Only scumbag modernists would ever think that a typeface could be devoid of meaning – it’s like suggesting that white people are devoid of race. Minimalism is not what you get when you remove all the other aesthetic choices, it’s a very strong aesthetic choice in its own right.

The documentary Helvetica actually does present some criticism of the theory that Helvetica is neutral. Leslie Savan is quoted as saying that governments and large organizations choose Helvetica because it has the attributes: neutral (as in non-partisan), efficient, human, transparent, accessible and accountable. However, the doc doesn’t explore the idea that Helvetica is the type face of capitalism, and appears like the only typeface because capitalism pervades our entire world, including the counter-culture.

There is a sense that contemporary typesetting has moved away from variations in type face and instead does more with capitalization, weight and spacing. In this way the ubiquity of Helvetica is like the ubiquity of guitars in mid-20th-century music: it doesn’t all sound exactly the same, it’s just exploring a pretty narrow space.

Like most of the art world, the Helvetica documentary tries to marginalize postmodernism as a short silly period rather than the still-gathering force that will sweep through our whole society. David Carson’s grunge typography is shown co-opted by the likes of Nike, but Carson’s essential thesis will eventually usher us into a post-Helvetica world: “Just because something is legible doesn’t mean it communicates.”

Post-Helvetica typesetting will be embraced by organizations that realize it’s better to have a personality than try to appeal to all people. And we will be in a post-Helvetica age when the legibility of signs instructing you to follow rules or buy things is no longer a priority.

Microsoft’s ex-Chief Technology Officer Nathan Myhrvold has produced a monumental set of books called Modernist Cuisine. It’s positioned to be the most important book in professional cooking since Escoffier’s Le Guide Culinaire, which codified the professional kitchen and haute cuisine in 1903.

Modernist Cuisine writes down a lot of the techniques of molecular gastronomy, which I predict will shortly become known as “modernist cuisine” because “chefs have come to dislike the term ‘molecular gastronomy,’ on the ground that it is alienating and makes what they do sound like scientific party tricks”. However, maybe because I know the cocktail world rejected molecular mixology almost as soon as it appeared (because it really is just scientific party tricks), I feel like molecular gastronomy has already jumped the shark and this project is documenting a passing fad.

So although I’ve read a few glowing preliminary reviews of Modernist Cuisine, the first good review I’ve read is in the New Yorker, pointed out by Ingrid. The analysis shows that the other way in which cuisine is becoming increasingly modernist is the widening “gap between ordinary and professional cooking”:

That is why the term “modernist cuisine” is so handy. When modernism arrived in the arts, it marked a dual break: a rupture within the history of the art form and a splitting off between advanced practitioners and the general public — between the popular and the serious.

The theme that runs through this discussion of traditional cooking techniques is their underrated complexity and the resultant variability of their outcomes. Hence the team’s affection for sous vide…We’re back with the question of control and precision, which is one of the things deeply loved by modernist chefs.

The review goes on to contrast modernist cuisine with current trends toward minimalism, comfort food and local ingredients, which I suppose should be labelled postmodernist cuisine.

Integral Theory is a substantial philosophical system that Ken Wilber has gradually developed by analyzing huge amounts of Eastern and Western philosophy. Since Integral Theory itself is complex and Wilber likes to heavily cite, it’s difficult to know where to start. My friend Janette, who I consider an expert in Integral Theory, recommended Integral Psychology, as a reasonable introduction. I read the book a few months ago and discussed it with her, but I forgot to write it up as a blog post until now.

In a nutshell, Integral Theory is a systematic combination of reductionism, systems theory, critical theory (including postmodernism) and transpersonalism: the knowledge of the self taught by religious movements and Eastern philosophy. I was attracted to Integral Theory because, as readers of this blog have probably noted, I champion postmodernism while frequently falling back on modernist analysis.

I say Integral Theory is a “philosophical system”, but I’m actually not sure exactly what it is. Is it making a falsifiable claim about the way the world is? Or is it just a metaphor with greater explanatory potential than alternatives? “If you apply Integral Theory to this problem, you will understand it better than if you apply reductionism.” Without knowing what kind of claim Wilber is making, I don’t know how to evaluate the strength of his claim.

