There was no shortage of media from Elon Musk’s SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket launch this week. A computer-rendered animation prepared us all for the spectacle, set to David Bowie’s “Life on Mars” as a kind of galactic music video. Everything was live-streamed as it happened. Then afterward, the viral video clip of the two booster rockets landing in tandem after the successful launch was certainly impressive, even if the third booster missed its mark. But the real iconic image from the launch, the one most likely to stand the test of time, is of the cherry-red Tesla Roadster that Musk embedded in the capsule of the payload rocket. A gleaming convertible floating through (actual, real) space, its wheels not spinning at all, an astronaut-suited mannequin posed, unperturbed, with its arm hanging out the side. The Earth eventually looms in the background, incomprehensibly large, seen through the windshield.
Anything can be art if someone wants it to be, but few things are good art
It’s a staggering image — the first car ever in space, moving seven miles per second toward the asteroid belt — and so impressive that the video seems somehow unreal. It’s the greatest car ad of all time. What makes the image so compelling is in part its casualness, a feat carried off jauntily and successfully, with the added joke of the posed mannequin and a dashboard screen displaying “DON’T PANIC.” The human-manufactured car, with its elongated curves and aerodynamic, semi-organic shape, contrasts completely with the inhuman vastness of space, the gleaming red of the car against utter black. Actual spaceships are unwieldy, temperamental machines; this is one craft we can all understand, even if it’s not exactly functional.
But a bigger question rose on Twitter soon after the launch: Is Musk’s space car art? It’s a problem that faces any gesture absurd or excessive enough. The car doesn’t fulfill a coherent function (besides marketing), it’s a creative gesture driven by an individual’s vision, and it’s a primarily visual phenomenon: ipso facto. My answer to the question is that yes, the car is art, of a sort, but with a caveat. I’ll repeat an art-world maxim: Anything can be art if someone wants it to be, but few things are good art.
So is it any good? First we have to decide to interpret the space car as art. Okay, that’s done! Now, let’s judge it as a piece in terms of its precedents and possible influences in turn.
Photography (Rating: 9/10)
The image of the car gliding past Earth is the primary visual artifact of the launch. Capturing that view had to be carefully orchestrated: posing the mannequin, deciding where to install the camera, and positioning it to get the ideal effortless angles. Everything about it is intentional, a decisive factor of art-making. The image’s saturated color and simple palette — red, black, white, and blue-green — also somehow reminds me of William Eggleston’s pioneering color photo of a lightbulb standing out against a blood-red ceiling.
Verdict: A very successful photograph.
Modernism (Rating: 6/10)
In 1917, Marcel Duchamp put a urinal on a pedestal, titled it “Fountain,” signed it R. Mutt, and called it art. It was what the French artist called a readymade, his word for a combination of everyday objects reassembled or re-contextualized by an artist. The sheer act of the artist was enough to make anything a sculpture. My favorite readymade is “Prelude to a Broken Arm”, from 1915. It’s a shovel hanging above the ground — the object is the joke. Names were important to Duchamp; the name of a piece “instead of describing the object like a title was meant to carry the mind of the spectator towards other regions more verbal,” he wrote in 1961.
Back to Musk — if his car was meant as a readymade, then it’s art. “Don’t Panic” could be the piece’s Duchampian title, meant to evoke our own mortality, the imminent disaster of climate change, or the dominant mood of the 21st century. Another thought came to mind. Is the space car really a functional car? The Tesla Roadster Model 3 is suffering from constant production delays, after all. Maybe they just sent a shell of the convertible up, well aware that no one could ever prove it. This would make the artwork even more Duchampian: just like the urinal or the shovel, it is a man-made machine removed from its purpose and made useless, like all art.
Verdict: Pretty good readymade!
Pop Art (Rating: 10/10)
Or maybe the roadster is Pop art. James Rosenquist, an American painter, made vast murals of glossy American machines flying through space, including car parts and military jets. John Chamberlain created sculptures from crumpled car bodies, twisted into abstract monuments. Musk’s car fits comfortably here, as well as in the context of Andy Warhol’s repeated screen prints — it’s an image designed for the profusion of mass media. The luxury car against the blackness of space is a perfect representation of the banality of human culture. We get to space, and this is what we do with it?
A convertible is, I think, one of modern humanity’s more complete aesthetic achievements. It’s a technological form shaped by mining, industrialization, highway construction, fossil fuels, and finally, with Tesla, Silicon Valley venture capital derived from the digital internet. Let its eternal presence in space and the viral documentation of its trip be a monument to our time, excessive, self-obsessed, and delusional as it is. It seems perfect.
Verdict: I’d believe it if a particularly obnoxious post-Pop artist had already launched a car into space.
