Popular Posts

Monday, January 31, 2011

Squeeze the Lizard


“Think outside the Box “

It’s such a common phrase that no one examines it anymore. It’s a cliché. A mindless utterance made by the mediocre in hope to appear cutting edge. It’s so ten years ago.

But we have to keep telling ourselves that this is true today and we need to keep saying it, in some form or other. We need to stop letting ourselves be categorized or channeled, herded like so much intellectual cattle. We need to think for ourselves the way the our own minds want to think, not the way some system, some culture, or some authority figure insists. Break the mold and free your mind.

That’s’ the essence of Seth Godin’s manifesto “Brainwashed” as I interpret it. You can read it here.

I don’t totally disagree with Mr. Godin. In fact, on the elements of his argument he and I are largely in agreement. I do question whether or not merely reading his essay is enough to bring about the kind of social revolution he imagines, but I admit this may be a matter of semantics, as one man’s questioning authority is another’s open insurrection. 

Mr. Godin gives us several suggestions on how we can reconstruct our intellectual identities and take part in this digital revolution. In fact he gives us seven.  I’ll look at two, starting with…

“Acknowledge the Lizard”

The reptile n question is the part of all of us that has been socialized into going along with the flow. Keep our heads down and do our work and everything will be all right. We’d like to erace this primitive thought process, but that isn’t possible, at least according to Mr. Cohen. We need to accept the lizard is along for the ride so instead of an insidious whisper in the back of the ear, it becomes a recognized naysayer we can simply ignore.

“Ship”

I like this article a lot, because it acknowledges the importance of productivity. “Ship” in this instance refers to the verb “To move out” rather than the noun with its nautical references. Get your product ready. Get it out there. Get it to the public first. These are incredibly truthful statements about the more practical side of the creative process. The fact that I already agreed with it and therefore feel reinforced by the inclusion on the list may tell you more about me than about the author’s intent, but include it anyway because I haven’t seen this type of pragmatic honesty in the intellectual arena often enough.

I also had to look at the assignments I have been given in this course, two of which you can see here and here

Have these helped me reinvent myself, or did I merely  reinforce that which I already knew about myself in the making of them? I honestly did change my thinking process in the creation of them. I had no idea what would happen when I began my sound and music projects, and I used a sort of “Let the art lead me where it wants to go approach” which I typically wouldn’t do. That was caused by my own inexperience with the digital platforms the projects were constructed on. But that lack of technical confidence led me to try things I wouldn’t have done had I used a camera, guitar, drum, or microphone. I know what I can do with those devices. I can create anything I can conceive of within their own confines with them. But this made me rely on the new technology to lead me instead, and I created two works I would never have done with more familiar tools. Are they better? Probably not. But I would never have written a dance tune, or made an expressionist collage on my own. Now I have, for good or ill. And that part of it makes my lizard afraid, and my inner revolutionary very, very happy.

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

A Lament for the Lamb

Those rascals at http://changethis.com/ have a nifty article Johnathon Flaum called "Finding Your Howl". Lets take a look at it and see what we can glean from it.

First of all it begins with a neat story about a red wolf named Mumon, and his bizarre acid trip like voyage of self discovery and emancipation. Then Mr. Flaum gives us a critical analysis of this story and some of its deeper themes. I'd like to talk about one in particular: That of the need for the elder self to die a metaphorical death for the new you to emerge. This will, I hope, tie in nicely with my choice of quote later on.


Mumon is part of a breed that is virtually extinct. They must be bred in captivity to survive, but it really living? And as a civilized man, reading this in the comfort of my modern home, what parallels are there for me?

One, to be too content is to be stifled, and that is true of man and beast alike. Struggle brings inspiration, though often alas, not in time. To live in comfort and shelter from all life's perils would stilt our human spirits and creative minds. We would lose our need to exist, as we have habitually defined that existence as one of championing over all that would end it. Classes on creative writing discuss the three main plots: man versus man, man versus nature, man versus self. Without something to put after "versus" man stands alone. We are defined by our conflicts and we need them to even justify our own existences.

Heady stuff, but if it doesn't appeal to you on some visceral level, I think you may be too socialized into believing that all conflict is bad. War is bad, violence is bad, disease, rape, murder all horrible. But we need to be in conflict to really be alive and to be human. We just need to overcome the worst devils of our natures, which is easier said than done.

