3 ms·

Technological and social impact. SV owns the west's attention and behavior right now. I do not consider art to be the only cultural artifact. OP in this thread

Technological and social impact. SV owns the west's attention and behavior right now. I do not consider art to be the only cultural artifact. OP in this thread actually included financial impact in its consideration of NYC. Technology is as much a cultural factor as finance.

seppin 8y ago
> Technological and social impact. That's what makes SF a financial capital. What are its cultural contributions? Hoodies and overpriced coffee? > SV owns the west's attention and behavior right now Tech acts to capture and reflect culture, it doesn't create any. Even if it did, having companies based in SF wouldn't make the city itself a cultural capital. Just economic.
- notfromhere 8y ago
  It's an ironic claim given how tech has driven out all the creative types out of SF
- heurist 8y ago
  I feel that you are being overly reductive. My midwestern parents spend half their evenings on Facebook with Netflix on in the background now instead of simply watching cable TV. Society is having huge, diffuse discussions around overuse of phones, internet addiction, political problems of connectivity. Most of the popular personal entertainment apps are based in SV (as is Pixar, if you want to discuss influential art). Culture is not paintings and sculptures, it's the way we behave and interact. Consider that prior to Da Vinci's era, painting primarily was seen as a trade and not an art. With technology uprooting our society piece by piece, I see no reason to consider technology anything but a core cultural driver. SV is currently the center of technology-based culture, for better or worse.
  - seppin 8y ago
    > My midwestern parents spend half their evenings on Facebook with Netflix on in the background now instead of simply watching cable TV. Then your argument is for LA creating culture, which it does, not SF. "Tech" distributes art created in Hollywood. > Society is having huge, diffuse discussions around overuse of phones, internet addiction, political problems of connectivity. Again not culture, digital addiction if anything. The cigarettes of our generation. > Culture is not paintings and sculptures, it's the way we behave and interact. Communication tools are just that, tools. Speech, performance, art, music, all creations that have nothing to do with the tech that distributes it. > SV is currently the center of technology-based culture, for better or worse. SF/SV captures, repackages, and distributes art/speech in order to sell ads over the top of it all. Why you think that qualifies as creating culture itself, I don't know. You think i'm wrong? Try watching a Youtube or Facebook original series. When SV tries to actually create something, it's terrible.
    - heurist 8y ago
      I totally disagree with your perspective on this but do not that think we will reach an agreement with further discussion.
      - seppin 8y ago
        Is seems we disagree about what culture actually is, so agreed.

seppin 8y ago

> Technological and social impact. That's what makes SF a financial capital. What are its cultural contributions? Hoodies and overpriced coffee? > SV owns the west's attention and behavior right now Tech acts to capture and reflect culture, it doesn't create any. Even if it did, having companies based in SF wouldn't make the city itself a cultural capital. Just economic.

notfromhere 8y ago
It's an ironic claim given how tech has driven out all the creative types out of SF
heurist 8y ago
I feel that you are being overly reductive. My midwestern parents spend half their evenings on Facebook with Netflix on in the background now instead of simply watching cable TV. Society is having huge, diffuse discussions around overuse of phones, internet addiction, political problems of connectivity. Most of the popular personal entertainment apps are based in SV (as is Pixar, if you want to discuss influential art). Culture is not paintings and sculptures, it's the way we behave and interact. Consider that prior to Da Vinci's era, painting primarily was seen as a trade and not an art. With technology uprooting our society piece by piece, I see no reason to consider technology anything but a core cultural driver. SV is currently the center of technology-based culture, for better or worse.
- seppin 8y ago
  > My midwestern parents spend half their evenings on Facebook with Netflix on in the background now instead of simply watching cable TV. Then your argument is for LA creating culture, which it does, not SF. "Tech" distributes art created in Hollywood. > Society is having huge, diffuse discussions around overuse of phones, internet addiction, political problems of connectivity. Again not culture, digital addiction if anything. The cigarettes of our generation. > Culture is not paintings and sculptures, it's the way we behave and interact. Communication tools are just that, tools. Speech, performance, art, music, all creations that have nothing to do with the tech that distributes it. > SV is currently the center of technology-based culture, for better or worse. SF/SV captures, repackages, and distributes art/speech in order to sell ads over the top of it all. Why you think that qualifies as creating culture itself, I don't know. You think i'm wrong? Try watching a Youtube or Facebook original series. When SV tries to actually create something, it's terrible.
  - heurist 8y ago
    I totally disagree with your perspective on this but do not that think we will reach an agreement with further discussion.
    - seppin 8y ago
      Is seems we disagree about what culture actually is, so agreed.