I suspect most people in Dallas are familiar with TED Talks: they're the go-to entertainment for pseudo-intellectuals who want something more substantial than politics or life or death or humanity's over-arching struggle for happiness to talk about. Well, let's pretend that long pauses and funny hair-dos make for substantial content and start our own series of discussions about stuff. My first vote is for old shoes:
You know...
shoes that have, well...
weathered the storm...
sacrificed themselves for our soles...
trod through life and shit alike and still possess the redolence of apple cider vinegar.
I think my point has been made: what began as something inspiring and great quickly descended into formulaic mediocrity that somehow still holds its appeal with the masses. How do you avoid that as an artist? A community?
Was it commercialization that killed TED? Every speaker who graces TED's iconic stage seems to bear one of a few trademarks: they're fucking rich, they possess a quirkiness a little too blatant to be natural or they're pretty cool people pouring soft-serve shit for the cooing public who shell out anywhere between $995 and $125,000 for seats at live TED talks. (View their pricing structure here: http://www.ted.com/pages/tedconferences_attend.)
In the TED's wake Pecha Kucha popped up with a similar idea: share something you experienced/observed/learned in a way that makes everything seem profound. I think, generally Pecha Kucha's presentations are more naive and because of that possess a feeling of honesty that the gleaming, well-produced TEDs no longer have.
What's your take? Is Pecha Kucha as contrived as TED? Does it bleed a desperate need to be cool and topical the way TED does?
The opinions expressed in this post are solely those of the author and do not reflect the opinions of 2ND Thursday.
No comments:
Post a Comment