The poem I chose to read aloud is Dylan Thomas' "Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night". One of the first things reading it aloud brings to mind is how often that opening line is misquoted as "Go not gently". I think the awkward language makes us uncomfortable, so we alter it a little.

Here's the work in its entirety. Feel Free to sing along!

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rage at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light
.

This poem has always been a favorite of mine, and as the son of parents who are now deceased I cannot read it but to think of them. But in this case I was pondering the story of Mumon and his need to die metaphorically before he could live as a new wolf. This is not just the railing against our biological cessations, but the mournful expression of the pain of change. To change our perspectives we must discard an old way of thinking, hopefully for a better one. But it is still painful and uncertain and a part of will never want to go. A part of us will always howl, and rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Deconstructing Ditkoff

Part One: So You're THIS Close  To A Breakthrough?

Those progressive thinkers over at http://changethis.com have posted a manifesto by Mitch Ditkoff called "14 Ways To Get Breakthrough Ideas". It's not exactly Das Kapital, but it does follow the general theme of the blog thus far. 


To begin with we will critique the essay as a whole and in part, then we'll take a stab at some of the exercises and see if I end up getting any humdingers of an idea. If it does I will take my proverbial cap off to Mr. Ditkoff. I'm not saying I don't believe it, let's just say I remain a little skeptical.


Personally, I believe you can increase your creativeness through mental exercises, and moreover, a lack of effort toward original thought will atrophy those creative muscles. However, I don't think that a power point presentation done in the style of a self-help guru is the truest way to thine own self-discovery. In this modern virtual world it isn't enough to just put your thoughts into text, but while reading the presentation I felt like the intro music for the Chicago Bulls should be playing in the background. I imagine Mr. Ditkoff giving these seminars in the convention rooms at airport Holiday Inns. To be fair, he's posted these ideas for free on this web-site, so I'm not calling him a cheap huckster out to make a buck, but presentation is key and this feels more like corporate training than it does artistic nurturing.


That isn't in and of itself a bad thing. But is the best idea the one that can be implemented in the workforce for profit immediately? Are the best leaders really those who can organize groups in to productive units to complete assigned tasks within the resources allotted? I have a feeling there are a lot of people who hire corporate trainers who would say yes to both questions. And I am sure that Mr. Ditkoff would not pigeon hole his program in that narrow a box. But for those who think that the notion of generating new and original ideas in any kind of structured formula this essay will raise their eyebrows. 


2. Just What Does This Ditkoff Fellow Say Anyhow?

Let's look some of the specific postings here. He has 14 steps to help the reader increase his or her idea potential. Let's start with number one:


1. Follow Your Fascination

Right from the start I like what I'm reading. Yes, of course, if something fascinates me beyond the scope of other topics naturally focusing on that is bound to get my creative juices flowing. Of course, naturally. Well, actually, Mr. Ditkoff is referring to the fascination we get by a new idea, suggesting that there's no thrill like a new thrill. And to that end I think he's being fair to human nature. We do get wrapped up in novelty and that certainly could extend to new ideas. It's a simple idea and one that no one would reasonably object to or disagree with. Not that I'm a reasonable man. 


The problem is that this isn't really more than the recitation of commons sense. It isn't that it's just such a good idea that it seems simple, and that all good ideas are simple ones (The old "Why didn't I think of that?" philosophy) but that this is a bit too obvious. I don't need someone to give me intellectual permission to muse my most recent notion. I need someone to help me GENERATE new notions. That's a bit trickier.


The other criticism of this article lies in the third paragraph. He takes more than half the text to define the word fascinate down to its Latin root. That's interesting to know the origins of the word but doesn't give his thesis more validity. He attempts to give his concept additional gravitas (another Latin word, so I must know what I'm talking about) by linking it to ancient Rome and therefore the authority and majesty of the classical age. But saying that fascination is a powerful word doesn't mean it will help me get new ideas. 


Concept number three:

3. Tolerate Ambiguity

This is a better article from the reading standpoint. he has a concept here that isn't just common sense, and he makes and supports an argument or it. He's saying that things won't go according to plan, and you need to accept it. Well, when put that way, it doesn't sound as radical as the title to this chapter would suggest. In fact, I have to wonder what the title actually means. The word "ambiguity" is in and of itself ambiguous. I know you should never use a word to define itself, but I think that's better than what Mr. Ditkoff does here, which is to mis-define it.