Land Art (Rating: 8/10)
A movement in the 1960s and ‘70s, the Land artists simply moved earth around to make sculptures, oftentimes in the middle of a desert where few people would ever see their work, as with Michael Heizer’s “City” in Nevada or Robert Smithson’s “Spiral Jetty” in Utah. “Instead of causing us to remember the past like the old monuments, the new monuments seem to cause us to forget the future,” Smithson wrote in 1966. “They are not built for the ages, but rather against the ages.” The space car is a kind of “instant monument,” as Smithson might have described it — a memorialization of 2018, forever. It doesn’t matter that it’ll never come back to us and no one can go see it.
Verdict: Definitely monumental, but lacking in some of the gravitas of the movement’s originators.
Postmodernism (Rating: 4/10)
There’s a whole genre of art shot into space in the contemporary era. The Japanese artist Azuma Makoto launches bonsai and flower arrangements into space and photographs them, experimenting with how they might look with Earth as a background. John Chamberlain and Andy Warhol both contributed to “Moon Museum,” a ceramic wafer with tiny artist drawings that was left in the Apollo 12 moon-landing module in 1969 (Warhol drew his initials, he says, but it really looks like a penis). The 1977 Golden Record on the Voyager probes was a kind of multimedia sculpture, too, embedded with text, images, sounds, and diagrams that were intended as baseline information about the human species, culture, and our location in the universe for any aliens who might come upon it. In 2012, the artist Trevor Paglen updated the Golden Record with an archival disc of images meant to last billions of years, launched via a television satellite.
But extraterrestrial communication doesn’t seem to explain Musk’s purpose with the car. It makes a simpler statement, befitting the ultimate tech bro: I am here.
Verdict: Even for postmodernism, it’s a shallow and ridiculous gesture without an ounce of self-awareness.
Final Judgement (Average: 7.4/10)
If we were to take an average, the car would be somewhere around a C. But really, you can’t apply all these categories at once. Success in one is plenty, if it qualifies. The Tesla space car could make great art, if that’s what it was intended as. Unfortunately, it wasn’t.
Art has to be part of a prolonged practice, with each successive project from an individual artist building on or creating context for the previous. But the roadster was a one-off stunt, sent up purely as a show of dominance — or a way to placate shareholders and those still waiting on their personal cars. Elon Musk can be an artist if he wants to. But so far, he just isn’t a good one.
]]>Photographer Justin Brice Guariglia’s studio in the Gowanus neighborhood of Brooklyn is a high-ceilinged warehouse with a single skylight shielded from the heat of a summer day. A single image is mounted on the back wall, a 16-foot-tall rectangle covered in an abstract, textured pattern in white monochrome. It looks like it might depict the surface of the Moon or a molecular magnification; the image is otherworldly and yet oddly intimate. But I feel a shock when I realize what the photograph actually depicts.
Guariglia’s piece is both dazzling and sickening, its undeniable visual attraction reinforcing the disaster that it documents
It shows the melting surface of the Jakobshavn Glacier in Greenland, which is collapsing at its edge, dumping 38 billion tons of 110,000-year-old ice into the ocean every year. Jakobshavn is one of the fastest-moving (“galloping”) glaciers in the world. Guariglia’s piece is both dazzling and sickening, its undeniable visual attraction reinforcing the disaster that it documents. The artist turns the abstract, inhuman numbers into something more concrete: a landscape.
Guariglia, who worked with publications like The New York Times and National Geographic as a photojournalist before turning to art, took the photograph from 1,500 feet while on a military transport plane on NASA’s Operation IceBridge. In his work as an artist, Guariglia uses photography to observe the unobservable. His pieces enable individual viewers to viscerally experience the vastness of climate change. It’s impossible to look at them without acknowledging how we are all implicated, no matter how small we feel.
The photographer’s upcoming exhibition at the Norton Museum in Florida, which opens September 5th, is titled, Earth Works: Mapping the Anthropocene. The Anthropocene is the increasingly mainstream term for the geologic era of human dominance over the environment, marked in 1950 by the first nuclear tests and the proliferation of plastic pollution that might outlast humanity itself. Guariglia creates visual records of the Anthropocene that can be understood either as proactive warnings or advance monuments to our own folly: we didn’t understand the damage until it was too late.
In his studio, Guariglia points to the image of Jakobshavn melting on the wall. The ice pictured might already be flowing as the oceans rise; though Greenland might feel distant, the consequences are immediate. “This tells us how much time we have until Gowanus is underwater, or the tip of Manhattan is underwater and we have to relocate,” Guariglia says. “All this stuff is interconnected.” Suddenly the ground beneath us in the studio feels a little less stable.
Artists have been representing nature since ink could be put to paper or paint could be brushed on a wall. The Tang Dynasty, from 618 to 906 CE, developed its own genre of landscape painting to evoke spiritual longing for the natural world, while in the West, landscapes evolved from superfluous backgrounds added to religious scenes into an independent format. Dutch and then British painters in the 17th and 18th centuries particularly took to the secular subject matter.
