Hacker News Reader

Comment by wpietri | Hacker News Reader

I would like this article a lot better if they included some of the legitimate criticism about what Burning Man has become.

The number one "ruined" point I hear about from early attendees is when it went from a volunteer effort to something with a year-round staff. Seeing a small band in a pub is different than a giant, commercialized stadium show. Neither is wrong, but nobody is served by pretending that they're the same. As most developers know, things change when you go from "I do this for the love" to "this is my job".

I don't think Burning Man was "ruined" by that transition, but I don't like how this article mocks the whole notion that something might have been lost along the way. Of course, it was written by somebody whose job is Burning Man, and as Upton Sinclair says, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

View on HN

I don't think it mocks the notion that something has been lost along the way.

Instead, it seems to say that there are many ideas of what the "one true essence" of Burning Man is, and each of those "essences" have been lost, often times more than once in a single event.

So if one points to a single event that "ruined" burning man, you're picking out one thing that was its True Essence, inadvertently putting yourself at odds with all the other people who thought that something else was the True Essence of Burning Man.

All in all, perhaps the essence of Burning Man is more resilient than we think.

I agree with wpietri's interpretation more than yours. ("Mock" might be a bit strong, but I don't think it's totally unfair.)

The article talks about people integrating into BM's unique culture, and defending that culture. It talks about how things that once "ruined" BM are now accultured into it. It doesn't seem to ever indicate that the culture changed along the way.

I think a similar article could have been written with the thesis that you indicate; but I don't think it was this article.

You are right its become a "corporation" of its own. I know a company/app that was shutdown by Burning Man lawyers this year because that company had an app named "Burningman" that was about burning calories. Completely unrelated. They spent good part of last year fighting their lawyers but in the end gave in.

The article's main point is simply that change is not necessarily bad.

You assert that transitioning from a volunteer effort to something with a year-round staff is a "legitimate criticism", but to others that is just part of the natural evolution of the event.

The article's main point is that none of the changes Burning Man has made have been bad, although somebody always thought so at the time. But it ignores one of the biggest changes.

To decide whether change is bad or not, we first have to honestly look at the change, at what has been gained and lost.

I believe the author is an unpaid volunteer.

More broadly, I'm not sure I fully understand the criticsm. There is paid staff, yes. But that's still a vanishingly tiny percentage of the effort that makes Burning Man what it is. It is still first and foremost a volunteer effort, and lives or dies by that effort. It's exceptionally few people, to my understanding, who earn money. I believe you can find a list of all of them on the BM financials page.

Year round stuff will depend on burning man to continu and to grow.

It will reduce risks, excluding risky groups and activitys.

It will allow for companys to advertise with edgy art projects.

You can not compromise, when everything you have at the stake is your vacation. You will be compromised, if you start to hate the freaks that might cost you your job.

I count 84 people listed as permanent staff on the website, which is not something I'd call "exceptionally few". And I'm not criticizing the fact that people are permanently employed; more power to 'em. But as Pica_soO says, things change once it's your paycheck.

Consider the difference between "music" and "music industry" for example. Or the difference between coding on one's personal open source project and coding on somebody else's dime. Consider how many startups compromise their vision to become commercially successful. Or go talk to somebody at an ad-supported site; you can hear them defend things (e.g., auto-play video ads) that they would have previously reviled.

If people don't like how a hobby project is going, they have no problem shutting it down. But once it's one's living, that becomes almost unthinkable. Which in turn means that other things become almost unthinkable.

So my criticism of this article is that it's basically an exercise in refusing to think about the legitimate issues people have with what Burning Man has become.

Yeah, I get your point. It's an interesting one worth real consideration. And that's an ongoing conversation between the community and the permanent staff that the community understandably remains hyper-vigilant about constantly.

But my specific point was that I don't believe the author of the blog post is paid by Burning Man. So I don't believe the content of the blog post would be inspired by that angle (correct me if you find out otherwise). That inclines me to consider its viewpoint more seriously, precisely for the reasons you mention.

I read his bio again, and those sound like paid roles to me. If you'd like to claim some authority here beyond "random internet commenter" to assert he's never been paid by them, please do.

I'm of two minds about this.

The first is the one that had so many wonderful and valuable experiences out on the playa and considers it such a special place. How dare someone without the proper deference for that special place come out and ruin it. So I understand where the criticism is coming from, but...

The second is that Burning Man is about inclusivity and impermanence. It's what made the event so special in the first place. What was isn't unimportant, but maintaining it as anything other than a memory is. Like meditation, what is in the current moment is what's important. And lamenting change prevents fully embracing that new experience.

What strikes me as necessary to "save" Burning Man from being "ruined" is to embody the values of the event. Be as inclusive as possible and embrace the impermanence of the event. Meet exclusivity with increased inclusivity. Meet clinging to past experience with increased focus on embracing the present moment. New burners won't understand what the event is about and old burners will have forgotten. Inform/remind them by example, not by condemnation.

I don't like thinking about anything having been lost. That's clinging to the past in a way that feels antithetical to the Burning Man ethos. Every year, many burners will ask themselves, "is this event still for me?" I started answering, "no" a few years ago. But that doesn't mean I think Burning Man was ruined or has failed. It and I have evolved in ways that are no longer compatible. It's changed me and I like to think that, in my own small way, I helped change it. And as much as I'd love to still be in my 20s and still experiencing all the wonder of those late-90s burns, that reality doesn't exist anymore and pining for it only creates craving and misery.

The article should mock (or at least not dignify) people who believe that something has been lost. Those people have forgotten the purpose of the event. Listening to a beautiful song can be a sublimely moving experience. But you cannot capture that experience by choosing a single note and prolonging it indefinitely. And yet people believe they can capture their experience on the playa and relive it year after year. The song changes over time and eventually ends. Acknowledging that doesn't make it any less beautiful.

If you don't like thinking about something, that is also a kind of clinging. An honest accounting requires looking at strengths and weaknesses, gains and losses. To look only at the parts you like is part of the cycle of desire and aversion that meditators seek to break. (See, e.g., the desire and aversion talks here: http://seattleinsight.org/Talks/Browse-Series/Series/SeriesI... )

And it's funny to say that Burning Man is about impermanence given how stable it has become. One of the critiques ignored in this article is that impermanence is exactly what it has lost. What it had to lose when it became the bread and butter of a bunch of people.

Again, I don't mind that. Permanence creates possibilities. Disney World and the Catholic Church can accomplish things that a one-man band or a lone wise teacher can't. Structured organizations gives movements historical traction. But I'd like to see an honest accounting of what was gained and lost, not somebody mocking the very idea that something could have been lost.

I don't think many (any?) people working at Burning Man think "this is my job" more than "I do this for the love".

I can't imagine it pays well enough to justify hanging around in the desert for a month with a bunch of burners, if that's not your thing.

The two aren't exclusive. I love writing software, but it still changes things when I'm doing it for money. I do it differently. I make different choices. And am more likely to justify those choices, because my identity becomes to some extent bound up with my job.

As an example, I used to work for financial traders. Once got out of that, it was easy to see how I had adopted some of the perspective of the industry, of my colleagues. But I'd never go back, because I can now recognize the moral issues with it.

I think the point of the article, in many ways, is that the details of why people think burning man has been ruined don't actually matter that much.

Yes, that's exactly his point. Which is why his refusal to look at some of the most substantive reasons is especially disappointing.

I don't have a gripe, but an observation; when I would go in the 90s, I could afford it easily even when I was in highschool - as the years progressed, I couldn't decide on a whim that I wanted to go, and the cost (aside from just ticket) is way to high now

Reply on news.ycombinator.com