This article is not about accepting the uncertain, but plodding on in the face of failure. If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Another old saw. And one that wouldn't be impressive so he just used a word in place of failure that doesn't actually mean failure but is odd enough to avoid that kind of labeling. The story about Edison is one of perseverance, not tolerance. Henry Miller's quote “Confusion is a word we have invented for an order that is not yet understood.” (paraphrased a bit by Ditkoff,, this is the original)  is about the acceptance of others with alternative lifestyles and is taken completely out of context. Even if Mr. Ditkoff is attempting to re-contextualize it, it has nothing to do with the creative process. 


Concept number five:


5. Fantasize 


This is the most straight-forward chapter in the entire essay, and the one that in theory I have the least amount of trouble with. Creative thinking does require us to think in the abstract, to dream, even to daydream. I wholeheartedly agree with that. He is in essence saying, "Use your imagination". And lest you think this is just Mr. Ditkoff dusting off another chestnut, he has a great quote about the power of fantasy from chess champion and grandmaster Gary Kasparov, fresh from his conquest of super-computer Deep Blue. Kasparov cited in his victory two human elements that the vaunted machine could not equivocate: intuition and the ability to fantasize. That's pretty heady stuff. 


But it doesn't wash. Kasparov didn't easily defeat Deep Blue. He won the six game match 4-2, with two draws. Kasparov was, unfortunately a terrible bully, and was notorious for complaining to judges in situations he could not win and ultimately getting a  draw from a circumstance other players would have simply lost. In fact, when he gave the computer a rematch in 1997, he lost to the silicone giant. 

Now at he bottom of each chapter he gives a task to be finished. For number five, he assigns this:

Think of a current challenge of yours. What would a fantasy solution to this challenge look like?
What clues does this fantasy solution give you?



A current challenge of mine is to get to school during inclement weather. A fantasy solution would be to improve my car so that it can drive though any amount of ice and snow. Put chains on the tires and soup up the engine. Switch the transmission four-wheel drive install a cable and mechanical crank on the bumper like they have on jeeps in the jungle to pull myself out of any ditches. Damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead!


The clues I take from that is my vehicle is not really road safe during heavy snowfalls and I am very worried about that. I'm not sure how that helps me get to a solution. I also don't think I violated the spirit of the exercise since it said only to use fantasy to consider the problem. It just didn't really help.


And that's the problem with the entire "manifesto". Good ideas are hard, and they are not always simple. Rewording axioms we already know may give the reader a sense of security in the material since it doesn't really challenge us, but it doesn't come closer to helping us not only get ideas, but promises "breakthrough ideas".  I wish it could help with that. And in some ways this can help a little. Nothing in here will inhibit creative thought. But it just doesn't add up to much of anything special.




Thursday, January 13, 2011

Three artists I admire

Over the years, as a creative person I've struggled to try to define myself in a specific style or field.


Over the years I've been a musician, an actor, a comic, and a writer. But in the end, I'm not really adept at any one field, and at the ripe age of 40 years old I'm finally okay with that. I admire the artists I list below for the years of hard work and dedication they have applied to their chosen crafts. But that was never the path for me. I'm a dabbler, and that's a creative endeavor in its own right, or at least it can be.

1. The first artist I'm discussing is comedian Ricky Gervais.




Mr. Gervais is best known in the United States for creating the British version of television program The Office. But in England he's been a radio personality for many years. His programs began being edited into podcasts in 2006 which brought his unique style of comedy to the rest of the world. In 2010, these podcasts were edited down further into an animated series by the cable network HBO.

His humor contrasts with both the expectations we've developed about comedy over the years and with the method we expect that humor to be performed. The vast majority of humor for the last several decades both in film and television has centered on a performer that the audience will relate to and even like. In fact many situation comedies focused on nice, inoffensive characters and actors and avoided any real abrasive humor at all.

Programs as different as "Friends" and "Growing Pains" relied on the audience tuning in each week to visit familiar pals more than huge belly laughs. Ricky Gervais, in an interview on British radio once said a prospective script he had written for an American program before he produced "The Office" was returned to him with the criticism from the producer that it was "too funny for American TV". It wasn't "too highbrow" or "too intellectual", it was "too funny". The very idea that a comedy could ever be "too funny" is like a safe being "too secure" or a medicine being "too effective"-"I'm sorry Dr. Salk, but it seems your vaccine prevents ALL the polio. We were looking for something that lets some of the less dangerous polio through. If it cures them completely people just won't buy it..."

