That’s an interesting exchange between you and John Battelle, Fred. Now I’m going to go totally off-topic here and get all abstract, but I have to say that to my mind there’s something Medieval in some of the emerging business models and how they’re changing the nature of markets.

In the feudal Middle Ages, powerful patrons – either the Church or the Feudal lords – determined the markets. Markets weren’t free, they weren’t determined by market forces (as we think we understand them since the various emancipations) or really shaped by the “little people” (who in the modern period developed into powerful consumers).

When I read (as per transcript): “…if you think about what businesses and celebrities and brands need on Twitter and what they’re not getting today, there’s a whole set of premium services that are there,” I’m *understanding* something that reminds me of feudal medievalism where markets are determined by the needs of powerful patrons (church and/or lords). (John Battelle repeats the point further down when he says, “You said something about brands on Twitter, sort of like celebrities having the ability to sort of build an official presence.”)

I didn’t understand recent controversies about Twitter’s Suggested User List (SUL). I saw Dave Winer’s tweets about the SUL, but didn’t understand why he questioned the concept. Maybe I do now – albeit in my own weird way (Dave probably would roll his eyes at my interpretation…).

The SUL concept nudges markets back into a feudal framework where forces other than actual market forces determine the market landscape.

Maybe I’m crazy – I’ve had occasional bad dreams for nearly 30 years now about how feudal Medievalism is clawing back bits of Modernity. (Blame Umberto Eco, whose writings encompass Modernity and the Middle Ages.) The idea comes to me in pictures, which is maybe why I struggle so much to get the words right (the anti-icons, the iconoclastics). Me no likey what I see with SUL-type aspects of the business model and how it has the potential to alter markets.

I love the internet and all the great stuff out there, I plunge right in, sound off, play along. I love pictures and emblems and icons, but at heart I’m a daughter of the Enlightenment (words, words, words). Pictures, specifically icons, are Medieval. Yet in the new world that we’re making, even words – such as passed links – are turned into image, into something that’s consumed like an image (in a glance, or uncritically). Exegesis – trying to understand and interpret words – is still important it seems, as per the comment that reading the transcript of the video is better than watching the moving image…! But you could chalk that up to Medievalism, too. They did a lot of exegesis back then.

Ok, I’m generalizing (wildly?), and I’m going off into my own little theory-land here. But as you said yourself, “Social media together is going to be bigger than Google.” Google and the internet certainly changed our thinking about everything, including thinking about thinking itself. Tell me it’s not rewiring our brains – of course it is. Now social media are poised to rewire the market. I just happen to think that bits of it are kind of medieval, and every time the notion of the tribe (certainly an important idea in the new market place) is celebrated without critical reflection, something in me dies a little bit.

If my favorite enlightened Marxist, Groucho, were still alive, I wonder how he would position himself, market-wise, in the social media landscape, and if he would want to be on the SUL?

Originally posted as a comment by Yule Heibel on A VC using Disqus.

Reblogged to here as mnemonic / string around the finger.

Brendon’s post addresses a response to Macleans Magazine’s article You can’t buy that here, which, as he wrote, mirrored concerns he already expressed in a March 2009 post, Borders keep out innovation, too. If you’re Canadian (or maybe thinking of doing business in Canada) Does it matter if the future isn’t available in Canada? and Borders keep out innovation, too are both excellent must-read pieces.

The Macleans article Brendon references had prompted a defense of the Canadian condition by another writer. Brendon’s Does it matter if the future isn’t available in Canada? addresses both positions. He ends in favor of Macleans’, however, and writes that its “attempt to point out how Canada is missing out on the future, however small a piece of it, seems like a valid tactic despite the weakness of its execution.”

I agree, and also left a long comment on his post. I’m using my blog to remind me of what I wrote in response (most of which I excerpt, below), but really encourage people to check out Brendon’s original post(s). My comment (abridged):

I think you get at something very essential with your observations, Brendon, for example when you write about missing “the experience of using the device in your daily life, of truly understanding the implications, applications, and untapped potential of the device” (and while you were talking about the iPhone in that example, I think the point translates across the technology landscape.

It’s conditions like the ones that exists around technology and innovation in Canada that make the issue of Canadian culture so difficult, too, because the words “paternalism” and “tutelage [from authorities on high]” come to mind, not independence, liberation, freedom. And that, too, contributes to the niggling sense of inferiority.

Do you know what the wealthy establishment fathers of Canada told young artists in the Group of Seven (now recognized as the founders of national Canadian landscape painting) back in the early 20th century? “It’s bad enough having to live in this country. Why bother hanging pictures of it up on one’s walls?”

