Yes, two-headed sharks are real. You can read about the problem here. Meanwhile, we’re staying away from the beach.
So you might as well sit back and enjoy the ride.
1/4/2010, 11:46:02 PM
6/9/2010, 5:22:39 PM
3/26/2010, 5:05:42 PM
6/25/2010, 7:55:03 PM
6/8/2010, 2:21:17 PM
4/6/2010, 6:24:49 PM
6/10/2010, 3:31:38 PM
6/25/2010, 6:51:11 PM
5/5/2010, 5:29:15 PM
3/18/2010, 10:33:58 PM
Feel free to take notes. Click here to see how others did it.
12/17/2011, 1:48:31 PM
4/7/2010, 4:18:33 PM
12/11/2012, 11:36:15 PM
12/1/2012, 5:56:34 PM
7/9/2009, 8:20:21 AM
12/1/2012, 6:06:30 PM
4/29/2009, 3:59:34 PM
12/1/2012, 6:12:05 PM
10/3/2012, 6:22:04 PM
12/19/2011, 3:10:45 PM
You can read more about ESD here.
10/8/2009, 8:50:28 PM
10/1/2006, 10:57:38 PM
9/11/2005, 10:06:40 AM
10/8/2009, 8:50:29 PM
11/29/2013, 8:01:17 PM
10/8/2009, 8:50:28 PM
10/8/2009, 8:50:28 PM
10/8/2009, 8:50:28 PM
10/8/2009, 8:50:28 PM
11/29/2013, 7:59:05 PM
Seriously, aren’t there some really important things to worry about? Read about the controversy here.
9/9/2010, 1:39:07 PM
6/21/2013, 11:37:59 AM
4/14/2011, 2:29:38 PM
5/2/2010, 2:13:08 PM
5/20/2011, 12:51:59 PM
10/29/2012, 2:25:01 PM
11/2/2012, 10:49:37 PM
1/11/2013, 1:06:38 PM
5/18/2010, 5:29:23 PM
4/6/2010, 1:14:54 PM
8/12/2007, 11:15:26 AM
2/28/2008, 1:17:32 PM
7/15/2007, 4:48:14 PM
7/15/2007, 3:09:30 PM
10/29/2005, 12:43:58 AM
10/28/2005, 12:23:42 AM
7/11/2006, 2:52:24 PM
8/22/2006, 7:19:18 AM
9/14/2007, 9:07:45 PM
3/22/2008, 4:02:40 PM
5/21/2011, 5:31:14 PM
7/31/2012, 9:40:22 PM
2/22/2012, 4:39:00 PM
3/25/2010, 4:37:01 PM
12/6/2012, 5:00:41 PM
10/24/2012, 10:33:22 PM
3/4/2012, 6:04:38 PM
6/24/2011, 11:05:48 PM
12/1/2012, 6:03:16 PM
12/17/2011, 3:28:07 PM
9/30/2014, 11:03:42 AM
9/14/2009, 5:30:44 AM
11/19/2015, 10:53:43 PM
1/27/2015, 3:26:54 PM
7/5/2014, 8:48:28 PM
7/17/2011, 6:13:15 PM
7/17/2011, 6:10:32 PM
7/17/2011, 6:11:26 PM
4/26/2010, 12:55:52 PM
7/17/2011, 6:13:44 PM
The average person struggles to understand art. Artificial Intelligence could help solve that problem
If you went to a liberal arts university, or a reasonably well-funded high school, you likely took a course mysteriously referred to as “Art Appreciation.” Your instructor, who might have been an art history major if you were lucky, spent the duration of the semester trying to convince everyone that art was cool while simultaneously imposing a list of dates and names one was required to memorize in order to pass the sanctioned tests. The courses are required as part of the accreditation for most university programs in hopes that the institutions produce reasonably well-rounded graduates.
No, it doesn’t work.
A minority of the US population actually appreciates art on any level. Not because they don’t want to, mind you. Ask most people if they like art and they’ll tell you they do. However, actually appreciating the work requires a deeper understanding than just “liking” art. Giving a work the “thumbs up” on Facebook is a long way from being able to discuss the work’s merits or the motivations of the artist.
The general concept of art, for many people, is that it fall into two categories: the pieces where one can tell what the picture is, or those where they can’t. We “like” those pieces we find easy to understand, especially those brightly colored paintings of the Romantic period. More challenging to the common aesthetic are those pieces that demand abstract thought, almost any major work from the late 19th century forward. Hang a Jackson Pollock painting and wait. Someone will inevitably ask if it was painted by an elephant or a four-year-old. Every time.
One of the reasons we have so much difficulty with comprehending visual art is that we are challenged to connect it to what is going on in our own lives. After all, much of the artwork that we find in traditional museums pre-dates most of us by at least 100 years or more. What was relevant to the artist is not necessarily still relevant in a contemporary setting. We are often asked to have an understanding not only of art styles, but history, fashion, and politics in ways that are completely lost to us. People wander through a gallery without hardly a clue as to why a work is important or what makes one more valuable than the other.
The curators of museums feel your pain. They want visitors to appreciate the collections they’ve worked so hard to assemble. Understanding how different works by various artists connect not only to each other but also to our own lives is a struggle every curator feels at one point or another. Obviously, the curators see the connections, but they do so drawing heavily not only on their depth of accumulated knowledge but on their own life experiences with art. Transferring that experience from themselves to their guests is almost impossible.
Enter the Tate Britain, one of the world’s premiere art museums. Each year, the Tate offers its IK Prize for promoting the use of technology in the exploration of art. Named after philanthropist Irene Kreitman, the prize this year was awarded to a team in Treviso, Italy for their entry, Recognition. Created by Fabrica with the help of JoliBrain, an artificial intelligence firm, and Microsoft, which helped fund the project, Recognition uses artificial intelligence to match photographs from current photojournalists with works of art at the Tate. The presumption is that by relating works of art with modern photographs, we might better understand the art.
There are, obviously, a lot of questions to ask about an artificial intelligence program’s ability to understand and comprehend art. The folks at Fabrica are quick to explain that this is an experimental program and that a more accurate technology would require years more research and input. Recognition is not flawless by any stretch of the imagination. Yet, by forcing consideration of a strict set of criteria, even the mistakes help us to more deeply examine both the structure of art and of the images around us. Consider the criteria Recognition uses for comparison. These definitions are taken directly from the program itself:
Images with close similarity in these four categories are selected as a match, and displayed in Recognition‘s gallery. You can watch the process online through November 27. I’ve been watching it most of the morning, absolutely mesmerized. Recognition makes three or four matches an hour. Some of them immediately make sense. Others require more thought. And, inevitably, there are those where one has to conceded that maybe the computer got it wrong. But hey, at least it tried.
