Tufte and Lanham are have two definitely dissimilar writings. Lanham rallies to the cause of essential minimalism in that modern economic thought is crucially integrated into our perception of the world through a critical area—attention. Tufte details more with the placement, arrangement, and memorable qualities of certain designs of information within a text, but are the two really that separately identified? I think not.
Tufte may describe the usage of confection to sort and integrate complex topics and information for the reader, but Lanham makes an equally interesting observation, that we are driven to consume throuhg our love of attention—and furthermore—that the modern society has become a “comedy of commons” that is the internet is an ever growing, usage-fertilized, insatiable plant consuming our identities and ideas and we let it.
But still you might be questioning, ‘where does that leave Tufte and Lanham in discourse?’ Well I shall tell you, just as Tufte describes the authors means of organizing information so that we can memorize and learn it easily through collection or a separation of ideas, we do the same thing while constructing our personal image on the internet, through products, or through our very intellectual property.
Lanham makes an argument that art is an example of our attention economy—that is the economist of this commerce are the visual artists. He hits directly on the usage of Cubism and the modern art revival that places the “locus of art…not [on] the physical object that occasioned the aesthetic response but the response itself.” (Lanham 15) Later in that same discussion he would state, “its aim was to teach us how to toggle back and forth between seeing the art object, and hence the world, as stuff and seeing it as attention. It taught an economics lesson.” (Lanham 15) Here Lahnam and Tufte can be brought together, after all what is art but a way to forward information.
Tufte would interpret the micro-economic properties—if you will excuse the horrid abuse of the word for a poorly attempted pun—of the art, analyzing its confection—why one pictogram is placed here and its meaning compared to the general scope of the piece, where as Lahnam would say that this addresses the purpose of the piece to the piece itself—stuff—rather than the fluff which he believes the modernist and cubist attempted to evoke—the emotion of simply seeing the picture: the reaction itself.
But there are other-ways in which we might coalesce these two individuals. Lanham noted discusses the issue of ownership and property as a means of being an attention grabber. He specifically uses the phrase “walking sponsor”. At what point do we look at ourselves and thing ‘ I wonder if I am wearing this to look in style’ or ‘this will make people think I have money.’ My personal answer to that question is—all the time. I feel that we are always attempting to assimilate and cover the gap between the id and the super-ego. That is, our ego is ultimately at battle with the two forces to bring balance, but it is never able to do so according to Lanham—at least not in this society. Thus as we stylize ourselves we can think of ourselves each as a work of art, each as a confection of work—and we are the artist. Each specific area describes an aspect about us, allows people to learn about us—connect us with those esoteric qualities every person carries and never forget.
Most succinctly we are in a world of economic attention as Lanham would describe it—many would call this unfair—and Lanham might agree as to its undemocratic nature. But perhaps it is for the better, for example, as described by Lanham only a few can have the breadth of the popularity and money spread to them. As Lanham points out, Andy Warhol’s solution of 15 minutes of fame, is a falsehood as it would destroy that which creates fame’s endearing qualities. But what is most interesting is how this plays into a Darwinian structure of social competition.
In this modern era, we do not necessarily compete to become the superior being by reproducing the most—perhaps a distinction which separates us from animals. Instead, we compete to show who is the best, a sort of ritualized matting game simply to show off ones prowess but not necessarily to gain any growth from the matter. In fact, I would make the argument that rather than reproducing physically fame allows us through some social transmutation to forward our ‘genes’ through thought not amino acids.
Think about it—are we not all the products of a cultural generational explosion? To illustrate I shall return to one of my favorite examples, Lady Gaga. I think it is fair to say that she is simply a ‘re-run of Madonna’ to put it in quoted terms although I am unsure of the source. However, in some cases, isn’t Madonna just a rerun of Marilyn Monroe? Don’t believe my postulation here? Please take a look at the following videos:
First here is a video of Marilyn Monroe’s Diamonds Are A Girl’s Best Friend:
Diamonds are a Girl’s Best Friend
Now you do not need to watch the entire video to see my reasoning here, but through the sometimes overused cliche please compare it to this video produced later by Madonna:
Now finish with the following video by Lady Gaga:
I’m sure you’ve heard the connection a thousand times, and more than likely will hear it again. My point here isn’t to drive home a bent nail, but to create an image pathway–a confection if you will. Lastly, I would like to look at this quick clip from a commercial I noticed a few weeks ago, what took me to remember it was the clever juxtaposition of the main character–Charlize Theron–to both Madonna, Marilyn Monroe, and a few other famous model that I am not aware of.
Now what is interesting as Tufte would point out is the placement of characters and singlets to show some sort of connection among the parties at hand. That is to say–the director intended for you to make a connection between Madonna, Marilyn Monroe, and Charlize Theron. I ask you to make this connection so that you can see that perhaps it is how we act, our ‘natural behavior’ that is transfer socially to people rather than a genetic means that makes us superior. Perhaps in this attention based economy, that is how we survive, sire issues, and create a dynasty that lives forever. I probably could have used any number of connections from the popular to the unknown such as the late Lady Di to the new Princess Kate Middleton, or even a counter comparison to Elizabeth II Royal: or for those more inclined to think of a popular TV series, just think the assumed quirks and character types that hopelessly flows from one Dr. Who to the next–and yet they aren’t even the same actor. Perhaps this ‘stuff and fluff’ that Lanham refers to in our economy is actually how we reproduce and spread our ‘genetic’ code in a Darwinian fashion.