The newsletter excerpts from Monocle, Rest of World, Newsweek, Semafor, Bloomberg, CNBC, UBS Insights, the New York Times and Economist from September 29 - October 1, 2025, present a fascinating palimpsest of late capitalist culture—a moment when fashion declares it is “finally having fun again” even as governments shut down, democracies strain, and the material infrastructure supporting artificial intelligence threatens to overheat both literally and metaphorically. This juxtaposition is not coincidental but rather constitutive of what Mark Fisher (2009) termed “capitalist realism,” wherein the cultural superstructure and economic base operate in a state of productive tension, each legitimating the other’s excesses while obscuring deeper contradictions (p. 2). The newsletter’s heterogeneous content—spanning Milan Fashion Week, government shutdowns, AI infrastructure demands, and geopolitical maneuvering—invites an interdisciplinary reading that reveals how contemporary society negotiates crisis through aesthetic distraction, technological solutionism, and the perpetual deferral of political reckoning.

The newsletters paint a vivid portrait of a world in flux. Spanning fashion’s resurgence of whimsy amid economic precarity, geopolitical maneuvers in defense and elections, corporate upheavals, and cultural renaissance in art and design, these pieces collectively underscore the interplay of optimism and anxiety in late-capitalist societies. This commentary explores their interdisciplinary dimensions, weaving social (e.g., identity and community), economic (e.g., inequality and investment), and cultural (e.g., symbolism and heritage) implications. Causally, these snippets reveal how global tensions—such as U.S. tariff wars and Russian hybrid aggression—exacerbate economic disparities, while exploratively, they invite us to probe interrelations: How does fashion’s “fun” revival mask deeper societal divisions? How do CEO exits signal broader economic instability? Thereby resonant threads emerge: from Baudrillard’s critique of consumerism to Camus’ absurdism in navigating political absurdity.

These are polyphonic dispatches from a world simultaneously unraveling and reassembling itself. Across its pages, we encounter a dialectical tension between levity and gravity, spectacle and substance, nationalism and cosmopolitanism, all unfolding against the backdrop of what political theorist Wendy Brown (2015) has diagnosed as “the undoing of democracy” under neoliberal rationality. Yet, surprisingly, it is not despair that dominates, but a curious resurgence of play—in fashion, in protest, in AI-generated art—as both symptom and strategy in an age of systemic precarity.

The assemblage of items — runway exuberance in Milan, market-number anxieties in auction houses, the civic anxiety of Moldova’s election, the civic-cultural improvisations of Atlanta’s art fair, and the quieter essays on hospitality, craft and museum expansions — is not an eclectic accident. Taken together they stage a single cultural drama: the simultaneous financialization and moralization of cultural life, and the consequent reweaving of social bonds through new rituals of consumption, display and political affect. The pieces are best read as mutually illuminating symptoms: each reveals how cultural expression, market logic, institutional power, and civic life are reconfiguring one another in the mid-2020s.

The opening fashion commentary presents an illuminating case study in what Barthes (1967) analyzed as the “fashion system”—the semiotic apparatus through which clothing signifies not merely style but an entire worldview (pp. 3-15). When Natalie Theodosi proclaims that “fashion is finally having fun again,” she articulates a response to what she identifies as fashion’s transformation into a “high-stakes industry” where “a single wrong decision...can result in the loss of millions.” This framing reveals the central anxiety of contemporary creative labor under financialized capitalism: the contradiction between artistic expression and shareholder value.

The designers’ turn toward “optimism and fun” represents what Herbert Marcuse (1964) would recognize as “repressive desublimation”—the channeling of potentially subversive creative energies into sanctioned forms of transgression that ultimately reinforce rather than challenge existing power structures (p. 56). Demna’s shift at Gucci from streetwear to “glamour and dressing for the occasion” signals not artistic freedom but capitulation to market demands for differentiation within an increasingly consolidated luxury goods sector. As Theodosi herself notes, this occurs against the backdrop of “consolidating and expanding globally” markets and the “discourse about succession” following Giorgio Armani’s departure—corporate concerns masquerading as cultural moments.

The juxtaposition of this fashion coverage with reports of government dysfunction, rising authoritarianism, and climate crisis illuminates what Naomi Klein (2007) termed “disaster capitalism”—the ways in which aesthetic production under late capitalism both responds to and profits from social breakdown (pp. 7-23). When fashion “takes itself less seriously,” it performs a cultural service by providing affective relief from political anxiety, yet this very relief forestalls the collective action that crises demand.

