Tonight, the new Adam Curtis documentary All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace is to be aired (9:00pm, BBC2).

mUYfixx7zo8

The premise of the programme is that far from liberating us from drudgery and being beneficial to our lives, computers have in fact "distorted and simplified our view of the world around us".

Obviously none of us can comment on the show just yet, but I'm sure that anybody who's familiar with Curtis' work will have a fair idea of the style, structure and content.

Anyway, I was wondering what others on SSC think of his past work (The Mayfair Set, The Century of the Self, The Power of Nightmares, The Trap etc) and in particular this latest one, as it concerns something seemingly integral to our lives as well as being the medium we communicate through on this forum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Curtis

I'll get back to you when I've seen it, although I like the concept already.

It's funny - you'd think that things like facebook are Deleuze and Guattari's rhizome concept made immaculate flesh; a plateau in which pure nomadic thought rides roughshod over the arborescent, dualistic construction of knowledge as forced upon us for centuries by the apparatus of the state.

Sadly, it's mainly full of people talking about what they're having for lunch.

Ooh, you fractalesque cirrepede you!

I was going to watch the new version the Italian job tonight.

We, and our feelings, are now the centre of everything – from reality TV to confessional memoirs to blogs. "There's no one like, say, Tolstoy, who wrote of both man in his world and the architecture of his world," Curtis says. "Now there is no context, just the feelings of one person. The philosophy of our time is summed up by Bill Murray sitting in a submarine in Wes Anderson's The Life Aquatic saying, 'We're all a bit shit but that's OK.' We have no grand dreams. So of course we embrace a nice stable order."

Why don't we have big ideas or dreams any more? "Because now that there's nothing more important than you, how can you ever lose yourself in a grander idea? We're frightened of eccentricity, of loneliness. Individualism just wants to keep the machine stable, leads to a static world and a powerless world. Rand is individualism carried to its most extreme form, yet she's very popular, and not that far away from how a lot of people, especially the young, feel today."

All of this, Curtis says, means we're missing the bigger picture. "We never talk about power these days. We think we live in a non-hierarchical world, and we pretend not to be elitist now – which is, of course, an emotionally attractive idea, but it's just not true. And that's dangerous."

....

The Arab uprisings began after he finished making the films, but he sees these in the same way. "It's as if these people assembled spontaneously on Twitter and they just want freedom. But what kind of society do they want?"

He does not deny that Twitter and Facebook had some impact – at least organisationally. But he has strong views on social networking for anything beyond straightforward organisation; he considers the sharing of emotions online to be the "Soviet realism of the age".

He quotes Carmen Hermosillo, a West Coast geek and early adopter of online chatrooms who in 1994 argued that, although the internet is a wonderful thing, your emotions become commodified. "It is fashionable to suggest that cyberspace is some island of the blessed where people are free to indulge and express their individuality," she wrote. "This is not true. I have seen many people spill out their emotions – their guts – online and I did so myself until I began to see that I had commodified myself." Says Curtis, "On Facebook and Twitter, you are performing to attract people – you are dancing emotionally, on a platform created by a large corporation. People's feelings bounce back and forth – happy Stakhanovites, ignoring and denying the system of power.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2011/may/06/adam-curtis-computers-documentary

Reminds me of all the people I know doing courses like 'advertising' who would call themselves 'creatives.'

My girlfriend went to 'It Felt Like a Kiss' during the Manchester International Festival a few years ago and said it was one of the most terrifying, fantastic and memorable things she has ever experienced.

It was a rather mundane 60's office block transformed into a surreal fun house adventure curated by Curtis with the theme of how the post war American dream turned sour. She mentioned one part where a typical suburban house (with painstaking details down to the White picket fence, mail in the mailbox and hot waffles in The kitchen) descended into a nightmare involving a gun set off by a plant in her group, videos of space chimps, napalm explosions and GI's on acid before being chased by a clown with a chainsaw...

Well I thought it was a fantastic documentary. It was thought-provoking, erudite and with an excellent range of sources.

The BBC should do more of this sort of thing.

How did we all feel about the idea we're commodifying emotions by sharing them on a mongboard?

I liked the red green pong thing... very cool

I've read a bit of Ayn Rand, but got bored of her dull-thud version of Nietzscheanism.

What ultimately struck me though, from the interviews with her circle 'The Collective', was how much the philosophies of 'great' individuals such as Rand are founded on things as mundane as personal insecurities about power and potency.

It occurred to me that through her philosophy she coulds fulfill a fantasy whereby she gathered attractive people around her, with herself at the epicentre of a mandala of power - one that obscured her own feelings of self-doubt and unworthiness, indeed elevating them to something above and beyond the ressentiment that those feelings really consisted in,

Ironically in the end it was a structure that collapsed, acting ultimately as a trap, destroying her emotionally when her own philosophy could not impose itself upon and project itself through the reality that she had been cast aside for a younger model by someone more successful at implementing her own philosophy.

The poor sausage.

