Review, Thinking Bigly online

Laura Kressly reviews Thinking Bigly:

Between Ben Yeoh and David Finnegan, there’s an impressive array of interests, knowledge and skills. Theatre, economics and climate change are among them. Their lecture-performance amalgamates these three topics into an engaging, informative and interactive presentation that gives a wide-angle view on what we can do to save the planet.

Though normally performed on stage, their live stream version still has a lot of engagement with the audience. A live chat on the right third of the screen allows viewers to answer questions, polls, and talk amongst themselves. The left two-thirds of the screen is dominated by the graphs, images and charts of a PowerPoint presentation, with Yeoh and Finnegan each in their own box in a corner of that space. Constrained by the range of their computer cameras and microphones, they represent each of us in all of this – an individual on their own has limited impact, but together we are mighty.

Though they acknowledge that there is vast inequality, that major corporations and world leaders bear the brunt of responsibility, and every eco-friendly choice seems to not be so eco-friendly after all when you consider it more broadly, their show is one of optimism. Its core holds a reassurance that cultural change can happen remarkably quickly in the grand scheme of things, and there are absolutely things we can do to help move it along. The pair perkily employ a few examples to back themselves up, which is comforting when faced with the frighteningly steep incline of the line that logs the kilotonnes of carbon in the air.

Both informative and entertaining, it leans more towards a lecture than a performance – at least it does in this digital form, what with Yeoh and Finnegan not able to be in the same space. Though there’s plenty to look at, there isn’t much scope for staging. However, the ability to chat with other audience members without disrupting the show adds an interesting dynamic that fosters a sense of inclusion and informality. It’s a welcome change from the typical, silent rigidity expected in most British theatres.

Given the success of TED Talks in their video format, lecture-performance seems particularly suitable to on-screen viewing. On the other hand, this flexibility is more permissive of a lack of theatricality, to the extent that it provokes reflection on how much the form is or isn’t theatre

From her site here. More on Thinking Bigly here.

OMG first used in 1917 in a letter to Winston Churchill

OMG was used in a letter in Winston Churchill in 1917. 🤯

Adjustments.jpeg

John “Jacky” Fisher was an admiral and naval innovator, who began World War I as First Sea Lord but resigned in 1915.

“…During his time as Second Sea Lord (1902-3) Fisher began putting into practice his reforms for the navy; his major achievement at this time was the Selbourne Scheme of entry and training for officers in 1902, which was a common entry and training for all naval officers, and to ensure that in the age of mechanisation all officers would have a familiarity with engines. In 1903-4 Fisher was Commander-in-Chief at Portsmouth, from which position he could superintend the establishment of the Royal Naval College at Osborne, where new Cadets received their initial naval training. He also served on the Esher Committee, whose recommendations, accepted by the Cabinet, called for a reorganisation of the War Office, and Committee of Imperial Defence.

On the 21st October 1904, at the age of 63, Fisher became First Sea Lord. His main preoccupation was to prepare for the coming of the war with Germany, and developing a more powerful fleet He was responsible for the launch of the first ‘all big gun’ fast battleship, using the new turbine engines. HMS Dreadnought was launched in Portsmouth in 1906, combining great speed with immensely increased gun power. It rendered most of the fleet obsolete at one stroke. Fisher also oversaw the developments of the submarine with its torpedo weapons. The rapidly changing face of the navy brought hostile criticism from conservative parties both within the navy and without. His greatest rival, Lord Charles Beresford, appointed Commander in Chief of the Channel Fleet, became more and more estranged with Fisher and at odds with the Admiralty. Finally, when his command was terminated in 1909, he made public his criticisms of Fisher and his reforms. Fisher remained in office until January 1910 but was succeeded by Sir Arthur Wilson, who was sympathetic to his reforms. During his period in office, he was awarded with the Order of Merit in 1904, appointed Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order (GCVO) in 1908 and in 1909, was raised to the peerage with the title of Baron Fisher of Kilverstone, a Norfolk estate.

In 1912 he became chairman of the Royal Commission on Oil Fuel. This had been another of his interests during his term in office and resulted in the adoption of using oil fuel in all new ships being constructed. In October 1914, he returned to the Admiralty as First Sea Lord, in which time he was involved in ship construction. He became at odds with the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill over the proposed Dardenelles campaign. Fisher believed that the persistence in attacking the Dardanelles would jeopardise the success of the major naval strategy of the war, but was forced to concede and allow the campaign to take place. As the campaign unfolded and became clear that it was a hopeless one, he became more and more discontented and resigned his office in 1915. …”

Viral Dances, weakly inefficient markets in everything

-Viral Dance Markets

-the Trade-Offs in intellectual property protection 

-Cultural bits 

I’m not a tik-tok user or a consumer of short form video. I can observe that for 10s of 

millions maybe 100s of millions it’s an important cultural bit.

I was fascinated to learn how these dances are created, how they go viral and the difficulty in gaining creative credit.