Visitors to the exhibit at the Tate have the ability to help Recognition learn by making better suggestions to the matches that it makes. Given that the exhibition is only open through the end of November, however, means that there is a distinct limit to how much the program could learn. If one were to leave it running for five years or more, I would suspect that its ability to match photographs to works of art would become extremely accurate, but such an exhibition would require a tremendous amount of funding and even the Tate’s extensive pockets don’t run that deep.
Yes, there are more than a few detractors. One needs to have a better-than-average knowledge of the Tate’s catalog in order to participate and interact with any level of accuracy. The interface isn’t exactly friendly and the errors are sometimes so mindboggling as to leave one disappointed in the entire technology.
Yet, it would seem that artificial intelligence has a lot it can teach us. The technology is still very much in its infancy. If anything, it teaches us that understanding art is a learning process itself. Applying strict analysis to what has traditionally been seen as a subjective opinion forces different modes and conditions of examination. Art viewers are forced to take on different considerations that may not be especially comfortable. Making those adjustments, however, are what deepens our own understanding of art.
I wish I had time to fly to London and watch other people interacting with Recognition. I think it would be interesting to study how even a basic interaction with the program alters one’s perception of the art pieces displayed in the gallery. This is an exciting exhibition, one that could genuinely improve public appreciation and understanding of art, which could eventually translate into better public funding for the arts and for artists.
At least, we can hope for that outcome, can’t we?
Forgiveness is never easy, but it is forgiving ourselves that is perhaps the most difficult task of all.
Forgiveness is a challenging topic, and a rather sobering one for a Friday. Normally, I try to keep things a bit lighter as we head into the weekend, but my instinct, or my gut, or whatever you want to call that nagging voice in the back of my head tells me to go with it. We need forgiveness and we especially need to forgive ourselves.
This is important. I want my boys to see this not because of anything they’ve done but because, as humans, they will inevitably do something that lingers on their conscience. Forgiving ourselves is a lesson we are challenged to learn because we must first have a reason to learn it, and that reason is often painful.
Also, before we get too deep into the conversation, I want you to know that the examples I use here are intentionally fictional. I’m not throwing anyone under the bus, so to speak, and I’m certainly not inclined to make any great confessions of my own faults. Confession is good for the soul, but not for the Internet.
Let’s start, however, by taking a look at a new short film by the folks at Pixar. This isn’t the same fun, cheerful, feel-good type of film we usually see from the animation company. What we see here strikes a dark tone and, honestly, I’m not sure I would recommend it for young children unless you are ready, as a parent, to hold a serious conversation. The film runs a little over six minutes. Take a look:
Borrowed Time from Borrowed Time on Vimeo.
[This video source doesn’t always scale well for some mobile devices. If you’re having difficulty viewing the video, you can find the original on Vimeo]
Borrowed Time is one of those poignant little films that one almost wishes were longer, but at the same time we’re rather glad it isn’t. Emotion that strong carried out for the length of a feature film would be difficult for a lot of people to handle. The short film is challenging enough. The producers behind the film wanted to quickly, briefly, drive home the point that it’s not only okay to forgive ourselves, but that forgiveness is necessary if we are to continue living.
We’ve been there. Okay, perhaps we didn’t accidentally kill our fathers as they clung desperately to the side of a cliff. We’ve done other things, though; things we shove to the back of our mind and try to not think about. Letting a dying aunt suffer in pain because you stole her Percoset. Beating up that little kid when you were eight-years-old because you were angry about being abused yourself. The night you let a drunk friend drive away and they killed someone with their car.
Those experiences, those moments of personal trauma, never really go away. You remember the look of pain, the pleading, in your victim’s eyes. Maybe you remember screams or cries for help. Or maybe you just remember the silence as you did nothing. We do our best to hide those memories. The past is the past. That all happened when you were young and didn’t know better. Yet, those pictures still haunt your mind. No one else in the world may know what you did, but you do. If you dare think about it very long you fear you’ll go mad.
Recovery programs often include a step called “making amends,” doing something to make up for the wrong you’ve done in the past. The exercise is appropriate for some discrepancies, but there are some things we do, the really big things, that simply can’t be fixed, ever. Like the young man in the film, there’s no bringing his father back. We see the pain in his eyes, drawn beautifully by the Pixar animators, and know that he has replayed that scenario over and over in his mind, trying to find some way to fix it, looking for scenarios where his finger doesn’t find that trigger. There’s no changing what happened, though.
How do we get beyond this? How do we pick ourselves up and keep moving? For the man in the film, it was a matter of revisiting the site of that most horrible event, walking among the skeletons of dead horses and a decayed stage coach, feeling the desert wind, and finding his father’s watch. Everything happened in a neat package of six minutes. For most of us, however, forgiveness takes a little bit longer than six minutes.
Let me say right here that if you have a matter of guilt, justified or not, that is interrupting your life to a severe degree, seek professional help. You don’t have to do this on your own. Finding a path to forgiving yourself is not safe for everyone. If you’re prone to depression, have had thoughts of suicide or harming yourself, don’t address such emotional matters on your own. Don’t even try.
For the rest of us, though, there are multiple ways of finding your path to self-forgiveness.
Memory is a tricky thing that loves to mix up the facts. The further removed we are from an event, the more likely it is that we are getting at least some of the facts wrong. This is why witness testimony is often unreliable. Our memories are easily influenced by external sources, including our dreams, and therefore unreliable.
So, before you continue beating yourself up over something, consider what actually happened. Get the facts straight. Try to understand what your motivations were at the time and how the circumstances participated in your action. Come to grips with the decisions you made and how the consequences of those decisions affected you and other people.
Only when we are totally honest with ourselves about what we did and why we did it can we begin to move forward. Again, this can be a very emotional and difficult step. Don’t be afraid to ask for professional help.
There are few truly horrible people in the world. There are a lot of people whose actions are misunderstood and regrettable, but the number of genuinely murderous, maniacal beasts are actually small enough that you’re probably not among them. Unless you’re burying bodies in your backyard or somewhere, you have hope.
