All Real Atemporal Shit. No authenticity.
A long article has been making the rounds, which at first catches the eye because of the copious (if mis-directed) use of a great many technospheric buzz words, popular smart phone app titles, and a splattering of post-modern philosophy, but then when unpacked devolves into all-too-typical post-Baudrillard simulacrap. BUT, just because it is misdirected, doesn’t mean that we can’t learn something from it, and take this opportunity to redirect.
The author of the above has a problem with a particular sort of digital photo. It is a sort of digital photo that somehow violates the glorious rules of reality, by mimicking something from a time that it is not. Time has come unstuck, and not in a good way. A bad, fake, inauthentic, faux-vintage way.
It might sound similar to another buzz word: “atemporality”. The author of the above link didn’t use the word atemporality. But, the words he used are responsible for directly the sort of miscommunication that obscures what atemporality is, and how it works. His notion of the faux-vintage, meager on depth as it is, is the scum that floats on top of atemporality, and keeps us from seeing the clear waters underneath. I hope to skim the scum off in this essay.
Part of the trouble with a concept like atemporality, is that it sounds right. Much like post-modernism, this makes it easy to put out on the table like a bowl of butter pats, without taking the time to think about what it is we’re having for dinner.
It’s not such a big word: “atemporality”. We know what that means, right? Something about time getting all weird on us, and the past, and the future, and maybe the sort of technology through which we imagine both the past and the future. Sounds good… type it up.
But atemporality is something with more nuance than time-getting-all-old-timey by way of a digital picture. To define it myself in short terms: atemporality is the act of refuting the order of temporality, through the means which temporality is usually applied. We all use an interior sense of time, or temporality. It’s, you know, Time! We keep track of the order in which things happen, and form a baseline t axis by which we keep track of the world. (For a greater exposition of this concept, see Kant, Bergson, Heidegger, Deleuze, and many others.) Temporality: we know the past, and we can only guess at the future; we know something just happened, while other things are mere traces in our memories; we “remember the 80s”, even though what I remember as The 80s no doubt differs from your memories of it, and we can debate when the 80s supposedly began and ended; we may remember last Tuesday, but the details could easily be suggested to us, and our “memories” might be proved false once we see the pictures. All of these things are involved in our sense of temporality: a big, flowing river of time in which we float.
Atemporality is the point at which this temporality begins to break down, though still in a temporal way. We still have a sense of time, but the wide span we call “history” begins to get weird loops, whorls, and whirlpools in it. The usual cycle of fads booming and busting grow eccentric, and spin oddly off-center. The idea of what is “current” begins to break down. We have trouble remembering if something used to be common a long time ago, or if that was today but maybe in Japan, or if maybe someone simply suggested that it would happen soon in the future. The river of time spreads out into a brackish salt marsh delta, and we know time is still flowing, but we don’t remember where it was we were trying to go. Were we trying to go? What does that even mean?
Maybe it’s because of the internet, maybe its because we all carry computers in our pockets, or maybe it’s just because there are so damn many of us we can’t see over the heads of our immediate friends to get any good “big picture”, and mainstream media is only as existent as the last meme that we saw. But there are people who aren’t old enough to know that record players went obsolete, out there buying records, as if there was nothing odd about it in the world. Wearing Victorian fashion is a now subculture, not an attempt to mimic something so uncool as “real life history”. And, pursuant to the article I had linked to at the beginning of this essay, cell phones can take pretty pictures with weird, livid color achieved through simple algorithms. No big deal, except that someone thinks those digital pictures are “old”. And what’s more, “fake old”.
Using a word like “nostalgia” is such a desperate sign of being out of touch, out of date, and so awfully-temporal in an atemporal time. “Nostalgia” assumes that there still was a temporal order in which someone could purposefully choose to “rewind”. It implies someone wants to “turn back a clock”, as if all our “wrist watches” weren’t synced to regulated network time via cell phone towers. Hilarious! You are the Encino Man of epistemology. Accusing an iPhone app of being inauthentically faux-vintage is about as cool as reminding your kids that some dead guy originally recorded the song being sung on American Idol way back in the 20th century. Pipe down, old man! The only people worried about what is correctly nostalgic or otherwise faking it are people who, for some reason, need to cling to a sense of permanent history that is not fluid, crowd-sourced, and always on instant remix mode. They probably still buy paper encyclopedias.
