In this case the vague feeling is the pleasure of walking aimlessly through the streets of New York; the seemingly causeless delight in strolling about with no destination and no hurry, just looking at things, letting myself wander, getting ideas. In the increasingly rare instances I find myself actually doing it I invariably think, “I wish I could just do this all the time, every day.” In truth, and I’ve never really known why, It just makes me happy. Wandering the streets, facelessly weaving through the throngs, feels so natural and comfortable that I’d never even wondered whether there was a word for it. 

Well, reinforcing the awareness of my own ignorance, I just discovered yesterday there is a word for this perfect activity: flanerie. Had I only known as a child I might have answered all the insistent adult inquiries of “what do you want to be when you grow up?” quite differently and said “I will be a Flâneur!”

The precise definition isn’t exactly kind:

Flâneur
n.\flä-‘n&r\ An idle man-about-town; One who strolls about aimlessly; A lounger; A loafer, an Idler.

Wikipedia puts it thusly: “A flâneur is a detached pedestrian observer of a metropolis, a gentleman stroller of city streets.” beyond this he has been analyzed as a literary figure, a narrative device, an attitude towards knowledge and its social context, and the figure who gives voice to the shock and intoxication of modernity.

As I’m sure you’ve guessed the term is French, and there is no exact equivalent in English. It was originally identified by Charles Baudelaire and as such I may as well let him do the explaining. Of the Flâneur he says the following:

Ha ha. A bit of the Romantic wasn’t he? Anyhow, as stated earlier, whenever something has been named there is likely a decent word-count surrounding it. With flanerie and the flâneur it is just so. If you are ignorant of the idea, as I was, and want to know more, I offer you the following for your further internet wanderings…

From a piece called The Flâneur at the Other Voices section dedicated to Benjamin’s Arcade Project.

From an essay at The Arcades Project Project; The Rhetoric of Hypertext.

Your getting the idea, but enough blockquotes eh? For more in-depth readings on the idea of flanerie, as well as many different takes on its significance, see the following:

• Flaneurs, an enjoyable essay brought to us by the fine folks over at The idler, where else?

• The Flâneur U.K. official website of La Société des Flâneurs Sans Frontières (Liverpool chapter). Especially enjoyed their Useful Advices and Informations to the Tourists and Other Welcomed Visitations bit.

• Modernity and the Flaneur from the Fu Jen University english language pages, which asks “How do we characterize the postmodern flaneur?”

• Google cache of a piece called Eye-swiping London: Iain Sinclair, photography and the flâneur.

• Rethinking Flanerie from the site Urban spaces | Urban Places which compares the Modernist archetypes of the the flâneur and “the stranger.”

• Visual Culture and the Contemporary City. Which is part of an online Sociology course from the University of Salford.

• American Flaneur: The Cosmic Physiognomy of Edgar Allan Poe. Which is a review of James V. Werner’s book of that title, and focuses, obviously on Poe.

• Then there is Flaneur.org which labels itself under the heading “Urban Enthusiasms.” I suppose it’s a place for other loungers, loafers, and men-about-town to share their thoughts.

• Lastly I offer Passage of the Flanuer which makes the almost impossible to miss connection between the rarified, idle, urban wandering of the flâneur and the similar experience, now so common, in wandering through cyberspace.

So there you have it. I (and perhaps by extension you as well) learn something new every day. In that I am neither wealthy nor in possession of endless amounts of leisure time I doubt it is my destiny to become the great New York flâneur I might dream of being, the closest I’m likely to come is the raggedy, penniless version, better known as the hobo.

By the way if you have no intention of reading through those links but were never-the-less wondering what the title of this post meant, it came from the following:

From the very brief front matter of the book, in Einsel’s own words:

I think they are pretty beautiful. Just exactly of their time stylistically. But then I may be reacting to them because they kind of remind me of the metal piggy-bank my mother always had around… a rotund bald man with a black mustache sitting in a chair. When you put a coin in his hand he’s deposit it in his jacket pocket… might even have tipped his hat. I’d gladly offer up more of Einsel’s work, but as I said earlier, does not seem to be much on the old internet. Hope you enjoyed. 

