Comment by whack
2 days ago
> ...the festival I helped invent 36 years ago. Curiously, I get this interest even though I haven’t set foot in the Black Rock Desert since 1996.
Not doubting the headline conclusion, but I would have expected a better source than someone who hasn't been to Burning Man in literally 30 years. AFAICT, Burning Man was still very well regarded ~20 years ago, long after this founder stopped attending
He also neglected to mention that Larry Harvey attended up through his death, afaik. Or how deeply affected the city was the year Larry died.
Or that the man design was done for so long by a close collaborator of Larry’s. And that the man base has been frequently spectacular both on fire and not.
The historical perspective and old photos are great but I’m not much for the conclusion. I would be willing to bet the title and byline are editorialized by the publisher.
You can still go out there with not much, be new and participate and just smile at some famous or not person also on their way back from the Portos.
There is a lot of money involved, no doubt and there is a lot of bullshit too, like art cars that do fundraisers and take volunteer contributions only to remain largely private vessels for a particular crew, a few celebs etc.
And there’s a lot to not like about the org or how art grants are handled, it’s a big system it has the exploits and nepotism that might infect anything scaled and offering power.
But if you go and do not look closely and just give in small ways none of that would likely be visible to you.
You could have the time of your life. Or not. Which I think suggests the opportunity for adventure and chaos still remains at that thing in the desert.
it’s still the city. the org might be run in a lame way but any time you get too involved in something you see another layer of politics and favoritism and helping friends out that just seems wrong. most people going aren’t at that level and it’s fine. you’ll still have a good time (if you want to)
I think the point GP was making was that the co-founder was basing their judgment secondhand from stories from friends and headlines.
Another bit I found peculiar was the mentions of anarchism while seeming to have a rigid idea of what the event should or should not be. It's certainly far less anarchistic today—placements, permits, law enforcement—but it's not exactly anarchism to say it isn't allowed to evolve to fit the scale and culture of the participants.
Every anarchistic community ends up with rules to ensure things run smoothly. I think anarchism should be viewed as the movement towards less rules, not a movement that allows absolutely no rules. Allocating office desks so that everyone knows where their desk is is just common sense - if you're concerned about people envying the best desks, randomise it every week. You have to mark out roads if you want there to be roads.
Law enforcement was probably there because law enforcement said they'd ban the whole event if law enforcement wasn't there. That's how they typically work.
5 replies →