Cities are at their best when they are unknowable organic superstructures: fathomless depths of dive bars, crooked little cafés and dimly lit side-streets built on waves of wet pavement and light. The true megalopolis provides supreme anonymity to its dwellers. affording them the freedom to create their own psychic maps – personalized routes through a mutating labyrinth. Objective cartography, subway maps etc, are secondary to one’s own individual narrative. You choose your haunts, your pathways and your comrades, living a private life amidst 10 million unknowable others. But if a city imposes structure on the individual, rather than the individual on it – it becomes oppressive, a bore, predictable, a tedious slog through the hell of other people. This is the difference between Tokyo and Pyeongchang, between strip malls and street markets. Which is why I’m undecided about the benefits of geotagging and augmented reality. There are doubtless numerous ways in which emerging mobile technology can improve city life, but most are intended to demystify the city in order to impose order and surveillance on consumer behavior.
In the above video, a trailer for Nike’s True City campaign, the cityscape is transformed into a hybrid social-media-videogame, where the user navigates their way vis a vis Nike’s own privately curated cultural/commercial map. On a superficial level, True City is benign – it’s essentially a more advanced version of a promotional mailing list and a convenient way for Nike fanboys to interact and learn about new product. But if we look a bit closer it becomes problematic for two reasons:
A: It will destroy culture: True City presupposes that its users will be socially inept – who else would require such an application? There are magazines, newspapers and blogs (and friends) dedicated to keeping people informed on what’s hip, making True City a needless middleman for the those who are too lazy to exert any effort and require their experiences to be filtered through an iPhone application. But let’s suspend our disbelief for a moment and consider how the “hidden” becomes “visible”. The user gets dialed into True City, which has employed tastemakers to tell them to tell you which hip spots to check out. Or something. I don’t really understand what “inspired by insiders” actually means. But according to the video, if you follow the True City instructions, you will eventually wind up at an art gallery that has a disco bear and is filled with shirtless men. Yaaaay. You finally made it, you are now on the inside and all that was once hidden from your view is now visible. This is where True City runs into a very big problem: Once the “inside” is available to outsiders, it is no longer special or interesting, but just another homogeneous space, like a mall. True City Insiders function as informants – they discover something new and interesting, then distribute that information to the mouthbreathers who need to be informed and at the point of contact – when the True City user arrives at the previously unknowable disco polar bear art show, it ceases to be special. In this sense, True City disrupts the organic process that produces “hidden” events/space by exposing them to outsiders in real time.
An example: When I was in Paris earlier this year I spotted a very attractive girl smoking a cigarette on the street. I approached her and asked if I could have one, and we ended up going for a coffee. She then invited me to meet her at a bar later that night, which she described as “very special”. I agreed and went to the address she gave me, which was in a very unhip, out of the way part of town. The bar was very special, in fact it was the strangest bar I had ever been to, I would describe it but I was sworn to secrecy. The bar owner did not want any mention of her establishment on the Internet, and was not interested in publicity or an increase in business. She was content with the clientele she had, which was an eccentric bunch, many of whom were on a first name basis with each other. It was an intimate place – a key component to its “insideness”. I was lucky to have been brought into the fold by the girl, an individual True City would surely consider an “insider”. If I had been a shameless fuckhead and told the whole world about the bar, and as a consequence it gained a large amount of exposure, one of two things would have happened: the owner would have shut it down, sold it, or changed it to accommodate the increase in business and dilution of clientele. Either way, the original bar would have ceased to exist. This very common process that we’ve all encountered, illustrates why the premise of True City is flawed: once you expose the hidden, it is no longer hidden, which robs it of its value.
