Seamlessness #2
From No Brow by Linus N, (Johannesburg: No Brow Press, 2024):
Creation is an act of courage. When you present your work, you expose yourself to judgment and critique, not just from others but from yourself. Think about it: you can’t critique what doesn’t exist. You first have to birth it to talk crap about it. So, the creator must deal with the psychological roadblocks that are forever trying to deter them from doing so. In a way, creation is a battle between the self and the self, as well as the self and other selves.
In my last post, I expanded on some ideas that came to me while I was watching a show. I explored how excellence seeks out excellence and how beauty is an act of shared courage. Today, I am continuing from where I left off.
III. IN & OUT OF SYNC WITH THE CULTURE
As Ballake and Gripper played, you could sometimes sense the improvisation — totally spontaneous and unscripted. They listened to each other and responded intuitively by playing off each other’s moves. Put a pin in that, we’ll return to it. The goal for improvisers, I suppose, is to play in a way that ensures the overall output is great, without anyone trying to outshine the other or display unnecessary dexterity, because doing so might ruin the experience for the audience.
Humans are naturally inclined to dick-measure, but our society makes this worse by focusing on individual achievements—just look at magazine covers. How often do you see teams or groups being given their flowers? It’s kind of the norm not to. What do we expect when we single out individuals for praise and accolades? Of course, it inevitably creates a challenging environment for seamless collaboration. Add the unwillingness to acknowledge the contribution of others to that mix.
This drive for individual acclaim is probably why superiors downplay or even steal ideas from their juniors without giving any credit. They’d rather drown than give credit because doing so would dispel the illusion of individual brilliance. Recognising the contributions of other people might chop away the halo around them and force them to admit that success is rarely ever achieved alone—a truth many are unwilling to accept. After all, how can they accept that fact when there’s always some idiot on a soapbox claiming to be self-made?
Now imagine the doom that ensues when team leads forget the company’s overall mission and vision and instead push their own personal agendas under the guise of what’s best for their own department. Since everyone will want to be the star of their own domain, there will be no cooperation between departments. They will hoard and encroach on each other’s resources to boost their metrics. Before you know it, they will have collectively driven the company to the edge of a cliff.
The first thing a leader has to do is set the tone. They will define what behaviors will be rewarded and which will be discouraged. They will design the incentives to promote collaboration and alignment with the company’s overall objectives. If they don’t, then they deserve the organization they steer.
Now take out that pin. When the two were kind of improvising, you could hear when it layered effortlessly — a harmonious blend. At other times, you could detect the raw edges of spontaneous creation. Interestingly enough, just when you’re about to fall asleep because of how soothing it sounds, that tiny friction brings you back to life like Evanescence. In my opinion, if the duo were forever in sync, their performance would have been good but not exceptional. Another pin: on reflection, I think that seamlessness doesn’t just mean everything going smoothly without interruption. I now see that a bit of friction or imperfection can actually enhance the overall flow and quality of an experience, making it more engaging and dynamic.
Introducing friction requires caution. First, ask if this friction will bring delight to the participants. If the answer is no, please leave it out when designing the experience. This principle applies to everything from hosting parties to customer engagement.
For instance, when a musician explores different genres on a single album, it can create a rich listening experience. However, if they don’t do it with finesse, it can quickly turn off the listener.
Imagine an album that starts with a soulful jazz track, seamlessly transitioning into a rock anthem, followed by a soft acoustic ballad. If these transitions are smooth and thoughtfully executed, the listener will appreciate the variety and artistry.
If the transitions are jarring—say, a sudden shift from a soothing classical piece to an aggressive heavy metal track without any musical or thematic connection—it can feel disjointed and unsettling. The abrupt changes can screw the listener’s engagement and make the album feel chaotic rather than cohesive. By the third track, a listener might already be put off and inclined to stop listening altogether.
Pin out: As the duo subtly shifted in and out of sync, it struck me that navigating cultural trends requires a similar approach. Knowing when to align with the prevailing zeitgeist and when to branch off takes more than just skill—it might even require a crystal ball.
I think people who oppose everything all the time are a bit silly. You can’t be a perpetual contrarian—that just signals inflexibility. Not every cultural movement needs resistance; some are genuinely positive and progressive. The ability to recognise when to join in rather than oppose for the sake of opposition is actually an admirable trait.
When you align with the culture, your actions often resonate within it, particularly when you take on the role of a spokesperson or documentarian of your era. Consider how certain individuals, songs, films, or pieces of art become defining symbols of a specific time period. Time is marked not just by physical changes but also by cultural works. When a favorite song plays, it can transport you back to a specific moment in your life, even reminding you of the people you listened to song with.
Before you consider opposing the zeitgeist, take stock of the dominant ideas of your time. Which ones are great, and why? Which ones are suboptimal, and why? This is the Chesterton fence approach: don’t remove a fence until you understand why it was put there. So I am all for intentional contrarianism. It can be equally powerful even though it carries more risks.
Some people are visionaries even though themselves don’t know it. They help shape the future by introducing ideas and aesthetics that are at first ahead of their time but eventually become mainstream. They challenge norms and push boundaries. We are overall lucky to have them. And I think we need more of them.
I have been thinking about these things from many perspectives. I am considering them as modes of being that a person can inhabit, like a bridge. You can create and engage with culture across different time dimensions—visiting the past, moonwalking in the present, anticipating the future, and creating work that transcends time.
You can go back in time to show why people should appreciate a person or work that was either ahead of its time or underappreciated. You can also put a message in a bottle and send it into the future, or create for the present. Each mode requires different ways of showing up. And as Sevdaliza said, each level has its own devils. So far, I believe it more and more everyday, that time and reality are bendable. ☀️
Thanks for reading. If there’s anything you’d like to chat about, or if you have any questions, feel free to shoot me an email. I'd love to hear from you. :) 🍿