Society likes to label people and, especially throughout the 1980s and early 90s we, as a nation, were obsessed with labeling “bad guys.” The whole “three strikes” program that sentenced repeat felony offenders to life in jail, is a sad commentary of how quickly our society just gives up and throws people in the trash. The personal effect of that philosophy is that we become willing to throw ourselves away, also.
When you have someone tell you that YOU are valuable, they’re not just pandering to you. You are not a bad person. What you did might have been very wrong, but it does not rob you of your humanity. Even if you vote for the Republican nominee for President, as deplorable an act as that might prove to be, you are still not a bad person. You are capable of love and of being loved. Don’t every forget that.
Too many people feel that they cannot escape their pasts. Granted, sometimes making that jump is difficult. I can think of one acquaintance right now whose past is chasing him like a hound dog. He feels that he can’t catch a break because every time he turns around something he did in the past raises its ugly head and knocks him back down. When that happens you have but one move: start over.
Leave town. Change jobs. Go back to school and study something completely different. Select a radically different group of friends. Become someone who makes you proud. You can do it. This isn’t a new path that no one’s been down before. In fact, this path is so well-worn that it’s deep-rutted from use. Forgiveness means, at some level, shutting forever those doors to the past and making a conscious decision that you are moving on with your life.
Yes, starting over is scary. I get that. Again, we’ve been there. You can do it, though. You deserve this.
You’ve heard this advice before. Just as it applies to other less traumatic mistakes in our lives, it applies to the big stuff as well. Okay, so you totally blew it. Part of the forgiveness process is learning what to do differently so that we don’t make those mistakes again. Sure, we hope the circumstances that led to that error don’t re-occur. Part of learning may be knowing how to avoid the circumstances that put you in the position to do whatever you did wrong. Fate sometimes intervenes, however. You need to be ready.
Life throws us a lot of curves. We never know when a situation might arise that requires us to make a critical decision. One does not always have the luxury to sit and reason through the possibilities and possible consequences. When those moments come, it is our experiences that teach us how to respond. Those who have frequent mistakes in their lives are better equipped to know what not to do, which inherently puts them closer to the correct action.
What happened in the past can make you a better person today and into the future. We make better choices. We avoid dangerous circumstances. We are able to forgive ourselves and continue living.
Notice that I’ve not excused anyone’s behavior. The man in the short film was placed in a situation where any number of accidents could have occurred and a most horrible one did. Not everything bad that happens to us is an accident, though. When we intentionally make bad decisions there is no excuse.
What we must do instead is forgive. Not forget, mind you, but forgive. Forgiveness opens our souls, our consciousness so that we can move on and achieve great things. We diminish our potential when we bind ourselves with guilt. As humans, we are capable of truly amazing things when we remove all the obstacles that we place in front of ourselves. The process of forgiveness helps clear the way for us. We move on. The clock starts ticking again.
Time is elusive, though. Don’t wait. The longer we hold onto that guilt the tighter we bind ourselves.
Give yourself permission to live. Forgive.
Global discussions of arts and culture are taking place and the US is largely sitting on the sidelines
There is a conference taking place in Malta right now involving arts and culture organizations from all over the world. The World Summit On Arts And Culture includes participants from every populated continent, people dedicated wholly to preserving the future of the arts and the cultures they represent. Interestingly enough, this is one international program where the United States is sitting mostly on the sidelines. Yes, National Endowment for the Arts chairperson Jane Chu did speak this morning, but the only other American organization on the very full speaking schedule is Robert Lynch, CEO of Americans for the Arts late tomorrow. The conversation is very diverse with points of view from places whose cultures and arts have long been overlooked by the Western arts community.
From the summit’s website:
The focus of the 2016 World Summit on Arts and Culture, will be on Cultural Leadership in the 21st Century. The arts and culture can be considered to be at a crossroads – faced with many challenges and opportunities at the global, national and local level such as: the impact of new technologies on the production and distribution of cultural goods and services; threats to global security; new patterns of migration; changing contexts at the national level including austerity measures and continuous requests for reform; aspirations from artists and culture operators to extend their impact and outreach to other sectors, while also struggling to guarantee freedom of expression and ensure cultural diversity.
I really can’t comment too terribly much beyond this point because I’M NOT THERE! Sigh. No one ever wants to send me to the fun stuff. I could volunteer to be shot at and be accepted right away, but offer to be involved in conversations about how photography factors in arts and especially non-Western cultures and nooooo, I’m still sitting here at home. Fortunately, though, those who are participating have been very active on social media, especially Twitter. There is also a discussion paper that covers many of the issues addressed today and tomorrow. The paper’s quite academic so you’ll most likely need to give it multiple reads. However, there are some gems from that document that are well worth quoting here.
… the cultural leader is an agent of change who contributes to cultural development in their country, Discussion Paper 21 Ayeta Anne Wangusa region or continent. The cultural leader does this through visioning and building relations with partners to address systemic challenges resulting from our colonial history and the current globalisation era. It is also about conserving our intangible heritage for posterity, as well analysing the underlying belief systems of Africa and their interaction with the Global North and Global South, to promote social cohesion and sustainable development. —Ayeta Anne Wangusa, Executive Director of Culture and Development East Africa (CDEA)
What is urgently needed today is leadership which promotes dialogue for new governance, collaboration and coproduction endeavors with civil society and cultural movements. —Lucina Jimenez, Director General of ConArte Internacional
One of the areas we tend to dismiss when discussing arts and culture is the Middle East. We do so out of great ignorance. The regions where war is most commonplace are also homes to great troves of artistic and cultural importance that have influenced artists, writers, playwrights, and politicians for centuries. Many of these artifacts have been recently destroyed and preserving them seems almost impossible. I found these statements from the discussion paper most interesting.
I n Arab cultural scenes with no or overpowering art infrastructures, small and short circuit networks formulate; friendships sustain some of the bonding. Within these networks, collaborations force themselves on individuals; time is limited, shifting dramatically, and so are the identified resources, therefore sharing or teaming up allows being in and outside of a production process. There is no continuity for those who fall out of these processes. Personal, or collaborative, collections of notes, writings, ephemera, accesses, experiences and interests in miniscule histories are the sites of intervention. There is still a huge discrepancy in sustaining rights; to access, to copy, to say, to stay, to object, to reject, to exit.
