Every year there are articles about how Burning Man has 'lost' or is 'done'. Every year its still there, inspiring a new generation of these articles.
"The event is flawed as hell and always has been" is my new response to people who are consider going and worry they missed the party
Yeah, I wonder what the earliest article about that is. I did a brief search for the decline of Burning Man found a Wired article from 1997[1] (and of course numerous people talking about the decline later, like this blog post from 2004[2]).
It reminds me of all those "I'm 13, is it too late for me to start learning programming/body building/learning the guitar/studying Japanese/etc." type posts. If you don't do something you're interested in because you think its too late, there's a good chance that a decade later you'll be kicking yourself for not having done it.
[1] https://www.wired.com/1997/07/burning-man-burnout/ [2] https://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic.php?t=7447
A proverb I remind myself of regularly:
The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now.
Including the times when I look out my window and wish my sapling was a bit older.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.folklore.comp...
The older I get, the harder it is to accept being bad and new at things, and it's a constant fight to remind myself that it's okay to suck.
Pretty much every year between then and when I last went (in '14) there were new rules which people claimed "ruined the evnt forever!!!" - in '99 Steve couldn't run The Drive-By Shooting Gallery again because they banned guns. Erin's camp stopped being allowed to use theirliquid fuelled flamethrowers in around '03 or '04. The Lawrence Livermore Labs guys got told they couldn't bring their big lasers out and paint animations on the mountain range in '10 or so... But at the same time, there was always some amazing new thing to see. I don't regret any of my trips out there. I still plan to get back there again one day.
Exploited.
Seeing this in city after city across the USA as well.
Formerly affordable cities used to grow, attract and keep artists and ground-up, bootsrapped creatives in business. This made these "B-list" cities a cultural hub and (for search of a better word) "cool".
Wealthy people (many of whom were silver-spooned trustafarians) started venturing into the "cool" parties/scenes, loved the culture like everyone else there did — except they moved in and gentrified the city (some with good intentions and many others who didn't give a shit). Some (if not most) of these wealthy people just couldn't truly relate to the prevailing, scrappy culture and didn't really contribute anything to the dynamic and basically killed it. Only the cultural reputation remained and was kept as a corporate marketing ploy, but the core substance of the city (its working class creatives) were unceremoniously and tragically removed.
The artists and truly bootstrapped creatives can no longer afford to live directly in the city, so they move to the run-down industrial outskirts. The city becomes sanitized, gains a lot of national corporate chain conformity and loses a lot of local, novel culture that made it attractive in the first place.
Next thing you know, the industrial area becomes the cultural center and the "hip", cool place to hang out is at artsy, underground events and parties within the area.
The wealthy, of course, end up there because it's the "cool" place to be. While they're there, they eyeball the industrial spaces as future fancy, high-ceiling lofts they can gentrify. They kill off the affordable spaces and the artists and creatives are now left with no where to go but leave the metro area entirely or become another corporate working stiff with no time for art and risky creative endeavors involving small business.
That's where we are today and some of the last stragglers are jamming themselves into dangerous, crowded situations that led to the horrific fire at the CA space (in my opinion).
Moral of the story is many (not all) trustafarians suck the life out of good things because they were raised in such a way that they can't possibly relate to working people or even care to do so.
I'm not sure there's an easy answer to this short of a revolution of sorts where working people unite and demand a more level playing field instead of gross inequality and corporate greed.
That's why I support organizations such as the Justice Democrats and things such as single-payer healthcare. I don't want equality of outcome, just more equality of opportunity. I think that's healthy for society and for a culture that produces more makers instead of mere consumers. The path we're on now is unhealthy and downright dangerous. It's got to change or we're headed toward misery for all of us (including the trustafarians down the road).
/rant
But I also can't help but think that it ascribes an unnecessary purity of purpose/intent to the "working people" of the city.
Do they think they have common cause with the "working people" of a rust belt town or exurb? Do they (or for that matter, the trustafarians) think the rust belt iron worker's lifestyle or neighborhood is hip and cool?
Oh, I guess the grapes are too sour eh! ;)
There are lots of ways people try to address the problems of our "highly commodified, transactional society" within their own communities, where everyone is capable of participating. For some reason, however, many of the people I know that go to Burning Man, and many of the kinds of people that typically do go, are never involved in those kinds of local organising initiatives...
It would be nice if these ideals about art were more commonly expressed and engaged with in the areas where they are really sorely needed, rather than in a remote place that people need to spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars to get to and be in.
Humans are more inclined to be altruistic to their in-group, and to see their in-group as 'everyone'. Often without noticing. Burning man is, to some people, a very important ingroup, because they feel that the larger social environment has not provided them with that psychological support they need - people they identify with and share their values. Important enough to traipse from all over the world to the middle of nowhere to be a part of it.
This may or may not be actually the case - perhaps the perception of it is in part what makes the reality. It is, IMHO, what caused it's initial resonance and success; it was real at one point, for many participants.
So, it's not realistic to expect these personal needs for community to be transferable to just anywhere, unless that other community is also able to meet those needs.
I'm positing that people don't go to burning man inherently to do good - they do it for themselves, and that includes the giving and sharing, in the support of a community they identify with.
What you just described is the actual altruism.
