heating systems, air conditioners, microwave ovens, etc., etc.? How many times were you required to sign a release form that frees the company of all responsibility if, for example, your microwave explodes? (The jury is still out on whether cell phones damage our health.) It is time to defend ourselves. How? Let us put our minds together and find the most effective ways. Comment »