…
A cultural leader is not a state, but its policy; is not an institution but its dynamic; is not a community, but its bond; is not a social (media) space, not a financial model, nor a future built by forecasts, but their logic of probabilities, that could continue to enhance our working models. —Ala Younis is an artist, trained as an architect in Amman.
The discussion paper is quite full of perspective that should yank us from thinking exclusively about local perspectives and open our conversations more to immigrants bringing their culture and artistic perspective to us. Consider these examples:
In Asian cultures there is a long tradition of artistic creativity as communal, rather than the individual specialist called artist, and in many Asian societies there is no word for artist.
…
Lopsided emphasis on left brain thinking stunts creative imagination. It is unfortunate that many Asian countries inherited educational systems from the industrial revolution of eighteenth century.
…
Cultural leadership, especially in education and official policy, should be able to promote not only the intelligence quotient, but intuitive, creative intelligence and all other intelligences that enrich the creative imagination. —Felipe M. De Leon, Jr., Chairman and Commissioner for the Arts of the National Commission for Culture and the Arts, in the Philippines
Cultural leadership is not only the implementation of concepts and theories from the business world into the cultural sector, but – like the concepts of cultural management and cultural entrepreneurship – it has also to do with the creation of social value by artists and organisations and how to balance managerial effectiveness with artistic value for society.
…
Regardless of how and where these challenges emerge, indisputably leaders will be required for the cultural sector. The cultural sector now has little choice but to respond: the present challenges of new media, changing audiences, dwindling public funds, and a decline of historical awareness are merely the next steps in this continuing pathway. —Annick Schramme, President of ENCATC, the European Network on Cultural Management and Cultural Policy
While justing being in Malta this time of year would be nice, what I’m missing are the voices of incredibly talented and intelligent people as they discuss ways to make sure the arts and culture continue to develop throughout the century in the face of numerous obstacles. Participants posting from Twitter give us just a taste of those conversations.
You have to be an activist to become a political artist. – Chandraguptha Thenuwara on #fake political art #artsummitmalta
— Perduta Gente (@PerdutaGente) October 19, 2016
Kelli McClusky: Self-censorship happens all the time. Especially when funding is cut without reason or sedition laws enacted #artsummitmalta
— Esther Anatolitis (@_esther) October 19, 2016
Do artistic interests drive this agenda, or are arts & culture being instrumentalised to achieve other goals? #ASEFculture #artsummitmalta
— ASEF Culture360 (@culture360_asef) October 19, 2016
Yvonne Donders: I believe in the universality of human rights but not the uniformity of human rights. Dignity with diversity #artsummitmalta
— Esther Anatolitis (@_esther) October 19, 2016
“She was so poor she didn’t have anything more than money” @SergioMautone #artsummitmalta
— Lucy Hannah (@LucyHannah19) October 19, 2016
I could, of course, go on and on and on. You wouldn’t read them if I did, though. If you’re interested in more, search #artsummitmalta for current tweets coming from the summit.
We have thousands of arts organizations scattered across the US, most of which do absolutely incredible work. We need these larger conversations, though. Art and cutlture is not merely a local experience, but a global one. The questions and challenges are universal. We need to grab hold of these conversations and push them forward.
And maybe next year I can hid aboard a tramp steamer or something and actually participate.
I have more than one reason for covering fashion show after fashion show. They really do matter.
I’m sitting here still somewhat bleary-eyed, despite being on my third cup of coffee. The Chanel fashion show just ended a few minutes ago in Paris. I’m waiting on still images before I begin writing my review for Pattern. This season is almost over. My body can feel it. Relief, and sleep, is near.
Why do I keep doing this? Twice a year, I completely upend my life and my sleep schedule to cover four weeks of fashion show after fashion show. A couple of years ago, I tried watching them all, over 200, and it nearly killed me. I’ve cut back since then. We will have reviewed about 83 shows this season, having watched roughly 180. That number might seem small compared to the marathon of a couple of years ago. Trust me, though, it is still exhausting.
Why do we do this? Why do I continue to put my body through this torture twice a year? Obviously, there’s nothing in any of these shows that I’m actually going to wear. I’m old, set in my ways, and have a total dad bod. There are only three or four looks that are comfortable on me. That’s not going to change. So, why am I looking at dresses and crop tops and, what the fuck, Karl Lagerfeld opened the show with a couple of robots?
Okay, so on one hand, it’s my job. Not bad work. At the same time, though, there are more important reasons to pay attention to a fashion show. There is a relevance here that is important.
A fashion show is something unique to behold, but what we see on the runway doesn’t just appear out of thin air. Every piece that we see starts with a creative idea on the part of the designer. Many designers, including Lagerfeld, still start with a sketch. They consider shape, color, fabric, form, and function among a number of different influences as they decide how to put together something that is wearable but also interesting.
Once they have a concept, designers then create a pattern and a sample. Often, what one sees in a fashion show is that sample, not yet in production. The sample is the designer’s concept come to life, a chance to see how closely reality can match the idea. Designers deal with issues such as fabric weight and elasticity as they try to pull and pin and tack and sew things into place. Sometimes the concept doesn’t work, the fabric won’t do what the designer wanted. They start over. And over.
The average major-label fashion show contains approximately 45 looks. That’s 45 times the designer has gone through the entire creative process. Of course, large fashion houses have a creative director overseeing large design teams. Without them, the fashion show would never happen. Every step of the way, however, there is artistry in what they do. When art museums display major exhibits of fashion work by leading designers, we begin to see all the creative artistry that is fashion. Seeing the work in a museum always feels a bit too antiseptic for me, though. I’d rather see the fashion show, see the work on the runway, moving, flowing, and being the living art that the designer intended. This is where the excitement is.
Fashion is a $3.3 TRILLION industry. Apparel accounts for a full two percent of the global Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Nearly 60 million people are employed in the manufacture of textiles and clothing alone. That number does not even begin to include all the people employed by the various fashion houses and conglomerates, the retail store employees, or the millions of people involved in behind-the-scene logistics. There is not a country in the industrially developed world that does not depend on fashion as a significant part of its economy.
Stop and think about this: In New York City alone, fashion accounts for some $11 billion dollars in salaries and $2 billion in tax revenue. What do you think would happen if all of a sudden the fashion industry there just up and moved across the border to Toronto? Granted, that’s not likely to happen, but if it did the economic effect on the city of New York would be devastating! Imagine, then, how entire countries such as France and Italy are affected when fashion hits an economic downturn such as it has been experiencing the past two years. The financial scene isn’t pretty.
