Projects and Ideas

Why Are Red States Red, and Blue States Blue?

As I sit here, along with most of the country and world, and watch states turn color to red or blue as the vote comes in and precincts report, I wonder why red places are generally red, and blue places are generally blue. Why is it, exactly, that more people in urban areas tend to vote for Democratic candidates, and more people in rural areas tend to vote for Republican candidates? What is it exactly? Is it economic? Is it somehow about pace of life? Or the result of immigration? Are the red voters, as McCain would have us believe "the real Americans" and the blue voters are, by implication, somehow less American, or even un-American?

Let's imagine for a moment that everyone is equally self-interested. That is, that everyone is voting based on their own personal belief of what will improve their own lives, rather than from a sense of duty to the good of the nation or other altruistic impulse. Red voters, I believe, generally have a sense that the Republican candidate will make their lives better, by focusing on defense, deregulating the markets, lowering taxes, etc. At the same time, blue voters generally believe that the Democratic candidate will improve their lives, by focusing on education, health care, and social issues. So why is the urban/rural divide so important in this? What's different about people who live in cities?

Here's an idea. One difference, again very generally, between people who live in or near cities, as opposed to those who don't, is that they have to deal with a lot more people on a daily basis than people who live way out in the "real America." I think it makes sense that having to deal with a lot of other people might lead to empathy, or at least a sense of being somehow connected, or in it together. The more "in it" we are together, the more it becomes apparent that education, generally, benefits all of us, even if we don't have kids. And health care, even if we aren't sick, is something that might improve the overall quality of life in the areas in which we live. Living in a city, I think I'd much rather have a leader who advocates the idea that we all need to get along and work together, rather than a leader who is a cowboy, a maverick. Living in the city, we understand that it's important to all of our happiness that all of us are relatively happy. And it certainly seems that this is closer to the Democratic message and purpose (focusing on education, health care, etc.), than it is to the Republican agenda of restricting social issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) while liberating markets (tax cuts, deregulation, etc.).

So, can Obama's success in this election be to some extent attributed to the gradual growth in U.S. population, and our gradual urbanization? A higher percentage of us live in cities than ever before. And, over time, it seems likely that more and more of us will live in cities. What happens to the Republican coalition of big business, the religious right, gun owners, and other social conservatives in an urban America? Can we imagine an urban Republican America? Is that even possible?

Webinar on "Strategies and Tactics for Architects in an Economic Downturn"

I was part of a webinar last week hosted by the AIA on "Strategies and Tactics for Architects in an Economic Downturn." I was one panelist of 4 who spoke on the program; I covered "10 Steps to Marketing in a Slowdown," and spoke for 15-20 minutes towards the end of the formal part of the program, right before Q&A. The webinar was free to AIA members to tune in, and we very quickly received registrations for the 1,200 sites that we were able to accommodate. So, it was the most people I've ever spoken to at one time (except for that one time I was on the radio in high school, but that was pre-recorded!). To see and hear the webinar, click here:

"Strategies and Tactics for Architects in an Economic Downturn"

What Growing up Means

I've been thinking a lot lately about what it means to grow up. Why should I be thinking about that? Well, I've got a five-month old daughter, I just had a birthday, AND it's my 20th high school reunion tonight. So, I've been thinking a bit about how I got where I am, and wondering about all the youth rebellion that seems endemic to our culture. Is it just common knowledge that your parents make no sense at all until you become a parent? Is that how this works? Why is that? Here's what I've come up with: when you're young, you can only see things from your own perspective. The world revolves around you, and the great challenge (or one of a number of great challenges) is developing a consistent perspective, a unique voice and way of seeing things. Once you've got a perspective, and your internal debate over who you are has quieted down (allowing for occasional flare-ups, course corrections, and questioning over time) then you really start to develop empathy for others, and your perspective can broaden to understand more of the world than just what drives you, what's in front of you at this moment right now. Travel helps A LOT in this process. Then, as you mature, you can understand more and more of the world, have a broader and broader perspective. You can see youself as a tiny part of an infinite world, but still not get depressed about it. And that's what, I think, growing up is, learning to embrace and then lose your ego.