I've read a bit of Ayn Rand, but got bored of her dull-thud version of Nietzscheanism.

What ultimately struck me though, from the interviews with her circle 'The Collective', was how much the philosophies of 'great' individuals such as Rand are founded on things as mundane as personal insecurities about power and potency.

It occurred to me that through her philosophy she coulds fulfill a fantasy whereby she gathered attractive people around her, with herself at the epicentre of a mandala of power - one that obscured her own feelings of self-doubt and unworthiness, indeed elevating them to something above and beyond the ressentiment that those feelings really consisted in,

Ironically in the end it was a structure that collapsed, acting ultimately as a trap, destroying her emotionally when her own philosophy could not impose itself upon and project itself through the reality that she had been cast aside for a younger model by someone more successful at implementing her own philosophy.

The poor sausage.

Pretentious....Moi?

I'm not entirely sure of the degree to which her beliefs constituted a 'philosophy'. She was just really, really right wing and unpleasant, no?

I'm not entirely sure of the degree to which her beliefs constituted a 'philosophy'. She was just really, really right wing and unpleasant, no?

But I couldn't help feeling that she saw herself as unattractive.

That self-loathing Jew thing.

Pretentious....Moi?

Toi?

But I couldn't help feeling that she saw herself as unattractive.


To be fair, she wasn't exactly Kate Moss, was she?

You're right, though - there was a huge contradiction between her beliefs about the individual and her obvious need to be loved. Still, at least a load of geeks didn't build an entire industry or end up ruining the world's economy after believing what she'd written.

What I find so pathetic about Randian Objectivism is that - just like Nazism - it's a willfully half-witted reading of the Nietzschean philosophy of the Übermensch - i.e. one that overlooks the 'wellspring' of a life as it is lived to it's maximum - and beyond, to repletion.

Thus altruism exists as a by-product of a life that joyously overflows and is never given through a sense of duty and the ressentiment that that engenders.

To me Rand and her cronies seem to view the idea that altruism is an obstacle to a kind of cold machinic efficiency that ultimately atrophies the soul and stops well short of the incessant, almost feverish extrapolation and interpolation that true philosophy is concerned with - an open-ended dialectic that eternally strives beyond that which is apparent.

Ultimately Randian Objectivism is a bit like Scientology - a cold, calculating design for life - but minus the alien spaceships.

Nietzsche was also quite clear that he wasn't on board the anti-semite bus.

It does amaze me that he gets the blame for Hitler. People are stupid.

Randyism. Rather unpleasant.

Anyhow, the programme, very entertaining but in the end glib and flimsily assembled however neat it appeared (Greenspan to Greenspan in forty years, that's clever).

And even wiki can tell you a different story about her dumping.

Randyism. Rather unpleasant.

Anyhow, the programme, very entertaining but in the end glib and flimsily assembled however neat it appeared (Greenspan to Greenspan in forty years, that's clever).

And even wiki can tell you a different story about her dumping.

Well, I agree.

Curtis' work does scoot along in a merry way and gives a somewhat selective view of history, ultra-potted and all, but still, I think the main point is quite clear and it's all leading up to the main point he wants to make, mainly that computers have helped 'commodify' every aspect of our lives.

I imagine that if pressed, Curtis would be able expand on all of the details he skims over in order to tell his grander story (and of course he isn't without his critics on both the left and the right), but I suppose - like his other documentaries - it'll all come together in the last episode.

I forgot to record it :cry:

Iplayer.

were you being ironic?

i saw it, do i get any brownie points?

I saw it, it bored me to tears, I turned off after half an hour. Why would they call it a documentary about how machines have taken over our lives when 90% of it was about the life and times of this Rand bint.

^ short attention span? I loved it, very interesting. I didn't know about the connections between Greenspan and Rand. Interesting to see how that philosophy impacted on the decisions he would later make.

^ short attention span? I loved it, very interesting. I didn't know about the connections between Greenspan and Rand. Interesting to see how that philosophy impacted on the decisions he would later make.

Have you seen the Century of the Self pm?

Like the current series (and the Power of Nightmares) it shows that there is a strong influence of philosophical and psychoanalytical theory underpinning and driving many of the highly suspect political policy makers and think-tanks that control the economic and political direction of Western governments.

The Century of the Self - Sigmund Freud
The Power of Nightmares - Leo Strauss
All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace - Ayn Rand

I say this because I think that very few people have any idea of the influence and reach of philosophies that were created during the era of Modernism.

Having said that though, I imagine that a scant amount of followers of Judeo-Christian religions know what a debt of thanks they owe Plato.

I saw the power of nightmares, but the century of self was tougher going and i didn't make it all the way through.

I suppose it makes sense, most leaders will have either studied some key thinkers or were taught by people who crafted their own philosophy

Iplayer.

A what?

most leaders will have either studied some key thinkers or were taught by people who crafted their own philosophy

Or most leaders will have their self devised beliefs and attitudes that can be shoved into anybodies well published philosophy with enough grease.

that would credit them with creativity and original thought.

that would credit them with creativity and original thought.