A fashion show is an indicator not only of how a particular brand is doing, but the overall industry as well. Looking across all the shows we’ve watched this season, we see an industry desperately trying to attract the attention of the world’s largest buying demographic: Millennials. Styles and fabrics have changed. We’ve seen less leather and a lot less fur as Millennials are more likely to care about animal rights. We’ve seen more natural fibers. These are economic decisions as much as they are artistic. We watch a fashion show and we see how global economics affects our lives.
More than anything else, what we wear expresses who we are. Ask any cultural anthropologist you happen to come across (they’re out there, somewhere) and they’ll tell you that how any given group of people dressed says a lot about their environment, their economy, their values, their level of innovation, their mythologies, and their lifestyles. Fashion isn’t exactly a new invention, after all. From the moment someone figured out that animal hide was good for keeping a body warm, someone was there figuring out how to best shape those hides and then decorating them for various purposes.
What we see in a fashion show is more than a creative vision of one designer. A fashion show puts our entire culture on display. Take, for example, the gradual move we’ve seen over the past few years toward more sexually androgynous looks. As younger generations grapple with the whole concept of gender and its fluidity, their journey is reflected in the clothes they wear. Androgynous fashion reflects a change in traditional concepts of gender roles and expectations. At the same time, we see more designs that are loose-fitting easy to wear, and more accessible to people as their bodies change. Those looks reflect a change in our overall lifestyle and our attitudes about our bodies.
When I watch a fashion show, I’m not picking out a new wardrobe for Kat or styling future photo shoots. I’m looking for trends that represent sometimes subtle and sometimes significant changes in our culture. These changes are important because if we are to relate to each other at all we have to understand that those coming behind us see life quite differently than those of us who are older. They have different values, different expectations, and different goals, all of which is reflected in what they choose to wear.
I will be very happy to not wake up at 2:00 AM Thursday morning. As much as I enjoy fashion weeks, the toll it takes on my body is grueling and it doesn’t help my family relationships much either. Kat says I’m especially grouchy when watching a fashion show. Even the little ones are happy when my schedule is back to normal. Yet, come February, we’ll do it all again.
As the face of fashion is constantly changing and the methods and spectacle of putting on a fashion show continue to morph, I fail to see any point in the near future where a fashion show isn’t important. We need that runway. We need to see the artistry, the economics, and the culture. Fashion is important to all of us, to our world, to our lives.
Why would I want to ever not be a part of something so very important? As long as I can stay awake, we’ll be there. Every season.
All it took was one new website to totally change the business model for photography. The bar has been set.
You’re going to want to bookmark this website: miramira.tv . Photographer Mario Testino, a favorite of Vogue US, launched the new site this week after sponsoring a 48-hour hackathon asking students: “What could the next frontier of visual communications look like?” They told him, and the results are probably not what you’re doing now, but are almost certainly where we all need to go. Fashion website/magazine Business of Fashion featured Mario and the new website in a top-line article this morning. Testino tells them early on:
“The kids don’t have 35 years of experience, but they have hundreds of years of knowledge through access. The mix of that is quite magical. In a way, I’m looking for new ideas, new ways of seeing things, new ways of solving a challenge.”
What he’s saying isn’t that different from how many of us feel. We’re all looking for new ideas, new ways of seeing things. That’s just part of being a photographer. Unlike the rest of us, though, Testino took some serious steps for force a change in his vision: he relied on eyes that are not his and trusted what they saw. The end result of his effort affects us all, though, whether he intended that to happen or not, whether we like it or not.
Testino has hit on something that requires a change in how we do business. Not that we copy exactly what he’s doing, but consider the structure behind the effort.
Who among us doesn’t have tons of pictures sitting around that no one has ever seen? Both of the photos above fall into that category. We took the pictures for an event that never happened. They’ve been sitting in my archives, untouched, since 2009. Testino’s model is to worry less about copyright infringement and more about making sure the pictures are seen; all the pictures. Granted, his archives are filled with pictures of supermodels like Kate Moss. Not everyone is going to offer that kind of appeal in their archives. Still, the point is to get the pictures out there. Curate yourself in a bolder, more dynamic way.
We all have social media accounts sitting all over the place. I don’t know about you, but I have multiple accounts that I can’t even remember. A new website comes along, looks good up front, then goes nowhere. Even on the ones that do have staying power, though, such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, our efforts tend to be disjointed, haphazard, and almost accidental. One of the critical aspects of the new website is that it serves as a landing place for all Mario’s social media posts. If he puts a picture on Instagram, it points back to the website. If he puts a video on Facebook, it points back to the website. Everything is coordinated so that social media followers don’t just see one picture and move on. They click and see more.
We have projects, we have themes, and we have those shoots that are just out there. Traditionally, we would organize them into portfolios according to genre: fashion, editorial, portrait, wedding, babies, etc. That’s the way mine are organized now. Testino hits on a key change in how people view photos online, however. They look for stories, not genres. They want to see a series that has a beginning, middle, and end. Maybe they’re all from the same shoot. Maybe they’re not. What matters is that when someone looks at them, they see a story line that is recognizable. Save the portfolio approach for lookbooks, whose usefulness is limited. Mario makes a good point here:
“Today, I feel that the books are limited because you can only reach a certain amount of people. Whereas online, you can reach 2 million people in one go. There’s something about sharing that I find very interesting, and very of today. So it makes sense to put it online.”
Photographers know they’re supposed to do this, but, as a group, we’re lousy at doing it. We tend to develop relationships based on what they can do for us, not whether we can help each other. Part of what fuels the depth of content coming to this new website are Mario’s relationships with people; not just models, but his assistants, makeup artists, stylists, tour guides, etc. He puts their stories on this new website. He highlights people other than himself. The concept makes perfect sense when one thinks about it. What’s missing for many of us, though, is that concerted effort to create and maintain relationships. I’m horrible at it. That needs to change.
On the new website, one not only finds the incredible photographs for which Mario is famous, one finds videos, and podcasts, and stories. Testino isn’t afraid of new and developing media. Instead, he’s mastering it and using it to his advantage. I’ll admit to being frightened by this one. Back when Canon and Nikon first started adding video capability to their DSLRs, I argued that there is a world of difference between video and still photography. There is. But if we stay focused on a singular media the world is going to pass us by. So, maybe we need to take a class or hire a twenty-something kid to show us how it’s done. Staying focused on only still images no longer makes good business sense.
