From: "Tim Browse" To: "Yoz Grahame" Subject: RE: Yoz's Mediocre Burning Man Page Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 00:05:47 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Hi Yoz, Don't take this the wrong way, but so far I've seen: > The experience cannot even be remotely adequately described and > The main problem with this mail is that you're expecting > me to try and describe what Burning Man is like, and Barlow > said last night that one of the best things about Burning > Man is that it defies reduction into information. In other > words, there is no simple explanation that I can possibly > fit into this mail and from the web site: > Trying to explain what Burning Man is to someone who has > never been to the event is a bit like trying to explain what > a particular color looks like to someone who is blind. In > this section you will find the peripheral definitions of > what the event is as a whole, but to truly understand this > event, one must participate. Now, I'm sure the Burning Man event is fun and interesting and a worthwhile experience and so on, and so forth. But if I read once more that "it cannot be described" I'm going to punch someone, very hard, probably with a good run up. And then someone will have a Burning Nose (which they will probably also be unable to describe, and will insist that others must experience it to understand it). My response to people that claim Burning Man cannot be described is this: JUST FUCKING TRY! As far as I can tell, Burning Man is, amongst other things, an event/festival taking place in a hot and dry environment (with lots of dust/sand apparently) where people express themselves creatively in a number of ways, and spend a week getting to know people they might not otherwise talk to. I'm sure there's a whole load of other stuff, but I'm also goddamn sure that all of it CAN BE DESCRIBED. Sorry to rant - I've got nothing against Burning Man per se; I'm sure you had a great time - it's all the new age crap about not being able to describe it because it must be experienced, that drives me up the bloody wall. Given the size of the Burning Man web site, they sure seem to spend a fuckload of space/time describing something that 'cannot be described'. And, forgive me for being cynical once again, given that the experience is the important thing which cannot be reduced into 'mere' information, everyone who goes to Burning Man seems to taking a fucking shedload of pictures, which, correct me if I'm wrong, were a form of information the last time I checked... :-) Yours, Lt. Col. Tim Browse (retired) PS. Hope you had a nice time. PPS. It's as lame as Mornington Crescent - whenever I ask anyone what Mornington Crescent is, they just grin and tell me that they're not allowed to tell me. Which is fine by me, as long as they then SHUT THE FUCK UP about it. :-) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 00:37:42 +0100 (BST) From: Yoz Grahame X-Sender: To: Tim Browse Subject: RE: Yoz's Mediocre Burning Man Page In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Okay, okay, okay. You got me. To be honest, I never felt 100% comfortable with the "Burning Man cannot be described" thing anyway. BUT. It's like this: Yes, theoretically, you could probably do some kind of informational description of BM that, while not completely doing it justice (because of the discrepancies inherent in the differences between information and experience) would still be "good enough", though I'm not sure what the criteria would be. Maybe it's the lack of definable criteria that's the problem. Maybe it's that Burning Man, being much more of a participatory, incredibly varied and less-focused experience than, say, Glastonbury, is much harder to communicate because every participant's experience is so different. Or maybe it's because the amount of description and imagery required would surely bore the legs off anyone who hadn't been there before getting even halfway through. (Yeah, must be the last one.) Yes, there are tons of photos, but they're mostly reminders for me and the others who were there rather than trying to illustrate for others who weren't, which is why I have the best ones grouped at the top. (And vehicles that look like fish for people like Shim.) The size of the BM website is because there is a ton of information that still needs to be imparted, which is more along the schedlues, groupings and first-timers-guides sort of thing rather than the "come and share our mystical hippy light" thing. But yes, the "colour to a blind man" analogy is embarrassing wank. -- Yoz P.S. Thank you, it was fab. P.P.S. Mornington Crescent is a completely different argument, one I will DEFEND TO THE DEATH. (Outside, now! I demand satisfaction!) P.P.P.S. Okay if I post this conversation on the website? From: "Tim Browse" To: "Yoz Grahame" Subject: RE: Yoz's Mediocre Burning Man Page Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 00:57:59 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: > Okay, okay, okay. You got me. To be honest, I never felt 100% comfortable > with the "Burning Man cannot be described" thing anyway. :-) > It's like this: Yes, theoretically, you could probably do some kind of > informational description of BM that, while not completely doing it > justice (because of the discrepancies inherent in the differences between > information and experience) would still be "good enough", though I'm not > sure what the criteria would be. This is similar to many experiences in life - it's just that admitting this would rob the Burning Man of its mythos :-) > Maybe it's the lack of definable criteria that's the problem. Maybe it's > that Burning Man, being much more of a participatory, incredibly varied > and less-focused experience than, say, Glastonbury, is much harder to > communicate because every participant's experience is so different. Or > maybe it's because the amount