It’s worth asking whether the ineffable “It” factor — a quality predicated on exclusion — can meet the inclusivity of our culture today, or if its continued use is simply indicative of an old-guard grasp at relevancy.
I think the "it" factor requires a sense of mystery and unattainableness that our current culture's objective to self-market, self-brand, and become an entrepreneur of the self all reduce any allure of curiosity to commerce.
This makes me think of a conversation I had with my fiance the other night. He said that everyone would know who Shohei Ohtani was because he's the most famous person in baseball.
I disagreed, arguing that universally famous people no longer exist outside of the Kardashians, Beyonce, Lebron James, and a few other key players in pop culture. The idea of "fame" has been diluted by the sheer number of people who are now considered famous in their own algorithm's world. I'm not sure if that's a good or a bad thing.
I think the "it" factor requires a sense of mystery and unattainableness that our current culture's objective to self-market, self-brand, and become an entrepreneur of the self all reduce any allure of curiosity to commerce.
This makes me think of a conversation I had with my fiance the other night. He said that everyone would know who Shohei Ohtani was because he's the most famous person in baseball.
I disagreed, arguing that universally famous people no longer exist outside of the Kardashians, Beyonce, Lebron James, and a few other key players in pop culture. The idea of "fame" has been diluted by the sheer number of people who are now considered famous in their own algorithm's world. I'm not sure if that's a good or a bad thing.