Integral Theory has the modernist concept of progress as a central belief. Specifically, progress of belief systems: Integral Theory is the next step after postmodernism. But postmodernists see progress as specifically modernist and ask “what makes you so sure it’s progress and not just change?” Integral Theory feels like a synthesis of modernism with some premodern and postmodern ideas but it doesn’t step past modernism.

Wilber’s technique is to analyze hundreds of philosophical systems and abstract them to their core structure. For example, he sees all Eastern religions as describing the same basic development of the self. This strikes me as incredibly reductionist and I suspect believers in those specific systems would say that he’s missing a lot of important details.

Most musicians don’t like being classified. I think it’s because every musician likes to think they’re a beautiful and unique snowflake, not possibly part of a fashionable zeitgeist. But unless you’re leading the fashion movement, classification helps potential fans find you. These days, without record store clerk oracles, we have to use goofy data mining applications to try to infer classification.

Electronic music is particularly resistant to classification, either because of the structure of the music itself or the scene it’s produced in. DJs generally play particular styles, so they have to be constantly going through newly produced tracks looking for suitable pieces. This obscurity creates an effect where the best DJs aren’t the best at composing a set or reading a venue but at filtering through haystacks.

Being an insatiable modernist, I love classifying things. But I don’t know enough about music to understand a definition like:

breakbeat n. electronic music characterized by a non-straightened 4/4 drum pattern, syncopation and polyrhythm

So in trying to understand and explore the field of electronic music, I was quite happy to come across this genre-genealogy diagram with samples and commentary. The commentary is highly opinionated and doesn’t explain much about what’s different between genres (but it’s funny!), so you only get the structural context of a genre – but if that’s enough for mathematics it should be enough for music. (It’s unfortunately Flash-based, but that was a reasonable way to present samples back in 2000 when the first version was authored – by a guy from Delta!)

The first assignment I submitted for my economics class was based on this post on the economic irrationality of voting. The final assignment is to go back and criticise that.

Neoclassical microeconomics does not give enough emphasis to transaction costs. In particular, calculating which behaviour is optimal has a high cost. Gathering all the data and doing all the math to choose the right option costs time and resources. If we tried to make optimal economic decisions, “analysis paralysis” would result.

Instead, economic agents use heuristics to approximate solutions under bounded rationality (“satisficing”). For example, voters could use a loss aversion heuristic: the cost of living under a bad government is higher than the cost of voting, so even though the chance of a bad government winning the election is low, it’s worth voting just in case.

Social costs and benefits are also glossed over in neoclassical microeconomics. For example, you’ll see your neighbours at your local voting place – this could be an opportunity for social interaction or members of your social group may notice if you don’t vote. Decreasing voter turn-out could be caused by a decrease in geographic social ties. If you admit to not voting, there may be social penalties.

Finally, neoclassical microeconomics assumes the possibility of static equilibrium. But economies may be dynamic systems that never settle on a state. For example, the marginal value of voting may be close to zero, but if everyone but me chooses not to vote, then my vote has a huge value (I can elect myself dictator). As the voter turn-out drops, the value of each vote increases: so more people should vote.

Mandatory voting could increase the cost of not voting. Tax rebates for voting could increase the benefits of voting. But I think the psychology of behavioural economics has a lot more promise for increasing voter turn-out.

Modernist identity theory says that it is virtuous to be authentic to your essence. Acting inauthentically is a cardinal sin. For example, if a guy asks how to get girls, most of the time he’ll be told “just be yourself”.

If left to our own devices, most of the decisions we make are satisficing: choosing to do things that are good enough. You wear whatever’s clean, you watch whatever’s on, you do stuff because your friends are doing it, etc. (If your habitual actions happen to be Stuff White People Like, then you’re automatically authentic.)

But under modernism, this unplanned, unexamined life is supposed to be better than a life that’s engineered, a life of artifice. I beg to differ: people should be allowed to invent their identities, to “fake it till you make it”. The test is how well they pull it off, how consistent is their identity? And, of course, acting a particular way for personal gain is not cool, while acting a particular way because it’s enjoyable is cool.

Let’s call this act of constructing, projecting and maintaining an identity “personal branding“. I think that rather than construct an identity out of thin air, you should look at where you’re successful in life and what aspects you’re happy about. Distil a brand essence out of those. Then build on your strengths and nudge the rest of your life into alignment with your brand.