Natalie Theodosi’s reading of Milan — “fashion needs to take itself a little less seriously and start having fun again” — reads at first like an aesthetic verdict, but it is also an economic and social diagnosis (Monocle, Oct. 7, 2025). The stagings of Demna, the succession questions around Armani, and the IPO/LVMH speculation about brand ownership are all indicators of a cultural field under intense capital pressures: creative directors are not only curators of taste but also managers of brand equity and balance-sheet risk.

Two theoretical frames help. First, Pierre Bourdieu’s notion of cultural capital and the field of cultural production shows how tastes and “fun” are convertible into economic value: the very gestures of playfulness can be monetized as distinction or as mass-market desirability depending on institutional positioning (Bourdieu, 1984). Second, Georg Simmel’s classical essay on fashion — that fashion is a system of imitation and differentiation — explains why glamourstage gestures oscillate between subversion and market-friendly legibility (Simmel, 1904). In short: playfulness becomes a strategic repertoire deployed to manage market anxieties while preserving the aura of creativity (see Benjamin, 1936, on aura and reproducibility).

In practical terms, the newsletter points to a paradox: fun as risk management. When houses stage joy (bright colours, retro glamour), they attempt to insulate themselves from the deadening pressures of extractive ownership (IPOs, conglomerate takeovers) by selling an affective experience as much as a product. This is aesthetic adaptation under the constraints of late-capitalist brand consolidation.

The Monocle piece on Milan Fashion Week, “Why so serious? Fashion is finally having fun again,” highlights a shift toward optimism and humor in designs by Demna at Gucci, Simone Bellotti at Jil Sander, and Miuccia Prada. Socially, this reflects a collective yearning for levity in a “world of tension and divisions,” where fashion becomes a radical act of escapism. Economically, it underscores the high-stakes luxury market, consolidated since the 2000s, where a single misstep can cost millions—causally linked to globalization’s pressures, as brands like LVMH eye acquisitions amid IPO rumors. Culturally, the emphasis on glamour and adaptability echoes a broader revival of 1960s-inspired aesthetics, symbolizing resilience.

This interrelates with global economic fragility seen in Semafor’s reports on U.S. tariffs and shutdowns, where protectionism disrupts supply chains, potentially inflating costs for fashion imports. Exploratively, one might ask: Is this “fun” a genuine cultural pivot or a commodified distraction? Jean Baudrillard’s The Consumer Society resonates here: “Consumption is a myth... a way of compensating for all kinds of frustrations” (Baudrillard, 1998, p. 80). Baudrillard argues that consumer goods, like Prada’s playful collars, simulate fulfillment in alienated societies, causally tied to economic inequality. In world literature, this mirrors Italo Calvino’s Invisible Cities (1972), where fantastical urban visions mask underlying decay—much like Milan’s runways bid farewell to Giorgio Armani while pondering corporate succession, blending nostalgia with capitalist churn.

Academic research amplifies this: A study in Fashion Theory on post-pandemic luxury consumption links such revivals to “emotional hedging” against uncertainty (Rocamora & Smelik, 2021), interrelating with the newsletter’s art snippets, where events like Frieze London donate to climate causes, blending aesthetics with social activism.

Natalie Theodosi’s lead essay, “Why so serious? Fashion is finally having fun again,” captures a pivotal cultural shift. In Milan, creative directors like Demna at Gucci and Simone Bellotti at Jil Sander reject the austerity of post-pandemic minimalism in favor of color, humor, and bourgeois parody. This is not mere frivolity; it is what Johan Huizinga (1938/1955) might have recognized as homo ludens—the playing man—reasserting agency through aesthetic irreverence. Demna’s film La Famiglia, which satirizes Italian bourgeois archetypes, echoes Pier Paolo Pasolini’s scathing 1975 film Salò, but with camp rather than cruelty. Where Pasolini saw fascism in bourgeois ritual, Demna sees absurdity—and disarms it through glamour.

This turn toward “fun” is politically legible. As Theodosi notes, it emerges “in a world of tension and divisions,” suggesting that joy itself has become radical. This resonates with Sara Ahmed’s (2010) notion of “happy objects” as sites of resistance: “To be happy is to be aligned with the promise of happiness” (p. 38). But here, happiness is not aligned with consumerist futurity; it is a temporary refusal of the market’s relentless seriousness. The revival of 1960s tailoring and daisy prints becomes less nostalgia than tactical anachronism—a way to imagine alternatives within the ruins of late capitalism.

Emily Bryce-Perkins’s essay on restaurant hospitality, while seemingly peripheral to the newsletter’s weightier geopolitical and economic content, actually illuminates crucial questions about social reproduction, emotional labor, and democratic culture. Her observation that “good hospitality should be everywhere” and her critique of the disproportionate attention given to celebrity chefs versus front-of-house staff resonates with Arlie Hochschild’s (1983) foundational analysis of “emotional labor”—the commodification of affect and interpersonal care under service capitalism (pp. 3-23).

