Hey there Nick, I'm loving these little improptu lectures - you exhibit the same talent for storytelling in these talks as you do in your songs. I know you do these in a stream of conscience kind of way, but I noticed a little inconsistency which caught me for some reason. While reminiscing on your childhood travels you expressed fondness when telling about how you discovered that different localities had their own peculiariaties that came to express itself in everyday objects and architecture. That something that felt Italian despite just passing through the airport of Rome. Later you expressed distaste for nationalism, which got me wondering, how did that experience of Italianess relate to the nation states of yore, before globalization and European project? How do you feel about the cultural effects of globalization. Was that instance of tender remembrance nostalgia, and if so: for your childhood or those places? Is current nationalist sentiment nostalgic in nature, however misremembered? Is it categorically bad or does it have redeemable qualities?
Italy joined the EU even before I was born (it joined in March 1957, a founding member). And I'm describing transferring at Rome airport, so that's hardly "before globalisation". I was an early adopter, if you like, of globalisation, which I don't think is necessarily at odds with national flavour, although having lots of tourists does make a nation more self-conscious. You have to remember that I'm politically a nationalist myself, in that I support Scottish nationalism, although only for the politically pragmatic reason that the Scots lean more left than the English. Elsewhere in these talks I've examined the contradiction that I want Western societies to be multi-ethnic, but enjoy Japan's sakoku-nurtured mono-ethnicity and difference. What I dislike is the current upswing of populism, but I wonder if the nationalist component of that isn't as arbitrary and pragmatic as my own Scottish nationalism: in other words, right-wingers are only nationalists insofar as being nationalist in their countries is a rightist stance. If being nationalists made them left-wing (as it currently does in Scotland), I'm sure they'd all be ardent internationalists (signing up to some alternative set of global institutions with the appropriate mean and ugly mindset)!
A nice dodge here. Surely globalisation is an ongoing process, the effects of which will intensify over time. So Rome airport then will be very different to Rome airport now. I once talked to a Malaysian man on a coach trip in England. He asked me, "Why do the people look the same in all of your cities?" and went on to describe how in Malaysia every city had its own culture; dress, food, and so on. I've never been to Malaysia, so I can't verify his claims. But his question struck me. The answer I gave was 'Topshop,' which is, in a sense, an analogue for 'globalisation.' I know you know all this. And yet you seem to sacrifice the higher truth in favour of your own personal truth; you muddy the waters. It is possible for you to admit that your way of life - the globalised dream - may be unhealthy for the wider scene (at the minute)? I cannot see how globalisation is not at odds with national flavour: surely the two pull in opposite directions? Are you willing to see anything redeeming in nationalism? You seem intent on dismissing it at every juncture. Whilst your observation may hold truth, it won't for everyone. Your view on this issue seems disingenuous, suggesting a sore spot.
I ain't dodging anything here! I said I'm a nationalist, a Scottish nationalist, so I don't know why you're still asking whether I see anything redeeming in nationalism! As for Topshop, I can't think of many things more (depressingly) British. And as for how globalisation might enhance local things, I suggest you look into the word "glocalisation", which sociologist Roland Robertson says "means the simultaneity - the co-presence - of both universalising and particularising tendencies". It's a bit like the influence of the digital on the analogue. Of course globalisation changes the local, but -- like the effect of digital music on, say, vinyl sales -- that might be a change in the direction of valuing it more highly.
"I said I'm a nationalist, a Scottish nationalist" More disingenuousness! Your stance as a Scottish nationalist seems an entirely empty one: what does it hold? What does it mean? Is it anything more than a pose? I also think you're allowing the concept to creep slightly, you incorrigible postmodernist you. I partly take your point on Topshop, but again, you're dodging the wider question. I think its more about the wider style that Topshop engenders - the canon that Topshop sits within. I remember reading VICE magazine back in the mid noughties and seeing their section on fashions from cities around the world. There were minor quirks from each location, but overridingly the fashions were of a type (the type that VICE approved/nurtured). It strikes me that your city-states will all end up canonized. On an individual level you will notice quirks, but on a larger scale (civic/national) all you'll see is a brown-gray soup. Like a picture made of a million different coloured dots: zoomed in it's a cornucopia of colour; zoomed out it becomes something altogether more characterless. Thankyou for the tip off on 'glocalisation', I'll certainly give it a look ; )
Well, as usual in internet discussions, this boils down to a "glass-half-empty / glass-half-full" disagreement. My perspective is that, just as human personality differences only really count when we come into contact with others, so national flavours are really only evident (and become cherished, sometimes) when we get an international flow going... of things like tourism and trade, which are the very medium of the expression of difference. Harris Tweed, haggis, whiskey: these are the very things that define Scottishness, but also the very things I happily trade for the things that define... your culture.
That's not true about Doc Martens. They changed the shape of the toe. The original was square-ish.
