All entries for July 2009

July 29, 2009

How Beckham & Manchester City Saved Football (and Something About The Orange Properties in Monopoly)

Wouldn’t it be nice if Manchester City and their tasteless, sterile, obscene, undignified, unsustainable, curiously small-time spend to the top might somehow be the saving grace of football?

Man City have been an ugly club for a while – the monstrous Commonwealth Games stadium and the three stars above their badge after their focus group decided it would give them a more continental feel – but their new billionaire owners may have turned something ugly into something despicable. This Summer has been one endless, sickening stream of delirious offers of nonsensical wages to every not-quite-world-class misfit footballer available. All they need now is to add in a little simulation and the pretence that football was invented in 1991 and they will represent absolutely everything wrong with the English game. They’re not the new Chelsea, they are worse than that. There was never this cynical a chairman, never this bottomless a pocket, never this desensitization to the value of money.

However, most of Manchester City's sins are symptomatic of English football’s problems in general, problems built upon improper regulation and problems which the FA will never solve until one of the football powerhouses collapses. Manchester City are the way for that to happen. Something will occur soon, we've seen what happens when markets escalate to false and unsustainable levels and companies plunge themselves into insurmountable debt in order to keep up with them. The balloon cannot keep pumping up forever, and Man City are making it pump a whole lot harder. If they push one of the big four out of Champions League football then that club (if it isn’t Arsenal) could easily collapse. Just one, the others get scared – immediately we get new rules: only debt-free teams can play in Europe, salary cap, 6+5...

Which leaves me in a predicament come the start of the season: can you reconcile supporting truly hateful enterprises if you believe that they will hasten systemic change? In the same vein, in the absence of proportional representation or a ‘none of the above’ on the ballot, might a couple of UKIP seats at the next election not be so bad? Might it adequately express to the governing party the public disillusionment with the vapid tit-for-tat of mainstream politics (whilst handing UKIP a lighted petard with which to hoist themselves)?

*

David Beckham arrived in Los Angeles in 2007 to save more than LA Galaxy; he arrived to save football in the US. He was the first football star in a generation to go to America whilst still at his peak, and the hope was that he would perhaps show the Americans a little bit of what the game is all about: because how could we get passion in the stands without passion on the pitch? (Passion from the stomach I mean, not the passion that you see at American sports games which appears to originate somewhere less vital – in the forearms or, often, private places).

And you know what? He succeeded. The banners that greeted Beckham this month as he returned to Galaxy (after practically begging Milan to sign him) had a bile and vitriol unprecedented in the American game. Terms like ‘Judas’ and ‘Traitor’ are being painted on signs and taken to MLS matches; even better, one can only imagine what a spectator last week shouted at Beckham (no stranger to heavy abuse) that made Becks confront the fan on the pitch and later label him ‘a disgrace’. Becks should be proud – he has brought them passion, and a passion that we just can't be cynical about. 

These things have a way of working themselves out, and there’s a certain beauty in it when they do. It reminded me of a story about Andrei Markov, the Russian Mathematician who gives his name to the Markov Chain. (I should say that as an English student with a sideline in Maths I know that the best way to identify humanities students is to talk about stochastic processes and see whose eyes are first to glaze over, so fear not: there are no formulae here, only stories).

Andrei Markov (1856-1922) always had literary aspirations. When, in 1906, he produced the first trials of the process of mathematical prediction that would come to be called the Markov Chain, he didn’t look to the sciences for his first test-run; instead he went to the St Petersburg University library and applied his theory to the first 20,000 letters of Eugene Onegin.

Graduating from student to professor at St Petersburg University, the exemplary Markov eventually found equals in his twenties at the world-famous St Petersburg Academy of Sciences, where he stayed for forty years, continuing his research and generally getting angry about everything. He wrote endlessly to newspapers concerning the state of Russia; the press dubbed him ‘Andrei the Furious’. Markov was a revolutionary writer trapped in a mathematician’s body. He mixed with all the great writers of the time, and when the Catholic Church excommunicated Leo Tolstoy, Markov wrote to them, politely asking if they wouldn't mind excommunicating him too. When Duke Dundook, a nobleman, was accepted into the Academy on the basis of his breeding alone, Markov wrote a (sadly lost) limerick to his friend Alexander Pushkin, which Pushkin branded ‘unfit for a lady’s ears’.