The “sublime” is a key concept in understanding art’s relationship to nature. The word means “extremes of elation and horror, about something unknowable and the infinite, something beyond what you are and your understanding,” says Alison Smith, a curator at the Tate museum in London. The sublime is “the idea that nature can turn against human beings.” In the Romantic period of the 19th century, painters like Caspar David Friedrich took to showing humans in the midst of nature’s unknowable force, as in Friedrich’s famous “Wanderer Above the Sea of Fog” from 1818. In the painting, a well-dressed gentleman gazes out over a misty mountainscape, both threatening and inaccessible. The Hudson River School also pursued the sublime in documenting the vast American frontier.
The sublime is “the idea that nature can turn against human beings”
But as the Industrial Revolution progressed, artistic landscapes changed. Canvases became smaller and views more intimate; nature was something more easily conquered, its wildness increasingly invaded by machines. Factories even featured in the work of early 20th century Impressionists like Monet. There was “an awareness of what human beings have done to the natural world,” Smith says. This led to an “anti-sublime,” according to the curator, that showed nature as something being occupied or consumed, a view that has lasted into our own century.
Such work “created habits of viewing that were possessive,” says Alan Braddock, an art historian at The College of William & Mary who is curating an exhibition of American art and environmental issues at Princeton University opening in 2018. “Landscape painting was part of the process of encouraging people to go and conquer the planet.”
The conquest is now over. Guariglia’s work, along with other contemporary photographers like Andreas Gursky and Edward Burtynsky, move toward what I began to think of as the Anthropocene sublime. Today, nature is once more seen as terrifying and incomprehensibly large because we are busily destroying it. It’s the same fear as the Romantic sublime, but for a different reason: we’re responsible for turning nature against us. That explains the looming dread I feel stepping in front of a work like “Mining Topographic I,” an aluminum panel covered in gold with an aerial photograph of a Chinese mine printed on top in heavy black ink. The image might be abstract, but I can’t ignore how humanity transformed the earth into this crosshatched, violent landscape — the opposite of organic.
“Should artists just depress us with pictures of oil spills, or should they affect our aesthetic sensibility and instill a sense of wonder and beauty?”
In the Anthropocene, art must confront a pivotal question. “Should artists just depress us with pictures of oil spills, or should they affect our aesthetic sensibility and instill a sense of wonder and beauty?” Braddock asks. Plain documentary, demonstrating the facts of climate change, is vital. But so is using visual beauty as a tool to better confront us with the reality of melting glaciers and rising temperatures. In other words, perhaps new aesthetics can help us imagine a different future.
Guariglia is 43 years old, with an ascetic’s shaved head, scruffy beard, and habitually dark clothes. He is relentlessly curious and an omnivorous reader, but having never received formal training in either photojournalism or art, his explanations of his own work tend to be tentative. The photographer leaves no reason to doubt his dedication to the material, though. Along his arms is a single tattooed black line that wavers up and down before curling up around his wrist. It’s 650,000 years of CO2 data from an ice core in Antarctica, and the wraparound represents the hockey-stick rise of the last 50 years.
When I first meet Guariglia at his studio, he’s with Tim Wride, the Norton’s photography curator, who has known the artist since his photojournalism days. The exhibition’s environmental concerns are pressing for the museum as well. “The Norton is in south Florida,” Wride says. “I’m terribly aware of the fact that my house is only four feet above sea level.” The melting glaciers in the photographs mounted around the Brooklyn studio, “well, that’s what’s making my shoes soggy.”
“I’m terribly aware of the fact that my house is only four feet above sea level.”
Guariglia grew up next to the historic New Jersey home of the Hudson River School painter Asher B. Durand. His awareness of that fact, combined with a career in the Boy Scouts, gave him an early engagement with nature, he says. He didn’t pick up a camera until he was studying abroad in Beijing in 1996, when he and a fellow student took up film photography as a hobby. After an internship at the iconic photography agency Magnum in New York City, he made his way into the field, living in Beijing and Hong Kong and working across Asia over the following two decades.
Guariglia saw China emerge as an industrial force — along with the accompanying changes in the local landscapes. The transformation resonated with him, but he wasn’t sure how best to approach it in the age of the iPhone. “We’re drowning in imagery, drowning in social media streams,” Guariglia says. “It’s eviscerated the medium.” If the documentary street photography championed by the likes of Magnum had lost its punch, how could a photograph rise up to the changes Guariglia was observing?
After moving to New York in 2014, he began experimenting with different photographic techniques, using a specialized printer that works in ultraviolet light to print on unorthodox surfaces like polystyrene and aluminum, laying down multiple layers of acrylic ink. “I wanted to go beyond the document, wanted to create something closer to painting,” Guariglia says. He used the new techniques on the aerial images he was shooting; the abstraction of the materials matched his views of the landscape from above. Guariglia’s first image of sea ice was shot out of a commercial plane window on route to Hong Kong passing over Greenland.