Whereas you're crediting them with being well read in a subject outside of their speciality, and dedicated to following their beliefs.

Politicians generally are very well read, but they generally don't have the time to construct entire ontologies.

Personally, I'm not speaking about leaders.

I'm talking about those that advise - in other words control - our so-called leaders.

It is they that are well read and have a yen for social engineering - all they need are narcissistic alpha-goons to sell the shit to the masses.

I finally watched this last night. I thought it was really good - had some genuinely interesting stuff.

I had read greenspans autobiography where he makes reference to his toying with various ideologies before settling on the free market paradigm. But he never elaborated.

I was expecting a lot more conspiracy type stuff which drives me up the wall these days. It bordered on it a little when suggesting that the IMF deliberately spent billions bailing rich international investors out of the asian crises - absolutely untrue. But otherwise it was well done.

^ really? aren't all IMF bailouts, essentially bailing out bond holders?

Say I borrowed too much money to buy a house I couldnt afford. When it reached the point I was unable to pay, would a government lifeline be a bailout for me or a bailout for the bank? I think the situation often gets misrepresented. If bondholders lend money to countries in good faith and the country subsequently defaults, it is they that are in the wrong not the bondholders. The worst that can be said of the bondholders is that they assessed the risk badly.

In the case of the asian crisis the collapse was going to happen regardless of the intervention. By providing sufficient assistance to meet at least part of their obligations we at least averted major international contagion. They would not be growing at the rate they are today had that not happened.

the difference is, when a country goes bankrupt the debts are so enormous they are a systemic risk to banks and therefore the financial systems of other countries. It's different from being bailed out on your credit card.

Bondholders make billions in profits based often on poor lending. I can't rack up massive debts with endless loans because the banks take that into account. The difference is I won't suffer a run on my currency as investors panic.

It is bailing out highly paid people and banks for their poor judgement in controlling the amount lent to countries assessed on what things would be like in a recession not in boom times.

Take the Philippines for instance. They are able to borrow for ten years at a bit under 7% right now. Is this a fair rate? Personally I dont think it is a great rate of return for a lender given their risk but on the other hand, if the markets drove borrowing rates up the country would likely collapse. Borrowing costs in the aftermath of the asian crises skyrocketed - they were will 18% in 2000. It wasnt until borrowing rates got back down again that the country could return to its feet. So how do you really assess the right level? I can give you plenty of models that produce a figure (and I use them each day) but the truth is that when you are dealing with governments that have a habit of cooking the figures and doing stupid things like having coups, electing hard left governments who blow all the money etc there really is a huge margin of error.

So, on the one hand everyone recognises the need for emerging economies to borrow in order to develop themselves. They are actively encouraged to deregulate to facilitiate this. The country then issues mountains of bonds that are snapped up by international investors / lenders. If they set their premiums competitively everyone blames them for being stupid when the country blows up. If they set them too high everyone blames them when the country blows up.

You can therefore see that bondholders know that they are never going to win any friends whatever they do. So they might as well make as much money as they can (and buy friends).

But you see my point? This is not a social enterprise. It is a profit making enterprise. Why is anyone surprised when the shit has hit the fan that bondholders scrap for the best outcome?

By the way, do people realise that there are another two episodes?

yes

I like how the Carrie soundtrack is used throughout.

Yes, I noticed that too.

When I first heard it I thought it was Don't Look Now, but then realised my mistake as that's by the OST by the same composer, Pino Donnagio.

5HM5cntskWw

Utterly Epic.

I fell in love with Curtis's work during the first showing of The Trap. Unlike Nightjar though I've never previously been that convinced by the arguments. For me Curits is an artist who demonstrates that TV is perhaps the most powerful medium there is that is all too often wasted because of funding by commercials or in the BBCs case it's need ot be seen as competing with channels that are funded by commercials. I've also had admiration for the scope and bravery of his vision. I think he generally overstretches and overstates his case in trying to tie up hugely important world events and effects with a particular philsopher, but I'm glad he does it because the rest of us probably understretch and don't stop and consider whether such factors are at work.

This was perhaps the first episode by Curtis that I thought was not just thought provoking but convincing. I kept waiting for him to diss technology or climate change or say something that I had reason to think was wrong but instead I thought that after the slow slow build up his final arguments were overwhelming.

Of course it would be nice if Curtis could one day offer a positive vision instead of arguing or showing that others have naively followed a flawed vision.

I never said that I was completely convinced by his arguments - in fact, considering the persuasive brilliance of his televisual technique, I've always viewed his work, not so much suspiciously, but slightly askance, aware that he does - as you say - ride a little roughshod over the finer points and nuances of the story in order to make the 'big point'.

I'm glad he does it though.

As you say, someone has to.

Curtis is the ultimate Nietzschean nihilist. Even to the point of criticising others like Rand and the silly hippies last night in their belief in a form of nihilism.