FROM LIKE TO LOVE

1x1x1x1x1x1...=1

In a world that increasingly seems to be based on Boolean algebra (1= something; 0 = nothing) it seems the “like” is now the only action that manifests opinion, reaction, and connection. (*1) On Instagram we don’t have neither the time nor the opportunity to consider, debate or challenge. We can only like (“1”) or don’t like (“0”) and move on to the next. However, truly meaningful and rewarding things reveal their qualities only upon repeated consideration. Trust needs conflict to become sincere. Transformation is conflict. Time needs to be spent on discourse or debate before we even can come to any conclusion that something is truly agreeable. Same goes for cultivating passion. There is no passion without depth which means to be passionate, a fleeting emotional fix needs to go past the “like”. Way past the “1” because if we just keep liking, all we do is simply multiplying our enthusiasm by 1 and we will always stay where we are. We end up only liking, liking and liking for the sake of it. (1x1x1x1x1x1.....=1). Unsatisfied and depressed, we keep coming back for more. The magic of passion and excitement is that it breaks through the border of measure. It is self-cascading and leads to a sort of maximal potency of effect (1x2x3x4...etc.). That means passion is infectious and leads to more passion.

THE FLAT NOW

We are at the point where we are unsure if we should love or loathe the fact that the horizontal expansion of meaning demolished our fundamental desire to go deep. Quality and quantity have become the same. Commercial hype and exclusive limitation are one. The truth has become a truth of many. Thinking and doing are indistinguishable. I’ve sat in “workshops” with 30+ people that pretended to be brainstorming sessions, masquerading as mission critical deadline meetings. The takeaway: The illusion of a conclusion without a de facto solution. A feeling of work accomplished as work accomplished. Democracy of all is the democracy of (n)one when an opinion is an end in itself. Glorifying this flat world can only resonate aesthetically as “wallpaper” as it deletes the concept of depth. What can give us hold or any sense of belief in the flat world? If the subject stops believing then the object will have no value. Like a domino effect, in return, other subjects that then engage with either subject or object will lose belief, etc. Doing something without thinking is aimless doing. The more shallow we think the less meaning our doing has. We are forced to guess, change direction and be vague. Finally, our belief in ourselves and that of others in us dies.

THE OMISSION OF WORDS

Data driven design is defeating language. We accept data without the weight of words. Information has evolved to immediate publication without anything in between. Like children, we think that more numbers mean more value. Is it really so hard to understand that more can be less because of describing what more actually means? In validating action or decisions, we remain at the same point as we are quickly liking, approving, doing, and so things keep moving in circles. We see data as language when it is only a number. The need for language as a primary, constructive design tool is more apparent than ever. Only words can create belief as they can evoke far more than what they say. No one believes in you because your data proves that you are trustworthy or successful. Data needs DESCRIPTION. As programmers or analysts inject themselves into the world of communication, describing and inscribing become one and become code. Data and information then are merged and leave no space for consideration. In between those poles, tension, debate, poetry, etc. get further and further reduced to nothing and the now becomes even flatter. The result is meaning without any dimension. Reckless data science marks the end of the knowing science and its digitalization makes everything the same.

WILLEM DE ROOIJ, Bouquet IV, 2005

THE SPACE BETWEEN

In one of most profound art pieces of the last 20 years Maria Abrahmovics “The Artist is Present” the artist explored the concept of intimacy through repositioning the role of the artist from being the object of an elevated myth. By leveling herself on equal par with the viewer, intimacy and depth can be found in a most direct construction of “a space between” we can think of: by literally having the viewer sit 5 feet away from the artist and looking into her eyes. Any connection between object and subject needs to originate in the space between. If an intimate intensity can happen there, then belief, depth and passion are born. I would argue the connection between artist and viewer in “The Artist is Present” is deeper than in almost all works produced through an objective medium (i.e. painting, sculpture, etc.) as it may be the most pure and focused form of artist engaging the viewer. When the artist Mike Kelley was asked in the early 90’s about the apparent “freedom” in his work, accusing him “to do whatever you want and declare it art” he responded: “There needs to be a pact with the artist. You are only free in a range of freedoms that I allow. You are responsible for your interpretation. That is our pact.” (*2) This invisible “pact” between artist and viewer is interesting because it is based on the premise that a core belief connects us in the space between and prevents a flat world from emerging. The pact fills the void with meaning and makes expectation possible. “I base my actions on a core principle and you decode the principle”. Together, we create depth and vitality.

FREEZE FRAME

Going back to where we started this thought piece, I believe that one way to insert depth and passion into the current overdrive of acceptance which I described in the first few paragraphs, we need to disrupt the agile flow of one “Like” to the immediate next “Like” and so on. To turn the “x” to a “+”; or push from 1 to 2; transforming the 1x1x1x1 = 1 to 1+1x2x3..., etc. We need to sever the merger of information and publication and drill into the flat world right where action equals decision. This means a sort of momentary “freezing” of the space between to make it more intimate and expand more room into the agility that we are so accustomed to. This would be an exercise in stopping and considering the subject from all angles and then to tweak its direction. The goal is to accommodate an awkward space of intimacy in which discourse will lead to transformation. In this frozen space we have the opportunity of aligning micro elements (i.e.. our role, change agents, chance elements, etc.) based on an agreed core principle towards a then redirected action. It has to be accepted that this alignment is a form of conflict as it challenges purpose and reason but doesn’t fundamentally change the need for action and dynamism as an economic catalyst. In the end, this “freezing” and real time adjusting lead to the birth of a pact of a fundamental agreement on purpose and goal. (Even if that purpose is no purpose - at least then it will be a conscious act.) 

DECONSTRUCTING THE COMFORT ZONE

Could we invent an app or introduce a social feature that probes into purpose or asks if a post leads back to a fundamental core belief of the poster? Something in between liking and the blank not linking that is examining and challenging what we are doing. To make a stand, we need to first open a void by stopping the “let’s move on” impulse from kicking in. Next would be to raise a question instead of showing an answer. How else could any post be really considered confident or courageous? Could Instagram encourage dialogue beyond mute desire? Or on the flip side, can we openly ask if our liking will lead to a larger or more responsible (social) prize? In the end, to BELIEVE in something we will need to rely on a pact of trust between people, data, words, images, etc. Without depth there is no passion, and without passion there is only lackluster satisfaction. Living in ‘The Flat Now’ with less and less clarity on what the object is doesn’t mean we can’t be objective or everything should only be subjective. (*3) Can we please move to not liking something and then work together to make it liked? Find the space to wrestle with it and feverishly hope to convince each other? Split hairs over a word. Bring up the courage to do something without hoping to measure vague smiles? 

Rather: Can we turn the “like” to love? – Marc Hohmann

*1. Martin Burckhardt and Dirk Hoefer’s ‘Alles und Nichts’, Martin & Seitz Berlin, 2015

*2. Mike Kelley interviewed by John Miller, A.R.T. Press, 1992

*3. From Armen Avanessian’s book “Metaphysik zur Zeit”, Merve Verlag Leibzig, 2018