Another area in which we have come to expect the humor we view to be homogeneous is in the way it is performed. The main character is always sane and well adjusted and the rest of the cast is a bunch of bloody loonies. It just has to be that way. Gervais turned that on its ear.

His role of David Brent changed the sitcom idiom by putting a buffoonish lout in the forefront. While animated roles such as Homer Simpson and Peter Griffin are dolts to be sure, they both quickly dropped the more prickly elements of their personalities. David Brent never did. He stayed a mean spirited idiot for the entirety of the series. Gervais resisted all attempts to make his character "grow" or "evolve" which is industry jargon for "make nicer" (On a side note, Brent's counterpart on the American  version of "The Office" Michael Scott has softened over time). Few other comics have been able to successfully sustain a career using such an unlikeable public persona.

And it his public identity, since he is known in England (and now abroad) for his radio broadcasts where he mercilessly ridicules his on-air cohort Carl. This is now going on over ten years fans have been tuning in to listen to this abuse. The only reason it's bearable to all but the most misanthropic listeners is that deep down we know it's a joke. He actually likes and respects Carl, and Carl knows that while his surreal asides drive Gervais to distraction, they are still mates when the microphone is off.


The Ricky Gervais Show- Monkey News






This is a discussion between Ricky and his on-air cohorts Stephen Merchant and Carl Pilkington. The humor stems from the ridiculous ideas that Carl tries awkwardly to relate. However they all need each other for the bit to work. Just a collection of Carl's ramblings might be interesting in an odd, random sort of way, but the trio discussing them so earnestly (and the absolute joy the inanity gives to Ricky) is what makes this so funny to me. The contrast between the earthbound Gervais and the space cadet Pilkington is hilarious.

2. The second creative person I'm featuring is Alex Ross.



Ross is a painter famous for his portrayals of well known cartoon characters. he has done artwork in other fields, but it's his renderings of comic book figures that he is best known for. He has been painting these cartoon images for around twenty years now. While he has done many comics on commission his most successful pieces have always been of classic figures from the golden and silver age of comics.



One reason I have such an affinity for his work is that the painter and I grew up during the same era. We were both nerds in the 1970s. He later transferred the images from that pop culture to his own art-work, and it became both nostalgic and cutting edge. This level of skill by a cartoonist was unusual, as the comic medium has required its illustrators to work more

He uses a photo-real style to bring the subjects to life. This bizarre contrast of the realistic and the fantastic has always been unsettling to me, but at the same time inspiring. He is so focuses on the realistic portrayal of these iconic figures he uses models without  any heightened musculature or augmentation: no steroids or implants allowed in his studio! So these figures are in many ways mundane. But the actions he captures them in are often extraordinary.

He has at times worked in long-form story-telling, releasing three fully painted series, "Marvels", "Kingdom Come", and "Uncle Sam" with other writers. These works have been generally well received by fans and critics, and are all still in print.



"Marvels" introduced his painting to the general comic-buying audience. Written by Kurt Busiek the original four part series was not really noticed by the public. Marvel comics felt there was something there that could find an audience and re-released it as a softcover trade paperback. As a single product, readers began to appreciate it an its story about a photo-journalist who covers the history of the Marvel comic super-heroes from the sidelines.



 This re-print was a sleeper hit in 1994, and soon Ross' style of realistic impossibility became hugely successful. Fans wanted more of this series, with more focus on then-popular characters. Unhappy with the format, Ross chose to leave Marvel and take his wares to DC, who owned the most iconic characters in comic book history.



"Kingdom Come" was a series he painted along with writer Mark Waid. It tells the story of the final battle that the DC Comics super-heroes have with a younger more violent generation of super-humans. While this series was much more commercially successful, it highlighted both Ross' strengths and weaknesses: Stunning visuals but stiff motion and stilted and rigid story-telling.




Still considered a seminal work in comic history, it pointed Alex Ross more in the direction of poster artwork and covers for other series. In fact he only produced one more fully painted comic series:






"Uncle Sam" was a series Ross did with writer Steve Darnell. Published by the DC Comics imprint "Vertigo", and suggested for mature readers, the series told the story of a manwho became the personification of the American symbol Uncle Sam and was forced to witness the way that his image had been distorted and misused over the course of American history.



Much darker in tone than his previous works, "Uncle Sam" was not the sales success that "Kingdom Come" had been, but its nonlinear time-line was much better suited to Ross' limitations as a storyteller. Hailed by some critics as Ross' best work, it was still be-fuddling to many readers and those who considered themselves "comic book critics" had the same difficulty deciding if they liked it or not and like-wise ended up largely ignoring it.




