The coming collapse of the American art market

I've been wondering what will happen when the American art market collapses. I think it's going to happen soon -- maybe this summer.


The economic super-boom America has been in since the end of WWII paralleled the super-boom in American art. It was no coincidence that America's political and economic supremacy made American artists supreme. But that is about to change. Now that our boom has gone bust, the art boom will meet the same fate.


It's not that there will be no more money for art. Just like in other recessions, the American super-rich will get to keep much of their wealth and will still be able to spend it on expensive art. They just won't want to. What made American art so attractive to new money was what it symbolized: that exciting American supremacy. The rich didn't just want the status of owning art; they wanted the psychological justification for their wealth and power that that art seemed to provide. But once American supremacy diminishes, American art won't look so appetizing anymore. As a result, American artists are going to see a lot less demand for their work and much lower prices.


The art itself will change, too. In contrast to the egotistic exuberance of early-boom artists like Pollock, post-boom Americans artists will shed their bravado and mystique. No one will be interested in that anymore. And in a way, that will be a big relief. All the postmodern ennui, the fragmentation, reflexivity, and ambiguity, will finally come to an end. Postmodernism will be revealed for what it really was: not a discrete period constituting a reaction to Modernism, but merely Modernism's self-digestion and death. In other words, there is no such thing as Postmodernism. The period properly called "postmodern" has only recently arrived. Postmodernism was just the final period of Modernism: Late Modernism.


The new art won't be "post"-anything. It will be new. And it will build on the foundations of our new, globalized reality. It will be hugely influenced by the 2.0 paradigm. It will see the reclassification of the artist from lone visionary to collaborative craftsman. Luckily for America, it will begin right here, during our decline. Unluckily for America, it will then spread and find its greatest expression abroad, during the rise of other countries.


Update 2/8/08: Uneasiness at London auctions
Update 4/17/08: Is Street Turmoil Coloring Art Market? [WSJ preview, subscription required for full article]

Candidates' colors part II

The Martin Luther King, Jr. Day debate in South Carolina had the Democratic presidential candidates dressing close to type. In anticipation of the more clearly-drawn battle lines of this debate, the campaigns dressed their candidates in ways that sought to visually pinpoint their unique strengths.

First, the ties. Edwards went with a bright-blue tie that looked very similar to the one he wore at the New Hampshire debate. Could it even have been the same tie? Actors going for call-backs are often advised to go ahead and wear the same outfit they wore to the initial audition, the reasoning being that this will help the casting director remember his/her first (good) impression of them. Maybe Edwards wore a similar tie to help voters remember how he looked back when he was doing relatively well in the polls.

Obama's tie was possibly another showbiz trick -- one cleverly adapted from some classic on-air no-nos. On television, certain colors and patterns don't come across well: specifically, bright red tends to "bleed," or look fuzzy, and small, high-contrast patterns, like stripes, can appear to wiggle. Nevertheless, Obama wore a red-and-white thinly-striped tie. He clearly has some good wardrobe people; they finally got him a jacket that fits, for one thing (in the previous two debates he had some collar-gap issues). They must be aware of the problems with red and stripes on T.V. I think they deliberately put him in that tie, knowing how it would look: on my screen, it glowed and scintillated, drawing attention straight to him in the wide shots of the three candidates. It was almost as though you could see straight through his chest to his burning, passionate Democrat heart. Brilliant.

Clinton's "tie" in this debate was a bright-orange scarf. Yet another bold color choice! Orange's greatest strength as a color is its power to conjure up a feeling of exuberant happiness (think of the ads and packaging for Clinique Happy). Particularly during this week of bad economic news, Clinton's people wanted to give her an aura of cheerfulness and optimism. Orange may have also been a ploy to increase Clinton's desirability: it has notoriously been used in the decor of fast food restaurants because of its proven power to stimulate the appetite. Were we supposed to feel "hungry for Hillary?" I found the effect of the tucked-in scarf to be a bit off, making Clinton seem a little too bundled-up. Still, it was much better than the distracting necklaces she wore in the previous two debates.

Grooming: Didn't the candidates look lovely? Everyone's makeup looked fantastic. Edwards's skin looked like a newborn baby's! Obama's looked like sweet milk chocolate! Clinton's makeup was much better than in Nevada. She looked a decade younger. They've switched her to shiny lipstick, which makes her mouth look fuller, younger, and more pleasant, even when she does her disapproving pursed-lips thing. Her eyeliner was better, too -- less harsh than it has been in the past. She was positively doe-eyed! Good show!