Now when I say I was “presented” with this truth, I mean it quite literally. It was not the totality of the film, which despite its craptacularness, allowed me to somehow glean a deeper, hidden, message. No. Nothing so romantic. It was laid-out bare in a specific scene.

In it Pryor is approached by a young asian girl who up until recently had been a child prostitute. She shows him a drawing she’s done, which is completely without artistic merit of any kind, and then proceeds to proposition him. Pryor is appalled and tells her so. He then, and this is the important part, explains that rather than shopping her ass around she ought to focus on her Art, saying something to the effect of, “you’ve got real talent!”

It struck me while watching this scene just how valuable the subjectiveness of Art can be to those of us who are without any kind of useful skill, without talent, without passion, without goals, and ultimately without anything tangible to offer society.

With only a few words of encouragement the confused and aimless among us can grab hold of a pencil and set off into the murky, subjective land of Art. No matter how untalented, unskilled, and unimaginative even the most dispassionate belief in our own artistic merits can keep us afloat.

Art school can safely shuttle us through the college years. The half decade or so after can be fueled on the resultant fumes until we begin, finally, mercifully, to disperse and settle into our menial jobs as barristas, book store employees, museum security guards, bartenders, and graphic designers. Positions in which, though completely untalented in any way, we can never the less contribute, however slightly, to our society. 

The world of Art can forever after serve as a buoy for our self-image. When asked, over Irish car bombs at the local dive-bar, “What do you do?” we can spare ourselves the pain of saying, “I sweep the floor at a hair salon” and say instead with a tortured, far-off look, “I’m an artist.”

So you see the great uncommented upon value of Art is as a haven for the vast amount of aimless among us who might otherwise clog the rivers with their corpses. 

A brass plaque should be placed over the entrance of every art school in the country which reads something to the effect of:

Give us your tiresome, your passionless, your huddled and talentless masses and we will usher them safely to the far shore of their crushing mid-life crisis.

I like to imagine another scene, perhaps on the cutting room floor, in which a virginal little asian girl approaches Pryor with a heart-wrenchingly beautiful picture, and he looks at it and says: “Girl, you’ve got real talent, now get out there and sell that ass!” But I guess that’s a different blog post all together.

Even for the disinterested, Godless, and “Wrong-Godded” there have been signposts in the road too well covered by the media to be completely ignored.

There was David Linbaugh’s 2003 book, Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity.

Last year whilst sugarplums were ostensibly dancing in our heads conservative radio hosts gnashed their teeth about the “War on Christmas.”

In 2004 this thread was continued with John Gibson’s book, The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought.

In the meantime there have been countless Bill O’reilly sound bytes⊕ and and endless stream of repetitive Fox News talking points.

This past March it all reached a crescendo when radio commentator Rick Scarborough convened a two-day conference in Washington to address the “War on Christians.” It opened with “reports from the front-lines” on the “persecution” of Christians in the United States. Among its key speakers were the House majority leader, two U.S. senators, and two former republican presidential candidates. Sounds serious huh? It’s enough to make you think trembling little Christians are being rounded up en-mass, being tattooed, and having jumper-cables clamped to their private parts! Just a terrible, terrible thing this “war.”

I only bring this up because a couple of weeks ago I came across some county-level choropleth maps put out by the Glenmary Research Center which show the distribution of religious congregations across the United States. Looking at the 25 maps I couldn’t help but notice that a full 23 of the 25 represented the distribution of essentially Christ worshiping denominations. It struck me that perhaps a more truly representative map could be created by lumping all 23 of these denomination together.

So i did just that. Here is a map of the beleaguered and persecuted group which I’ll here call “Christies” as they are distributed across the United States.

Just to offer some perspective here are the other two Glenmary Research Center maps which plotting data on groups which actually qualify as discrete Religious bodies.

So what am I getting at? Let me sum it up in one sentence-

Overwhelming majorities do not get persecuted.

It’s as simple as that, really. Isn’t it high-time this line of rhetoric gets shit-canned? Christies who get worked into a lather by all the snarling of their own duplicitous leadership about the criminalization of Christianity need to understand that not being allowed 100% iron-fisted totalitarian control over every single aspect of society is not even close to the same thing as persecution.

