Have you ever wondered about geekiness? Before the more literal minded of you decide to correct me and point out that the derivation of the word "geek" comes from a circus sideshow freak in early 20th century traveling fairs, I would just like to point out the evolution of this word to its modern colloquial meaning is still designed to imply someone different from everyone else in a distasteful way. The literal meaning is different but the sentiment remains the same.
The sense of the word that I mean is "geek," basically meaning someone who has chosen to specialize their knowledge to the point where it has become a mild obsession. When I say the word "geek" the image that mostly likely pops into your head is an overweight guy, probably late teens maybe early 20's, with thick glasses, bad acne, and out of style clothing, correcting your analysis of a particular Star Trek episode using detailed technical specs of the USS Enterprise that have been documented ad nauseum on some poorly designed website probably hosted by tripod. Right? But what I think is interesting is not necessarily the personal hygiene aspect of geekiness, as I believe this is as offshoot of the deeper question - which is the obsession with a subject that is considered to be trivial or stupid by the majority of the populace - the hygiene issues are probably due to the obsession itself - the focus on Star Wars characters or prononciation of Elvish words becomes more important than considering how one is perceived by other people.
The real question then, to me, is why are experts in some fields lauded and considered worthy of our respect, while others are derided and scorned? Think about it - if you're at a cocktail party and someone is going off about the minutiae of Picasso's artwork and how the individual brush strokes in Guernica were indicative of his existential despair after witnessing industrial manufacturing techniques applied to warfare tactics, though we may think that it sounds a little pretentious, it wouldn't be surprising if that person had a small audience around them, nodding slowly as they pretended to understand, many of whom were well dressed, attractive people. Would the same thing happen if a person were debating whether a Star Wars style star destroyer could beat the USS Enterprise in a firefight? Doubtful, at best, unless presented in an ironic manner suggesting that the question were never taken seriously to begin with.
Who decides what our cultural priorities are? Connoisseurs of wines, food, literature, art, even science (to an extent) are considered the leaders of Western culture and should be admired. Geek culture often surrounds topics of fantasy; science fiction, "fairy tales" (of the Lord of the RIngs variety) video games, dungeons and dragons style role playing games; escapism, then. While I suppose it's possible to escape into decadent realms of wine and food, the same element of pretending to be someone else is typically not present. Is that the key to our cultural stigmatization surrounding geeks? I don't know, I'm just putting it out there. Maybe it's that our culture values self-confidence above all else - and someone who is confident in themselves is probably going to spend less time pretending to be someone else. But again, that's pure conjecture.
I have no idea why this topic popped into my mind but it seems like fair enough fodder for discussion. Anyone else have any thoughts?
The sense of the word that I mean is "geek," basically meaning someone who has chosen to specialize their knowledge to the point where it has become a mild obsession. When I say the word "geek" the image that mostly likely pops into your head is an overweight guy, probably late teens maybe early 20's, with thick glasses, bad acne, and out of style clothing, correcting your analysis of a particular Star Trek episode using detailed technical specs of the USS Enterprise that have been documented ad nauseum on some poorly designed website probably hosted by tripod. Right? But what I think is interesting is not necessarily the personal hygiene aspect of geekiness, as I believe this is as offshoot of the deeper question - which is the obsession with a subject that is considered to be trivial or stupid by the majority of the populace - the hygiene issues are probably due to the obsession itself - the focus on Star Wars characters or prononciation of Elvish words becomes more important than considering how one is perceived by other people.
The real question then, to me, is why are experts in some fields lauded and considered worthy of our respect, while others are derided and scorned? Think about it - if you're at a cocktail party and someone is going off about the minutiae of Picasso's artwork and how the individual brush strokes in Guernica were indicative of his existential despair after witnessing industrial manufacturing techniques applied to warfare tactics, though we may think that it sounds a little pretentious, it wouldn't be surprising if that person had a small audience around them, nodding slowly as they pretended to understand, many of whom were well dressed, attractive people. Would the same thing happen if a person were debating whether a Star Wars style star destroyer could beat the USS Enterprise in a firefight? Doubtful, at best, unless presented in an ironic manner suggesting that the question were never taken seriously to begin with.
Who decides what our cultural priorities are? Connoisseurs of wines, food, literature, art, even science (to an extent) are considered the leaders of Western culture and should be admired. Geek culture often surrounds topics of fantasy; science fiction, "fairy tales" (of the Lord of the RIngs variety) video games, dungeons and dragons style role playing games; escapism, then. While I suppose it's possible to escape into decadent realms of wine and food, the same element of pretending to be someone else is typically not present. Is that the key to our cultural stigmatization surrounding geeks? I don't know, I'm just putting it out there. Maybe it's that our culture values self-confidence above all else - and someone who is confident in themselves is probably going to spend less time pretending to be someone else. But again, that's pure conjecture.
I have no idea why this topic popped into my mind but it seems like fair enough fodder for discussion. Anyone else have any thoughts?
VIEW 25 of 51 COMMENTS
i think one way to think about this is jack kirby vs. pablo picasso. both are nearly contemporary, and are giants in their field (comic books and modern art). so, what's the difference? well. kirby had a vivid imagination, could work fast, had an apptitude for developing characters people could love, was a good draftsman (anatomy, design), and a strong storyteller. picasso had excellent skills in a number of mediums, was interested in the human condition, experimented with new forms of artistic expression, and was also a talented draftsman (to use a generic term).
now, there is a fair amount of overlap here... BUT despite the deep love i have for classic marvel characters, i would have to say that picasso beats out kirby. ultimately, picasso is working on Big Ideas and addressing the Human Condition in a direct way, that Kirby at best only sort of plays with. picasso takes work to penetrate and understand. kirby kind of lays it out there. 'getting' picasso suggests a kind of intelligence and intuition that 'getting' the fantastic four just does not have.
now, this doesn't mean that one is somehow wholesale better (see, this is where i pull the kerry and hedge my bets heheheh). both are worthwhile - kirby had tons of talent, and escapism is great stuff. but i think that a story told for fun and an existential piece of art ... i dunno. there are not a different species per say, but there is a qualitative difference there.
in terms of geekiness of course - if you're just repeating what your art professor said (or what the guy at the comic book claims) - you're a tool anyway you slice that pie.