But the kids aren’t idiots, just because they won’t buy into your historical temporal-subscription business model. With a single Google search, anyone could tell you more about Kodachrome than you could, even if you used it yourself for over twenty years. As if they didn’t know that an antique is found on eBay, while up-cycled vintage is found on Etsy. They haven’t forgotten history. They’ve Gutenberg’ed history, if you pardon the zeitgeisty historical reference. Rather than re-write out the Old Story again and again in expensive, illuminated manuscripts, they’ve made their own printing presses, and they are distributing their pamphlets in the street. Or, if you prefer, they’ve pulled letterpresses out of the scrapheap, and they are printing comic books/novellas/vintage stationary that re-writes the story of Gutenberg as if he were an out of work Ph.D grad with a blog, or they’ve 3D-fabbed lost typefaces reassembled from scanned Library of Congress volumes, or they’ve… dammit, I’ve lost the metaphor, but that is the point. Atemporality is not your 20th Century post-modern critique. It is no longer enough to wrily point out a bit of irony that no one else caught, and think yourself Zarathustra for doing so. We leverage the networks, man. We access all recorded time periods with equal veracity and reach, until time periods cease being temporal. Anything that we can do with anything is only Now. Any of us, all of us, one of us. The temporality that anchors us to reality is atemporality.
When I say kids, I mean me, you, any of our contemporaries. The cutting edge is level, because the most amount of experience any of us can have with brand-new technology is none. Not all of technology is brand new, but that’s why we network. If someone finds a swell photography blog, or a scanned guide to restoring old typewriters, we pass it along. The best way to learn is to find someone who knows what they are doing, and help them. We’re all kids about some things, and many of us are experts in at least one thing. We come to the networks with certain abilities, certain likes and dislikes, and all the many facets of our personality. When we connect, reality happens. We’re all faking it to a certain degree, and all of our fabrications are realer than we know. There’s not a single person who isn’t surprised when their ____ goes viral, because the only thing one can attempt to understand about viral media, is the ridiculousness of the claim that one has identified and understood an epistemological hierarchy of network culture. “Pop culture” didn’t go obsolete, it splintered into more pieces than anyone can count, keep track of, or catalog and interpret. There is no such thing as un-cool. You just haven’t found the other people who think it is awesome yet. The topology of culture is similar to the technology that propagates it, in that culture only works. Technology and culture do not not-work. There is no plateau other than the niche, and if something is surviving, it is because it is crossing somebody’s spark gap. If something is replaced by a better tool, that former tool is either sold online or goes into the free box, where it is quickly grabbed by someone who could totally use it, or take it apart and make it into something else.
And this is how you know that the sort of person who uses the word “simulacra” with disdain doesn’t use tools, and only inhabits the realm of ideas as one inhabits a titanic, steam-driven airship; a fictional craft that never lands, never makes contact with the industrial revolution changing the world down here on the surface. There is no “inauthentic” in the machine shop. There are only tools, better tools, and tools that need to be fixed. What is it that Instagram does as a tool? It makes cool pictures. What do the titles of the filters mean? I don’t have the first idea. I swipe at them with my thumb until it looks sweet, and then I send it to my friends. Then I put down my iPhone, and go back to trying to un-stick the shutter on an old medium format camera. If I can make it work again, it might take cool pictures. And if I left it in that flea market where I found it, some asshole who uses words like “authentic” probably would have pulled it up into his airship and stuck it on the wall of his wine bar. I use all kinds of things. The reel to reel is next to the turntable on which my laptop sits, which is processing scanned 35 mm slides for filtering and reprinting, so I can reproject them with an overhead projector, and trace over it on a piece of tossed-out plywood. Where is the authentic in my living room? I couldn’t give a shit. Where is the “era”, the “epoch”? I couldn’t tell you. All of these technologies function today, and work Now. I can tell you that my 6 year-old laptop is probably more obsolete than the reel to reel player, because the reel to reel works like new, whereas the laptop often struggles with simple tasks.