If a group of people who have an 85% majority, with an allied two term president⊕ control of the senate, a supreme court stacked in their favor, and powerful lobbyists whose tendrils creep into every nook and cranny of society, have the gall to still feel persecuted… well then frankly about all I can do in response is invoke their God myself and say “Jesus Fucking Christ! You’ve got to be kidding?!”

Anyhow, enough of that.

An interesting tidbit revealed itself, when I combined the Cristies map with the others, which I wanted to draw your attention to. Have a look at the detail below, paying special attention to the area circled-

You see that little, lonesome, white county there? According to the Glenmary maps that happens to be the one and only county in the entirety of the United States, Alaska included, without a measurable number of religious adherents. It just so happens to be called Loving County. Is it possible that in all my grumbling about delusional Christians that I accidentally discovered… (gasp) Heaven?

Maybe it was just a census error, maybe the population was so miniscule that it just didn’t register on the map, or maybe it was the fact that Loving County itself boasts more ghost towns⊕ than living ones⊕. Then again who knows? Maybe the folks in that one Texas town are uniquely humanistic, secular, rational and without superstition… Spectacularly unlikely I know, but hey, “spectacularly unlikely” is practically the definition of Heaven.

As I’ve mentioned here previously, one day I logged onto the site and found that I was, for no particular reason, vividly aware of its shortcomings. In my estimation, as pleasant as the old Nonist was in some ways, it was also victimized by certain design affectations. The lowercase body-copy, as one example, which did not go un-derided.

What might have been less apparent were the limitations which the tight formatting actually placed on content. I was constantly tailoring posts to better fit the fascistic design. It was tiresome and I decided to start over, from scratch, with an eye toward both simplicity and a greater range of freedom in terms of actual content.

These goals might make it sound as though the design I finally arrived at came naturally. I assure you it did not. Which brings me to the reason everything took so long-

Excuses. Excuses.

Letterpress, linotype, woodtype, woodblock, 19th century broadsides complete with the attendant ornament, borders, brass rules, dashes, and embellishments. I’ve been inspired by these for a long while. I’ve got hundreds of examples cramming folders on my machine. I’ve got books piled on the floor. I can look at them endlessly. When It became apparent I’d be redesigning I figured it would be a great chance to delve into the aesthetic.

I created a broadside-inspired site⊕ but something wasn’t quite right. It was awkward somehow and I wasn’t happy with it. I began futzing, noodling and re-jiggering. It took me entirely too long to realize what the problem really was. And it was simple. My goals and my inspiration were at odds. What I’d come up with was, though true to my inspiration, more affected, more bloated, and more constraining than what came before. Needless to say I was annoyed.

I decided to make a long overdue purchase, Robert Bringhurst’s The Elements of Typographic Style, to try and help myself refocus. (If there was one thing I was sure that I wanted it was clear, legible, and stylistically correct text.) It’s a fascinating book which were I worth my salt as a designer I’d have read long ago. Almost immediately I came across a sentiment expressed by Bringhurst which was relevant to the problem at hand when he called the 19th century a “dark an inflationary age in typography and type design.⊕

Just an offhand opinion, I know, but annoyed and behind schedule as I was it seemed like a omen too obvious to ignore. I decided to do the hardest thing I can think of, as a designer, and cast aside as many of my own crutches and old mainstays as possible. I decided to abandon any aspirations of “coolness” and focus instead on attempting elegance. I’m not certain whether I ultimately succeeded in this but I’ll explain my reasoning and let you be the judge.

The gut and its reasons.

The “more is more” philosophy seems to be the overriding reality in web design. 85% of the sites out there are so crammed full of columns, thumbnails, text links, rollovers, nav-bars, banner ads, and animations that the act of bringing your eyes down a page has become a form of strenuous exercise.⊕

Many sites have little choice but to jam-pack every inch of screen real-estate. News portals and online merchants for example. They have a vast amount of data to dole out each day, the location of every bit of which needs to be immediately apparent. I don’t think the same can said for a huge swath of the internet and this approach by no means benefits all types of content.

