Reading this kind of reminded me of old Christian Slater movies like Pump up the Volume and Heathers, and other movies of the GenX era. (But, I’m sure films of
the 60s fit, as well)
Hopefully this is a sign that this generation is forming its identity and ready to express it with some real cultural movements! I’ve been waiting eagerly for their cultural identity to emerge and express itself with authentic art, music, film, etc.
However, I also find the essay ironic. When the Internet first went mainstream, one phenomenon was “the lurker” - the fact that most, the mass majority, of internet users only “consumed content” (although, back then it wasn’t called content). That’s because few of us felt confident enough to claim enough expertise to share much. Therefore, most of us just “lurked”. We let the experts speak, and we indulged in surfing on their knowledge.
In this “Instagram era”, though, everyone is expected to be a “content creator”. (e.g. everyone has a github!) But, to be one, one unfortunately misses out on a long history of prior work. One gets so bogged down by creating new content and reading all of the new content created within the previous few hours, that much of the past 108 years of knowledge and wisdom isn’t fully accessible. And, although the author seems to try to escape that vortex, they also seem to have ignored that they’re mostly reinventing ideas that were created between McLuhan and 2010.
But, that is ok! I actually read the whole thing and enjoyed it (because it also kinda reminded me of reading Zines). Yeah, as others have said, it could use some editing, but at least it has paragraphs!
> I’ve been waiting eagerly for their cultural identity to emerge and express itself with authentic art, music, film, etc.
I think it's already happening/happened, it's just not as easy to see and commodify because media is not being funneled through a few mediums. I don't think we'll ever see these large generational "identities" like we did pre-internet and especially pre-social-media. I predict that from now on the defining identity trait is that there is no defining trait. You can choose one identity from the many pre-existing ones or create your own, then find your community online to make you feel good about your choice.
I also enjoyed the article. Not perfect but hey, it's fostering discussion. I'm actually more interested in their authenticity article, which I will read next
Sometimes I think the deepest, most absurdist corners of the internet are its last bastion of humanity. Where the memes are fueled by people's desire to be so incredibly nonsensical and inscrutable as to defy marketability. Of course, if you look at recent trends in corporate Twitter accounts you can see companies doing their very best to appropriate even that.
The more and more I read the comments on public forums(popular ones, such as this one and Reddit)- the more I ask myself "why am I doing this to myself?"
I think there may be something to taking a step back from knowing what hundreds, thousands of strangers think about a given thing at a given point in time.
Even commercials are tapping into absurdist themes. I can remember a few asian ones I've seen but a recent one that comes to mind is the newest Sprite commercial where the kid is running around the house yelling about how they are out of sprite.
Haven't commercials been doing absurdism for a while? Speaking of Asian ones, it's been known that Japanese commercials can be weird AF (to the western mind) that it was made fun of in the Simpsons with the Me Sparkle episode back in the early 90s. US has also been creating absurdist commercials pre-internet for a while now as well
Oh, I put that caveat in there because I am not Asian so I did not want to speak on behalf of Asians. Sorry if that wasn't clear. My assumption is that it is weird for everybody but maybe there were some cultural things I could have been missing.
Yeah, although part of meme culture is to continue moving on and on to the next thing faster than things can become normalized, to the point where a meme "expires" after as little as a couple of days
I really, really dislike this kind of medium-to-long form article that don't bother to even expose some sort of context (topic introductory line). This is incredibly disrespectful to the reader. You read the first half trying to put the pieces together, while given that this is a proto-longform article (does not have the length, but has the tone), there is fluff added here and there for flavor. This is so frustrating to read.
> The truth, then, is this: our generation was raised with the understanding that the image we portrayed mattered more than who we actually were not out of some malevolent, externally imposed agenda, but because it was actually true. The result was that nothing we ever did felt organic; instead, everything felt like a checked box.
As every generation before? Why even speak about generation here? This seems like an absurd reduction from the author, while this is the kind of thing you learn to recognize as you age and you start seeing the word with your own eyes. Most people becomes disillusioned as time goes on, seeing how much public action is fake.