Hey there Nick, I'm loving these little improptu lectures - you exhibit the same talent for storytelling in these talks as you do in your songs.
I know you do these in a stream of conscience kind of way, but I noticed a little inconsistency which caught me for some reason. While reminiscing on your childhood travels you expressed fondness when telling about how you discovered that different localities had their own peculiariaties that came to express itself in everyday objects and architecture. That something that felt Italian despite just passing through the airport of Rome.
Later you expressed distaste for nationalism, which got me wondering, how did that experience of Italianess relate to the nation states of yore, before globalization and European project?
How do you feel about the cultural effects of globalization. Was that instance of tender remembrance nostalgia, and if so: for your childhood or those places? Is current nationalist sentiment nostalgic in nature, however misremembered? Is it categorically bad or does it have redeemable qualities?
Italy joined the EU even before I was born (it joined in March 1957, a founding member). And I'm describing transferring at Rome airport, so that's hardly "before globalisation". I was an early adopter, if you like, of globalisation, which I don't think is necessarily at odds with national flavour, although having lots of tourists does make a nation more self-conscious. You have to remember that I'm politically a nationalist myself, in that I support Scottish nationalism, although only for the politically pragmatic reason that the Scots lean more left than the English. Elsewhere in these talks I've examined the contradiction that I want Western societies to be multi-ethnic, but enjoy Japan's sakoku-nurtured mono-ethnicity and difference. What I dislike is the current upswing of populism, but I wonder if the nationalist component of that isn't as arbitrary and pragmatic as my own Scottish nationalism: in other words, right-wingers are only nationalists insofar as being nationalist in their countries is a rightist stance. If being nationalists made them left-wing (as it currently does in Scotland), I'm sure they'd all be ardent internationalists (signing up to some alternative set of global institutions with the appropriate mean and ugly mindset)!
A nice dodge here. Surely globalisation is an ongoing process, the effects of which will intensify over time. So Rome airport then will be very different to Rome airport now.
I once talked to a Malaysian man on a coach trip in England. He asked me, "Why do the people look the same in all of your cities?" and went on to describe how in Malaysia every city had its own culture; dress, food, and so on. I've never been to Malaysia, so I can't verify his claims. But his question struck me. The answer I gave was 'Topshop,' which is, in a sense, an analogue for 'globalisation.'
I know you know all this. And yet you seem to sacrifice the higher truth in favour of your own personal truth; you muddy the waters. It is possible for you to admit that your way of life - the globalised dream - may be unhealthy for the wider scene (at the minute)?
I cannot see how globalisation is not at odds with national flavour: surely the two pull in opposite directions?
Are you willing to see anything redeeming in nationalism? You seem intent on dismissing it at every juncture. Whilst your observation may hold truth, it won't for everyone. Your view on this issue seems disingenuous, suggesting a sore spot.
I ain't dodging anything here! I said I'm a nationalist, a Scottish nationalist, so I don't know why you're still asking whether I see anything redeeming in nationalism! As for Topshop, I can't think of many things more (depressingly) British. And as for how globalisation might enhance local things, I suggest you look into the word "glocalisation", which sociologist Roland Robertson says "means the simultaneity - the co-presence - of both universalising and particularising tendencies". It's a bit like the influence of the digital on the analogue. Of course globalisation changes the local, but -- like the effect of digital music on, say, vinyl sales -- that might be a change in the direction of valuing it more highly.
"I said I'm a nationalist, a Scottish nationalist" More disingenuousness! Your stance as a Scottish nationalist seems an entirely empty one: what does it hold? What does it mean? Is it anything more than a pose? I also think you're allowing the concept to creep slightly, you incorrigible postmodernist you.
I partly take your point on Topshop, but again, you're dodging the wider question. I think its more about the wider style that Topshop engenders - the canon that Topshop sits within. I remember reading VICE magazine back in the mid noughties and seeing their section on fashions from cities around the world. There were minor quirks from each location, but overridingly the fashions were of a type (the type that VICE approved/nurtured). It strikes me that your city-states will all end up canonized. On an individual level you will notice quirks, but on a larger scale (civic/national) all you'll see is a brown-gray soup. Like a picture made of a million different coloured dots: zoomed in it's a cornucopia of colour; zoomed out it becomes something altogether more characterless.
Thankyou for the tip off on 'glocalisation', I'll certainly give it a look ; )
Well, as usual in internet discussions, this boils down to a "glass-half-empty / glass-half-full" disagreement. My perspective is that, just as human personality differences only really count when we come into contact with others, so national flavours are really only evident (and become cherished, sometimes) when we get an international flow going... of things like tourism and trade, which are the very medium of the expression of difference. Harris Tweed, haggis, whiskey: these are the very things that define Scottishness, but also the very things I happily trade for the things that define... your culture.
my thursday is off to a good start
Whoops, Jony Ive, not "Ives".