The City from Inside and Out

I just got a email from someone in Michigan that I don't know personally. The email went to a number of people, and I'm on one of the lists the email went to. The author of the email is trying to find a carpenter for a work-related project in Oneonta. The email made me realize a few things at once: (1) I know very few carpenters. I should know more carpenters. Carpenters are useful. (2) I have no idea where Oneonta is. Upstate? That's my guess. And (3) Cities, from the outside, are fixed points. "Oh, I need help in Oneonta! That's close to New York City! I'll write to people there!" From the inside, however, cities are entire worlds. I'm in New York City, and anything outside is someplace else. Part of this distinction, of course, relates to transportation. Cities are places where you don't drive, so it's a big deal to go outside. While outside of the city, you have have a lot of freedom of mobility, until you try to go into the city, and then you have to park your car (and probably pay a lot of money to do so) and then figure out how to get where you're going (gasp!) on foot or (double gasp!) using mass transportation. What's interesting here is that from the perspective of someone in Michigan, with an automobile-focused existence, the fact that New York City is close to Oneonta, relatively speaking, would make me a good guess to find a carpenter there. But, in fact, I'd far more likely be able to find a carpenter in San Francisco. And, in fact, because I've been to San Francisco many times and I know what the steps are to get there (buy plane ticket, go to airport, get on plane, etc.) it someone can seem closer to Oneonta (steps: figure out where Oneonta is, figure out if Metro North goes there, figure out if I need a taxi, figure out a number to call to get a taxi, etc.). A city is, in a way, something outside of conventional geography.

Me and FIGMENT in Gothamist!

Hey, I'm featured in Gothamist today! Woo hoo!

See you at FIGMENT this weekend!

Please Play!

This is stencilled on the floor on the second floor of the Battery Maritime Building, where David Byrne's 'Playing the Building' is installed for the summer, and you can wait your turn and sit down at an organ whose tendrils extend into the guts of the building. You play the organ, and tickle the building, with motors, pieziometers, and compressed air. It isn't quite music, but it's more than just sound, too. Ultimately, it's an interesting effect, even if it's not quite beautiful. But I love this stencil! It's understated, industrial, and directly instructional. 'This is what you do here.' Like 'look left' on the crosswalks in the UK and Ireland. It's so simple, and almost a part of the building, as opposed to the installation. It's nearly (but not quite) ironic in tone... that you should actually have to tell people to play! Normally, you'd have to tell people to do something ('mind the gap') but here, the sign is telling people to play, which is by definition free-form. Play is open, and permissive. It's as if the sign is telling you to run around the building playing 'tag, you're it' or some other game. At the same time, it's also imploring you... 'please play.' It could have just said 'play,' but that isn't enough somehow. It's too rude like that. No, this isnakt a command, it's a request. Play is what you are to do here, and we very much want you to do it, but, ultimately, it's up to you. Nobody's going to make you do it.

Governors Island Opens!

Well, here we are... Governors Island opens today, and the Emergence Exhibition (www.emergenceshow.org) opens today! It's 10:15, and no rain yet... So let's hope it holds out! There's so much art happening on the island this summer, it really seems like last year's FIGMENT event really helped to push the issue of the arts as a catalyst for the rebirth of the island. There was a great article in the NY Sun on Thursday that talked about everything going on this summer, and a summer preview (with a picture from FIGMENT last year) in this week's Time Out. In anuy case, this should be a fantastic day, and this really kicks the countdown to FIGMENT into high gear!!!

Thoughts on Fame

It's Memorial Day, and I'm on vacation. No meetings this weekend, only a little bit of work here and there. I'm watching a video on New Order that I never saw before, and I'm trying to send an email to David Byrne.

What do these things have in common? Well, strangely, Bono is interviewed in the New Order video. And he stands out as such a pompous ass. I mean, New Order are a relatively humble group. They were a bunch of kids from Manchester, who still seem relatively shy and down to earth. They're likable and somewhat inscrutable because they just look like people. They just sort of say, this is who we are. But Bono's another story. By comparison, he seems totally full of himself, utterly self-satisfied, self-important, and smug. He's on the video saying something about Ian Curtis's sacred voice or something, and you kind of want to slap him.

