Big Here and Long Now
1978. I was new to New York. A rich acquaintance had invited me to a
housewarming party, and, as my cabdriver wound his way down increasingly
potholed and dingy streets, I began wondering whether he’d got the address
right. Finally he stopped at the doorway of a gloomy, unwelcoming industrial
building. Two winos were crumpled on the steps, oblivious. There was
no other sign of life in the whole street.
you may have made a mistake", I ventured.
hadn’t. My friend’s voice called "Top Floor!" when I rang the bell,
and I thought – knowing her sense of humour – "Oh – this is going to
be some kind of joke!" I was all ready to laugh. The elevator creaked
and clanked slowly upwards, and I stepped out - into a multi-million
dollar palace. The contrast with the rest of the building and the street
outside couldn’t have been starker.
didn’t understand. Why would anyone spend so much money building a place
like that in a neighbourhood like this? Later I got into conversation
with the hostess. "Do you like it here?" I asked. "It’s the best place
I’ve ever lived", she replied. "But I mean, you know, is it an interesting
neighbourhood?" "Oh – the neighbourhood? Well…that’s outside!" she laughed.
stuck in my mind. How could you live so blind to your surroundings?
How could you not think of ‘where I live’ as including at least some
of the space outside your four walls, some of the bits you couldn’t
lock up behind you? I felt this was something particular to New York:
I called it "The Small Here". I realised that, like most Europeans,
I was used to living in a bigger Here.
that this very local attitude to space in New York paralleled a similarly
limited attitude to time. Everything was exciting, fast, current, and
temporary. Enormous buildings came and went, careers rose and crashed
in weeks. You rarely got the feeling that anyone had the time to think
two years ahead, let alone ten or a hundred. Everyone seemed to be ‘passing
through’. It was undeniably lively, but the downside was that it seemed
selfish, irresponsible and randomly dangerous. I came to think of this
as "The Short Now", and this suggested the possibility of its opposite
- "The Long Now".
never just a moment. The Long Now is the recognition that the precise
moment you’re in grows out of the past and is a seed for the future.
The longer your sense of Now, the more past and future it includes.
It’s ironic that, at a time when humankind is at a peak of its technical
powers, able to create huge global changes that will echo down the centuries,
most of our social systems seem geared to increasingly short
nows. Huge industries feel pressure to plan for the bottom line and
the next shareholders’ meeting. Politicians feel forced to perform for
the next election or opinion poll. The media attract bigger audiences
by spurring instant and heated reactions to ‘human interest’ stories
while overlooking longer-term issues – the real human interest.
we struggle to negotiate our way through an atmosphere of Utopian promises
and dystopian threats, a minefield studded with pots of treasure. We
face a future where almost anything could happen. Will we be crippled
by global warming, weapons proliferation and species depletion, or liberated
by space travel, world government and molecule-sized computers? We don’t
even want to start thinking about it. This is our peculiar form of selfishness,
a studied disregard of the future. Our astonishing success as a technical
civilisation has led us to complacency – to expect that things will
probably just keep getting better.
is no reason to believe this. We might be living in the last gilded
bubble of a great civilisation about to collapse into a new Dark Age,
which, given our hugely amplified and widespread destructive powers,
could be very dark indeed.
If we want
to contribute to some sort of tenable future, we have to reach a frame
of mind where it comes to seem unacceptable - gauche, uncivilised -
to act in disregard of our descendants. Such changes of social outlook
are quite possible – it wasn’t so long ago, for example, that we accepted
slavery, an idea which most of us now find repellent. We felt no compulsion
to regard slaves as fellow-humans and thus placed them outside the circle
of our empathy. This changed as we began to realise – perhaps it was
partly the glory of their music – that they were real people, and that
it was no longer acceptable that we should cripple their lives just
so that ours could be freer. It just stopped feeling right.
type of change happened when we stopped employing kids to work in mines,
or when we began to accept that women had voices too. Today we view
as fellow-humans many whom our grandparents may have regarded as savages,
and even feel some compulsion to share their difficulties - aid donations
by individuals to others they will never meet continue to increase.