Yeah, it may cost you a bit, but it needs to happen. Get out of the studio, explore different cultures and environments, meet different people, photograph something that isn’t your own backyard. That doesn’t necessarily mean one has to travel far or expensively. Consider volunteering for a charitable activity that takes you someplace different and take pictures while you’re there. Maybe you explore small towns in your own state. There are many ways to twist this. We don’t all need to winter in Abu Dabi. One trick here is to figure out how to get clients to pay for your travel. Don’t ask me, I don’t know. I am certain it can be done, though.
No, I’m not necessarily talking about psychiatric help, though I’m guessing almost all of us could use some. One of the first things I picked up from the BoF article is that Testino has a CEO, and it’s not him. Suki Larson is the chief executive of Mario Testino+. Mario Testino+ is the business side of everything the photographer does. This is where things are kept organized. There are people who schedule travel, organize photos, manage social media, plus his two photo assistants and others. All this business elements are handled by people who are not the photographer. Sure, most of us don’t have the budgets to hire that many people; maybe not anyone at all. Still, we need to find people who can help us. Perhaps we have to do some creative bartering at first, but photographers are notoriously lousy at business. Maybe we need to let go of that side and find someone who knows what a P&L is and why it’s important.
Photographers notoriously look backward and long for the way it used to be. They were doing it 30 years ago and we’re still doing that now. Stop it. Stop yearning for the days of film. Quit looking at old business models that failed 20 years ago. Instead, now is the time to be exploring things like virtual reality and 3D imagery. No, we’re not there yet on either front, but they are coming in one form or another. Being able to adapt to those new media quickly will keep you at the front of your field. Don’t be afraid. Look ahead.
Not everything is going to work for you. Mario is a rare kind of photographer who has a knack for seeing a niche and making it his own. We can’t all be Mario Testino. What we see in his business model, though, is that we have to keep doing stuff. We have to keep taking pictures. We have to keep trying new things in new places with new people. There is no room for us to sit back and bemoan the fact that no one is knocking on your studio door. Keep moving. Explore what is beyond you. I like what Mario says at the end of the BoF article:
“It’s the doing that makes you get better. Everything has changed, I think I should already be over in a way. I think there is something to be said about staying open to everything and anything. Curiosity is the biggest gift that you have.”
Testino has set an extremely high bar and not many of us are going to reach it. One thing is for sure, though, and that’s the fact that the photography business has already changed around us. We will either adapt, or we will fail.
Sometimes it’s good to take inventory of the garage, to see what treasures we’ve forgotten
Life is hectic this morning. We’ve already completed three fashion reviews for Pattern. I’ve read about the suspect in yesterday’s Chelsea bombing, the five devices planted around New Jersey, and gas shortages as the result of the Colonial pipeline spill. While you’re having breakfast, I’m having lunch. I have a brief period of time before the next fashion show. I have enough hours in the day, mind you. They’re just not grouped in a convenient manner at the moment. So, for this morning’s article, I had little choice but to run to the garage.
By “garage,” I mean my L drive. This is the backup drive where I keep stuff done prior to 2010. Last decade. Old stuff. You know how it is, every ten years or so you go through and clean everything out. While you don’t really want to throw anything away, you want new pictures on your walls, you’ve found a new author whose books you’d rather have out, or you’ve bought some new clothes but you know the old ones are going to be back in style soon enough. This is why we have a garage, even in the digital world. Some files we just don’t need to access as often.
When looking for something I could pull together quickly, it made sense to select a few images from one of my books. Those are all neatly compacted together, RAW files and finished photos, so I can pull from that source quickly and easily. I go to the garage, grab what I need, and add appropriate copy. No extra research is necessary.
I decided that it might be fun to pull from my 2009 book, Gravity. You can still buy it, if you like. With the book, we were going for a very specific, classical look. The images there are done in black and white, cropped, framed, and finished in a very specific method to convey a particular time period and a certain set of emotions. The blurb for the book reads:
The Law of Gravity is immutable. Without gravity, the entire world would break apart and float off into the cosmos. Yet, while holding everything together, as Sir Issac Newton discovered, gravity can cause unexpected things to happen. Sometimes the result is only a bump on the head. Other times, one’s eyes are opened to a whole new perspective on life, love, and the earth in which we live. In this beautiful set of images, Lisa Marie and Carrie Kellar explore an unexpected gift that has fallen upon them. But the same gravity that brought them this gift also keeps them bound to the earth, unable to become immortal. Ah, if only the goddess Aphrodite would help!
This book is special in part because of how the models responded when they saw it. Neither had shot with another girl before and both were a bit anxious about the whole experience. Yet, when they saw the finished product, both were amazed. One even cried because she never expected to be portrayed so beautifully. This is a truly unique book. You should buy one.
As beautiful as the images in the book are, when I pulled them from the garage this morning I thought they might could use a little work before making them public. Not much, mind you. We did no airbrushing, no body modification, not even any cropping or horizon balancing. You can still see the garage walls where we shot, you can see spider webs, the elevated platform, and other such things that we would normally crop out. We left the images rather raw. All we did was provide a little cross processing to keep them from feeling too washed.
There are only ten images in the slideshow below. The book contains over 100 photographs. Who knows, maybe we’ll pull some more of the pictures from this set the next time our schedule goes nuts on us. In the meantime, enjoy the re-processed pictures and don’t forget to buy that book.
The National Anthem is difficult to sing, is fraught with negative connotations, and fails to fully represent our country. So why do we still use it?
I’m looking at recent headlines and having an incredible sense of having been here before. Once again, we’re arguing about the National Anthem. This instance happens to be the result of some random football player exercising his right to sit during the pre-game ritual. This isn’t the first time someone has done that. It won’t be the last. This whole incident has been played out multiple times during my life. Yet, for all the talk, nothing has actually changed.
I’ll admit that, as a musician, I rather like the music portion of The Star-Spangled Banner. I like that not just anyone can sing the song well. The song harmonizes well when arranged correctly. The melody is open to a lot of personal interpretation. As a piece of music, The Star-Spangled Banner works well for me.