“We’re drowning in imagery, drowning in social media streams.”
Guariglia feels an affinity for things so large in scale they’re almost impossible to imagine, which the philosopher Timothy Morton calls “hyperobjects.” (Morton’s book of the same title is even laying on a studio table.) Hyperobjects are networked phenomena so huge and enduring as to be at the edge of human understanding, even though we might influence or create them. Climate change is a hyperobject. So’s plutonium, and so’s a black hole. “Hyperobjects outlast me, and they out-scale me in the here and now,” Morton writes. Beyond the grasp of any one person or entity, the hyperobject is less a thing than a system: causes and effects, swirling like a hurricane. Nature itself is a hyperobject; that feeling of the Anthropocene sublime emerges as we confront just how little we understand it.
Guariglia’s work underlines the overwhelming quality of the hyperobject while also making it possible to perceive at least a shade of the phenomenon. His photographs give the mind something to grab on to, a toehold in the vastness.
In 2015, NASA allowed Guariglia aboard Operation IceBridge, a mission that documents ice melt in the Arctic. He brought an extremely high-resolution digital medium-format camera on the plane and came back with the images now on his studio walls.
“Artwork that helps people understand climate change is sometimes just as good as a story in a newspaper or on TV.”
Guariglia’s work might be a form of reportage, but it is not exactly factual. In order to intensify their impact, the photographs are cropped and modified to emphasize certain qualities — visual abstraction, texture, and rhythm — irrelevant to NASA’s data collection. When I look at Guariglia’s “Qaanaaq I,” a photograph of the eponymous Greenland glacier, I don’t see decaying outlines or flood zones but the bulbous texture and forms of the ice itself. The effect is visually dazzling but also stomach-turning: struggling to place myself in relation to the image, I end up feeling a desire to turn away, if not run — the image threatens to subsume the viewer, an effect more potent than a line on a graph.
Science is predicated on accuracy; art isn’t. But scientists’ appreciate art’s ability to communicate: “Personally I think artwork that helps people understand climate change is sometimes just as good as a story in a newspaper or on TV,” says Joshua Willis, a NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory scientist.
Take the change in temperature, for instance. “At first, a warming climate of a few degrees sounds small,” says Zachary Labe, a PhD student in Earth system science at UC Irvine. Labe creates visualizations of Arctic sea ice in digestible animated GIF format. But when that change is illustrated with art, visualized data, photography, or even music, it’s easier to understand its significance, according to Labe. Still, trying to communicate information comes with a responsibility. “We also have an obligation to be scientifically accurate through whatever medium we present,” Labe says. “And we have a responsibility to show that this is happening and will continue to happen.”
On its own, data isn’t particularly sublime. It’s scary, and it can be awe-inspiring if you know the context, but it doesn’t come with the gut punch of art. But art that’s overly didactic is often boring. At best, artists can both help us understand our current nightmare — by provoking an awareness that we are in immediate trouble — and help us find a new way forward by showing that different possibilities exist, renegotiating our relationship to the world around us. The art historian Alan Braddock points out the need for “imagining new sensibilities and new attitudes that are not just about acquisition and conquest and exploitation.”
Guariglia calls his work with NASA a collaboration, driven by equal parts art and science. But working with government agencies brings its own challenges, particularly given the current administration’s attitude toward climate change. The president wants to slash NASA’s climate science research, moving the $2 billion in funding to its space program. Guariglia pays his own way, as the agency takes pains to point out, but if art isn’t seen as necessary to the scientific process, he might find continuing the collaboration impossible.
When I return to Guariglia’s studio on another hazy summer afternoon weeks later, he’s working with a studio assistant to sand and prepare aluminum panels for printing. Blocks of white polystyrene lay out to dry like so many chunks of ice. It’s part of the work that these materials will outlast the artist, and certainly survive longer than the ice that the photographs picture. Guariglia is creating his own hyperobjects, commenting on the buildup of human detritus — and adding to it.
Part of what’s so frightening about the Anthropocene sublime is that just as we weren’t aware of causing it, we also don’t know if we will actually be able to stop it. We may never return to a less fraught interaction with nature. Guariglia sees his work as “bearing witness to that transformation and seeing how humans were impacting, changing, shaping the planet,” he says. “It makes the Anthropocene visceral,” something felt, not just counted or observed. Climate change won’t stop if we choose to ignore it. Meanwhile, Guariglia continues his documentation. Political controversy or not, the photographer is scheduled to go on a flight with Oceans Melting Greenland in September; in fact, he just received the sign-up forms.
Before leaving the studio, I look back to the print of Jakobshavn Glacier on the wall once more. Even from the last time I saw it, that ice must have changed, sliding into the ocean and making its way toward Brooklyn. The image feels like a looming threat that we must change our lives, as an archaic sculpture told Rainer Maria Rilke in his famous poem — or else.