I can't write about the men's suits, because I really don't know anything about men's suits. They were...dark navy blue single-breasted suits? That's all I've got. Of course, there's much less to say about their suits, since the men's suit is such a standard garment. But there's tons to say about Clinton's suits! Her suit at this debate was very nice. I applaud her return to the nehru jacket after two debates of traditional jackets with lapels. The high, collarless neckline makes her look secure, put-together, streamlined, and modern. It's a great personal signature. I had a problem with the single button at the neckline, though: it was a neat touch, but bunched in there with the clip-on mic and the scarf, it made her neck area look cluttered. The suit was beautifully fitted to her, though. You could really see this from the back -- and weren't there a lot of shots of her from the back! I thought that was really unfair. Did we see any shots of Obama's or Edwards's behinds? Clinton's figure looked lovely, especially considering her jacket broke the cardinal rule of jackets for pear-shaped women: Thou Shalt Not Wear A Jacket That Ends At Your Widest Point. Her jacket fell right at the widest part of her rear. I understand her wanting to cover her backside, for professionalism's sake -- but at the cost of emphasizing being broad-in-the-beam? The horror! A cropped jacket that shows more leg is a necessity for elongating this type of figure! The color and fabric of the suit were the best part. The fabric looked really refined -- maybe a silk/wool blend? It had a subtle, light-absorbing texture. And the color was perfect: a flattering but serious brown: earthy, sophisticated, and just dark enough to project authority.

The poor candidates were forced to abandon the security of their podiums for a ridiculous faux-casual chair-sitting set during the second half of the debate. Each of them sat in a very distinct and characteristic way: Edwards, the populist, let his legs hang open casually, revealing a little too much crotch; Obama, cool as ice, crossed his legs; and Clinton, the proper professional lady, kept her knees together and her ankles crossed. Both men's socks were, thankfully, long enough to conceal leg skin. But only Obama's people were thoughtful enough to give him brand-new shoes with perfect, unblemished soles (not so for Edwards, whose scuffed bottoms made a couple of brief appearances).

The set was the typical red, white, and blue, in a patchwork pattern. In close-up, Edwards and Clinton were in front of blue squares on the mosaic, while Obama was in front of red. Obama's red background probably made him come off as even more aggressive during the points in the debate when he got all riled up. Clinton's scarf was not such a good match with the decor this time. She was right to pick a softer, "pumpkin" shade of orange, though, instead of primary orange to go with the set, which would have been horrendous next to her face.

At this point, with the green, pink, and now orange, it's clear that Clinton is making a point of excluding red and blue, the more obvious colors. I actually think that's a smart choice. Women so often find themselves choosing between too-masculine and too-feminine versions of business clothing. By breaking out of the box with her collar shape and colors, Clinton makes it clear that she is not trying to look like a man, but does so without looking too much "like a woman" in the wrong way. That's a truly difficult task, and she, or her handlers, are doing a great job at it.

One more debate to go... For my coverage of color in the previous two debates, see Their true colors.

Eat to live

When I read articles about obesity like this one, I feel really frustrated because I'm pretty sure I know about the solution to it and many other health problems. It's called Eat to Live.

Eat to Live is a diet developed by Joel Fuhrman, a doctor whose specialty is reversing disease through nutrition. The concept behind it is very simple and intuitive:

Health = Nutrients/Calories

In other words, the more nutrient-rich your food, the healthier you will be. This means minimizing or eliminating processed foods with "empty" calories as well as meat and dairy, which are not only nutrient-poor as judged by the formula above, but also raise the risk of heart disease, cancer, and other illnesses.

I know from personal experience and my friends' experiences that this diet really works. When I started it, my weight dropped rapidly and kept dropping until it stabilized right at the number Dr. Fuhrman's weight tables recommended for my height -- and has stayed right there for months. My BMI went from 22.4 (within the normal range) to 18.6 (on the low end of the healthy range). And it was really easy. You can eat as much as you want, so long as you eat a variety of whole vegan foods.