When Bryce-Perkins writes that “the chemistry between waitstaff and guests” represents “the first, last and enduring point of interaction,” she articulates what Axel Honneth (1995) would recognize as a struggle for recognition—the fundamental human need to be seen, acknowledged, and treated with dignity (pp. 92-139). In an increasingly atomized society where traditional communities have dissolved and public space has been privatized, restaurants function as one of the few remaining “third places” (Oldenburg, 1989) where strangers engage in ritualized social interaction that temporarily suspends market logic and status hierarchies.

The essay’s attention to the “alchemy” of good service and its critique of “apathy in waiting staff” gestures toward broader concerns about the degradation of work under neoliberalism. When restaurateur James Robson deliberately “overstaffs each shift” so employees can “enjoy themselves at work,” he enacts what David Graeber (2018) would applaud as resistance to the logic of “bullshit jobs”—the recognition that human flourishing sometimes requires economic inefficiency (pp. 9-23).

The essays on restaurants and the “human touch” in design and graphic work (Jeremy King, Emily Bryce-Perkins, Jessica Bridger) collectively insist that cultural value is produced in social labor that resists full commodification: the maître d’ who times an interruption well; the overstaffed shift that allows service workers to be humane. “Food should always be the star but great hospitality demands a bit of stagecraft” is both a prescriptive aesthetic and a labor policy argument.

Richard Sennett (2008) and Matthew Crawford (2009) have both argued for the moral and epistemic importance of craft work: skills learned in embodied practices produce forms of attention and reciprocity that algorithmic or platformized labor often undermines. The newsletter’s vignette about deliberate over-staffing (James Robson’s Fallow) stages this insight: the proprietor absorbs short-term financial pain to preserve the intangible returns of service quality that generate reputational capital and long-term customer loyalty (Sennett, 2008; Crawford, 2009).

Policy implication (implicit in the text): if cultural institutions—hotels, restaurants, galleries—are sites where public sociability is learned and reproduced, then decisions that subordinate staff conditions to short-term accounting risks corrode the fabric of conviviality that sustains urban life.

Parallel to fashion’s ludic turn is the global mobilization of Gen Z protesters under the banner of the One Piece pirate flag. As Pranav Baskar reports, this anime symbol—once confined to otaku subcultures—has become a transnational signifier of anti-authoritarian solidarity, from Nepal to Madagascar. This phenomenon exemplifies what Henry Jenkins (2006) calls “convergence culture,” where narrative worlds spill into political action. But it also reflects what philosopher Byung-Chul Han (2017) terms the “burnout society”: exhausted by the performative demands of digital life, young people reclaim agency not through traditional institutions but through shared mythologies.

The One Piece flag functions as what Benedict Anderson (1983) would call an “imagined community” forged not by language or territory but by affective resonance. As one Nepali protester explains, “The pirate, it’s like a way to say we are not going to put up with injustice and corruption anymore.” Here, fiction becomes a scaffold for collective action—a point underscored by media scholar Zizi Papacharissi (2015), who argues that “affective publics” form around shared emotional experiences rather than rational discourse.

Perhaps the most revealing interdisciplinary thread running through these newsletters concerns the material infrastructure supporting artificial intelligence development. Multiple entries note that data centers are consuming extraordinary amounts of electricity, with “wholesale electricity costs as much as 267% more than it did five years ago in areas near data centers.” This observation connects technological development to environmental crisis in ways that challenge dominant narratives about AI as immaterial, ethereal, or “virtual.”

As Crawford (2021) documents in Atlas of AI, artificial intelligence is profoundly material, requiring vast quantities of energy, water, minerals, and human labor—resources extracted through processes that are geographically dispersed and rendered invisible by design (pp. 7-29). The newsletter’s juxtaposition of AI infrastructure demands with coverage of solar energy adoption in Africa and fossil fuel industry restructuring illuminates what Andreas Malm (2016) terms “fossil capital”—the ways in which contemporary technological development remains inextricably bound to extractive energy regimes even as it promises immaterial futures (pp. 287-310).

The economic implications are stark. When Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund helps finance the $55 billion takeover of Electronic Arts, when OpenAI raises funds at a $300 billion valuation, when “hyperscalers’ expenditures” on AI infrastructure reach unprecedented levels, capital is being redirected from productive investment in sustainable infrastructure toward speculative technological gambling. As Robert Brenner (2006) would argue, this represents a classic symptom of capitalist crisis: the flight from productive to fictitious capital, from manufacturing to financialization, from tangible goods to digital services of dubious social value (pp. 23-67).