Correction Aug. 28 2:30 PM ET: The story has been corrected to note the actual starting date of the show is September 5, that the photo of Jakobshavn Glacier was taken at 1,500 feet, and that the commercial flight was to Hong Kong. We regret the errors.
]]>Igor Schwarzmann is the German co-founder of Third Wave, a strategy consultancy based in Berlin that works with small-scale industrial manufacturers. The company’s clients range across Europe, the United Kingdom, and the United States, so Schwarzmann often finds himself moving between poles of the global economy. While traveling, he turns to Foursquare for recommendations about where to eat and drink. “It knows what I like,” he says.
Every time Schwarzmann alights in a foreign city he checks the app, which lists food, nightlife, and entertainment recommendations with the help of a social network-augmented algorithm. Then he heads toward the nearest suggested cafe. But over the past few years, something strange has happened. “Every coffee place looks the same,” Schwarzmann says. The new cafe resembles all the other coffee shops Foursquare suggests, whether in Odessa, Beijing, Los Angeles, or Seoul: the same raw wood tables, exposed brick, and hanging Edison bulbs.
Digital platforms like Foursquare are producing “a harmonization of tastes”
It’s not that these generic cafes are part of global chains like Starbucks or Costa Coffee, with designs that spring from the same corporate cookie cutter. Rather, they have all independently decided to adopt the same faux-artisanal aesthetic. Digital platforms like Foursquare are producing “a harmonization of tastes” across the world, Schwarzmann says. “It creates you going to the same place all over again.”
It’s easy to see how social media shapes our interactions on the internet, through web browsers, feeds, and apps. Yet technology is also shaping the physical world, influencing the places we go and how we behave in areas of our lives that didn’t heretofore seem so digital. Think of the traffic app Waze rerouting cars in Los Angeles and disrupting otherwise quiet neighborhoods; Airbnb parachuting groups of international tourists into residential communities; Instagram spreading IRL lifestyle memes; or Foursquare sending traveling businessmen to the same cafe over and over again.
We could call this strange geography created by technology “AirSpace.” It’s the realm of coffee shops, bars, startup offices, and co-live / work spaces that share the same hallmarks everywhere you go: a profusion of symbols of comfort and quality, at least to a certain connoisseurial mindset. Minimalist furniture. Craft beer and avocado toast. Reclaimed wood. Industrial lighting. Cortados. Fast internet. The homogeneity of these spaces means that traveling between them is frictionless, a value that Silicon Valley prizes and cultural influencers like Schwarzmann take advantage of. Changing places can be as painless as reloading a website. You might not even realize you’re not where you started.
It’s possible to travel all around the world and never leave AirSpace, and some people don’t. Well-off travelers like Kevin Lynch, an ad executive who lived in Hong Kong Airbnbs for three years, are abandoning permanent houses for digital nomadism. Itinerant entrepreneurs, floating on venture capital, might head to a Bali accelerator for six months as easily as going to the grocery store. AirSpace is their home.
Minimalist furniture. Craft beer and avocado toast. Reclaimed wood. Industrial lighting. Cortados
As the geography of AirSpace spreads, so does a certain sameness. Schwarzmann’s cafe phenomenon recalls what the architect Rem Koolhaas noticed in his prophetic essay “The Generic City,” from the 1995 book S,M,L,XL: “Is the contemporary city like the contemporary airport—‘all the same’?” he asks. “What if this seemingly accidental—and usually regretted—homogenization were an intentional process, a conscious movement away from difference toward similarity?”
Yet AirSpace is now less theory than reality. The interchangeability, ceaseless movement, and symbolic blankness that was once the hallmark of hotels and airports, qualities that led the French anthropologist Marc Augé to define them in 1992 as “non-places,” has leaked into the rest of life.
As an affluent, self-selecting group of people move through spaces linked by technology, particular sensibilities spread, and these small pockets of geography grow to resemble one another, as Schwarzmann discovered: the coffee roaster Four Barrel in San Francisco looks like the Australian Toby’s Estate in Brooklyn looks like The Coffee Collective in Copenhagen looks like Bear Pond Espresso in Tokyo. You can get a dry cortado with perfect latte art at any of them, then Instagram it on a marble countertop and further spread the aesthetic to your followers.
This confluence of style is being accelerated by companies that foster a sense of placelessness, using technology to break down geography. Airbnb is a prominent example. Even as it markets unique places as consumable goods, it helps its users travel without actually having to change their environment, or leave the warm embrace of AirSpace.
Founded in 2008 by two graduates of the Rhode Island School of Design, Airbnb allows “hosts” to rent out unused space in their own homes. It now includes more than 2 million spaces in over 190 countries. “Experience a place like you live there,” is the company’s current credo. It heralds “a world where you can belong anywhere.”