3. The third artist I'm describing is John Mortimer, and English writer and lawyer.



He's best known in America for his long running series "Rumpole of the Bailey". The legal drama was juxtaposed with a brilliant domestic satire.

                                   

John Mortimer was a practicing attorney in England when he was approached to write some teleplays for a program called "Play For Today" in the early 1970s, an anthology program that served as a try-out for possible ongoing series.



Mortimer had contributed a script for the series "Wednesday Play" in 1968 about a divorce trial, "Infidelity took place" where the couple wanted to stay together but legal separation was beneficial from a tax perspective. This introduced Mortimer's style of legal drama in which the clients motives are never what they seem, which is a stark contract to the American court-room dramas such as "Perry Mason" or "Law and Order" (Or it's predecessor "Arrest and Trial") where the defendant just wants to be exonerated.

When he started work on his "Play For Today" script, Mortimer shifted the focus to criminal law (few lawyers in England at the time were specialists, most practicing both criminal and civil law) and took for inspiration the various old barristers he encountered wandering the halls of the London courts. These were colorful, caustic figures both witty and world weary, and they always seemed to have a touch of the anarchist about them.

The prototypical lawyer on television previously would have been presented as a man of high character and little flaw. Even Clarence Darrow, who was immortalized as Henry Drummond in Robert Edmond Lee's play and film "Inherit The Wind", while a man of some eccentricities had no visible faults. But Mortimer's cranky barrister did.



Horace Rumpole smokes too much, drinks too much, and is really only alive while he's in the courtroom. He doesn't defend his clients out of a keen belief that they are innocent, but for the thrill he takes in cross examination and defeating smug prosecutors. He duels with Judges and policeman on the stand and while he strikes a comic figure on the streets of London, in its courtrooms he is a giant.



At home he ignores, and often ridicules his wife Hilda, who in turn bellows and bullies him. In his office he is unpopular with his peers who loathe his smoking and seedy sort of clientele. But they in turn all come to him with some problem or other because they know he's the best at what he does, even if it isn't politic to be seen with him.

These other characters begin as somewhat two-dimensional, but flesh out over time. They became a necessity once the program was picked up to be an ongoing series. It was in the writing of his first serial that Mortimer realized every Rumpole story really needed three elements: A legal plot, an office plot, and a home plot.



The first episodes written covered  what Mortimer believed would be the end of Rumpole's career, and covered a period of ten years. In fact, Mortimer intended to have him die at the end. But by the time they started to work on that final installment, Mortimer felt he had just scratched the surface with the character. Knowing the network wouldn't agree to produce another series entirely of flashbacks, Rumpole got a stay of execution. The series went on to be very successful for the channel ITV, and a loose agreement to bring the show back in the future was made.



But before the second series of episodes would be produced, Mortimer began publishing the character in book form. First he adapted the teleplays he had written into prose, he then began to work the other way. The prose stories were so successful Mortimer began writing follow ups to them before the television program could return to production. He found that order to be more difficult however, and disliked trying to adapt to television the stories he concocted for print. So once the show returned to semi-annual production, Mortimer would write the teleplays first then adapt them to prose second. This enabled him to have all the disagreements about what they could afford to shoot, who they could get to play which guest role, and all the producers' input before the book buying public got to see them. He would never again work "in reverse" although he would occasionally write stories in prose that he never intended to produce for television.



It would be remiss of me not to mention the actor Leo McKern who immortalized the character on screen. He gave the role his own unique flair and made him a deeper, richer character even before Mortimer did. Known for some smaller part in science fiction programing (particularly "The Prisoner")before, Rumpole became his signature role. Whether it was delivering a witty rejoinder or showing surprising tenderness to his long-suffering spouse, McKern gave him depth and verve.

But this is primarily about the author John Mortimer. His ability to contrast what the traditional legal drama had done for decades with the type of sensibility he wanted.





Rumpole tames "The Bull"


Rumpole and "She Who Must Be Obeyed".


These Two brief excerpts from the television serial illustrate how the two contrasting worlds were so deftly combined. Rumpole is a law series, a comedy, a mystery, and most of all a romance. Only a true dabbler could have ever given us that!

Friday, January 7, 2011

First Lab

Well, here we are in our first lab. I can think of nothing to say that wouldn't get me in trouble.

Sigh,


Cheers,

Your Pal,

Victor