What is so captivating about the Rubik’s Cube? Is it the way the pieces turn, smoothly with a satisfying click? Is it the overwhelming frustration of solving one side, only to mess it up later? Or is it the deceiving nature of the cube — simple but almost impossible to solve? Though this question remains unanswered, one thing is certain: the Rubik’s Cube is a significant popular culture artifact.
This simplistic cube has quite a non-traditional history. Before becoming the best-selling toy and world’s most popular puzzle, the Rubik’s Cube was just a model built to teach college students about 3D movement.
Invented in the 1970s by Ernő Rubik, a Hungarian sculptor and professor, the Cube became an instant hit with his students (“Our heritage,” 2019). During that time, Hungary was still a communist nation behind the Iron Curtain after the Soviet Union intervened, causing political instability. Therefore, Ernő Rubik faced great difficulty trying to pitch his new toy idea, as Hungary was not interested in investing in puzzles (“Our heritage,” 2019). To combat these roadblocks, Rubik turned towards international toy fairs, where the Cube caught the eye of toy marketer Tom Kremer (Snyder, 2018). The rest was history.
Rubik’s puzzle quickly gained momentum, and once it hit American shelves, it exploded. Now, more than 450 million cubes have been sold since its initial release (Snyder, 2018).
This seemingly mundane puzzle has over forty-three quintillion combinations, but only one solution.
To clarify — that’s 43 followed by 16 zeroes!
If it’s so difficult to solve, why is the cube so successful? The complexity of the puzzle is its allure since there are always new ways to complete it. This fascination spread like wildfire with the help of technology and the Internet.
As the Rubik’s Cube moved out of Hungary and into America, the toy was heavily marketed through television advertisements and collaborations with well-established companies like Honda and Chuck E. Cheese (“Appearances of the Rubik’s Cube,” 2018). By 1981, millions of cubes were sold, and the toy became a worldwide craze (“Our heritage”). To meet demands, manufacturing for the Rubik’s Cube was highly standardized, utilizing factory machines to put together the toy. Some theorists assert that these industrial methods of reproduction take away the special essence of the art. Walter Benjamin (1963), a renowned philosopher, believes that “The whole sphere of authenticity is outside technical […] reproducibility. Confronted with its manual reproduction, which was branded as a forgery, the original preserved all its authority; not so vis a vis technical reproduction” (p. 50). As Rubik himself calls the cube “a piece of art” (Snyder, 2018), Benjamin would argue that each time the toy is replicated, the artistic aura would diminish, making it less authentic and a “forgery.”
However, without these technological processes, this puzzle may not have been the smash hit that it is today. By meeting popular demand, the Rubik’s Cube’s aura seems only to multiply as more consumers experience this simplistic yet intriguing toy. The Cube is so captivating that it has garnered an entire subculture of “cubers” that connect on thousands of online forums and compete in tournaments all around the world to win tens of thousands of dollars (Brown, 2018). These communities are enraptured by the Rubik’s Cube’s aura, spending hours discussing new algorithms to use, sharing their successes, and debating which method would solve the cube fastest. These passionate cubers’ enthusiasm keeps its essence and aura alive.
Although this community positively impacts the Rubik’s Cube, it is still subject to societal inequities. At first, cubers were deemed nerdy, since speed-solving the puzzle required extensive mathematical prowess. As speed-cubing moved from the outskirts of popular culture to becoming more mainstream, gender, class, and race issues were replicated within these communities. Before this transformation, the Rubik’s Cube’s marketing company, Ideal Toy Company, targeted advertisements towards white teenage boys with females playing side characters and girlfriends (Branch, 2018). These campaigns promoted sexist ideas rooted in society, indirectly showcasing that only men were smart enough to solve such a complex puzzle. Though these seemingly harmless ads aired over thirty-five years ago, they caused irreversible damage. The cuber community is now overwhelmingly dominated by white cis males (Sheir, 2017). In fact, every world champion of the Rubik’s Cube tournament has been male (“Rankings,” 2021). Further, these competitions are held internationally, so they are exclusive, time consuming, and expensive to attend. Those that are fortunate enough to compete must pay out of pocket, which severely limits the range of people that can take part.