However, as a national anthem, the song sucks. The language is stilted and the entire third verse is offensive. Textually, the song doesn’t so much say, “Hooray for the United States,” as it says, “Hey, we didn’t get beaten this time.” As a nation, we have been divided over the anthem since the middle of the 19th century. Continuing to force it upon generation after generation just for the sake of tradition removes any real meaning. What we sing at the beginning of ballgames and political events today does not represent us. We need a national anthem that speaks for us all.
If we’re going to get all riled up about the issue of a national anthem, we first must consider why we have an anthem in the first place. Why is it an anthem and not just a national song? I don’t find it unrealistic should we just have a national jingle. After all, we are one of the most commercially driven and materialistic people on the planet. Perhaps an anthem isn’t what we need at all.
Most music dictionaries define an anthem as a song that identifies the ideals and values of a specific group of people. For example, when our friends directly to the North of us sing Oh, Canada it’s pretty obvious from the start what the song is about and who it represents. Russia’s national anthem (which is not without similar controversies itself) is also highly recognizeable. That one starts out:
Russia – our sacred homeland,
Russia – our beloved country.
A mighty will, a great glory –
These are your heritage for all time!
Sort of. The translation is a little rough, but the general sentiment is there. My point is that an anthem makes it clear that it holds a relationship with a specific group of people.
The Star-Spangled Banner doesn’t exactly fit that definition. People only relate the song to the country because we keep playing it every time we decide to get sweaty or have an election. The song does not contain the name of the country. The song does not represent our ideals. Our song is about a flag not getting blown to smithereens. That’s it. So, it fails in the definition of an anthem.
Singer/songwriter John Legend, who I respect, went on record yesterday as saying he believes we should change the national anthem to America The Beautiful. A lot of people have made the argument for Katherine Lee Bates’ song before. At the very least, it is certainly more descriptive of the country and contains the word “America.” That’s more than the current anthem does. Plus, it is easier to sing and is already well-known. There’s just one little problem in the chorus:
America, America,
God shed his grace on thee.
Uhm, yeah, there are going to be a lot of people have a problem with that reference to a specific deity. The case isn’t made any stronger by the fact that the original poem has at least eight verses, one of which contains a phrase some might find a bit frightening:
America, America,
God shed his grace on thee;
‘Til nobler men keep once again
Thy whiter jubilee!
What the fuck? Okay, if we give Miss Bates the benefit of the doubt, she might have meant “whiter” in the sense of more heavenly, maybe. Still, the inference here is totally unacceptable in a national anthem. The same is true for God Bless America and I’m Proud To Be An American. The religious references divide us, not unite us.
We have some existing songs within the American catalog of music that have the potential for being a great national anthem. If we’re going to get all caught up in the flag thing, then perhaps the late George M. Cohan has the answer:
You’re a grand old flag
You’re a high-flying flag
And forever in peace may you wave.
You’re the emblem of
The land I love,
The home of the free and the brave.
Ev’ry heart beats true
‘Neath the Red, White and Blue,
Where there’s never a boast or brag.
But should auld acquaintance be forgot,
Keep your eye on the grand old flag.
The song only works, however, if we just adopt the chorus. The first verse has an uncomfortable reference to, “Way down yonder in the land of cotton.” I can understand a lot of people not being particularly fond of that little element.
Perhaps we just do away with lyrics altogether. After all, that seems to be what largely upsets folks about any of the songs. Maybe John Philip Sousa’s The Stars and Stripes Forever, which is already our national march, could fit the bill. We like singing, though, and again, it doesn’t match the definition of an anthem.
We need a new national anthem. We need a song that is singable, one that unites us rather than divides us. The United States deserves a national anthem that actually contains the name of the country in its text. A song that can be sung by little children or mass choirs should be the goal of our effort. Any anthem representing our country needs to reflect all of us, not just the privileged few. To have a song that marginalizes so many of our own people is unacceptable.
We have too many wonderful and talented composers in our country for us to not have one kick-ass national anthem. We need to get behind the concept and tell Congress, who ordains such things, that we demand a new song. Maybe have John Legend write it, or maybe Beyoncé and Taylor Swift could team up. Anyone accept Kanye. Please, don’t let that idiot near our national anthem.
For too long, we have argued and fussed over a national anthem that fails to represent us well. We need to get over the whole aspect of tradition and write something new; something that gives us all a reason to stand with pride and sing.
Or maybe we just need a jingle.
There are pictures everywhere on the Internet now but few are getting any respect
When one visits the Louvre, there are certain rules one must follow. Actually, there are a lot of rules one must follow. No smoking, drinking, eating, raising your voice, touching artworks, or running in the museum exhibition rooms. The museum houses some of the world’s most fantastic pieces of art and curators there are adamant that guests respect the art. They even put up signs to remind visitors how to act. They look like this:
Louvre mode d’emploi – Respecter les collections
There are times when I wish I could put a similar label on my photographs. I find it interesting that when a photographer puts any kind of identifying or security mark, such as a watermark, on their photographs people complain that the mark “interrupts the aesthetic value of the picture.” At the same time, though, those same people fail to show any respect for the photograph in the way it is treated and displayed. Comments are brutal and insulting without having any knowledge of all the photographer went through to create that image.
The Internet, and especially social media, thrives on photography. Whether professional or amateur, the Internet needs photography and video or else it quickly becomes boring. Few people realize that early editions of the Internet didn’t have photographs. The first browsers had no way to display images. Everything was text. The Mosaic browser changed all that in 1993 and the Internet has never been the same. But with all those pictures out there, we’ve lost our respect for the pictures and the medium.
Photographs appeared on the Internet a full decade before digital photography became a reasonable alternative to film. Before digital photography, the path from camera to Internet was long and trying. The film had to be developed, processed, finished, and then scanned into a digital format. Scanning was unreliable and often multiple scans had to be created before a usable copy was obtained. It was the fallacies of those early scans that necessarily gave rise to tools such as Photoshop. The digital image had to receive further processing and editing to make it ready for online use. Weeks could pass before a photograph was ready.
Today, even professional cameras come wi-fi equipped so that a photographer can instantly publish a photo to Instagram or other application if they desire. Still, that immediacy does not take away from the skill, talent, and effort the photographer put into that photo. More involved photographs, such as the ones at the top of this page, can take several hours over the course of multiple days before they are ready for public exposure. Months of planning may take place before the frame is even snapped. Nothing about a professional photograph is easy or accidental.