So... What does this have to do with David Byrne? Well, David Byrne seems to be a fairly down-to-earth guy. He's an incredible artist who's worked in a variety of media, and I've had a lot of respect for him since the Talking Heads first started making sense to me when I was in my late 20's or so (I never really got them when I was a teenager and they were actively recording). Well, David Byrne is doing an installation in the Battery Maritime Building with Creative Time this summer. This coincides directly with the FIGMENT event and the Emergence exhibition that I'm working on on Governors Island (the Battery Maritime Building is where the ferries leave to go to Governors Island). So, I thought, well, why not reach out to David Byrne and say hello? Invite him to FIGMENT, Emergence, whatever.

But the thing is, you can't just send an email to David Byrne, silly. He's a star! He's got a great website and journal (blog). He writes his thoughts about things there (just like I'm doing here). But you can't actually respond to anything he's written. You can't post a comment. You can't (heaven forbid) actually email him. Because, presumably, the volume would be too great for David or whoever maintains his site to respond to.

Now, in a 20th Century, pre-Internet way of looking at the world, this makes sense. You want more David Byrne? Buy a CD, go to a concert, consume media like a good fan. But we're in a world now where we have TRUE many-to-many multi-polar conversations, and loose organizations and connections that support this. I'm reminded of the article in the back of Time Magzine when they named "you" the person of the year a year and a half ago: "Andy was Right." This article was the first time that I read the rephrasing of Warhol's famous quote "In the future everyone will be world famous for 15 minutes" as "In the future everyone will be famous to 15 people." On the Internet, everyone can find their own audience.

David Byrne, of course, is famous to way more than 15 people. And that's why I can't just send him an email. But I imagine that 15 people is about the right order-of-magnitude for how many people will read this particular blog post that I'm writing right now. And that's why you can email me, but you can't email David Byrne. Is this the new dividing line between the "famous" and the rest of us? Can I google you? If I google you, and you show up, can I find out how to contact you?

As an artist, how insulated are you from communication? How do you stay connected with people, with what's happening right now, if you can't be directly contacted? How does being insulated by intermediaries (agents, representatives, managers, lawyers) keep you from really connected with the world we're living in?

The promise of the Internet is that should we should all be able to connect with anyone. But that said, there always need to be filters, boundaries. I guess the question is... how do we each enable as much connection as possible, while still being able to filter through all of the inputs that are out there?

The Momentum of Communications

Something I've been thinking about a lot lately is that communications have a momentum to them. This is more true now than ever, since the vast majority of our communications are now handled instantly or near-instantly. If I meet someone, and I have an urgent need to get in touch with him or her, I may send an email to them the next day. If they feel that it is important to respond to me in like manner, they'll write back within 24 hours. By this reciprocation of pace and energy in our communictions, we're saying that we're on the same page, that we feel the same way about whatever topic we're discussing.  At the same time, if I meet someone and want to get in touch with them, but it is less urgent, I may write to them a week or so after I mention the topic to them. Then, either they'll write back write away, if they're really interested, or if they're more cool to the idea, they may give it a week. In this way, we can understand how interested other people are in what we're talking about.

This momentum is also reflected in the length and consideration of emails. We have all received the "long lost friend" emails... The "I haven't seen you in ten years so let me tell you about my kids" emails. You receive 1000 word email, and you read it. But you can't just quickly write back, so you sit on it. You want to make a thoughtful response that echoes what you received. So a week or two goes by and then you finally carve out time to write. And you write 1000 words back to your friend. Tag, you're it. Now they've got to find time to sit down and write an equally thoughtful email. Too often, one correspondent or the other drops the ball, and you're out of touch again. If you're lucky, the emails get more rapid (with less time between them) and shorter, until you're actually having something like a typical email conversation.

One place that the momentum of communication has been carefully documented is in dating. Books like The Rules (for a female audience) and David DeAngelo's work (for a male audience) include consideration of the rhythm of communications in their approaches to sending the intended signals to the opposite sex. Call within 3 days. The next day may seem too eager, while calling a week later may give the impression that, well, he's just not that into you.

I think the lesson here, and my point to writing this, is that it is important to consider your communications very carefully... You're saying something to your audience with the frequency, intensity, length, and timing of your communications. If you're aware of this, you can carefully tailor the message you send to make yourself heard and (hopefully) elicit the response that you're looking for.

SMPS Boston Article on Me

I'm going up to Boston in 2 weeks to give a talk on strategic planning.  In their April Newsletter, they were kind enough to do a little profile of me. Mostly it's a Q&A that the author did on the phone, translated into an article. But I think it's a pretty nice little piece.