Airbnb’s early website design, when it was still called AirBed & Breakfast, was Craigslist-rough and functionalist, promoting shots of hosts or scenery over interior decorating (“better than a cheap hotel,” its embedded title text read). By late 2012, it settled into the house-porn format it embraces today, with high-resolution, full-bleed images that could have been pulled from the pages of Dwell. The listings are presented not just as convenient hotel alternatives, but places where users would love to live permanently. The aspirational quality helped the company to blow past predecessors like Couchsurfing.org, which championed the experience of intruding in someone else’s life rather than roleplaying being a local. In a sense, Airbnb became an interactive lifestyle magazine.
The ideal Airbnb is both unfamiliar and completely recognizable
In 2011, a New York artist and designer named Laurel Schwulst started perusing Airbnb listings across the world in part to find design inspiration for her own apartment. “I viewed it almost as Google Street View for inside homes,” she says. Schwulst began saving images that appealed to her and posting them on a Tumblr called ”Modern Life Space.” But she had a creeping feeling something was happening across the platform. “The Airbnb experience is supposed to be about real people and authenticity,” Schwulst says. “But so many of them were similar,” whether in Brooklyn, Osaka, Rio de Janeiro, Seoul, or Santiago.
There was the prevalence of mass-produced but tasteful furniture, for one. “It’s kind of an extension of Ikea showrooms,” she says. But the similarities went beyond mass-production. The ideal Airbnb is both unfamiliar and completely recognizable: a sprinkling of specific cultural symbols of a place mixed with comprehensible devices, furniture, and decoration. “It’s funny how you want these really generic things but also want authenticity, too,” Schwulst says.
Airbnb’s advertising dwells in this paradox. A 2014 spot appropriates the nauseous, dissociative glamour of Lost in Translation’s Tokyo tourism in a series of shots out of various windows, looking into the foreign from a safe distance. In April of this year, another spot parodied tourist behavior — selfie sticks, Segway tours — and set it against the “authentic” activities — falling asleep on the couch reading a book or watching your child build a pillow fort — enabled by a stay with one of the platform’s hosts. It offered a vision of possessiveness, in which visitors consume recognizable symbols rather than encountering unfamiliar ones: “The local coffee shop is yours, too.”
Aaron Taylor Harvey, one of the leaders of Airbnb’s environments team, which oversees the design of the company’s offices around the world, has also noticed this pleasant sameness (Harvey estimates he has stayed at over 60 Airbnbs). While Airbnb doesn’t offer any decorating standards besides a few tips posted on their website (“show personality, not personal items,” one reads), the existence of the platform itself and the needs of its users enables a certain sameness to spread. “You can feel a kind of trend in certain listings. There’s an International Airbnb Style that’s starting to happen,” Harvey continues. “I think that some of it is really a wonderful thing that gives people a sense of comfort and immediate belonging when they travel, and some of it is a little generic. It can go either way.”
“The industrial look and the mid-century… as long as it doesn’t look cluttered and old.”
Hotels have long sold visions of comfort and stability, and Airbnb is evolving toward replicating the hotel industry it disrupted. In 2013, the company hired Chip Conley, the founder of the Joie de Vivre hotel group, as its head of global hospitality and strategy. But what makes Airbnb different is its decentralization. Like Schwarzmann’s copycat cafes, its aesthetic arises from tens of thousands of people making the same independent decisions rather than a corporate mandate. The Airbnb marketplace is evolving toward its most effective product; it seems that what consumers want more than an exotic experience is something like a Days Inn but more stylish and less obvious — a generic space hidden behind a seemingly unique facade.
Yet Airbnb would prefer to dispel any association with the non-local. When I asked Harvey to clarify his definition of International Airbnb Style in writing, a PR rep interjected, and stopped our correspondence short: “Each host and guest will have their own personal thoughts on this phrase.” However, some characteristics jump to mind: white or bright accent walls, raw wood, Nespresso machines, Eames chairs, patterned rugs on bare floors, open shelving, the neutered Scandinavianism of HGTV. “The industrial look and the mid-century,” suggests Natascha Folens, an interior decorator and Airbnb consultant in the Washington, DC area. “As long as it doesn’t look cluttered and old.”
International Airbnb Style may be associated with comfort and accessibility, but it is far from equally accessible to everyone. Earlier this year, Quirtina Crittenden, a business consultant in Chicago, started the hashtag #AirbnbWhileBlack to highlight experiences of discrimination on the platform, like hosts accepting reservations from an account with a white or anonymous avatar and denying a dark-skinned one. The observation was reinforced by a Harvard Business School study finding that users with stereotypically African-American names were 16 percent less likely to be accepted by hosts. It’s an issue the company knows it has to address; it recently appointed former Peace Corps director David King in the new position of “director of diversity and belonging.”