I'm positing that people don't go to burning man inherently to do good - they do it for themselves, and that includes the giving and sharing, in the support of a community they identify with.
Let's leave out a few words to get something more universal:
"People don't inherently do good - they do things for themselves, and that includes giving and sharing in the support of a community they identify with."
I've never been to a burn but I do agree with these diagnoses about the shortcomings of our society. I also make efforts in my community to confront these problems and it is a whole lot harder to change things than just going out and partying in the desert. I have no problem with people going out and partying but I don't think people should be claiming that it is much more than just that - a party.
There are lots of things people can do in their communities. You don't have to do any of them to burn the man.
I think Burning Man participants should use their skills to build public showers for the homeless encampments along the sidewalks of San Francisco.
We can argue about what does and doesn't encompass the values of something like Burning Man, but I think that's clearly outside the spirit of the festival; and it's a festival where spirit and values are deemed important. If they wanted to get dirty, and rough it out, I don't think anyone would have a problem. It's the idea of fiefdoms forming with lords and servants, and the event turning into an expensive theme park for the rich that's so offensive.
>>can't afford to take time off work and trek across the country to go camping in the desert
if they work hard enough.
https://www.epi.org/publication/millions-of-working-people-d...
But no, the figure in your reference is paid vacation. These people ostensibly take non-paid days off.
I expect most Burning Man attendees are not getting paid to attend, and that's a strange bar to set.
Plenty of real-world reasons to be able-bodied and NOT being able to attend some desert party on a whim.
I'm arguing against the idea that "any able-bodied person" can attend Burning Man, or events like it. Lots of healthy people cannot afford to attend events like that, for multiple reasons.
What's toxic is unreflecting statements that proclaim general truths for everybody.
But let's ignore that, because the main point was that it's not that easily affordable if you just "work hard enough" - and in your cost estimation, you're conveniently forgetting the ticket fee of $425.
And not everybody can afford to quit their job in hopes they have another one when they come back. I'm glad it's worked out for you, but let's stop pretending it's this giant egalitarian thing available to all.
it's really alarming that you believe this
I deeply grateful for this.
The open invite for participation and collaboration on a large scale is another wonderful aspect.
Wouldn't mind reading an article on that, if you ever feel like writing it :)
That didn't stop the Smithsonian from trying to take it "seriously"[0], nor the Art World from objecting to that[1]. Perhaps weirdly, I applaud both things, because as far as I can tell you're right about what the point of BM art is.
(I am one of the few? many? people to have never attended Burning Man, but to have contributed to its art. I'm probably biased and ill-informed, but I like your take on it.)
[0]: https://americanart.si.edu/exhibitions/burning-man
[1]: Argh! Can't find it online but IIRC either Frieze or Flash Art had a pretty on-point takedown of the show from the "serious art" point of view.
Heh, I've used these things a lot when building garden wire supports for plants, but I never knew their name!
I appreciate your take on the event.
Why is a physical space needed for this? Wouldn't it be immensely more efficient to have a forum where you teach everyone how to type <ctrl-shift-c> in their browser to inflate the work shed hidden there?
Throwing a web animation to slowly rotate Google's search page around for eternity seems a way more practical expression of the reach of the power of human creativity than giving random people torque-drivers and turnbuckles.
It's also less of a risk if those people happen to be high at the time.
Also, there's no practical attack where highway patrol can show up and throttle the forum traffic to generate quick cash by arresting all the stoners.
I seriously cannot tell if you are trolling or not. "Helping to build a sculpture-cum-shelter out in the desert" is worlds away from "making someone else's webpage rotate".
And making a physical thing is a very different feeling from making a digital thing. I make comics and put them online; I also print them, and there is a lot more satisfaction in having a book I can put on my shelf and say "I made this" than a webpage I can point to. The book will probably survive me longer than the webpage, which vanishes up to a year after the account set up to auto-renew the domain and hosting runs out of money.
> Also, there's no practical attack where highway patrol can show up and throttle the forum traffic to generate quick cash by arresting all the stoners.
True dat. There's also a buttload of smaller Burns in various places that haven't gotten big enough to be as much of a tempting target.
Why does art have to be programming art? Why do they have to be learning about computers?
>They can look down their noses at the idealism of those who thought to try to make something for once, instead of leaving the important job of art to those who know better, who have the right ideals, the right politics, the right message.
Isn't this just "looking down your nose" at someone who wants to build sheds instead of messing about in chrome dev tools?
To me, the fundamental idea of the event is that we’ve become divorced from the act of creation and civic participation due to being enmeshed in a highly commodified, transactional society and that it’s worth trying to address that. Most people can’t use a torque-driver or recognize a turnbuckle. But people can learn, and when they get involved in build projects or camps out there they do. They start trying. It’s amateur art hour write very large, but the beauty of it is how many people start trying to make something of their own, sometimes with amazing results.
The event is flawed as hell and always has been, but it remains an astounding expression of labor devoted to the amateur’s search for meaning through creation. It’s art will never appeal to the traditional critic who worries more about the statement of art than it’s artifact. They can look down their noses at the idealism of those who thought to try to make something for once, instead of leaving the important job of art to those who know better, who have the right ideals, the right politics, the right message. We’re going to continue to do carpentry, to make circuit boards, to write software, and to teach others to get involved in the art of trying.