This diet seems weird and fringey to most people now, but I'm convinced it will eventually become very popular. I hope it will even change the majority of Americans' diets for good. It works too well not to be a success; it just has to reach its "tipping point." It seems like the momentum is gathering. A book called The China Study, which urges an almost-identical diet, was published in 2004, the year after Dr. Fuhrman's book. And Michael Pollan's book that just came out, In Defense of Food, has this message: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

I encourage everyone to read Dr. Fuhrman's book, Eat to Live, and to try the diet! Even if you're a healthy weight, it's nice to see, written down, a guide to exactly how to eat in order to be as healthy as you can be. Then, you can decide whether to eat that way or not -- but at least you'll have good information about the optimal human diet.

All-black is whack

The all-black look is overdone: most people agree with that. But lots of people love black and want to wear as much of it as possible. What's the best way to pull it off?

Lots of people compromise with almost-all-black, adding color in just one place like in a top or accessory. That's a little more interesting than all-black, but it doesn't have much personality, unless you're really good with the details. It's also hard to make it look balanced since the one spot of color draws the eye like a magnet, making you look poorly-proportioned.

It's best to flip the ratio of black-to-color so that black makes up the minority of your outfit. Just a dash of black, in an accessory or a single item of clothing, is enough to make an outfit pop. It also makes you look cool, because a restrained use of black shows you're not trying too hard.

The most modern colors to combine with black are neutrals. I've been seeing lots of people on the street combining black with natural-colored leather shoes, bags, and belts. This is a great look because of the strong contrast between the ascetic modernism of black and the earthy classicism of the neutral. It is also very easy to put together.

To make a black + neutral outfit even better, it's good to add some color in the form of a print. Once you've got one print in there, it's O.K. to add a solid color. But an outfit looks best with at least one print to play off against the solids.

I'm not saying no one can ever wear all-black. But very few people can pull it off. You have to be extremely intense to make it work. And you have to be a wizard at combining different textures and fabrics, because that's what makes an all-black outfit work. And you have to either be very good-looking or have very deep, cool, or clear coloring -- ideally both.

Their true colors

I've been fascinated by the color palettes of the most recent two Democratic debates. Though conservative, the set designers' and candidates' color choices were quite telling.

For one thing, they suggested that the campaigns have advance knowledge about the colors of the sets -- because there has been a striking degree of color coordination between the candidates' clothes and the backdrops behind them. (Do the debate's producers provide information to campaign officials about what colors they will be using? If so, is this done secretly or openly? I would love to know.)

At the January 5th debate in New Hampshire, the sets were large, bright screens of vibrant -- verging on jewel-toned -- red and blue. The three front-runners' color accents mixed perfectly with these sets. Obama's shiny red tie matched the glowing red of the background, and its gold stripes were a complementary safe neutral. Edwards's bright-blue tie was a near-perfect match with the clear blue of the set. Clinton, in an interesting choice, wore a green top under her black suit. The selection of green suggests an effort by Clinton's campaign to bolster her popularity with younger voters who are drawn to Obama's coolness. Green is a currently-trendy color that has associations with the trendy cause of environmentalism. It also stood out within the otherwise red-and-blue color scheme of the debate (while harmonizing with it). Green was a risky choice, since in addition to its positive connotations of tenacity and reliability, green has overtones of stubbornness, predictability, and backward thinking. But after her loss in Iowa, Clinton's handlers probably thought it was important to take such a risk in order to raise her profile. Richardson wore a blue tie, but its dark, relatively matte, subdued tone did not fit in with the rest of the color scheme -- and, surprise, he soon dropped out of the race.

I found the bright colors at the New Hampshire debate somewhat overwhelming and felt that they placed the Democrats in an atmosphere that was too aggressive and intense for their personalities. Of course, the set was designed with the Republicans (who went first) in mind as well, so it must have represented a merging of their sensibilities. Republicans need straightforward, powerful colors, which means strong primary tones; this was modified for the Democrats, perhaps, by tweaking the colors into the jewel range, which made them look more open and optimistic, referencing the party's orientation towards the future.

The color scheme of last night's Nevada debate was more nuanced, befitting its exclusively-Democratic stars. The set backdrop was composed of vertical screens displaying a close-up of the point on the American flag where the bottom-right corner of the starred blue canton meets the striped portion. That point on the flag, non-coincidentally I think, is just left-of-center: the sweet spot these candidates are aiming for. It is also a middle ground between the stars (symbolizing the heavens, or God and faith) and the stripes (symbolizing, for many people, the red of blood shed for the country and the white of the liberty it was shed for). However, the blue portion predominated, perhaps reflecting the peaceful tone the contest is struggling to maintain (in spite of the questioners' repeated attempts to rile them into a fight). Most intriguingly, the blues and reds blurred in such a way that the backdrop included whole swathes of obvious purple -- which, with its connotations of creativity, was a daring but fitting choice to underscore this primary season's embrace of change.

