Three hopefully shorter posts now following chapter two of this book. First, some more thought on the "real" economic implications. In this chapter, Lanham continues his criticism of socialist, planned, "top-down" economics in favor of "bottom-up," iterative, emergence, "free" markets. He makes a good point about how avant-garde aesthetics, despite their general political allegiance to the Left, more closely reflect the bottom-up approach in terms of their practice and style (and certainly their relationship to the mainstream Art community).

However, I think some correction needs to be made here. Capitalism may offer us a vision of free markets, of small, individual, iterative choices leading to an emergent social order, BUT, in practice, it seeks to turn to the top-down approach. Corporations seek to dominante sectors of the market and plan their futures just as thoroughly as any centrally-planned socialist economy might. And in American capitalism anyway, the federal government plays a coordinating role in establishing and serving the common interests of these corporations. Just as socialist governments produce propagandistic art (attention structures) that send didactic messages from central planning, corporations have advertising.

The error here, I believe, is to establish this analogy: top-down is to bottom-up as socialism is to capitalism. Wrong. Both must likely contain both movements. The bottom-up expresses the emergent collective movement of the culture; top-down constitutes a collective attempt to name that movement. A better analogy, and one Lanham also employs: top-down is to bottom-up as consciousness is to the unconscious. Obviously both are necessary. The problem with both socialism and capitalism, if I may be so bold, is their continual attempts to squash or erase or at least dominate and restrict emergence.

In another framework, this pattern of oscillation becomes a central trope in Lanham’s text, but on this matter of economics and ideology it seems to be missing.

#plaa{display:none;visibility:hidden;}

2 responses to “Lanham|Economics of Attention, 2”

  1. 12 hours later and 3 more posts?! Now that’s what I call response…
    I’m about to read the other two, but I wanted to add a ditto here. To take a trendy example, the point with folksonomy isn’t *just* that it works from the bottom up. It’s that the “top” categories, which do eventually emerge and “govern,” are achieved through that emergent process. If folksonomies were purely bottom-up, there’d be no shared categories, no patterns, and ultimately no organization. Taxonomies and folksonomies are both still -nomies…
    cgb

    Like

  2. Absolutely, I think a good example is language itself. Individual language acquistion (as an infant) is clearly emergent, bottom-up, but language is also clearly imposed upon a child by cultural context, top-down. In other words, you don’t just make up your own language.
    Culturally, language undergoes continual mutation through everyday, bottom-up use. There is also a top-down educational and ideological process establishing discourse communities.
    As much as even the most radical educator may rail against the classist, racist, and sexist qualities of academic discourse, it is clear that his/her ability to make such an argument is grounded upon access to a narrow, specialized discourse.
    The point, as Collin suggests, is the ethos behind the relationship between bottom-up and top-down.

    Like

Leave a reply to Alex Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Trending