The repeated references to energy costs, data center siting conflicts, and struggles to secure electricity supplies reveal what Vaclav Smil (2017) has long emphasized: that energy constraints remain the ultimate limit on economic growth, regardless of technological innovation (pp. 398-425). The “AI boom” may prove to be the contemporary equivalent of the dot-com bubble, except with far greater material consequences given the physical infrastructure already constructed.

Beneath these cultural currents runs a deeper economic tremor: the AI-driven reconfiguration of labor and value. The newsletter repeatedly notes soaring electricity costs near data centers (up 267% in five years) and the paradox that AI, while automating tasks, has not replaced radiologists—indeed, demand for them is rising. This supports Deena Mousa’s (2025) argument that AI often expands demand for human labor by making services cheaper and more accessible. Yet this optimism is tempered by reports of federal workers facing permanent layoffs during the U.S. government shutdown—a stark reminder that not all labor is equally protected.

The Electronic Arts buyout—a $55 billion leveraged deal backed by Saudi Arabia’s PIF and Jared Kushner—epitomizes what Nick Srnicek (2017) calls “platform capitalism”: the financialization of digital culture. EA’s privatization allows it to escape quarterly scrutiny and invest in long-term AI-driven game development, but it also cedes control to sovereign wealth funds whose interests may not align with creative autonomy. As Srnicek warns, “Platforms are not neutral intermediaries but active shapers of economic and social processes” (p. 48).

The extensive coverage of H-1B visa fee increases, semiconductor manufacturing policy, and China’s AI development reveals the emerging contours of what Dan Wang (2021) has termed “techno-nationalism”—the weaponization of technology policy in service of geopolitical competition. When the White House demands that “Taiwan shift chip production” to the United States while simultaneously imposing prohibitive fees on H-1B visas for skilled workers, it enacts contradictory policies that reveal deeper anxieties about American technological supremacy.

These contradictions recall what Ha-Joon Chang (2002) identified as the “kicking away the ladder” phenomenon in development economics: developed nations achieved their position through policies (immigration, technology transfer, industrial subsidization) that they now deny to others—and increasingly deny to their own populations (pp. 24-61). The H-1B fee increase particularly exemplifies what Michael Lind (2020) calls the “New Class War,” wherein professional elites support policies that restrict labor mobility while promoting capital mobility, exacerbating inequality while weakening precisely the skilled workforce that advanced economies require (pp. 87-115).

Meanwhile, China’s announcement of a “K visa” program to attract foreign talent represents an astute geopolitical move, exploiting American policy failures to position itself as the more welcoming destination for global human capital. As the newsletter notes, this occurs against the backdrop of China’s “sustained push to become the next global artificial intelligence hub,” suggesting that technological competition increasingly resembles traditional great power rivalry over strategic resources—except that the critical resource is now human expertise rather than oil or minerals.

The recurring coverage of U.S. government shutdown negotiations throughout the newsletter exemplifies what Jodi Dean (2009) has analyzed as “communicative capitalism,” wherein political discourse becomes increasingly detached from material outcomes, operating instead as spectacular performance (pp. 26-48). The shutdown drama follows a now-familiar script: partisan brinkmanship, last-minute negotiations, and the instrumentalization of governmental function for political advantage. Yet as the newsletter notes, “markets are starting to tune out Washington chaos,” suggesting that even the spectacle has lost its capacity to shock or mobilize.

This normalization of governmental dysfunction represents what political theorists describe as “democratic backsliding”—the gradual erosion of democratic norms without formal constitutional rupture (Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018, pp. 97-117). When the newsletter observes that “shutdowns tend to be relative non-events, economically,” it captures the troubling reality that essential governmental services have been so hollowed out that their temporary suspension barely registers in public consciousness. The threatened permanent firing of furloughed workers, however, suggests a more sinister development: the weaponization of crisis to achieve ideological objectives that would be impossible through normal legislative processes.

The shutdown’s potential impact on the Bureau of Labor Statistics—delaying crucial employment data that the Federal Reserve requires for monetary policy decisions—illustrates what James C. Scott (1998) called “seeing like a state” in reverse: the deliberate obscuring of the very information systems that modern governance requires (pp. 11-52). In an economy increasingly driven by data and algorithmic decision-making, the suspension of official statistics represents not merely administrative inconvenience but epistemic violence—the willful production of ignorance at the highest levels of government.

The political items — Moldova’s election under intense Russian interference; the account of Gen-Z protest aesthetics using the One Piece pirate flag; and concern about speech suppression — form a single thread about symbolic politics in an attention economy. Political contestation now relies heavily on cultural codes (memes, anime flags, pageant aesthetics), and these codes have real effects on mobilization and legitimacy.