A much more interesting analysis would be to show how the new engaging platforms distord this longstanding social behavior (signaling), amplifying it or distording it. But to say that they are an "Instagram" generation is giving far too much credit to Instagram. The world was not "disrupted" by Instagram, it was only a lens and a way to capitalize on this behavior.
I could go on with the "lost authenticity", but I feel I'm just trying to justify the time taken to read this empty piece.
This comment seems unnecessarily mean spirited. The article is on someone's private blog. Nobody's forcing you to read it. How in the world is it "disrespectful" to write in a certain style on your own blog, providing your thoughts to the world for free?
Stylistic points aside, I strongly disagree that the obsession with image has been the same with every generation. It's existed, for sure, but substance used to matter more. For example, college admissions were previously more reliant on tests than they are today. Kids are stuck in a vicious circle of pretending to care more and more about things they hate like public service and high school sports--that's, I think, the point of the article, and it's an important point to make, even if the article's style could use some polishing.
"I am 23 as I write this". I can't say I'm surprised, and the author is clearly of the "I love the sound of my own voice" type. That's how the piece reads at least. Narcissism isn't only about looks.
My first thought when reading your comment was “wow that’s more sharply critical than the author deserves”.
But on second thought it is a bit ironic that a piece so critical of “signaling” and empty gestures (the author cites things like joining student counsel) would be posted to the author’s personal blog. I think it would have leant credibility to the article if the author had the self awareness to point out the fact that blogs are a form of self promotion not too far removed from Instagram.
It is of course ironic, but perhaps it is also to be expected.
It might be that we're more sensitive to - and insightful about - the social phenomena that stem from personality traits not unlike our own (on some level at least).
This is a slippery slope. Writing is little without readers, and you can't improve your writing without someone to read it. To say all writing is "signaling not too far removed from instagram" reduces all expression to the kind of absurdity the author criticizes. Surely original words are closer to authentic voice than using a company's predefined filter! Surely ideas composed on an empty sheet are not as vapid as yet another sunset selfie #lifemoments #puravida
The lack of self-awareness gives the piece a rich irony which makes it interesting. Should this have been written for a subtle McSweeney’s submission, I would not be shocked.
> Its business, after all, is driven by engagement, and because engagement is well-understood to be eroded by the presence of nuance and depth — two traits that are essential for a complete understanding of anything — Instagram promotes neither.
This must be the best description of fb/insta mechanics.
Yes, it's absurd. I've my 20 able developer friends who weren't able to find job despite being very good developers. They were always messing up interviews.
Yes, they can solve whatever tricky questions you throw at them because they've lots of experience working on low level stuff.
People's eyes are so used to Instagram people that they think less attractive people are less healthy so they'll not be good at problem solving which takes great genes. This is what most have concluded from Instagram photos of bodybuilders/athletes/celebrities.
I am guilty of this myself, I've dated many beautiful ladies who i chased with passion. They all had invested lot of money into their looks. They always complained about not being well off like me but now you know why.This is what attracted me to them. Face is the first thing i notice, i was young and naive and got fooled by clever makeup. So why you can't do same as a man? Hack your way to success.
If you are a good programmer and still not getting paid well or getting promoted faster, then it's probably this.
Here comes the twist. We finally figured out it has to do with their appearance. No one gives this as reason to you, they simply reject you period.
So we got a writer and analyst, to figure out what the market truly wants then created a script and we gave it to the programmers to memorize.
Add some professional make-up artists, took some photographs at a studio with many others (pretending to be at some event of great importance). This went straight to their Instagram account.
And 16 out of 20 programmer friends showed up for interview and got a successful placement.
But still 4 of them didn't find job yet.
What is this? This is new normal and this is what people who are interviewing and recruiting want.
Of course those changes helped them. It has always been this way and will always be. There is little to no relation to social medias. A job interview is a date with an employer. You are supposed to look your best, your 110%. You can come dressed as a slob the next month, but by then people will know that you can and are able to dress correctly if the need rise (meeting with an important client).