B: It will create corporate enclaves: Obviously the sole purpose of True City is to position Nike products at the centre of city life. In Nike’s best case scenario True City will usurp older mediums (newspapers, blogs) as a cultural navigation tool, allowing Nike to transform the purchasing of their products from being a mundane consumer act into a new form of social video game, which is hinted at in the trailer. From this perspective, True City is brilliant, because it will allow Nike to have a far more direct relationship with their market and by becoming a cultural mediator, Nike no longer needs magazines or blogs to communicate with consumers. But their market for such an endeavor is very slim, and I doubt it will attract anyone outside of the core fanboy demographic. But there is something much more interesting about the possibilities of geotagging/social-media/mobile device integration and that is the development of corporate, or private social enclaves. Theoretically, Nike could create a service where only subscribers have access to certain urban space – like private events that require secret QR codes, which can only be attained by True City subscribers. Something like this seems to be more in line with the absurd and often obsessive culture Nike has built around their limited-run shoes. It would also attract those that would be otherwise disinterested. For example – Nike pays Band X to play a tiny gig at a back-alley venue, and only those with a certain QR code may enter. This could be the future of elite consumerism and brand culture, wherein an entirely invisible network of urban space is made available only to those with the proper QR code.
Regardless, as the ideas and technology behind True City become more common, a new type of city will emerge – one that may or may not conform to the totalizing ideology of social technology. Or maybe that already exists and I’m just not reading the right blogs or buying the right shoes.
11 Comments
Great article – instantly dispels the flashy trailer at the top, and is the main reason many places once worth visiting often become overrun with aforementioned shirtless men.
no, cities are not at their best when they are unknowable orga–whatever fuckin bullshit you said. they are at YOUR best, as someone whose identity depends on knowing about hip ‘inside’ things and not being a ‘mouthbreather’. distinction is just another form of capital (cultural, in bourdieu’s formulation). you are a capitalist shock trooper, responsible for finding it new markets. culture won’t be ‘destroyed’ because nike is using ‘trendsetters’ (omg! newsflash!), but from people like you, who should know better, behaving like an anti-corporate capitalist.
put down the adbusters and read some of this zizek you are linking to. he hates people like you.
“as someone whose identity depends on knowing about hip ‘inside’ things and not being a ‘mouthbreather’.”
Eh? I think you may have misinterpreted the post – I’m criticizing Nike’s attempt to leverage “insiderness” and in order to pander to an imaginary group of people who are desperate to be “in the know”, I mean the whole thing is silly – who goes to an art show without wearing a shirt? Do people do that? To me it seems like someone at Nike/AKQA sat down and thought “Ok, what do these mouthbreathers think art-types look like…”
But I haven’t been to an art show in a while, so maybe I’m out of touch. Maybe shirtless is in.
“no, cities are not at their best when they are unknowable orga–whatever fuckin bullshit you said.”
Yes, I was expressing an opinion. Thanks for pointing that out, I’ll put disclaimer at the top of every post from now on explicitly stating that “This is a opinion” as to avoid confusion.
“he hates people like you.”
Boy you sure are a salty dog.
cheers,
yeah that was too far, haha, was in a bad mood and took it out on the internet, how embarrassing… though “it will destroy culture” might be a little too far as well…? i guess i get tired of people complaining that nike (or insert whatever giant corporation) is encroaching upon our culture/art — who gives a shit what nike does, culture/art is ours. which is it, ‘the whole thing is silly’ or indicative of some ‘totalizing ideology of social technology’?
The true ground of adventure is a state of mind, which can never be obtained via an app (or a lonely planet tour guide). Good post.
“‘the whole thing is silly’ or indicative of some ‘totalizing ideology of social technology’?”
It’s both, let me try to clarify and expand:
The premise of the video and app is absurd. The idea that True City and their “insiders” could reveal anything at all, beyond that which is already obvious, is false.