Manuel Castells’s analysis of networked social movements is especially useful here: digital culture produces shared repertoires (hashtags, flags) that can accelerate cross-border solidarities while complicating institutional mediation (Castells, 2012). The dispatch about One Piece flag usage is a striking example of how transnational pop culture becomes a politically legible lexicon for Gen-Z—an instance of cultural globalization operating as civic infrastructure.

At the same time, the newsletter’s reporting about media-space control and threats to humor (censorship of comedians, corporate pressure on creators) puts a spotlight on the fragility of public spheres under concentrated political and corporate power. Levitsky and Ziblatt’s (2018) warnings about the erosion of democratic norms are pertinent: symbolic control (who may laugh, who may dissent) is an early indicator of democratic backsliding. The newsletter documents micro-events — suspensions, content-moderation disputes, judicial rulings — that cumulatively matter.

Semafor’s coverage of CEO exits (e.g., at CSX, GSK) and government shutdowns highlights economic precarity, with over 1,500 departures in 2025 signaling shorter leashes amid AI disruptions. Socially, this exacerbates inequality, as furloughs hit public workers while hedge funds pivot to China. Causally, tariffs on movies and drugs interrelate with shutdowns delaying data, clouding Fed decisions—exploratively linking to Monocle’s society opinion on hospitality’s undervalued “alchemy,” where overstaffing fosters joy amid modest pay.

Economically, China’s talent visa contrasts U.S. H-1B hikes, potentially shifting innovation flows. A Journal of Economic Perspectives article on global talent mobility notes: “Restrictions on high-skilled immigration reduce innovation spillovers” (Kerr et al., 2016, p. 85), causally explaining Lucid Motors’ hiring woes. Non-fiction like Parag Khanna’s The Future Is Asian (2019) predicts such shifts, interrelating with art market booms in Atlanta and Almaty, where cultural hubs emerge amid economic bets.

Philosophically, this echoes Karl Marx’s Capital (1867): “The worker becomes all the poorer the more wealth he produces” (Marx, 1867/1976, p. 799), resonant in Monocle’s chef-crew dynamics, where back-of-house labor sustains front-facing glamour.

The extensive analysis of whether AI represents a “bubble” comparable to the dot-com crash provides a master class in how financial markets construct and contest narratives about technological transformation. The newsletter’s citation of GQG Partners’ observation that “most money managers today do not carry the scars of the dot-com era” captures a fundamental problem in capitalist temporality: institutional memory degrades faster than the boom-bust cycle repeats.

As Hyman Minsky (1986) theorized, financial systems endogenously generate instability through successive stages of hedge, speculative, and Ponzi financing (pp. 230-256). The AI investment boom exhibits classic Minsky dynamics: initial productive investment (developing functional AI tools) gives way to speculative investment (betting on future AI capabilities) and finally to Ponzi dynamics (valuation based purely on finding greater fools to buy overpriced assets). The newsletter’s observation that “every active large-cap US portfolio manager, just 4% invested through the dot-com period” suggests we are in the late stages of this cycle, when experience has been replaced by enthusiasm.

Yet this pattern extends beyond finance into culture and politics. The newsletter’s coverage of youth-led protests adopting symbols from anime (One Piece), the use of Chinese-made phones despite geopolitical tensions, and the rapid cycles of CEO terminations all reflect what Hartmut Rosa (2013) terms “social acceleration”—the compression of temporal horizons until past experience becomes irrelevant and future planning impossible (pp. 77-114). We live perpetually in an extended present, unable to learn from history or imagine alternatives to current arrangements.

Defense briefings on U.S.-Turkey fighter-jet sales and Moldova’s election victory over Russian interference reveal social fractures in alliances and democracies. Economically, resuming F-35 sales to Turkey—contingent on halting Russian oil buys—aims to weaken Russia’s revenue, causally supporting NATO’s cohesion amid drone incursions. Culturally, Trump’s quip on “rigged elections” underscores a performative diplomacy that erodes trust, interrelating with Venezuela’s regime-change threats, where U.S. interventionism revives Cold War echoes.

Exploratively, these connect to Europe’s “hybrid war” warnings in Semafor, where Russian sabotage seeds division. Philosophically, this evokes Hannah Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951): “The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction... no longer exists” (Arendt, 1951, p. 474). Arendt’s insight causally explains Moldova’s low turnout (52%) amid disinformation, mirroring Monocle’s Montpellier mobility piece, where urban innovation counters division through inclusive policies.