Once existing outside of popular culture, cubers and the Rubik’s Cube were engulfed back into mainstream culture, thereby replicating its societal disparities. This idea of incorporation, coined by German philosophers Adorno and Horkheimer in their Dialectic of Enlightenment (1944), dictates that “once his particular brand of deviation from the norm has been noted by the industry, he belongs to it as does the land-reformer to capitalism” (p. 5). These thinkers believe that all forms of counter-cultural media are swept back into the culture industry that commodifies all form of media and culture. This principle undoubtedly applies to the Cube and the communities built around it. As the toy picked up in sales and therefore popularity, the cubers reproduced problematic structures present in society.
The Rubik’s Cube is arguably the most deceptive popular culture artifact. The three-by-three cube looks rather straightforward, but with a one in forty-three quintillion chance of solving it, it’s much more complex than it seems. Further, as the cube shifted from Hungary to the US, sales exploded with the help of mechanical reproduction while maintaining its aura. This sudden increase in popularity led to the creation of the cuber community, which once existed outside mainstream culture, but was incorporated into the culture industry, reflecting its race, gender, and class inequalities. This truly makes me wonder: if something as non-offensive as a Rubik’s Cube can replicate such oppressing societal disparities, will we ever be free?
References
Adorno, T., & Horkheimer, M. (1944). Dialectic of enlightenment. Redwood City: Stanford University Press.
Appearances of the Rubik’s Cube in commercials and ad campaigns. (2018). Ruwix. https://ruwix.com/the-rubiks-cube/popular-culture/commercials/
Benjamin, W. (1963). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. Visual Culture: Experiences in Visual Culture.
Branch, J. (2018). Children of the cube. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/15/sports/cubing-usa-nationals-max-park.html
Brown, D. (2018). Don’t call it a comeback: Rubik’s Cube world championship for speedcubing puts focus on iconic toy. USA TODAY. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/09/21/want-solve-rubiks-cube-world-championship-competitors-know-how/1361952002/
Our heritage. (2019). Rubik’s Official Website. https://www.rubiks.com/en-us/about
Rankings. (2021). World Cube Association. https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/rankings/333/single
Sheir, R. (2017). The rise, fall and rise of the Rubik’s Cube. Wbur. https://www.wbur.org/onlyagame/2017/07/14/rubiks-cube-fridrick-petrus
Snyder, C. (2018). How the Rubik’s Cube became one of the bestselling toys in history. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.nl/how-rubiks-cube-became-one-of-bestselling-toys-in-history-erno-rubik-2018-10?international=true&r=US
Rubik’s puzzle quickly gained momentum, and once it hit American shelves, it exploded. Now, more than 450 million cubes have been sold since its initial release (Snyder, 2018).
This seemingly mundane puzzle has over forty-three quintillion combinations, but only one solution.
To clarify — that’s 43 followed by 16 zeroes!
If it’s so difficult to solve, why is the cube so successful? The complexity of the puzzle is its allure since there are always new ways to complete it. This fascination spread like wildfire with the help of technology and the Internet.
As the Rubik’s Cube moved out of Hungary and into America, the toy was heavily marketed through television advertisements and collaborations with well-established companies like Honda and Chuck E. Cheese (“Appearances of the Rubik’s Cube,” 2018). By 1981, millions of cubes were sold, and the toy became a worldwide craze (“Our heritage”). To meet demands, manufacturing for the Rubik’s Cube was highly standardized, utilizing factory machines to put together the toy. Some theorists assert that these industrial methods of reproduction take away the special essence of the art. Walter Benjamin (1963), a renowned philosopher, believes that “The whole sphere of authenticity is outside technical […] reproducibility. Confronted with its manual reproduction, which was branded as a forgery, the original preserved all its authority; not so vis a vis technical reproduction” (p. 50). As Rubik himself calls the cube “a piece of art” (Snyder, 2018), Benjamin would argue that each time the toy is replicated, the artistic aura would diminish, making it less authentic and a “forgery.”