These set choices were made by MSNBC and its production designers, of course -- not the candidates -- so what they really reflect is the image the network wanted to project of its news coverage. That image, in turn, was chosen to reflect the mood of the audience (politically-engaged Democrats) it's trying to attract. And that mood, based on the look of the set, is very high-minded, idealistic, and positive.

The two front-running males were once again matchy-matchy with the debate's set. This time Edwards wore a tie that looked remarkably like the one Obama wore for the New Hampshire debate: an attempt to make himself look more like the youth majority's first choice? Obama's light-blue tie was the color of the blurry sections of the background at which blue (peacefulness and order) met white (freedom and purity), making a light-blue color that toned down the conservative, authoritative connotations of blue into a non-confrontational, optimistic shade -- good for someone who got flak for the "likeable enough" comment. Clinton went for pink. Pink is unabashedly feminine, and the campaign's choice of it for Clinton's top is a sign that they are, despite protestations to the contrary, continuing to play the gender card. More shockingly, pink is a color which image consultants recommend wearing in order to inspire feelings of sympathy. Dressing Clinton in pink signals an attempt to keep capitalizing on the emotional response voters had to the Edwards-Obama "double-teaming" and to Clinton's coffee-shop tearfulness. But while holding onto her emotional appeal, the Clinton campaign does not want to lose the candidate's authority: her top was a deep, strong shade of fuschia (which, unfortunately, almost-matched her lipstick in an unflattering way).

I'll watch the next debate with interest and post again on the evolving color story of the Democratic contest.

Naive makeup

Instead of trying to make your makeup look perfect, why not make it look imperfect -- even naive?

Women are still stuck trying to look like celebrities, with their makeup as well as their clothes.  This is not only boring (and vulgar), but impossible!  It takes lots of skill, time, know-how, and expensive products to replicate the look professional makeup artists achieve -- and, even then, it rarely looks right or even good.

Instead, I'd like to see women applying makeup in a way that's honest about their skill level.  Lots of young women don't wear any makeup at all because they're afraid they'll get it wrong.  I say, stop worrying about getting it wrong, and just do it (wrong)!  I think adult women should go back to applying makeup like they did when they were little girls playing with their mothers' lipstick.  That was fun!

Instead of putting on all the correct layers in their correct order, why not just smear on one coat of bright lipstick -- without moisturizer, primer, lipliner, gloss, or powder -- and otherwise have a completely bare face?  Or, why not wear several coats of mascara and nothing else?  Or foundation without any other makeup?

Over-applied blush was trendy within recent memory (popularized by Anna on The O.C. -- remember??) and looks hideous BUT is also kind of cool.  Poorly-done or flaking-off manicures have been cool for teenagers recently and are reminiscent of that Tinkerbell plastic peel-off nail polish I remember using as a 6-year-old in the '80s.

It's interesting to note that naive makeup not only is a technique and look in itself, but also makes possible lots of additional new looks.  Lipstick-only creates a Lolita look; mascara-only makes a gamine look; and foundation-only makes an androgynous look.  Overdone blush results in a prostitute look and peeling-off polish in a grunge look.

I think it's funny that hipsters who take risks with their clothes are so safe with their makeup.  Why were girls wearing Goodwill outfits with full-on M.A.C. makeup at Misshapes?  I guess it's because they, like their idols, were getting photographed a lot and cared more about looking good than completing their fashion statement.  And that's kind of...lame, actually.

Although the application style of naive makeup is "naive," the total effect and meaning are not -- at least not in the more negative sense of the word.  Naive makeup is naive in the "natural and unaffected" sense.  It's very honest, empowered, and knowing, and projects a strong and sophisticated image.

It is possible to take this idea to too far an extreme: I saw a girl on the J train a couple of weeks ago who had drawn war stripes on her cheeks with hot pink lipstick.  She may have been insane.  So, I guess, don't go too far, or people on the subway will think you're crazy.

I don't think this will be a trend.  Although it could actually get lots more women wearing makeup, the loss in revenue from the women who already wore full-on makeup and started wearing less would make it unprofitable.  Also, since this look is best achieved using the very cheapest drugstore brands (Wet 'n' Wild, N.Y.C), high-end and medium-level brands would not benefit.