I typically think copyright is too long (and I’m mixed on patents, some patents could be longer (pharmaceutical), some shorter (some software) ) but I can see how the informal ways of sharing creative credit can also be tricky. Then again the lack of copyright over dance moves allows (perhaps) them to innovate and circulate faster. 

The 10 second dance of Renegade is noticeable to me for its moderate difficulty as well as the way it has gone viral.  Videos below.  

Still despite the difficulties it looks like the creator of Renegade (Jalaiah Harmon, 14) at least has managed to crystallise some value (maybe lots of value) from her dance so it is not a complete market failure. Dance creators instinctively seem to know that moves don’t achieve mass scaling without well-followed personalities copying them. (NYT article, link end) 

The under current of “dub smash” culture being subsumed by “suburban” I can partly see but it seems to me to be part of the “subculture” going “mainstream” tensions.  In the UK, grime music was big amongst many before it hit mainstream recognition. 

Still she created a dance which has been viewed by millions and copies by many, and understood by followers of dance cultural bits and maybe very few others. There’s a cultural richness there that she couldn’t have tapped into except quite recently. While standard bearers for historic and traditional purveyors of culture and often perplexed (cf Instagram poets) I think perhaps they’ve missed a part of how younger generations enjoy and access cultural bits. 

If anything, I think humanity is culturally richer the more thriving subcultures we have. Long live viral short form dance. 

H/T Ted Giaoa for influencing my thinking on music (and its radicalism and importance to culture). Check out his recent book on Music: A subversive history.

Tyler Cowen for seeing markets in everything. Also see his book Infovore on cultural bits (and autism).

Alex Bedward for discussion in size of Grime markets. 

NYT article here charting renegade: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/13/style/the-original-renegade.html

Insta-poets: short blog here.

"Fake Meat", origins with Chinese Monks

I was discussing with a new friend the origins of “fake meat” – it happens to be deeply rooted in ancient Chinese cuisine. Beyond meat is 1000 years behind chinese monks. Fuschia Dunlop (one of the great writers on Chinese food) comments below - but I first heard it from my Mum and I’ve eaten some of the food in Asia.

...Vegetarian cooking in China owes a lot to Chinese Buddhist monks, who have existed in the country since the late Han dynasty (206 BCE to 220 CE), after Indian missionaries brought the religion to this part of Asia. One tenant of Buddhist ideology is vegetarianism. Not wanting to break tradition when outsiders came to visit their monastery, China’s Buddhist monks would copy classic meat-based dishes, replacing the meat or fish with vegetables, tofu, or gluten.

Dunlop: “The imitation meat dishes are particularly associated with Buddhist monasteries, although monks themselves live on very simple vegetarian foods, they also have to entertain people from the outside, like patrons, potential benefactors, and visiting pilgrims.”

“A lot of these people would have been normally eating meat but they would eat vegetarian food when they went to a monastery.”

“There are records from the Tang dynasty, which is 618 to 907, of an official hosting a banquet serving imitation pork and mutton dishes made from vegetables. In the 13th century, which is one of the great periods of Chinese gastronomy and culinary development, there were restaurants in the southern Song dynasty capital, which is today's Hangzhou, where you could eat Buddhist vegetarian dishes.”

Dunlop in a 2019 Podcast / Chinese meal with Tyler Cowen mentioned how Chinese can view being vegetarian a little more flexibly:

“…But vegetarians in China do have a bit of a problem, and that is because the Chinese approach to vegetarian eating is very different from the Western approach. So in China, people often make a distinction between Chinese Su Shi 素食, vegetarian eating, vegetarian food, and Su Shi Zhu Yi 素食主义, vegetarianism. Many Chinese people believe in Buddhism and will have vegetarian food when they go to visit a temple or on certain holy days, but they don’t abstain from meat all the time. I’ve even met an elderly monk who was a lifelong vegetarian who said that when he was sick or weak, he would eat a little meat to boost his strength.

So vegetarians traveling around China have this problem, that sometimes they ask for vegetarian food, and it has little bits of meat in it, or it’s cooked with lard or stock or dried shrimps. It’s quite hard. You have to really insist to restaurants that “I am a total vegetarian. I don’t . . .” You have to list the things you don’t want, to explain.

The only place that traditionally you would get pure vegetarian and even vegan food is in Buddhist monasteries, and sometimes Taoist monasteries. The larger ones have their own restaurants which cater for pilgrims and patrons and do extraordinary vegetarian cuisine. So partly it’s simple vegetarian cooking, and partly it’s Fang Hun Cai 仿荤菜, imitation meat dishes. Impossible Burger, they got there centuries before you! So you can go in Sichuan to a monastery, and you can feast on spare ribs and shark’s fin and sausages and gong bao chicken, and they’re all totally vegetarian.

One change in the last few years is that there are a small number of Chinese people, maybe cosmopolitan, intellectual types in cities, who are becoming vegetarians in that Western way. It is, actually, often connected with Buddhism, but they are abstaining totally from meat, and not only from meat, but also from Wu Hun 五荤, the pungent aromatics like garlic and all kinds of oniony vegetables, which is also part of the Buddhist diet.”

Link to podcast and transcript here.