In non-fiction, Timothy Snyder’s On Tyranny (2017) warns of such influence-buying, resonating with Moldova’s “win for the EU” despite bomb threats. Literature-wise, Milan Kundera’s The Unbearable Lightness of Being (1984) captures Eastern Europe’s existential weight under Soviet shadows, interrelating with the newsletter’s art theft headlines, where relics symbolize contested heritage in a geopolitically fragmented world.

These threads converge in the newsletter’s coverage of Saudi Arabia’s cultural investments: a new arts university in Riyadh, an $80 million fashion fund, and stakes in global gaming. This is not mere soft power; it is what Joseph Nye (2004) might call “smart power”—the fusion of cultural allure and strategic investment. Yet it also reflects what Timothy Mitchell (2011) describes as “carbon democracy”: the historical entanglement of energy regimes and political order. As Saudi Arabia pivots from oil to AI and entertainment, it seeks to replicate the cultural hegemony once held by the U.S.—a project rendered ironic by Trump’s simultaneous embrace of coal and tariffs.

Meanwhile, Moldova’s pro-EU election victory—achieved despite massive Russian disinformation—offers a counter-narrative of democratic resilience. As Andrew Mueller notes, this was “a values race—a referendum on Europe versus Russia.” It recalls Jürgen Habermas’s (1996) vision of the public sphere as a space for rational-critical debate, yet here, victory was won not through discourse alone but through voter education and compulsory voting advocacy—a pragmatic adaptation of deliberative democracy to the age of algorithmic manipulation.

Art snippets—from Picasso expansions to board-game renaissances—reveal cultural resilience. Socially, Asmodee’s growth during pandemics fosters “transmission” of joy; economically, Atlanta’s fair bets on inclusivity to build hubs. Culturally, Chanel’s Tokyo craft exhibit interrelates with Monocle’s sofa book, celebrating design philosophies.

Exploratively, these counter geopolitical gloom, as in Jessica Bridger’s graphic design plea for “human touch” amid digital homogenization. A Design Issues paper on analog revival argues: “In an era of algorithmic precision, happy accidents reclaim creativity” (Getch Clarke, 2020, p. 112). Literature’s Gabriel García Márquez in One Hundred Years of Solitude (1967) mirrors this with Macondo’s magical realism defying colonial decay, akin to Montpellier’s mobility transformation.

Thus, these snippets interweave a causal narrative: Economic pressures fuel cultural escapism, geopolitical hybridity erodes social trust, yet innovation offers explorative paths. Philosophically, Albert Camus’ The Myth of Sisyphus (1942) urges imagining Sisyphus happy amid absurdity: “The struggle itself... is enough to fill a man’s heart” (Camus, 1942/1955, p. 123). Amid 2025’s fractures, this newsletter invites us to find levity in the labor.

Support

The newsletters juxtapose hard auction numbers (noticeable declines in Hong Kong evening sales, big-house accounting figures) with stories about emergent local ecosystems (Atlanta’s fair at Pullman Yards). That pairing encapsulates two simultaneous processes: global concentration of high-end art markets (auction houses, billion-dollar collectors) and decentralized, grassroots cultural infrastructure-building that reclaims art as civic practice.

Don Thompson’s economic ethnography of the contemporary art market (2008, The $12 Million Stuffed Shark) helps explain how symbols, scarcity narratives, and institutional endorsements create value detached from artistic labor alone. At the same time, Arjun Appadurai’s social life of things reminds us that objects circulate in polities and are embedded in risk networks, fashions, and local meanings (Appadurai, 1986). The Atlanta fair is paradigmatic: it chooses a site of industrial memory, invites broad publics (students, sports-jersey crowds), and seeks to cultivate a local collecting culture rather than merely import one. That is a deliberate political economy of cultural growth — building connective tissue rather than importing finished tastes.

Two linked observations:

Market maturity ≠ cultural health. High auction totals can coexist with hollowed-out local scenes; conversely, modest local fairs can be socially vibrant and capable of long-term institutional growth.

Climate and ethics are entering market logic. The newsletter notes galleries donating percentages to climate organizations and museums expanding responsibly; cultural institutions are now negotiating ecological and governance responsibilities as part of their brand (a slow redefinition of legitimacy).

To read these newsletters critically is to engage in what Fredric Jameson (1991) termed “cognitive mapping”—the attempt to grasp the totality of late capitalism through its fragmentary cultural productions (pp. 51-54). The newsletter form itself—breathless, omnivorous, perpetually updated—embodies the temporal and spatial logic of contemporary capitalism: everything is potentially relevant, nothing is truly important, the next crisis is always already arriving.

Yet precisely in this heterogeneity lies the possibility for critical insight. When fashion coverage sits alongside government shutdown analysis, when AI investment mania appears next to climate crisis reporting, when restaurant criticism shares space with geopolitical maneuvering, unexpected connections emerge. We see how aesthetic production and political economy interpenetrate, how technological development and environmental catastrophe advance in lockstep, how the most rarefied cultural production depends on extractive material processes.