It seems to me this over-use of the “more is more” aesthetic creates a sort of self-fullfilling prophesy in terms of internet reading habits and attention span. We are told time and again that people do not read things on the internet, they skim. We are told we, as content providers, have 3 seconds to clearly define our identity and purpose to a reader before they click away. Designers react accordingly and front load their entire site into a single browser window. So is it any wonder with all the clutter that people scan and scram? It’s like a defense reaction.

With this redesign I wanted to provide a counterpoint. As such the most important questions I had to ask myself were: How do people use the site? What would be the ideal user experience? And how do I present the content in a way which most encourages that ideal experience?

I’m not at all certain of the answer to that first question but I like to think people come here not only to see what’s on the other end of my links but to read what I’ve written and view what’s on display as well. That’s how I approach the content in any case. Further I have to assume that most visitors are interested in what is newly posted and generally ignore all the rest. It’s likely true for all blogs, new content is primary and archives, category trees, offshoots, ads, blogrolls, recent comments, shout boxes, etc, are secondary, at best.

In my mind the ideal experience would be entering a space where reading is easy on the eyes and the focus is undiluted, a space in which you could stretch out as it were, take off your coat, and stay a while. The ideal environment would then be one which emphasizes the content and puts aside the elements which readers would otherwise have to make an effort to ignore. Better that any effort is expended on what is secondary rather than on what is primary. The reading itself should be made effortless.

So what’s the best way to encourage this ideal experience which I’d like The Nonist to offer?

Ch-ch-ch-changes.

Obviously the main thrust of this redesign was simplicity but philosophically there was a shift as well which informed many of my choices. Against every piece of advice ever offered on web design I decided to stop tailoring the site toward the people who have never been here. Sounds silly but hear me out.

Many design choices are made with the people who don’t visit your site in mind. After all that’s exactly what all the “grab their attention in 3 seconds” stuff is really about. That’s also what design novelty and visual “gee-whiz” are about. Impressing potential first-time visitors. At some point it dawned on me that these are not the people I need to concern myself with. It’s my existing readership who deserve special attention. The non-functional bells and whistles of a site become invisible to return visitors after a while anyway, so why not do everyone a service and just remove it all?

People return to a site on the strength of its content and if a visitor can not take the time to discover what that content actually is without a multitude of visual cues and shiny things, then, well… In all likelihood they won’t have the patience to read my posts anyway. So if a visitor doesn’t see what they want to see in 3 seconds, and clicks away without bothering to read anything, then that’s o.k. with me. They’ve saved me some bandwidth. And hell, they’re not even reading this right now, which means there is no harm done in saying so.

So, beloved and patient readership, let’s consider the old site and run down the changes- 

Looking at the old Nonist now I must say it’s awfully busy. This is in part because of the side bar. As you scroll down the page to read a post you must make an effort ignore the entire left side of the screen. As I said earlier everything contained in that sidebar, from a user standpoint, is secondary. How many times do you guys need to see the special-projects thumbnails or the blogroll? A hundred? A thousand? You already know what’s there. So I removed it.

The tight formatting of the main content created discrete blocks. In terms of the site as a whole it achieved a certain balance but at the expense of readability. The lower-case formatting of the text⊕ kept these blocks heterogeneous but again at the expense of readability, to say nothing of grammatical precision. To remedy this I reformatted the text to give it, and your eyes, plenty of room to breathe. As a designer large type tends to illicit a sort of pavlovian cringe, but I also changed the fonts and enlarged the text somewhat in an effort at greater clarity.

Then there is the matter of the header. I really liked the old rotating headers. I think they said something about the attitude here and, well, they were pretty. But they were pretty huge as well. And again, how many times do return visitors need to see a logo that takes up half the screen? You know damned well where you are, wouldn’t a single line of simple text do just as well?

The nav-bar and all relevant content from the side-bar

Gentlemen, let’s Forget the past, its related errors, coarseness
Of parents, laxities, unrealities of principle Think of tomorrow. Make a firm postulate Of simplicity in desire and act… -Allen Tate.