Anyone offering authenticity has something to sell you, and likely, a something you do not need. They try to convince you that the way you are doing it is not as “real” as something else. Funny–because reality was just fine before they came along. Before they tried to monetize a particular world-view, to increase the value of a certain temporal commodity by claiming to be the exclusive arbiter of what is authentic and what is forged and fake. And we wouldn’t want to fool ourselves either; this is a capitalistic world, and everything ends up bought and sold. Any particular atemporal trend will end up named, stamped into a commodity, and sold, until stretched into a thin veneer of shiny, zombified goo. But that’s okay, because we already have a friend that we met in a comment thread, that can get us that real shit. The Real Shit, because it is the stuff we want and nothing else, and because we’re getting it from the source that we know and trust. That is the network, and that is atemporality. All real shit. No authenticity.
Categories: Ballast
Tags: epistemology, technology, time
Comments: 4 Comments.





Wow. Just wow.
I think you actually just won the internet.
First, I typed this on a mobile device, so apologies for the errors.
Great essay, and I loved this critique of my article.
Fundamentally, I share your perspective and mostly agree. I have made the same rant about Baudrillard-ers before! I’m not sure how you missed that from my essay and characterized my essay as something you (and I!) would disagree with. I agree with your perspective, but disagree with your applying this rant to my essay.
First, I don’t have a “problem” with faux-vintage photos. My analysis did not argue that they are good or bad. I also wrote that explicitly at the beginning. I also never state that “reality” is a good or bad thing; or that inauthenticity is a good or bad thing. Baudrillard and his followers privileged the real and lamented it’s disappearance, but I don’t.
I share your stance on atemporality. But this stance does not preclude the idea of the past as having some sort of currency (unless you go so radically far as to say we cannot even fathom the idea of temporality anymore, but that’s silly). And this stance we share in no way precludes making an argument, as I did, that we increasingly borrow the cache of the past because we have all these new documentation possibilities. My argument very much takes off from your atemporality perspective. These assumptions we share might even be necessary to make the argument I make (but not the argument others make that you incorrectly lumped me with).
I like your rant, but you directed it at the wrong essay. I agree that there is no such thing as inauthenticity, and I surely am not going to be the one who states what is “real” or not. You make me out as an arbiter of the real, yet I never make any such claim in my essay.
I never argue at all that faux-vintage photos are an attempt to turn back time. That’s a serous misreading of the argument. I simply argue that we reference the past in our depictions of the present, but never claim we want our present to be more like the past.
I also never claim that faux-vintage photos are “incorrectly” nostalgic. Who am I to state what what is correct? I do state that Hipstamatic photos are not really physical, but never claim that some nostalgia is true and others false.
I either made my argument very poorly or you just skimmed it. Either are possibilities. It is a bummer, though, because you could have appreciated someone writing about nostalgia without privileging the real or making value claims or trying to state what is real or not. I agree that nostalgia is fully captured in the logic of fashion.
And I think that is the most important disagreement we have: my sense, and correct me if I am wrong, is that you feel fashion/trend choices like the resurgence of vinyl, burlesque-y clothes or a Hipstamatic photo are random and not indicative of larger cultural forces. Is that right? I got that sense when you state that you choose Instagram photos simply because they look cool, and nothing else. Well, yes, I think that is probably what most people think when they decide what they think is cool. But I also think that what we happen to think is “cool” in a given cultural moment is not random at all, but really fucking important. That existential films became trendy after the radical 60′s wound down was not random. That you and others think the photos are cool is a perfect reason to start the analysis, most definitely not a reason to end it.
Nathan,
Thank you for replying. I appreciate your willingness to discuss the arguments (this being the Internet, and knowing how things on the Internet can sometimes get). Let me say to begin with, that I would certainly characterize my essay as “harsh”, which it was intended to be. But in that harshness was an attempt to combat your argument, not you or your writing. The reason I attack so vehemently is because I feel the distinction between atemporality and authenticity is very, very important to the world on numerous levels, popular culture being only one. And so I don’t wish to mince my words when it comes to making this distinction.