For instance, in the video the app user is on Brick Lane and walks past 1001. 1001, a café and performance space, is where I tend to do my work when I’m in London as they have large tables, plugins and wifi. 1001 is very popular, as are all the cafés and bars in the remote vicinity, all of which tend to be at capacity any day with a clear sky. Everybody knows about that part of Brick Lane – itis no secret, it’s the “hippest” part of London, meaning that if you ask anybody where the hipsters hang out, they will say: Brick Lane, Shoreditch
Whitechapel. So there is no need to reveal anything, as it’s already revealed, and attempting to do so, much like the augmented Icon on your mobile that obstructs your real-world view of the “cafe” sign, is redundant.
But redundancy is at the heart of so much web 2.0 social tech, so Let’s take a moment to analyze just how redundant the app is:
You are walking down Brick Lane, ignoring your surroundings and staring at your tiny mobile screen, reading about the “invisible” world around your person. You want to go to a café, but it has to be an insider-approved café, so you load up the True City map and it indicates: to your left – 1001, cool café, loads of hip stuff happening. But instead of using True City, you could have just looked up the street, with your eyes, seen a café teeming with skinny jeans and tattoos and walked in. Sure you may save yourself the possibility of entering a café that wasn’t approved by the True City hivemind, but you’ve also submitted to a weird form of selective automation.
The only people that would benefit from the false “insiderness” of True City are those who need to be told what is hip and have absolutely no idea about their city and are not willing to exert any effort to find out. Mouthbreathers and bottomfeeders. I’m not saying these people actually exist – but within the framework that the video presents, that’s the conclusion I’ve come to.
The city is only invisible to those who have yet to look. So it’s silly in the sense that what True City is providing is already obvious, they are branding the obvious, and trying to market it through the “insiderness” of uh, bloggers.
And it’s totalizing in how it will disrupt the development of culture by removing the physical and mental component of exploration. Cultural spaces/scenes/etc are the way they are because they’ve been built by certain people and attract certain people. This is why some neighbourhoods, such as Brick Lane, have their own unique style that you can’t find anywhere else. But hypothetically, with True City, people who have never heard of Brick Lane and are using the application because they are desperate to be told what is hip, will go to Brick Lane because they’ve been told to do so by “insiders”, not because they were interested in it or read about it, or heard about or happened into it.
For the app user, Brick Lane is a proxy to True City, its value derived from its connection to “insiders” rather than its real-world presence. The user has bought into the nebulous nature of cultural capital – the hip hierarchy – the tyranny of the connected – and rather than a place, Brick City becomes a branch of that system.
Of course, this is nothing new, its branding 101. The problem with True City, as with many emerging urban 2.0 applications, is that it has the potential to speed up an already sped up homogenization/gentrification process. Simply put, it makes it too easy for the mouthbreathers to come and fuck everything up.
Very interesting article, thanks for posting.
Will there be a follow up article, perhaps? You certainly seem to have much more to say on the topic, I for one am interested in hearing more.
Excellent article. I resonate with the “insider” aspect of certain spots because I was introduced to one myself. There is a little fried chicken restaurant in Tokyo that serves superb food. The entire place seats less than twenty, and the owner is the cook, waiter, and cashier. If it gets busy, his wife will come out and help. A good evening for two or three will cost ¥8,000-¥11,000 and take 3-4 hours. It’s just that type of place. I treasure every trip I take there, and the experience would be ruined if too many people knew about it
Ha-ha, they should use 3D glasses for shure and widely spread screeens on the streets/or maybe make some kinda clubs with 3D walls and virtual friends//Looks like pusher squealing. seriously, so easy to sell your friends to another guys.
two words: FourSquare, for iPhone. at least, in response to the “socialmediavideogame” aspect. huge business now, as yelp has recently validated. (of course, Yelp is an example of exactly what we’re talking about right?)
this is a subject with much meat, and it will continue to develop. good post.
have you considered the idea that
it is the elite whom offer “the future of technology and urbanism” to the masses, so that while the people consume, explore, and exalt these wondrous inventions as substitutes for true/wild/free/un-encroached-upon nature, WHILE diving deeper into metropolitan life, it is the same elite that thus enjoy exclusive access to the natural world that the people eventually emulate/romanticize from their urban cage.