Glitter nail polish

Nails have a fast trend cycle now, with a change in length, shape, color, or decoration happening at least once a season.  It seems like the short, rounded shape is here to stay for a while.  Color has been the main changeable factor for the past few seasons, with pale pinks giving way to classic red, then black and its variations, then metallics, and now dark blue.  I think the next thing to come up will be a change in texture, which means glitter!  The black and blue trends have included "subtle shimmer," but I think BIG flecks of shine should come in next.  Silver and gold will be good, colored glitter better, multicolored even better, and, if someone would manufacture it, glitter in small shapes (hearts, dollar signs) would be best.  I think glitter could start showing up as early as next winter and be big for spring '09.

A new separates dynamic?

There are multiple variables that can change in fashion as part of a trend: proportion, volume, pattern, color, skirt length, waist location, etc. But there's one variable I'm interested in but never hear discussed (probably because it changes so rarely) and don't know the name for, and that's the relationship between the various articles of clothing.

Even though I haven't heard a name for this variable, I am sure it exists because it has been very active and changeable recently. Here's the progression we've seen over the past few years in the relationship between women's sportswear tops and bottoms:

1. bootcut pants with tank tops and jackets
2. low-rise bootcut pants with fancy tops and jackets
3. designer low-rise jeans with fancy tops
4. skinny designer low-rise jeans with fancy tops
5. tunics, wide-leg pants
6. tops with leggings
7. dresses with leggings
8. dresses
9. bubble dresses
10. high-waisted jeans

This is probably a little inaccurate, but still -- it's quite a progression! From mid-rise bootcut pants to high-waisted skinny jeans and dresses? What is going on?! It's like there was a whole reimagining of the proper clothing for the torso (from tight and short to long and loose) and the legs (from long and high to tight and low and back again!) and the combination of the two. It was as if the women's top got longer and fancier, becoming like a dress that was worn over pants, until it became long enough to actually go over pants, then pants were eliminated and the dress took over, then evolved its own kind of "pants" (leggings) to go under it, which then grew more important than the dress...

The recent reorientation of the relationship between legwear and...torsowear (?) is similar to what happened during the sixties with the miniskirt. As Thomas Hine points out in The Great Funk, pantyhose came on the market just as miniskirts were surging in popularity. This invention arrived right on time, as pantyhose tempered the miniskirt's shock appeal by cushioning the visual impact of so much leg. Hine agrees that, just like it seems leggings have recently supplanted trousers, "it may be that pantyhose were themselves pants in disguise."

I think it's interesting to take a look at how we put our clothing together and realize how arbitrary it is. We take for granted that men, for instance, wear some kind of pants on their legs and some kind of shirt on their torsos. But this is far from how men used to dress in the past! Men used to wear stockings with little pantaloons and cropped jackets with tails; women used to wear dresses that were actually in two parts; women's sleeves used to be separate from the rest of their clothes; men's ties used to actually hold the collar tight, and their belts used to actually hold their pants up. Native American men traditionally didn't wear pants -- they mostly wore breechcloths, sometimes with leggings that hung from their belts, so that the total effect was somewhat like pants, but was actually put together very differently. Men in ancient Greece and Rome wore chitons, which were not pants at all but more like big loose dresses; men in ancient Egypt wore kilts, which were linen skirts.

All I'm saying is that our basic vocabulary of pants, shirts, and jackets for men and pants/skirts and tops or dresses for women is not the only option. Men and women could instead both wear some kind of dress; or we could both wear unitards; or men could wear skirts and women could be the default pants-wearers.

I'm wondering whether women's separates will keep moving around like they have been, or find one place and stay there. I'm also wondering when the next total paradigm shift will occur in how we wear separates, and what form it will take. One option I think would be really cool, and possible given current trends, would be if undergarments actually became the basic garments, much like the breechcloth was the basic garment for Native American men, and for the other separates to be layered on top of those as needed. For instance, women could wear underwear only in hot weather, a top added as it got cooler, then, as it got progressively cooler, socks, gloves, sweaters, warm thigh-high stockings, boots, and finally a coat. But a woman would still be decent so long as she had her underwear on--her underwear and her shoes.

Unhairdos

A good accompaniment to the unhaircut will be the unhairdo.

