Modernity

"Modern living in Chiang Mai", said the copy. That’s all it said. "Modern living in Chiang Mai".

It puzzled me.

The ad was for one of those overpriced, overcrowded, aesthetically indifferent development projects in the near suburbs. Since it could sell neither affordability; nor natural beauty; nor peace and quiet, it proposed to sell – like many projects who have nothing of value to offer – modernity: modernity as a break with the stuffy old past, modernity as an aspiration.

Yet, no one really has any notion what modernity is supposed to consists in. It seems to be something we make up as we go along. Which is why I was puzzled by the ad: I didn't know what it meant. Perchance it meant nothing?

Of course, I realized, this amorphousness made the term perfectly handy for bullshit art: since anything could be called modern, anything usually is. The term's appeal to bullshit artists then is clear.

Its more baffling aspect is its appeal to those upon whom the bullshit artists prey; that is, those who buy into schemes labeled as "modern": the meaninglessness of the term does not appear to deter anyone from wanting to pursue it, to be modern, whatever that may be.

But then, perhaps this precisely is the term's appeal: that no one knows what it means? An amorphous principle is convenient: devoid of clear rules, isn't likely to impose upon us any onerous ones (which could be inconvenient). A modern person -- one living by the lights of modernity -- is free to violate the rules of the past in the name of modernity but isn't obliged by any new rules in their place.

In short, modernity is nothing and -- this is precisely its appeal.