Makeup hides your unhealthy lifestyles. Baggy eyes from working all night look the same as baggy eyes from staying out in bars or gaming all night. It can also hides defects such as acne and bad skin tone that make you look younger or make give out the perception that you are or sick. Remember that they are hiring someone to be part of a team, so you are expected to look the part.
As for the script you had them learn and read... I'm confused... Did those people improvise their last interview on the spot? You should always be ready during an interview. You should have been rehearsing your speech so that you are able to deliver it in an eloquent way. Every answers to the typical interview questions should be aced. Programming is a team effort and communication is the key. Nobody wants to hire that loner who is unable to talk about himself for 10 minutes because how would this person be able to vulgarize a problem to the client or other department?
This is something that really irks me with the programming community. People tend to think that because we are geeky and outcasts we should get hired without putting any social effort. Social skills are just like any regular skills. You need to read books, follow tutorials and train them. Otherwise you look like a skilless individual and nobody wants to hire that.
> People's eyes are so used to Instagram people that they think less attractive people are less healthy
Instagram has little to do with that; the two-way association between perceived health and attractiveness is deeply ingrained (the exact extent to which it is a very ancient feature of culture vs. an evolved biological trait independent of culture, I don't know, but it's one or both of those things.)
> This is a joke right? I would have thought development would be the one sector unaffected by look / image etc.
I know this guy who used to screen models at a Hollywood studio. Now he works as a recruiter in a tech company (he met a VP at stripclub who got him in), what do you think he does?
They are still same people! They look for same signals. They give it weird names like vibes / cultural fit or whatever.
There are several comments complaining about the lack of an introduction or topic sentence. Maybe it’s me, but I knew what ride I was on from the large clear title and subtitle:
“The Cosmetic Class”
“What happens when a society with a penchant for the cosmetic meets a medium dominated by it?”
That was supposed to be gold standard. The "inverted pyramid"[0]. It's taught to journalists as very important. It's also universally ignored everywhere.
I've seen one news source do that, by putting a bullet-point summary at the beginning of the article. Sadly, I don't remember which one was that (I don't usually pay attention to who is writing, when an article lands on HN). Most others prefer to do the inverse - bait you with the headline, make the beginning confusing, and only later on reveal the important details.
This isn't the first generation to live in a "corporate pseudo-cultural production" world.
Movies and movie conventions. Baseball cards and other popular collectibles. Sport events. Music events. All those things are just "corporate pseudo-cultural productions". Yet they're also the culture, because - for better or worse - commerce is part of our lives too.
I think saying that "finstas" are as important to society as the "web" is a false equivalence. As evidence I would point to the fact that "finstas" are in fact just a very tiny subset of the web.
Hopefully this is a sign that this generation is forming its identity and ready to express it with some real cultural movements! I’ve been waiting eagerly for their cultural identity to emerge and express itself with authentic art, music, film, etc.
However, I also find the essay ironic. When the Internet first went mainstream, one phenomenon was “the lurker” - the fact that most, the mass majority, of internet users only “consumed content” (although, back then it wasn’t called content). That’s because few of us felt confident enough to claim enough expertise to share much. Therefore, most of us just “lurked”. We let the experts speak, and we indulged in surfing on their knowledge.
In this “Instagram era”, though, everyone is expected to be a “content creator”. (e.g. everyone has a github!) But, to be one, one unfortunately misses out on a long history of prior work. One gets so bogged down by creating new content and reading all of the new content created within the previous few hours, that much of the past 108 years of knowledge and wisdom isn’t fully accessible. And, although the author seems to try to escape that vortex, they also seem to have ignored that they’re mostly reinventing ideas that were created between McLuhan and 2010.
But, that is ok! I actually read the whole thing and enjoyed it (because it also kinda reminded me of reading Zines). Yeah, as others have said, it could use some editing, but at least it has paragraphs!