In his final years Markov lived to cause trouble for the Academy. At one point he declared himself unable to attend meetings of the Academy because he had no shoes, and the Academy decided to call his bluff and sent him some fine tailored shoes. At the next meeting, there was a message from Markov: ‘Finally, I received footwear; not only, however, is it stupidly stitched together, it does not in essence accord with my measurements. Thus, as before, I cannot attend meetings of the Academy. I propose placing the footwear received by me in the Ethnographic Museum as an example of the material culture of the present time, to which end I am ready to sacrifice it.’

But Markov will always be remembered for his gift to mathematics, Markov Chains: situations in which you can predict all of your future states from your present state alone. The beauty is the simplicity –  you don’t need to know anything about the past, just where you are at the moment and the odds of going to each place. You can keep feeding those odds in and see where you would be at any point in the future, without knowing anything about where you have been.

So when does the past not matter when predicting the future? Quite often, actually. Gambling machines are a good one – if you’ve just won, the odds of winning are x; if you’ve just lost, the odds of winning are y: simple. Weather would work, though it would be a little crude (you’d have the weather today, and the odds for each kind of weather tomorrow given that it’s whatever-it-is today). I think the best ones are sports which follow closed patterns – snooker, tennis, baseball. Markov Chains can map every single outcome of these sports because the matches follow a set order: at every point there are only a certain number of things that can happen, entirely independent of what’s happened in the past.

Another one I like is Monopoly, because we think it’s a skilful game but Markov Chains show us that once you’ve chosen your piece (dog, of course) you will never have an opportunity to control it. Go on, try to think of a moment in Monopoly where you control your piece... Everywhere you land is entirely pre-determined. Chance cards teleport you but they themselves are finite, mandatory and randomly selected – there’s no choice involved. Purchasing property is a false freedom, because purchases or a lack of them will not alter where pieces ultimately land in the course of the game. Buying and building will affect who wins, but the game plays the way it plays; we can’t change it.

Consequently we can now map a game of Monopoly and say that after 23 goes, the likelihood that you will be on Pentonville Avenue is whatever. We can also map things like the total relative frequency of landing on each square, multiply each of these by the square’s rent and see which set is genuinely the best set to buy in terms of expected returns. (It’s Orange.)

*

1984. Long before Perez Hilton, Stephen Fry and dearest Charlie Brooker, the first internet journalist with legions of fans was an erudite San Franciscan perennial on an early internet forum called net.singles. Part Andy Kaufmann, part Thomas Pynchon, the obtuse writer’s acerbic leftfield observations regularly appeared on the forum, hanging in the air, breathing life and satire into the sorry clichés of his fellow users. Some favourite extracts:

I spent an interesting evening recently with a grain of salt.’

I hope that there are sour apples in every bushel.’

Never mind. I am afraid of it becoming another island in a nice suit.’

‘He screams back you’re a cow, give me some milk or else go home.’

It was 1989 before Scientific American revealed the truth about the legendary net.singles writer, and his pseudonym Mark V. Shaney will probably tell you all you need to know. He was a piece of computer code written by a young researcher at AT&T who utilised the fact that language, like Monopoly, Snakes and Ladders, snooker and the like, is forever bound by probabilistic limits. The Shaney code simply processed the text in a collection of forums and having analysed enough text, computed the likelihood of any word choice, based entirely upon the previous word. Then it would generate a word at random, dependent upon those respective probabilities.

Thus the text which ‘Mark’ generated remained topical and matched the tone and vocabulary of those around him without error. He was exactly the same as them – just a bit less predictable. And so Andrei Markov did realise his literary aspirations, because seventy years after his death, he wrote:

One morning I shot an elephant in my arms and kissed him. So it was too small for a pill? Well, it was too small for a while. As I’ve commented before, really relating to someone involves standing next to impossible.’