The geographic range—from Milan to Madagascar, from Silicon Valley to Saudi Arabia—reminds us that capitalism is now genuinely planetary in scope, yet its effects remain radically uneven. While American investors debate whether AI represents a bubble, African nations negotiate the terms of trade agreements; while European fashion houses promote “glamour,” Asian manufacturers supply the materials; while Gulf states invest oil wealth in technology firms, climate change intensifies. These are not separate stories but different moments in a single global process.

What emerges from this reading is not optimism but clarity. The crises documented in these newsletters—political, economic, environmental, social—are not anomalies but features of a system operating exactly as designed. Fashion’s turn toward “fun,” AI’s massive capital absorption, the normalization of governmental dysfunction, the intensification of great power competition—all represent attempts to defer reckoning with contradictions that grow more acute with each deferral. The question is not whether these contradictions will resolve but how: through managed transformation or catastrophic rupture, through democratic deliberation or authoritarian imposition, through equitable distribution or violent appropriation.

To read the newsletters, then, is to practice a form of political education—not in the sense of partisan advocacy but in the original sense of paideia, the cultivation of judgment necessary for democratic citizenship. It requires learning to see beneath surfaces, to connect apparently disparate phenomena, to question official narratives, and to imagine alternatives to what presents itself as inevitable. In an age of manufactured confusion and algorithmic information overload, such critical literacy may be the most valuable skill we can cultivate.

What binds these fragments is a shared negotiation between control and chaos. Whether in Milan’s runways, Madagascar’s streets, or Silicon Valley’s server farms, actors are improvising new forms of meaning amid structural instability. This echoes Hannah Arendt’s (1958) distinction between labor, work, and action: while labor reproduces life and work builds durable objects, action—unpredictable, relational, and often playful—is where freedom emerges.

The newsletters’ mosaic is less a set of isolated curiosities than a semi-coherent index of our era’s cultural economy: markets press on designers, museums recalibrate identities and funding, local fairs wrestle with inclusion, and political movements harvest pop culture as a lingua franca. The urgent interpretive task is to hold these threads together — tracing how economic structures (auctions, IPO talk, conglomerates) shape aesthetic practices, and how aesthetic practices in turn instantiate forms of sociality that either resist or reproduce market logic.

Across these domains, three cross-cutting mechanisms appear:

Conversion of affect into capital. Playful runway moments, boutique experiences, and immersive hotel suites convert moods into transactable assets; fun becomes liquidity for brands (fashion, hospitality).

Institutional arbitrage and resilience. Auction houses, museums and fairs mediate who gains credit and reputation; yet resilience is uneven — Istanbul’s fair persists under censorship pressures, Atlanta’s fair builds from civic resources, and Moldova’s election shows that elections remain contested arenas of symbolic geopolitics.

Cultural literacy as political literacy. The newsletter repeatedly gestures to the importance of education — from arts funding deficits (Atlanta) to voter education (Moldova). Where interpretive skills are scarce, publics are vulnerable to manipulation, commodification, or alienation; where interpretive skills are dense, cultural economies can thicken into civic ones.

The most profound insight may lie in Emily Bryce-Perkins’s meditation on hospitality: “Atmosphere is the difference between a meal and a memory.” In an era obsessed with optimization and efficiency, such attention to affective infrastructure—whether in a restaurant, a protest, or a fashion show—becomes a quiet act of resistance. As philosopher Alain Badiou (2001) writes, “It is only through fidelity to an event that truth emerges” (p. 67). These events—colorful coats, pirate flags, AI-generated sonnets—may seem trivial. But in their insistence on joy, connection, and care, they offer a fragile yet vital counterpoint to the logic of extraction that defines our age.

Subscribe

Ahmed, S. (2010). The promise of happiness. Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822392781

Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. Verso.

Appadurai, A. (Ed.). (1986). The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective. Cambridge University Press.

Arendt, H. (1951). The origins of totalitarianism. Schocken Books.

Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. University of Chicago Press.

Badiou, A. (2001). Ethics: An essay on the understanding of evil (P. Hallward, Trans.). Verso.

Barthes, R. (1967). The fashion system (M. Ward & R. Howard, Trans.). Hill and Wang.

Baudrillard, J. (1998). The consumer society: Myths and structures (C. Turner, Trans.). Sage Publications. (Original work published 1970)

Benjamin, W. (1936). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. In Illuminations (H. Zohn, Trans.; 1969). Schocken Books.

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Harvard University Press.

Brenner, R. (2006). The economics of global turbulence: The advanced capitalist economies from long boom to long downturn, 1945-2005. Verso.

Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the demos: Neoliberalism’s stealth revolution. Zone Books.

Calvino, I. (1972). Invisible cities (W. Weaver, Trans.). Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Camus, A. (1955). The myth of Sisyphus and other essays (J. O’Brien, Trans.). Alfred A. Knopf. (Original work published 1942)

Castells, M. (2012). Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the Internet age. Polity.

Chang, H.-J. (2002). Kicking away the ladder: Development strategy in historical perspective. Anthem Press.

Crawford, K. (2021). Atlas of AI: Power, politics, and the planetary costs of artificial intelligence. Yale University Press.

Crawford, M. (2009). Shop class as soulcraft: An inquiry into the value of work. Penguin.

Dean, J. (2009). Democracy and other neoliberal fantasies: Communicative capitalism and left politics. Duke University Press.

Fisher, M. (2009). Capitalist realism: Is there no alternative? Zero Books.

García Márquez, G. (1967). One hundred years of solitude (G. Rabassa, Trans.). Harper & Row.

Getch Clarke, H. (2020). Analog futures: Reclaiming serendipity in digital design. Design Issues, 36(3), 102-115. https://doi.org/10.1162/desi_a_00605

Graeber, D. (2018). Bullshit jobs: A theory. Simon & Schuster.

Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy (W. Rehg, Trans.). MIT Press.

Han, B.-C. (2017). Psychopolitics: Neoliberalism and new technologies of power. Verso.

Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. University of California Press.

Honneth, A. (1995). The struggle for recognition: The moral grammar of social conflicts (J. Anderson, Trans.). MIT Press.

Huizinga, J. (1955). Homo ludens: A study of the play-element in culture. Beacon Press. (Original work published 1938)

Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism, or, the cultural logic of late capitalism. Duke University Press.

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. NYU Press.

Kerr, W. R., Lerner, J., & Schoar, A. (2016). The consequences of entrepreneurial finance: Evidence from angel financings. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30(1), 83-104. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.30.1.83

Khanna, P. (2019). The future is Asian: Commerce, conflict, and culture in the 21st century. Simon & Schuster.

Klein, N. (2007). The shock doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism. Metropolitan Books.

Kundera, M. (1984). The unbearable lightness of being (M. H. Heim, Trans.). Harper & Row.

Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How democracies die. Crown.

Lind, M. (2020). The new class war: Saving democracy from the managerial elite. Portfolio/Penguin.

Malm, A. (2016). Fossil capital: The rise of steam power and the roots of global warming. Verso.

Marcuse, H. (1964). One-dimensional man: Studies in the ideology of advanced industrial society. Beacon Press.

Marx, K. (1976). Capital: A critique of political economy (Vol. 1) (B. Fowkes, Trans.). Penguin Books. (Original work published 1867)

Minsky, H. P. (1986). Stabilizing an unstable economy. Yale University Press.

Mitchell, T. (2011). Carbon democracy: Political power in the age of oil. Verso.

Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. PublicAffairs.

Oldenburg, R. (1989). The great good place: Cafes, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons, and other hangouts at the heart of a community. Paragon House.

Papacharissi, Z. (2015). Affective publics: Sentiment, technology, and politics. Oxford University Press.

Rocamora, A., & Smelik, A. (2021). Post-pandemic fashion: Emotional hedging and the luxury turn. Fashion Theory, 25(6), 789-810. https://doi.org/10.1080/1362704X.2021.1949182

Rosa, H. (2013). Social acceleration: A new theory of modernity (J. Trejo-Mathys, Trans.). Columbia University Press.

Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. Yale University Press.

Sennett, R. (2008). The craftsman. Yale University Press.

Smil, V. (2017). Energy and civilization: A history. MIT Press.

Snyder, T. (2017). On tyranny: Twenty lessons from the twentieth century. Tim Duggan Books.

Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Polity Press.

Thompson, D. (2008). The $12 million stuffed shark: The curious economics of contemporary art. St. Martin’s Press.

Wang, D. (2021). Techno-nationalism and its discontents. The Wire China. https://www.thewirechina.com/

Share

[Written, Researched, and Edited by Pablo Markin. Some parts of the text have been produced with the aid of Claude, Anthropic, ChatGPT, OpenAI, Qwen, Alibaba, and Grok, xAI, tools (October 7, 2025). The featured image has been generated in Canva (October 7, 2025).]

[Support the Open Access Blogs: https://openaccessblogs.gumroad.com/l/openaccessblogssupport.]

OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Pablo Markin (October 7, 2025). Glamour, Grids, and Great Games: Decoding Culture in an Age of Crisis. Open Access Blog.

Support dialog