They preferred to collect Old European Masters instead – Dutch landscapes in shades of brown with brown cows. Instead of embracing the innovation that the Group of Seven artists offered, they turned to the past and haughtily told those innovators to learn to paint like the *Old* Masters instead. The innovators wanted to look to other innovators in Europe instead – Cezanne, cubism, futurism, abstraction. But the paternalists knew “better” – and with their “wisdom” helped stunt Canadian culture instead of furthering it. Take a look at the museums built on private collections in the US and you’ll see that contemporary American captains of industry collected European and American avant-gardists, not brown pictures of brown cows. Consequently, American culture benefited from their support, and – as a spin-off many decades later – there are now many seminal collections for the public to enjoy. Canadian collections from that period are small miseries in comparison, and viewing them isn’t nearly as satisfying. That’s how a culture of old-fashioned paternalism (with its flip side of “made in Canada” solutions – the Group of Seven worked often in isolation) has ripple effects that are felt for generations.

Here’s a very small picture (it doesn’t capture the generous – and adjustable – strap, or the terrific contrasting colors and the great lining):

Bonspiel sells her wares locally in Victoria (find locations on her stores page), and if you’re not lucky enough to live here, find her work on Etsy and on Artfire.

In her own words:

Young Business Leaders’ Summit

Join me in this special event to explore how to make Victoria’s business economy more resilient and diversified.

Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
–Margaret MeadBackground:
Victoria’s a great place to live. We have the weather, the natural environment, and the people to make this a world-class city. However, we seem to be overly reliant on the public sector and tourism to keep our economy alive. When there is a public sector cutback, or events abroad harm our tourism sector, Victoria hits the “panic button” and begins to take on an air of doom and gloom.

Young people grow up in Victoria and then leave to pursue careers because there are few opportunities to make it big here. Despite our highly educated population and desirable quality of life, Victoria has very few corporate headquarters – meaning that to “make it big” our best and brightest leave the city for Vancouver, Calgary and further afield.

What Can We Do About It?
I’m bringing together young professionals and business leaders from a variety of sectors to participate in a discussion about Victoria’s economy. I want to create real, actionable solutions for how we can bring about change in our city.

During the event I’ll be using graphic facilitation to capture our ideas and make the discussion fresh, creative and productive. What’s graphic facilitation? As our discussion progresses, I’ll be capturing the key ideas and energy of the moment by creating a mural in real-time using colored markers and pastels, drawing on 4′x8′ chart paper taped to the wall. See my blog, www.pictureyourmeeting.com for more about this amazing way to transform meetings!

Who should come?
I’m targeting young business people (under 40) from all sectors as participants in the session – we have the most to gain from transforming Victoria’s economy as we are the ones who will take leadership roles in the coming years. If you have an interest in this topic and want to throw in your two cents (even if you’re over the “recommended playing age”), feel free to join us!

Observers are quite welcome – perhaps you’re curious about what’s going to come out of this, or you’d like to see graphic facilitation in action! You don’t need to speak up – just come along!

The Details

Date: March 31, 2009
Time: 8:30am to 11am
Place: Maximum Furniture Showroom, 3-576 Hillside Ave
RSVP: By email or phone (250-479-8303) by March 24, please.

Please feel free to invite others who you think would be interested!

Yours in action,

Susan Low
Directis Consulting Group
www.directis.ca
New! www.pictureyourmeeting.com
250-479-8303

Please pass this on to other Victoria-area folks – it’s a great idea that deserves a great turnout.

I took a few notes. They are impressionistic, but without additional polishing, here they are…

Kostuik began by affirming the importance of promoting living artists. Sure, you can open a gallery and sell the work of dead people, but it’s really important to stake a claim in living culture – and then promote it. She talked about how she’s a hard worker, but that she ended up owning her own gallery because she’s not terribly well-suited to working for other people. She has her own vision of what art is good, what to promote, and while she initially thought she might be an art consultant, she couldn’t – in the end – promote artists she didn’t believe in.

So: opening her own gallery was the only way forward.

[Editorial aside: This is interesting because of a theme she brings up later, that of entrepreneurialism. Kostuik is an entrepreneur - a cultural entrepreneur and a business entrepreneur. It's great that she began her talk with a discussion of her own willfulness, her desire to be in charge, and how that relates to her own creativity and artistic/ aesthetic sensibilities.]

She emphasized that you take on people because you believe in them, but also because you believe you can sell them.

[Editorial aside: how refreshing to hear someone in BC or in Victoria talk about selling and business like it was a noble thing to do and not something akin to spreading smallpox infested blankets....]

Kostuik emphasized something that artists should be able to understand readily: business, she said, is all about relationships.

She expects artists who pitch her to have done their homework – to know in advance whether or not their work would be a good fit for her gallery. She was quite clear about what she likes and what she looks for, and her emphasis on building the relationships between her and her artists (and her clients) was something that the audience (I’m guessing over 90% artists) needed to hear. Know who you are, what you have to offer, and pitch to someone who can help you and who will be helped by you.

I couldn’t help but think of some of the comments regarding “the pitch” that I’ve read by various venture capitalists: do your homework, know who you are (what you’re offering, and who you’re offering it to), and understand that in business it’s all about relationships.