However, without these technological processes, this puzzle may not have been the smash hit that it is today. By meeting popular demand, the Rubik’s Cube’s aura seems only to multiply as more consumers experience this simplistic yet intriguing toy. The Cube is so captivating that it has garnered an entire subculture of “cubers” that connect on thousands of online forums and compete in tournaments all around the world to win tens of thousands of dollars (Brown, 2018). These communities are enraptured by the Rubik’s Cube’s aura, spending hours discussing new algorithms to use, sharing their successes, and debating which method would solve the cube fastest. These passionate cubers’ enthusiasm keeps its essence and aura alive.
Although this community positively impacts the Rubik’s Cube, it is still subject to societal inequities. At first, cubers were deemed nerdy, since speed-solving the puzzle required extensive mathematical prowess. As speed-cubing moved from the outskirts of popular culture to becoming more mainstream, gender, class, and race issues were replicated within these communities. Before this transformation, the Rubik’s Cube’s marketing company, Ideal Toy Company, targeted advertisements towards white teenage boys with females playing side characters and girlfriends (Branch, 2018). These campaigns promoted sexist ideas rooted in society, indirectly showcasing that only men were smart enough to solve such a complex puzzle. Though these seemingly harmless ads aired over thirty-five years ago, they caused irreversible damage. The cuber community is now overwhelmingly dominated by white cis males (Sheir, 2017). In fact, every world champion of the Rubik’s Cube tournament has been male (“Rankings,” 2021). Further, these competitions are held internationally, so they are exclusive, time consuming, and expensive to attend. Those that are fortunate enough to compete must pay out of pocket, which severely limits the range of people that can take part.
Once existing outside of popular culture, cubers and the Rubik’s Cube were engulfed back into mainstream culture, thereby replicating its societal disparities. This idea of incorporation, coined by German philosophers Adorno and Horkheimer in their Dialectic of Enlightenment (1944), dictates that “once his particular brand of deviation from the norm has been noted by the industry, he belongs to it as does the land-reformer to capitalism” (p. 5). These thinkers believe that all forms of counter-cultural media are swept back into the culture industry that commodifies all form of media and culture. This principle undoubtedly applies to the Cube and the communities built around it. As the toy picked up in sales and therefore popularity, the cubers reproduced problematic structures present in society.
The Rubik’s Cube is arguably the most deceptive popular culture artifact. The three-by-three cube looks rather straightforward, but with a one in forty-three quintillion chance of solving it, it’s much more complex than it seems. Further, as the cube shifted from Hungary to the US, sales exploded with the help of mechanical reproduction while maintaining its aura. This sudden increase in popularity led to the creation of the cuber community, which once existed outside mainstream culture, but was incorporated into the culture industry, reflecting its race, gender, and class inequalities. This truly makes me wonder: if something as non-offensive as a Rubik’s Cube can replicate such oppressing societal disparities, will we ever be free?
References
Adorno, T., & Horkheimer, M. (1944). Dialectic of enlightenment. Redwood City: Stanford University Press.
Appearances of the Rubik’s Cube in commercials and ad campaigns. (2018). Ruwix. https://ruwix.com/the-rubiks-cube/popular-culture/commercials/
Benjamin, W. (1963). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. Visual Culture: Experiences in Visual Culture.
Branch, J. (2018). Children of the cube. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/15/sports/cubing-usa-nationals-max-park.html
Brown, D. (2018). Don’t call it a comeback: Rubik’s Cube world championship for speedcubing puts focus on iconic toy. USA TODAY. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/09/21/want-solve-rubiks-cube-world-championship-competitors-know-how/1361952002/
Our heritage. (2019). Rubik’s Official Website. https://www.rubiks.com/en-us/about
Rankings. (2021). World Cube Association. https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/rankings/333/single
Sheir, R. (2017). The rise, fall and rise of the Rubik’s Cube. Wbur. https://www.wbur.org/onlyagame/2017/07/14/rubiks-cube-fridrick-petrus
Snyder, C. (2018). How the Rubik’s Cube became one of the bestselling toys in history. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.nl/how-rubiks-cube-became-one-of-bestselling-toys-in-history-erno-rubik-2018-10?international=true&r=US
Comments
Post a Comment