of description and imagery required would > surely bore the legs off anyone who hadn't been there before getting even > halfway through. (Yeah, must be the last one.) Depends on your definition of "required". From the point of view of someone who doesn't actually know what Burning Man is, believe me, any description is useful. > P.S. Thank you, it was fab. Excellent. I am glad to hear it. > P.P.S. Mornington Crescent is a completely different argument, one I will > DEFEND TO THE DEATH. (Outside, now! I demand satisfaction!) But once we're outside, how do I know what to do? You'll just grin irritatingly at me, and tell me you can't tell me what to do next, like a smug wanker... > P.P.P.S. Okay if I post this conversation on the website? Sure. By the way: > (And vehicles that look like fish for people like Shim.) This reminded me of: "For my mother, who liked the bit about the horse." Tim :-) PS. Where are you at the moment? PPS. Or does it defy reduction into mere information? From: "Tim Browse" To: "Yoz Grahame" Subject: RE: Yoz's Mediocre Burning Man Page Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 01:00:26 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: By the way, for various esoteric reasons, I was going to change the subject of that last email to "There is a Burning Man in the bathroom", because it would have been exceptionally witty and amusing, but due to various technical problems (which I would describe, but sadly they cannot be reduced to mere information*) I forgot. Never mind - just pretend that I did and laugh knowingly to yourself. It will save time. Tim * Getting bored of that yet? Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 01:13:50 +0100 (BST) From: Yoz Grahame X-Sender: To: Tim Browse Subject: RE: Yoz's Mediocre Burning Man Page In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > It's like this: Yes, theoretically, you could probably do some kind of > > informational description of BM that, while not completely doing it > > justice (because of the discrepancies inherent in the differences between > > information and experience) would still be "good enough", though I'm not > > sure what the criteria would be. > > This is similar to many experiences in life - it's just that admitting this > would rob the Burning Man of its mythos :-) But... but... no. (With a hint of yes, but mainly no.) See next comment. > > Maybe it's the lack of definable criteria that's the problem. Maybe it's > > that Burning Man, being much more of a participatory, incredibly varied > > and less-focused experience than, say, Glastonbury, is much harder to > > communicate because every participant's experience is so different. Or > > maybe it's because the amount of description and imagery required would > > surely bore the legs off anyone who hadn't been there before getting even > > halfway through. (Yeah, must be the last one.) > > Depends on your definition of "required". From the point of view of someone > who doesn't actually know what Burning Man is, believe me, any description > is useful. And so now I'm trying to come up with a one-para description of BM for you and find myself completely tongue-tied. YOU SEE? Okay, here's a first crack: It's a massive arts happening in the middle of the desert that's boiling hot and windy and dusty and over 20,000 people show up, some in groups, some by themselves, and they do artistic and silly and beautiful things, some of which fit in with the theme of the year and most of which don't, and they wander around and create a massive city community with this wonderful openness of spirit which sounds like wank but in simple terms it means you can just leave your camp unattended and wander off relatively safe in the knowledge that no one will nick anything and you can just wander into other camps and say hi and enjoy the amazingly different things that everyone has to offer and you just see some INCREDIBLE stuff as well as being invited to take part in incredible things and honestly it's amazing what you can do with a few planks of wood and a bit of wire and when you leave you have a substantially different view of the world from when you came in. That's a hopelessly inadequate description but I don't really know what else to say. And yes, it's hard to talk about this without producing what looks like New Age Hippy Hyperbole, but the main reason for that is simply because IT IS THAT GOOD. You will have to trust me on this. > > P.P.S. Mornington Crescent is a completely different argument, one I will > > DEFEND TO THE DEATH. (Outside, now! I demand satisfaction!) > > But once we're outside, how do I know what to do? You'll just grin > irritatingly at me, and tell me you can't tell me what to do next, like a > smug wanker... SMARTARSE! > > P.P.P.S. Okay if I post this conversation on the website? > > Sure. > > By the way: > > > (And vehicles that look like fish for people like Shim.) > > This reminded me of: > > "For my mother, who liked the bit about the horse." > > Tim :-) > > PS. Where are you at the moment? Portland, Oregon. Back in the UK on Friday. > PPS. Or does it defy reduction into mere information? SMAAARTAAAAARSE! -- Yoz Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 01:14:28 +0100 (BST) From: Yoz Grahame X-Sender: To: Tim Browse Subject: RE: Yoz's Mediocre Burning Man Page In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Tim Browse wrote: > By the way, for various esoteric reasons, I was going to change the subject > of that last email to "There is a Burning Man in the bathroom", because it > would have been exceptionally witty and amusing, but due to various > technical problems (which I would describe, but sadly they cannot be reduced > to mere information*) I forgot. Awww. That was funny. > Never mind - just pretend that I did and laugh knowingly to yourself. It > will save time. > > Tim > > * Getting bored of that yet? SMAAARTAAAARSE! -- Yoz