The distinction still being very crucial, even after reading your comment and re-reading your essay. Naturally, I think our personal opinions are no doubt quite close–otherwise, the contrast would not lay the distinction bare as it does. (Sometimes we most strongly disagree with the people we most agree with). But there are certain points I can’t surmount, and therefore, I still disagree with both the essay and your response.
Here’s the thing. It’s the word: “authenticity”. Few people who use the word spend much time castigating the inauthentic, or the un-real. And yet the obvious privileging of the authentic is as strong as ever. This isn’t simply an issue of semantics–it’s an issue of ontology. The problem finds an obvious form in Baurdrillard, but really it goes back to Heidegger. It is not enough to claim that there is no “inauthentic”. If someone is, or is searching for the authentic, if there can be such a thing as the authentic, there must be a state that is not-authentic. You don’t have to be the person to declare what is “real”. To claim there is indeed a real, is to automatically imply that in contraposes the unreal.
I don’t want to go through your essay line by line, because that is not what I wanted to do from the beginning. The reason I chose a more invective style was to create a “manifesto” of sorts, a rocket to propel me (and perhaps others) away from that sort of logic, which I hear recycled all too often. But, for the sake of clarity, here are a few passages from your original essay where I hear you reinforcing the difference between authenticity and whatever-else:
“I submit that we have chosen to create and view faux-vintage photos because they seem more authentic and real.”
“Therefore, simply being aware that the authenticity Hipstamatic purchases is simulated does disqualify the faux-vintage photo from entering into the economy of the real and authentic.”
“But the ultimate irony is that while these tools, just like all of social media, help us reinforce to ourselves and others that we are real and authentic, but they do this by simultaneously divorcing us to some degree from experiencing our present in the here and now.”
Clearly, your essay is working from the assumption that there is a desire for the real/authentic that motivates us, and which we use to classify our culture. That there is an economy of the real and authentic. Whether it is an attempt to relive a certain era, a desire to relive a certain era, or simply a desire to simulate an aesthetic of a living in a certain era (to be honest, your essay seemed to be unsure which of these faux-vintage was attempting to accomplish) doesn’t matter: the implication is that such a reaching-back by way of technology is a thing that can be done, and that it is something of significance to culture at large. The implication is that one can in fact strive for the “authentic” (back through periods of time, here-and-now, or in the future), whatever and wherever and whenever that is supposed to be.
It might seem like this is so, but nothing could be further from the truth. I agree that the past can have a certain currency, but this currency is not anything like authenticity. In fact, it is not currency. Currency can be authenticated, it can be counterfeited, and counterfeits can be detected, and destroyed. Contrary to your statement at the end of your comment in which you suggest that I feel culture is “not indicative of larger cultural forces”: I do, very much, think that there is a structure functioning within our culture. But this culture is not a system of currency, not any more than society is reducible to a country’s GDP. The “authentic” is an great abstraction–it is a simplified understanding of why we desire certain things. We don’t want things because they are authentic, we (or certain people structurally placed so as to benefit by their so-naming) deem them “authentic” because we want them. This abstraction is foolish and detrimental. We desire cultural things, whether particular artifacts of culture or the markers of particular aesthetics, whether time or place, because of their expedience to us. Because they are tools, and they function within our cultural praxis. Maybe they help us understand who we are, or maybe they just tickle our joy button. Either way, the reason why and the mechanism of its structure is not anything to do with authenticity. The reason why is what it is; authenticity is a category that seeks to exclude and objectify, as much as it simultaneously privileges classes of culture and provide a cursory, tautological explanation of “cultural forces”.
That said, I think we can agree that Instagram, etc. are important to determining the hows and whys of today’s culture, which is an important subject. But I strongly believe that “authenticity”, “nostalgia”, and “vintage” not only miss the real cultural forces going on, they rewire our theory into considering culture in the way it’s always been theorized: as something to be bought, sold, privileged, differentiated, and by these categories, taken advantage of. Culture today, if there’s anything “new” about it, is finally learning how to theorize itself. It is learning how to manipulate cultural forces for its own benefit. I think, as I’m sure you do, that we should celebrate this. Let’s start by ditching the vocabulary of its commodification.
Once again, thanks for commenting. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify, and hopefully engage the idea a little better.