July 18, 2009

When You Get Caught Between the Moon, Vienna and a UK City

In celebration of the fortieth anniversary of the Moon landings the BBC have recently put online all their news reports from around the time. Included is a Panorama episode from 20 July 1969, taking place while the triumphant astronauts were still circling the moon trying to re-dock with their shuttle and return to earth. If you’ve never seen it, the BBC Online Archive is full of great vintage reports from major moments in modern history but I’d advise against spending too long there. I did once and a dark depression is the inevitable outcome, along with grumblings about there being no more heroes.

If you get a chance, watch that Panorama episode (address below). It’s a mesmerising six-man discussion hours after Armstrong’s first steps, and all the subtexts swirling around this moment clash together in every which way – the Cold War, Art & Science, Nuclear War, Postmodernism, Religion & Science, Civil Rights and the End of Empire. That final one, the decline of the British Empire is an interesting and unexpected one. All the panel agree that this is the first advance in human endeavour since the 17th century that the British have had no part (quite incorrectly, but it's 1969) and the revelation prompts a substantial period of mourning.

A miasmic tone hangs over the entire debate, largely down to the immediate threat of nuclear war. Asked their main feelings on the Moon landings, most panellists indicate ‘relief’ that perhaps this means that the war is over, and that it was done without a bomb. One, pressed on whether they felt any euphoria watching the landing, simply says, ‘No, hope. The two are very different.’ The future is utterly uncertain. The question that hangs over the debate is, after this giant re-ordering of the state of man, what now?

Economist Barbara Ward puts the moment in perspective: ‘It’s the first time that the human race has been able to see in its imagination where it actually lives, and how small, and how shining, and how real it is, and how vulnerable. And if it’s true that we change nothing until we change our imagination, I think it’s possible that this is the first step towards changing how we think about ourselves.’ So will this be the point when the world realises it is just one unified race and comes together, or is this really the moment when everybody gives up on each other?

In the tradition of Marco Polo and Columbus, Apollo 11 offers the West a profound new understanding of the world and sets the stage for a reorganisation of man’s place in it. Barbara Ward later suggests that when world leaders begin to look at the world as the little orb that it is, it may prompt a re-examination of values. Perhaps it’s the end of them fighting unjust wars, hoping to ‘get away with it’. In response, James Mossman, the chair of the discussion, responds that a baby is a little orb and we see them all the time, but we still kill each other.

How weary with the state of the world must a journalist be to make that remark on BBC primetime just hours after man walks on the Moon? Brian Aldiss, then science-fiction writer, now vice-president of the HG Wells Society cheekily sums the pessimistic tone with his summation that this achievement is simply a victory for two simian traits, curiosity and tribalism; probably not a slogan upon which to build our Benetton-ad World. When the panel sum up the impact of this re-ordering of man, it is overwhelmingly pessimistic. You can almost hear Herod in Wilde/Strauss’s Salome: 'Hide the moon, hide the stars! Something terrible is going to happen!'

*

Speaking of Strauss, this idea of a widespread re-examination of the place of man reminded me of a story about the European music scene in fin-de-siecle Vienna. In the late nineteenth century the idea of a musical canon was only just beginning to emerge, and as a result of this process many composers’ places in history were at that moment being written (or re-written). The public sentiment, especially in Vienna, the centre of European music and the driving force for this concretisation of the canon, deemed that the modern composers would not come out of this reorganisation looking too good. Praise was lavished on the – dead – old guard, and in just a few decades the proportion of living composers in the Liepzig Orchestra’s repertoire fell from 84% to 24%.

This did not go unnoticed by the leading composers, and Schoenberg in particular became sick to death of the public. People wanted either sainted dead men or the cakewalk and popular music, and Schoenberg’s solution was to ignore the common man completely. The voice of the people, he said, was the voice of the devil. He made a stand and became perhaps the first artist to refuse to court public attention. The public’s examination of the place of the artist eventually means that fin-de-siecle Vienna is when the people and the artist finally wash their hands of each other.

