And so am I.
Blame it on the ego.
Shortly before this year's theme was announced I had a dream in which I saw:
- the man in the distance, in distress
- a strange art car drifting by, consisting of a platform big enough to dance on that hovered over the ground, attached to a bicycle - the pedaling of which supplied the power and direction to the platform, and green neon lights underneath of it
- a two-story structure, occupied by a guy, with a room that spoke of comfort (a bed) and joy (his woman, who wasn't there) and of the old west
When I learned of the theme I thought "how odd" on account of the dream I'd had. But I do that alot, so really, it wasn't. Also, I couldn't figure out what the man in distress meant.
Shortly after the theme was announced I wrote a diatribe worrying that the organizers were in danger of subverting the spirit of the burn by linking it too heavily to a particular message (given the explanation of the theme I'd read on this site). In particular, I didn't like the use of the pavilion as an exhibition hall showcasing technology. And I worried that they were going to start making the burn smaller due to liberal guilt associated with burning stuff for 'fun'.
Later in the year, by chance, I got into a discussion with Zenon about these issues. He was fully supportive of what was happening, and maintained that the burn itself wasn't all that important. Still, I prefered the view I'd heard the last time I went, which was that the burn was important because it was the one moment that nearly the entire city gathered to share something together. In that moment, the crazy myriad journeys of the prior week (and year) colesced on this thing which had no singular mass meaning but which united us nonetheless.
When my ex-girlfriend told me on Wednesday that the man had been torched, she speculated that it was out of anger over the showcasing of products (as opposed to art) under the man. She'd been hearing others complain of such things and asked me to explain the logic behind their thinking. What came to me was this: to some of us it appeared they were in danger of letting thieves into the temple, if they hadn't already.
Of course, now we know that the dude who set it on fire is an attention whore formed of perhaps the worst hybrid ever - a lawyer and an actor. His face was painted with the same colors I adorned myself with at the most decadent burn I'd seen (2003). That was the fire I lauded when asserting that 'saving the world' isn't really an option and that we should feel no guilt whatsoever for enjoying a rilly big fire together.
Some claim that grooving on the spectacle of the man burning goes against the anti-spectator mandate of the event. But I believe that an event which gains it's true spirit from the active participation of tens of thousands of creative souls ought to give them a massively shared spectacle to cap off the week.
My ex-girlfriend had offered convincing arguments as to why it was important to showcase alternative technologies at the event. It didn't take much to convince me. For many years I've wished I had enough money to show up at burning man with a damn fine camp chock full of alternative technologies. In essence, I was in near complete agreement with what the organizers were doing.
Except for this: I still don't believe that the man is the place for anything other than art. It is legally regarded as an arts festival, is it not? If so, I believe the literal centerpiece of the city should be pure art, rather than a hybrid including the showcasing of 'functional art' that we usually call products.
As we all know, the worst attention whores of all are the corporations that are constantly pushing advertisements on us and trying to induce us to equate happiness with using whatever they are selling.
And yet, we are all attention whores to one degree or another.
It appears that one man wasn't getting enough attention and so commited suicide in a way that was obviously calculated to gain much attention. Personally, I prefer the actor-lawyer's way of getting it. It might piss people off, but at least it's not depressing and morbid. And it looks better in the press.
This year, it seems the attention-getting vibe was the active ingredient behind the strange ju-ju at the event. One man tried to gain attention in life, another tried to gain it through death. And all at an event that sparked controversy because it tried to call attention to 'saving the environment'.
And so what does all of this mean?
Well, nothing - of course. This is a singularly meaningless post by a singularly meaningless human leading a singularly meaningless life.
But thanks for your attention!
The Man Is An Attention Whore
If Ihad a purpose, I'd name it Flipper
my religious step-mom gave me 'the purpose driven life' as a gift once. never made it past the first few pages. i've considered making it my purpose to read the book. i've also wondered if it was possible that by reading the book i'd discover that my purpose was to dispute it.
anyhoo, the term i used was 'singularly meaningless'. i may be using words incorrectly. what i was trying to say is that, given that we cannot help but see things from a subjective perspective, and that the overwhelming portion of viewpoints, perspectives and opinions held by people are in dispute by someone else somewhere on the planet, i can espouse my views all i want to but they may not be meaningful to anyone but me.
the fact you challenged my assertion of 'singular meaninglessness' suggests that you found no personal meaning in that statement, except as something to question and/or oppose. opposing things, it appears to me, imbues a lot of people's lives with meaning. and so, i agree with you.
all in all, i was just sayin', by admitting my own meaninglessness, that even when i try to be a serious thinker i am also trying not to take myself, or the things i think about, too seriously. perhaps i'm in over my head. basically, i see themes and connections that others won't agree exist. i was just clumsily admitting that fact.
i appreciate the feedback. it gives me the chance to pay attention to someone other than myself. it is my relations and discussions with others that gives MY life meaning.
thank you!
anyhoo, the term i used was 'singularly meaningless'. i may be using words incorrectly. what i was trying to say is that, given that we cannot help but see things from a subjective perspective, and that the overwhelming portion of viewpoints, perspectives and opinions held by people are in dispute by someone else somewhere on the planet, i can espouse my views all i want to but they may not be meaningful to anyone but me.
the fact you challenged my assertion of 'singular meaninglessness' suggests that you found no personal meaning in that statement, except as something to question and/or oppose. opposing things, it appears to me, imbues a lot of people's lives with meaning. and so, i agree with you.
all in all, i was just sayin', by admitting my own meaninglessness, that even when i try to be a serious thinker i am also trying not to take myself, or the things i think about, too seriously. perhaps i'm in over my head. basically, i see themes and connections that others won't agree exist. i was just clumsily admitting that fact.
i appreciate the feedback. it gives me the chance to pay attention to someone other than myself. it is my relations and discussions with others that gives MY life meaning.
thank you!