These extensions of our understanding of who qualifies for our empathy,
indicate that culturally, economically and emotionally we live in an
increasingly Big Here – unable to lock a door behind us and pretend
the rest of the world is just ‘outside’.
yet, however, live in The Long Now. Our empathy doesn’t extend far forward
in time. We need now to start thinking of our great-grandchildren, and
their great-grandchildren, as other fellow-humans who are going to live
in a real world which we are incessantly, though only semi-consciously,
building. But can we accept that our actions and decisions have distant
consequences, and yet still dare do anything? It was an act of complete
faith to believe, in the days of slavery, that a way of life which had
been materially very successful could be abandoned and replaced by another,
as yet unimagined, but somehow it happened. We need to make a similar
act of imagination now.
act of imagination concerns our relationship to time, a Millennium is
a good moment to articulate it. Can we grasp this sense of ourselves
as existing in time, part of the beautiful continuum of life? Can we
become inspired by the prospect of contributing to the future? Can we
shame ourselves into thinking that we really do owe those who follow
us some sort of consideration – just as the people of the nineteenth
century shamed themselves out of slavery? Can we extend our empathy
to the lives beyond ours?
we can. Humans are capable of a unique trick: creating realities by
first imagining them, by experiencing them in their minds. When Martin
Luther King said "I have a dream…" , he was inviting others to dream
it with him. Once a dream becomes shared in that way, current reality
gets measured against it and then modified towards it. As soon as we
sense the possibility of a more desirable world, we begin behaving differently
– as though that world is starting to come into existence, as though,
in our minds at least, we’re already there. The dream becomes an invisible
force which pulls us forward. By this process it starts to come true.
The act of imagining something makes it real.
process can be seeded and nurtured by artists and designers, for, since
the beginning of the 20th century, artists have been moving
away from an idea of art as something finished, perfect, definitive
and unchanging towards a view of artworks as processes or the seeds
for processes – things that exist and change in time, things that are
never finished. Sometimes this is quite explicit - as in Walter de Maria’s
‘Lightning Field’ – a huge grid of metal poles designed to attract lightning.
Many musical compositions don’t have one form, but change unrepeatingly
over time – many of my own pieces and Jem Finer’s Artangel installation
"LongPlayer" are like this. Artworks in general are increasingly regarded
as seeds – seeds for processes that need a viewer’s (or a whole culture’s)
active mind in which to develop. Increasingly working with time, culture-makers
see themselves as people who start things, not finish them.
is possible in art becomes thinkable in life. We become our new selves
first in simulacrum, through style and fashion and art, our deliberate
immersions in virtual worlds. Through them we sense what it would be
like to be another kind of person with other kinds of values. We rehearse
new feelings and sensitivities. We imagine other ways of thinking about
our world and its future.
Clock of the Long Now is a project designed to achieve such a result.
It is, on the face of it, far-fetched to think that one could make a
clock which will survive and work for the next 10,000 years. But the
act of even trying is valuable: it puts time and the future on the agenda
and encourages thinking about them. As Stewart Brand, a colleague in
The Long Now Foundation, says:
a clock, if sufficiently impressive and well engineered, would
embody deep time for people. It should be charismatic to visit,
interesting to think about, and famous enough to become iconic
in the public discourse. Ideally, it would do for thinking about
time what the photographs of Earth from space have done for thinking
about the environment. Such icons reframe the way people think.
Century yielded its share of icons, icons like Muhammad Ali and Madonna
that inspired our attempts at self-actualisation and self- reinvention.
It produced icons to our careless and misdirected power – the mushroom
cloud, Auschwitz – and to our capacity for compassion – Live Aid, the
the 21st century, we may need icons more than ever before.
Our conversation about time and the future must necessarily be global,
so it needs to be inspired and consolidated by images that can transcend
language and geography. As artists and culture-makers begin making time,
change and continuity their subject-matter, they will legitimise and
make emotionally attractive a new and important conversation.