“They are branding their company with our life.”
Meanwhile, International Airbnb Style continues to reproduce, sometimes by outright appropriation. Zoé de Las Cases and Benjamin Dewé, a French interior designer couple, were shocked when they discovered that Airbnb had replicated the design of an apartment that they listed on the platform for a meeting room in the company’s San Francisco corporate office, down to a trio of faux-industrial pendant lights, a twee chalkboard, and a floating shelf full of almost identical art objects (in 2012 Airbnb itself had rented Las Cases and Dewé’s space to host a party). The couple sued Airbnb in late 2015. “They are branding their company with our life,” Dewé told BuzzFeed. In making the replica rooms, company designers would “reproduce the exact sofa, as close as they could to the exact chair,” recalls Lisa Bottom, a design director at Gensler, the architecture firm that designed the office in 2014.
Bottom says the meeting rooms were the brainchild of Airbnb founders Joe Gebbia and Brian Chesky, the RISD graduates. Gensler arranged the company’s meeting rooms around an atrium so that, “when you looked up through the atrium space, it was like looking at little snapshots of various cities,” Bottom says. All places, in one place. Imagine traveling across continents in a pilgrimage to the headquarters of the company that helps you open your house to strangers only to find yourself — at home.
Yet other startups are creating this globalized sameness-as-a-service in a self-enclosed package, a holistic AirSpace lifestyle.
I met Bruno Haid in a cafe that Igor Schwarzmann could have been describing, an austere garage in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, full of blonde wood, understated leather furniture, and motorcycle gear, which the shop also sells. Haid is the founder of Roam, an international “co-living” startup that promises its users — “Roamers” — the ability to move freely across residences in different countries for a monthly fee of $2,000 (or $500 per week). The company raised $3.4 million in funding in May, and currently manages spaces in Ubud, Bali; Miami; and Madrid. Buenos Aires and London are coming soon.
The properties vary: Roam Madrid is in an ornate 19th century building previously owned by the Vatican, and Ubud is a former boutique hotel. But they share a basic structure: “a shared kitchen, even-sized private bedrooms, all have private bathrooms. The communal areas always have a really nice co-working space, always have high-end physical networking gear,” Haid says. In every workspace, “wherever you go we have those Eames aluminum chairs. We looked at so many different chairs and they are the best.” Other flourishes include tulip tables, wide communal desks, and attenuated wire lamps.
Aesthetic homogeneity is a product that users are coming to demand, and tech investors are catching on
Through its network of digitally linked spaces, Roam guarantees that you can cook in the same kitchen and sit in the same chair under the same light anywhere in the world. Like similar startups Common and Breather (or WeWork’s WeLive), the company is betting that this experience is now what we prefer to constructing our own unique spaces. It’s “a professional nomadic community,” says David Cornthwaite, a self-identified adventurer and blogger who was one of the first residents at Roam Ubud. “We had an almost full house, 24 rooms,” he says. “It was a perfect space.”
Aesthetic homogeneity is a product that users are coming to demand, and tech investors are catching on. With Airbnb, “It’s not like you’re at a Holiday Inn that’s the exact same everywhere, but there’s a feeling of familiarity even in the midst of diversity,” says Kanyi Maqubela, a venture partner at Collaborative Fund, which invested in Roam. “I can stay in other people’s homes with them, eat apples they got from their own farmer’s market.”
Schwarzmann critiqued the lack of locality in generic places, but Haid’s company suggests a different, paradoxical definition of locality: desirable places should be both specific enough to be interesting and generic enough to be as convenient as possible, consumed quickly and easily — equal parts authentic and expendable. In his 1992 book Non-Places, Marc Augé, the French anthropologist, wrote that with the emergence of such identity-less space, “people are always, and never, at home.” If we can be equally at home everywhere, as Roam and Airbnb suggest, doesn’t that mean we are also at home nowhere? The next question is, do we mind?
The profusion of generic cafes and Eames chairs and reclaimed wood tables might be a superficial meme of millennial interior decorating that will fade with time. But the anesthetized aesthetic of International Airbnb Style is the symptom of a deeper condition, I think.
Why is AirSpace happening? One answer is that the internet and its progeny — Foursquare, Facebook, Instagram, Airbnb — is to us today what television was in the last century, with “a certain ability to transmit and receive and then apply layers of affection and longing and doubt,” as George W.S. Trow wrote in his paranoiac masterpiece of media criticism, “Within the Context of No Context,” originally published in The New Yorker in 1980. But instead of Trow’s “grid of 200 million,” American television viewers, we now have a global grid of 1.6 billion: Facebook’s population of monthly active users, all acting and interacting more or less within the same space, learning to see and feel and want the same things.