This will be a deliberately not-done or poorly-done hairdo.  Examples of not-done hair are bedhead, frizzy hair, dirty hair, tangled hair, staticky hair, untamed cowlicks, and hair allowed to go gray.  Poorly-done hairdos could include bumpy ponytails, coming-apart updos, hairdos that are askew, bad or haphazard color jobs, sticking-up or too-long bangs, home haircuts, and flyaways.

While calculated on a conceptual level, unhairdos should not be too calculated in their execution.  They should not require very much time or effort.  However, they will require an excellent eye, because the hardest thing of all is to get "looking wrong" right.

Besides serving as a fitting styling option for the unhaircut head of hair, unhairdos also fit into what I'm predicting will be a popular "jolie laide," "beautiful ugliness" look.

Back to the post-9/11 future

In Back to the Future II, while Marty McFly and Doc Brown are in the year 2015, Marty buys a sports almanac with the intention of using it to place bets once he returns to 1985. But when Doc Brown discovers what Marty has done, he scolds him and throws the almanac into the trash. The "bad guy" character Biff, who has overheard their conversation, then retrieves the almanac, steals the time machine, travels back to November 12, 1955, and gives the almanac to his younger self with instructions on how to use it to make money. As a result, when Doc and Marty return from 2015 to 1985, they find not the 1985 they left but instead a dystopian "alternate 1985" in which Biff is incredibly rich and powerful and Hill Valley is a crime-filled wasteland.

To many Americans, the present day is like the nightmarish "alternate 1985" of Back to the Future. We look at the disaster in Iraq and the related struggling American economy and damaged U.S. reputation and feel a lot like Marty did when confronted with his neighborhood transformed into a slum. We ask ourselves, "How could this happen?" The current state of affairs sometimes seems so bad that it feels existentially wrong. The comedian Patton Oswalt puts it like this:

There was this time when, in 2003, I felt like we had all fallen into this really creepy, alternate Earth--like, the "bad" Earth, where Bush won, and the towers fell, and we were going to Iraq, and Paris Hilton was successful, and everything was just wrong--everything was goddamn evil. And I felt like there was like a Earth next to ours where Gore won, and the towers still stood, and we weren't in Iraq, and Paris Hilton had been eaten by wolves, and everything was just wonderful, like...it was all good, you know?

The way we got to this point is complicated, but on one level all our trouble dates to September 11, 2001. The problems that began then were not a direct result of the terrorist attacks, which we could have prevented or at least responded to much more effectively, but the Bush administration's poorly-thought-out reaction to them. In the Back to the Future trilogy, Marty's main weakness is allowing Biff to provoke him by calling him "chicken." Marty consistently lets Biff "project" his insecurity and anger onto him, causing him to "become" his enemy and get into a vengeful, self-destructive pattern--which is just what Biff wants.

Unfortunately, this is exactly what happened to George Bush on 9/11. Tellingly, Biff is not just a good stand-in for terrorism, but for Bush as well, because, like Marty, Bush played into the hands of the terrorists by letting them successfully project their anger and vengefulness onto him. Bush then became like his enemy, allowing himself to be driven by similar religious and ideological mania and resorting to similar inhumane tactics. Like Biff, Bush let his insecurity drive him to take advantage of an unusual situation by unfairly grabbing far more power and money than he was entitled to and using it for selfish, misguided, disastrous ends.

In Back to the Future II, Marty and Doc travel back to November 12, 1955, steal the almanac back from Biff, and thereby set time back on its "proper course." My hope is that 2008 will be the year that America does the equivalent. We don't need to erase the intervening years since 9/11--and unless Barack Obama is able to ride a De Lorean back to 2001, chase Bush on a hoverboard, steal his executive power, and burn it, we can't--but we can take this opportunity to steer the course of history away from the "wrong turn" more and more Americans think it has taken and back onto its earlier path.

And while we're at it, we should follow Marty's example and learn from our mistakes. In the course of his adventures in time, Marty gains self-esteem by choosing to do the right thing. With this new self-image, he is able to abandon his old threatened, reactive course of action, which had been keeping him stuck on a dead-end course. Instead, he learns to stop, cool down, and think rationally. When he does this, he sees Biff for the essentially empty, surmountable threat that he is, and is able to deal with him accordingly. By doing the same thing, America could create not just a "good" 2008, but an even better 2015.

Let's stay away from 1885, though. Part III sucks.