The fragmentation didn’t stop there. At the same time, all the European composers (except the Austrians and Germans) were straining to cast off the Austrian and German influence, and really do anything so long as it wasn’t Prussian. They resented the hulking yokes of Wagner and Beethoven hanging around their necks, they were intimidated by their bombast and the idea that this was the pinnacle of music. Furthermore, there was a feeling post Franco-Prussian war the Germans had an eye on European dominance in all departments.

The war and the establishment of this canon forced re-examination, and this dug up a great deal of resentment among the Europeans. They also turned away from the music of the city, and Stravinsky, Bartok, Ravel, de Falla each in turn began to write music lifted from folk tunes and traditional, pre-urban motifs, and the rejectionism in modernist art begins. Some simmering resentments have come to a head but this crisis is mainly about that singular re-examination of place, and the only solution is splits and fragmentation. The centre cannot hold, Yeats wrote a couple of decades later. All these groups just forget their commonalities and break up, and up, and up.

*

Antony Gormley's 'One & Other' is the public art project currently resident in Trafalgar Square, in which 2,400 people take turns doing anything they want on the fourth plinth for an hour, over the course of 100 days. Of course, it’s all wrong – for starters, they’re twenty feet off the ground and no-one can hear them. It’s also a small platform and very windy – there’s a reason pulpits have sides. There are big nets to catch them if they fall, but these just make the plinth look like something which has fallen off those giant walking machines that patrol Hoth in The Empire Strikes Back.

Alternatively, as someone pointed out in the Times, it now looks rather like an armed guardpost at an internment camp, hammering home how divisive the project actually seems. But there’s something rather pointless about ridiculing the Fourth Plinth, every newspaper did straight away with an unsurprising knee-jerk cynicism, and anyway what we should deride is that the frivolous exhibit gets mountains of column-inches because it is in the capital, whilst, for instance, the news last month that Bradford had beaten Los Angeles, Cannes and Venice to the title of UNESCO’s first City of Film was only ever reported on the TV news channels at 28 or 58 minutes past the hour, and with a smirk.

Consequently, I’m delighted that Liverpool have done so well with their year as European Capital of Culture and that, inspired by their success, the Culture Secretary Ben Bradshaw this week began the UK Capital of Culture competition, starting 2013. I wouldn’t blame you if you didn’t hear the announcement, it was so quietly hidden away, but it will be an honour hard to avoid when it is bestowed since it will include the host duties for a range of events including the Turner Prize, BBC Sports Personality of the Year, The Brits, The Stirling Prize and the Electric Proms. It will be a genuine decentralisation of cultural events (every four years) and should be applauded.

It is hard to say what became of that cultural, political and sociological crossroads that seemed so imminent as Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins circled the Moon. It might be worth noting, however, that Neil Armstrong performed six months of publicity out of a sense of duty to the American taxpayer, and since then has become a complete recluse. He has given almost no interviews in forty years – do you know what he looks like? – and his signature alone is worth thousands.

But his seeming rejection of mankind was clearly to the personal benefit of the man. We break down and break up and are better for it; the more fragmented we are, the more freely individual. The Viennese schism had an interesting after-effect – it heralded an ascendency for composers from small towns. Janacek, Bartok and Ravel were all from minor towns and never forgot that feeling of otherness. They brought to the fore the notions of the outsider and of the schizophrenia of dual origins, themes which persist in all modes of art to this day, and the UK can only benefit from promoting a little fragmentation and schizophrenia of its own.

---

www.bbc.co.uk/archive/moonlandings/7606.shtml?all=1&id=7606                         
oneandother.co.uk
www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/jun/12/bradford-wins-unesco-city-of-film

July 2009

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
Jun |  Today  | Aug
      1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31      

Search this blog

Tags

Galleries

Most recent comments

  • Hi Sue. I am proud to be British but I think the term means something different to each of us, and q… by on this entry
  • I thought I'd write something about what you said but just in a sort of "off the top of my head way"… by Sue on this entry
  • Excellent article, great read…thank you. by Quinny Buzz on this entry
  • I think what you said is very interesting and a lot of it rings true. I especially liked the bit abo… by Sue on this entry

Blog archive

Loading…
Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder
© MMXXIII