(ugh was that a run-on?
i have been racking my brain trying to find the original source of these ideas, something i read in the last two weeks. related mostly to the parallel developments of urban life and internet technology, the pursuit of the free nature living that only few enjoy.)
the idea being: intentional misdirection on the part of those in power – the insiders, the decisionmakers. tell people where to go, so that they DON’T go to the places where the insiders actually go. or, tell them where to go, and then create more places where they have no access to (price/gentrification/etc.).
cultural cache – “cultural ROI” – definitely exists (i do like that triple: “the nebulous nature of cultural capital – the hip hierarchy – the tyranny of the connected”).
in fact, it can be argued that the “Insider-approved recommendations” are merely “good suggested starting points,” allowing the unknowing, “need to be hip” squares to at least start out “in the scene” and eventually find their own niches.
because that’s how all of us have started – at SOME point of entry, then deviating outwards as both our individuality and digging of “things/places/events” were re-evaluated, motivated by a number of things, but (it seems) mostly by personal connections.
…
I do think that if you view a city as a dynamic system, and the people as molecules/atoms, then you can apply the theory that each body will naturally move to a position that results in balanced dispersion of all. Not necessarily a physical position in the ENTIRE geographical area (ie. Manhattan vs greater NYC), but a cultural digging position, in the way people find their own individual bars/joints/spots, anchored in personal sentimentality and recognition by the respective owners/proprietors.
There’s still going to be people who cling and run around as spectators, but the transience of these visitors won’t matter. those on the inside know very specific things that only those on the inside happen to know (ie. artists in a ‘streetart’ community or gallery scene; bboys and dancers; actual practitioners of a craft), and there is a very natural (and rigorous) weeding out of people that don’t belong, often based in (artistic) merit, knowledge, and integrity (but also susceptible to hype and popularity).
the people who will go to 1001 and stick to 1001 probably belong there (whether feeling like it’s right for them or too lazy to find another). those who start going elsewhere probably decide that it’s no longer for them, and will keep searching for the place that is.
Being an “insider” is, to me, a marketing gimmick to say: “i know something you don’t know, and that makes me worth listening to. take notes.” and the cache is empowering for both parties because it creates an obtainable commodity; it creates value out of just knowing something interesting about the city you live in. the comment about “tastemakers” as being “scouts” for capitalist mongers also rings true here.
still, i don’t condemn the term, because it has meaning and derived out of necessity. hell, i enjoy the designation and the slight arrogance that arrives with it. “insiders” can eventually consider their knowledge a “service” to the untrained, because it nonetheless constitutes an exchange. who makes money off that depends on who is most shrewd/clever.
this is the kind of phenomenon that sites like pblks.com enjoys as well, though the object of value – the product – here is conceptual insight and cultural criticism.
[shrug]
good points all around, I’ll have to come back to this when I’ve had less to drink.
“the idea being: intentional misdirection on the part of those in power – the insiders, the decisionmakers. tell people where to go, so that they DON’T go to the places where the insiders actually go. or, tell them where to go, and then create more places where they have no access to (price/gentrification/etc.).”
This is a really interesting idea but it definitely depends on the situation, as per something like True City, I think everyone is caught up in a cyclical delusion – the insiders are not insiders, and the outsiders and not actually outsiders, but rather, everyone is buying into an imaginary urban ideal and the cultural spaces that were once only accessible through effort become subject to an informant-informer feed system. And when I say feed, I mean RSS. Someone, such as the blogger, assumes the role of the feeder, builds up some form of cultural capital through his/her website’s popularity and “informed” content, then disperses this content among people who buy into the idea that the blogger knows something they should know.
So I guess I’m saying that I don’t believe there is always a hierarchy at play, that the fantasy is equal on both sides. The informer is just as ill-informed as the person who desires to know what the informer knows. That said, the hierarchies you are alluding to no doubt exist in other situations.