Certainly the consumer market of technology is less of a gizmo sideshow, and more metaphysical performance art, commenting on “our linguistic selves”, and “the modern life”. And as technology breakthroughs inspire the next “life changing” products, it seems like the press release, or better yet, the quasi-theft life of investigative tech journalism is the new form of artistic critique.

Is Apple’s art relevant to us? Why has the career of Microsoft fallen off? Can you believe he paid that much for that? When are you FINALLY going to upgrade to N-band? Oh that, that’s essentially the same art Amiga did 20 years ago.

The interesting thing is how well people are adapting to it. Of course, we’ve always been interested in “big ticket” art like wars, the end of the world, and threats to the fabric of our consciousness. But people are ready to put bits of this performance art in their pockets, to shell out $600 for a piece of pop art with a 2-year 3G contract. Is it just that the design is THAT good? Or are we in a new stage of public performance art… The Work of Performance Art in an Age of Technological Appreciation?

I laughed at the headline myself; it’s clear the scientific press is starting to appeal to consumers without a taste in science. The cover of New Scientist is, each month, something like, “THE END OF THE UNIVERSE FOREVER,” or “TECHNOLOGY IS DESTROYING YOUR BRAIN.”

Now, New Scientist is probably one of the least tabloidish of the popular science magazines. Conventional news outlets like the BBC are much more likely to have ludicrous headlines.

The reason the scientific press is doing it though, is probably for a good reason. Magazines like Popular Science already have the attention of people interested in science–there’s no reason to advertise to them–but attracting the common man takes emotional element: inspiring fear, awe, or controversy is simply a good way to do this.

And if it gets more people to appreciate science, I’m all for it.