Sunday, Jan. 12, 2003; 2.09 p.m. GMT
have always looked at America with a mixture of fascination and puzzlement,
and now, increasingly, disbelief. How is it that a country that prides
itself on its economic success could have so many very poor people?
How is it that a country so insistent on the rule of law should seek
to exempt itself from international agreements? And how is it that the
world's beacon of democracy can have elections dominated by wealthy
special interest groups? For me, the question has become: "How
can a country that has produced so much cultural and economic wealth
act so dumb?"
fill this page with the names of Americans who have influenced, entertained
and educated me. They represent what I admire about America: a vigorous
originality of thought, and a confidence that things can be changed
for the better. That was the America I lived in and enjoyed from 1978
until 1983. That America was an act of faith the faith that "otherness"
was not threatening but nourishing, the faith that there could be a
country big enough in spirit to welcome and nurture all the diversity
the world could throw at it. But since Sept. 11, that vision has been
eclipsed by a suspicious, introverted America, a country-sized version
of that peculiarly American form of ghetto: the gated community. A gated
community is defensive. Designed to keep the "others" out,
it dissolves the rich web of society into a random clustering of disconnected
individuals. It turns paranoia and isolation into a lifestyle.
this isn't the America that anyone dreamed of; it's a last resort, nobody's
choice. It's especially ironic since so much of the best new thinking
about society, economics, politics and philosophy in the last century
came from America. Unhampered by the snobbery and exclusivity of much
European thought, American thinkers vaulted forward courageous,
innovative and determined to talk in a public language. But, unfortunately,
over the same period, the mass media vaulted backward, thriving on increasingly
simple stories and trivializing news into something indistinguishable
from entertainment. As a result, a wealth of original and subtle thought
America's real wealth is squandered.
of the American mind is exacerbated by the withdrawal of the left from
active politics. Virtually ignored by the media, the left has further
marginalized itself by a retreat into introspective cultural criticism.
It seems content to do yoga and gender studies, leaving the fundamentalist
Christian right and the multinationals to do the politics. The separation
of church and state seems to be breaking down too. Political discourse
is now dominated by moralizing, like George W. Bush's promotion of American
"family values" abroad, and dissent is unpatriotic. "You're
either with us or against us" is the kind of cant you'd expect
from a zealous mullah, not an American President.
make such criticisms, Americans assume we're envious. "They want
what we've got," the thinking goes, "and if they can't get
it, they're going to stop us from having it." But does everyone
want what America has? Well, we like some of it but could do without
the rest: among the highest rates of violent crime, economic inequality,
functional illiteracy, incarceration and drug use in the developed world.
President Bush recently declared that the U.S. was "the single
surviving model of human progress." Maybe some Americans think
this self-evident, but the rest of us see it as a clumsy arrogance born
tend to regard free national health services, unemployment benefits,
social housing and so on as pretty good models of human progress. We
think it's important civilized, in fact to help people
who fall through society's cracks. This isn't just altruism, but an
understanding that having too many losers in society hurts everyone.
It's better for everybody to have a stake in society than to have a
resentful underclass bent on wrecking things. To many Americans, this
sounds like socialism, big government, the nanny state. But so what?
The result is: Europe has less gun crime and homicide, less poverty
and arguably a higher quality of life than the U.S., which makes a lot
of us wonder why America doesn't want some of what we've got.
the U.S. presents the "American way" as the only way, insisting
on its kind of free-market Darwinism as the only acceptable "model
of human progress." But isn't civilization what happens when people
stop behaving as if they're trapped in a ruthless Darwinian struggle
and start thinking about communities and shared futures? America as
a gated community won't work, because not even the world's sole superpower
can build walls high enough to shield itself from the intertwined realities
of the 21st century. There's a better form of security: reconnect with
the rest of the world, don't shut it out; stop making enemies and start
making friends. Perhaps it's asking a lot to expect America to act differently
from all the other empires in history, but wasn't that the original