Tech nerds wear t-shirts
Yesterday I was watching an old episode (aired 3 May 2013) of De wereld van Klöpping (‘Klöpping’s World”) a Dutch TV program in which Alexander Klöpping, a well-known tech commentator in the Netherlands, shares his knowledge about Silicon Valley; its history, the companies that have settled there, the newest innovations, and its gossip. During the show Matthijs van Nieuwkerk, the other presenter, asks him; “How do you recognize tech nerds?” Klöpping answers: “They wear t-shirts because they don’t care about their looks.” That’s interesting. While programmers can easily be as creative as artists, they dress quite differently. And generally even live completely different lives.
David Choe
In his program Klöpping shares an anecdote that beautifully illustrates the contrast between the life of a ‘tech nerd’ and that of an artist. David Choe (left in picture), a well-known graffiti artist who is known for behaving like a rock star, created some murals for Facebook’s office in 2005. Back then Facebook was still in its infancy and relatively easily gave away shares. So it made Choe an offer; he could choose to be paid $60,000 in cash or earn some shares in the company. Though Choe didn’t believe in Facebook’s business model (“ridiculous and pointless”) he gambled and chose for a share in the company. A wise choice; when Facebook went public in 2012 his shares were worth $200 million, which instantly turned him in one of the richest artists alive. For comparison, Damien Hirst – who’s work I discuss in my book and who is known to be the richest artist alive – has an estimated wealth of $350 million. When Klöpping explains that Choe spent most of this money on coke and prostitutes, Van Nieuwkerk asks; “Is that typical for nerds, that if you have money you spent it on coke and prostitutes?” Klöpping, a tech nerd himself, rebukes; “No way, he was an artist!”
Speaking different languages
So how come that artists are known for their eccentric looks and extravagant lives with sex, drugs, and rock and roll, while tech nerds (and scientists too, for that matter) generally lead more modest, sober lives, not so much caring about their looks, but all the more about changing the world?
First of all there is a cerebral difference between techies and artists. The reason is that techies speak a different language compared to artists. Code, the language for building websites, apps, and other digital tools, is an objective, non-emotional language. Artists, on the other hand, speak a language of their own. A language that is personal, ambiguous, and more often emotional, because artists are on an introspective journey when they create and through their art express their feelings. This makes their lives more capricious and their looks more in touch with their inner selves.
The second reason is a cultural one. To understand the cultural differences between creative domains, one needs to understand the role of the creative expert. Each creative domain has experts that judge whether new works deserve to be valued. In the artistic domain, the experts are – among others – the galleries and museums that exhibit art. In the digital start-up domain these experts are – among others – the angel and venture capital investors that need to believe in a concept to help it grow. You could thus say that in each creative domain the experts are the gatekeepers that decide whether new ideas should get a chance to earn a larger audience or grow.
Seducing the experts
Since the personality of the artist is part of his work, his personality also influences the appreciation of his work. To illustrate this I use a quote in my book by post-impressionist Paul Cézanne: “The most seductive thing about art is the personality of the artist himself.” In other words, an eccentric artist simply makes a more interesting story – not just for galleries, but also for journalists. In the world of start-ups the seduction is less personal, it is mostly about presenting a concept that simply works. In the scientific world more or less the same goes, it is mostly about proving a theory. The story of the creator is less important.
Funnily enough though even in Silicon Valley nerds are expected to dress in certain ways and adopt certain lifestyles. It’s no coincidence that Steve Jobs (Apple), Mark Zückerberg (Facebook, right in picture), and Jan Koum (WhatsApp and since last week also Facebook) all walk(ed) around their offices bare feet. It is to stress that they don’t give a fuck about their looks; it’s all about their products. And, as for lifestyle goes, you earn kudos in Silicon Valley for working 24 hours non-stop, sleeping underneath your desk, and living on Red Bull.
So, even though in some creative domains a personal, eccentric look is more important to be appreciated by the experts that guard the domain, each creative domain has its own dress and lifestyle conventions.
Nice. Reminds me of a quote from Gustave Flaubert: “Be regular and orderly in your life, so that you may be violent and original in your work”. Guess this goes for writers..
If said “techies” (they’re actually very succesful managers and business leaders) really don’t give a fuck about how they look, why do they go to such great lengths to express that? And why do they express it in such a consistent manner (e.g. bare feet, hoodies)?
“I don’t gave a fuck this morning so I chose exactly what my peers chose. They don’t give a fuck either. ” Sure.
It must not be too hard to dismiss the idea that Steve Jobs wasn’t making a hugely important point with his bare feet or his sets of identical (Issey Miyake) pullovers. I would not have encouraged any of his people to try and talk him into wearing something else instead, unless I was in a particularly mischievous mood.
Concerning the others, they’re conformists in being non-conformist. The bare feet and the hoodie are the suit and tie in the dress code of their social circles. It all reminds me of an ad for a product that makes your hair look like you didn’t pay any attention to it since waking up. (Studio Line Out of Bed)
If they really didn’t give a fuck, there would be more techies in formal dress, purely based on probability. They do give a fuck. But yes, they’re sure as shit not creative about it.
“Bare”, “Minimalist”, “Monochromous”, “Essential”, “No frills” – Steve’s products or Steve’s clothing?
I end the article by saying that even the ‘basic’ look is a dresscode. And that sleeping underneath your desk is a lifestyle. I believe that the first coders truly didn’t believe that looks were important. And that most of them are still less interested about looks. But some (the less authentic, less talented or less autonomous ones) have adopted the start-up looks and lifestyle. In my book I explain that the creative domain very much resembles the cultural domain. The cultural domain slowly changes through memes (ideas, styles, language, etc. introduced by a few and then slowly adopted by many). So, to some extend you should see the hoodies and bare feet in this context. Just as the beards and the fixies in advertising.