Urban areas around the world might increasingly resemble each other and become interchangeable
The connective emotional grid of social media platforms is what drives the impression of AirSpace. If taste is globalized, then the logical endpoint is a world in which aesthetic diversity decreases. It resembles a kind of gentrification: one that happens concurrently across global urban centers. Just as a gentrifying neighborhood starts to look less diverse as buildings are renovated and storefronts replaced, so economically similar urban areas around the world might increasingly resemble each other and become interchangeable.
In their introduction to The Fabric of Cultures: Fashion, Identity, and Globalization, the fashion scholars Eugenia Paulicelli and Hazel Clark write that this “aesthetic gentrification… divides the new world map in the light of a softer post-Cold War prejudice: the fashionable and the unfashionable world.” In other words, we are experiencing an isolationism of style versus one of politics or physical geography, though it still falls along economic lines. You either belong to the AirSpace class or you don’t.
The homogeneity induced by this division can become stifling, to that point that opting out appears the better option. Rochelle Short was an Airbnb Superhost in Seattle (the designation requires many guests, high response rates, and perfect reviews). She started on the platform in 2013 and became a kind of guru for hosts through her blog, Letting People In. But she stopped hosting this year, as Airbnb itself has in a way become gentrified.
“I think the demographic started to change,” Short says. In 2013, Airbnb felt like a true social experiment, “pioneering new territory, attracting people who were open-minded, easy-going, don’t worry if there’s a fleck on the mirror in the bathroom.” By 2016, she explains, it “became the vanilla tourist who wanted the Super 8 motel experience. I don’t like these travelers as much as the earlier days.”
This year, Airbnb moved from passively shaping the spaces users inhabit, to changing the way they travel by creating in-app guidebooks that will provide Foursquare-like recommendations to guests based on host tips. Just this week, the company also announced Samara, an in-house design and engineering studio that will “pioneer services for connection, commerce, and social change within and around the expanding Airbnb community,” Airbnb co-founder Joe Gebbia said in the press release. Samara’s first residence and community center in Nara Prefecture, Japan, Gebbia suggests, will enable a kind of voyeurism for foreign tourists: “I picture Western guests walking up, stepping inside, and you’re interacting with the community from the minute you arrive,” he told Fast Company.
Yet the AirSpace aesthetic that Airbnb has contributed to, and the geography it creates, limits experiences of difference in the service of comforting a particular demographic (“the vanilla tourist”) falsely defined as the norm. It is a “hallucination of the normal,” as Koolhaas writes. This is the harmful illusion that so much technology, and technological culture, perpetuates: if you do not fit within its predefined structures as an effective user, you must be doing something wrong. Says Schwarzmann, “It’s a bubble, a lot of things that are reinforcing our bubble. I’m definitely part of the described problem. White, male, privileged and I travel a lot.”
“A lot of things that are reinforcing our bubble. I’m definitely part of the described problem”
Among the phenomenon’s consequences is depersonalization, in the psychiatric sense: “a state in which one loses all sense of identity.” I personally like the AirSpace style. I can’t say no to a tasteful, clean, modern life space. But thinking through its roots and negative implications makes me reconsider my attachment. It’s hard to identify with something so empty at its core.
In the advent of AirSpace, our options are limited. The first is finding “the advantages of blankness,” as Koolhaas writes, becoming connoisseurs of “the color variations in the fluorescent lighting of an office building just before sunset, the subtleties of the slightly different whites of an illuminated sign at night.” Kanyi Maqubela, the Roam investor, sees meaning in the generic from an unexpected source. “If you go to Catholic church in most parts of the world, the mass is going to feel like the mass. There is still a sense of unity,” he says. “We’re starting to enter the world where these private companies have some of that magic to them, the notion of feeling at home across time zones in any country.”
Suggesting that Airbnb could become the next Vatican is a stretch, however. While it would be impossible to stop the spread of the generic style—like trying to stop all hotels from looking the same—there are still steps to consider against the imperfect frictionlessness of the territory it occupies. This could come in the form of legislation that resists the spread of services like Airbnb (as Berlin, Paris, New York and San Francisco are considering), or a simple personal choice to become more invested in the local than the mobile — to opt for the flawed community bed & breakfast rather than the temporary, immaculate apartment. Seeking out difference is important, particularly when technology makes it so easy to avoid doing so.
Left unchecked, there is a kind of nightmare version of AirSpace that could spread room by room, cafe by cafe across the world. It’s already there, if you look for it. There are blank white lofts with subway-tile bathrooms, modular furniture, wall-mounted TVs, high-speed internet, and wide, viewless windows in every city, whether it’s downtown Madrid; Nørrebro, Copenhagen; or Gulou, Beijing. Once you take the place of the people who live there, you can head out to their favorite coffee shops, bars, or workspaces, which will be instantly recognizable because they look just like the apartment that you’re living in. You will probably enjoy it. You might think, ‘This is nice, I am comfortable.’ And then you can move on to the next one, only a click away.
]]>