Respect for the process shows respect for the hours of training, the multiple specializations brought to bear, the difficulty of knowing which adjustments to make and when a line has been crossed. Just because one can see a photo instantly after it is taken doesn’t mean that the photo is done. Raw images are seldom as perfect as they might appear on the back of a camera. A lot of hard work and creativity goes into almost every professional image.
One of the biggest disgraces of the Internet are those mean-spirited people we refer to as trolls. The problem has become so severe that Time magazine saw fit to devote a cover story to the topic. Writer, Joel Stein describes the problem thusly:
…if you need help improving your upload speeds the web is eager to help with technical details, but if you tell it you’re struggling with depression it will try to goad you into killing yourself. Psychologists call this the online disinhibition effect, in which factors like anonymity, invisibility, a lack of authority and not communicating in real time strip away the mores society spent millennia building.
Such overwhelming disregard and complete lack of respect for both the creators and subjects of photographs is why you are not allowed to comment publicly on my pages. I would love to hear kind thoughts and might even entertain technical questions. Unfortunately, opening up comments to allow for any intelligent conversation on a topic is an open invitation to trolls who, by their very definition, don’t know how to control the tongues.
I am especially likely to lose my temper when someone shows a lack of respect for a model. Disparaging the physical appearance of a young woman has caused me to block more than one person. I can tolerate questions about a pose or whether a highlight is out of gamut, but insult a model and were it possible to reach through the Internet and punch someone, I would. People who risk their self-esteem and personal identity to pose in photos don’t need anyone tell them they’re too short or their head is awkwardly shaped. Shut the fuck up.
Not all that long ago I would occasionally give someone a signed print as a gift. I would carefully choose a photograph, perhaps one from a set they claimed to really like, go through the trouble of additional processing necessary to pull a print, and then sign and date them for authenticity. After all that effort, only once in the past eleven years have I seen one of those works actually hanging anywhere. Instead, they’re put in the back of closets, forgotten and unappreciated. In one instance, I found a print torn, mangled, and shoved behind a file cabinet. The recipients of those gifts not only showed disregard for the gift, but failed to show any respect for the work.
Image theft, which has been a constant problem on the Internet, also exhibits a lack of respect for the work. Doing a google search for a photograph then copying it and using it for your own purposes, whether online or in a brochure is theft and lacks respect. Failure to credit photographer in the work is another form of theft and disrespect. Cropping out the photographer’s watermark is a sign that one fails to respect the image and its source.
I would be tempted to say you wouldn’t go into the Louvre, take a picture of the Mona Lisa and then try to pass it off as your own work, but, astonishingly, I can’ t. People have so little respect even for masterworks as to think that they can claim some right to misuse whatever they see.
Failure to show respect for others ultimately reflects back on yourself. A lack of self-respect causes a failure of respect for others. We do not value in others what we do not value in ourselves. No one is fooled. All the mean-spiritedness does not hide the self-loathing. Trolls are more transparent than they realize. Photo thieves are merely trying to make up for their own shortcomings. No one is fooled.
I don’t blame photographers who feel acrimonious about the misuse of their photos and pull back permissions. The person who posts photos on Facebook without tagging the photographer disrespects both the photo and the person who took it. After suffering that slight more than a few times a photographer has a right to say, “No more.”
I grow tired of seeing people who know absolutely nothing about photography disrespect my work. I know many other photographers feel the same. If you enjoy the pictures a photographer presents, please say something. If you don’t, there’s no need to say anything at all. Please, respectfully, keep your mouth shut.
Limits that are placed on us can be frustrating but sometimes, when we relax, we find those limits are actually quite beautiful
We are one year away from an incredible experience. On this date in 2017, a total solar eclipse passes over the United States on a path from Oregon to North Carolina. The premium viewing point is in Southern Illinois. Here in Indianapolis, though, we might actually see something more spectacular. Instead of a complete blackout in the middle of the day, we will be left with just the tiniest sliver of light. Granted, it will still be pretty freaking dark and you do not want to look at that thing with bare naked eyes. Optometrists don’t need the business that badly. Still, I’m anxious to see the effect of that tiny sliver of light.
Mythologies surrounding a solar eclipse are many. Several ancient cultures believed the sun was being eaten by one animal or another. Others believed a god was decapitated and obscured the sun. Ancient Greeks were all about doom and gloom and were certain that horrible, horrible things were about to happen. They were right. They would have been right without the eclipse as well. Ancient Greece was just screwed no matter what.
While we must have light, and lots of it, to live, there are benefits to using limited light, especially when it comes to creative matters. Working within those limits can be challenging, especially when what light exists comes from the wrong direction or a very weak source. Yet, when we take that challenge and bend it to our will, the limits we work within can result in wonderful creativity.
My friend Keith allows me to borrow his creative space from time to time. There are some concepts that really need the tools and effects of a studio, but shooting in any indoor environment comes with some inherent limits. The lights are a different temperature than natural light. There are walls and a limit to how the light will spread. Backgrounds don’t always match the concept as well as we might like. Ceilings, ugh, are never high enough. Yet, there are benefits to working within those limits.
Where we stretch the limits of sanity, and of my camera, are when we reduce that light down as low as reasonably possible. Keith always looks at me like I’m crazy when I ask him to turn off all the lights but one. When working with such a limited light source, it doesn’t take much to generate a misfire and a photo that is unusable. Getting it right takes some experience, some precision, and no small amount of luck.
It’s one thing to employ this tactic on a still object. Doing it with a live model is even more challenging. Every time she moves risks putting her outside the light’s premium arc. We’re looking for highlights we can exploit and her range of motion is bound by the limits of where we know the light is going to hit. Not every frame is going to be usable. Am I crazy to put someone through these limits? Probably, but I’m doing it anyway.
The effectiveness of such limited lights depends on the camera one is using and the settings one chooses. Both the Nikon D750 and the Canon 5DS have insanely high ISO ranges which allow for settings near 3,000 without experiencing a lot of digital noise in the image. To take the pictures below at such a setting would defeat the purpose. The highlights would be totally blown out and the rest of the image would feel off, cold, and awkward. As it turns out, though, I don’t have one of those cameras so I don’t have to make those choices.
The images below were shot at a standard ISO 100 with an aperture of f2.8. Again, more limits. At that setting, only the brightest of light is getting through. Focus is challenging as hell. Composition becomes guess work. We might have ended up with a complete mess. Yet, despite all the limits, or perhaps because of them, we came up with a collection that I like very much.
I have to admit, these photos were taken three years ago and I’m just now processing them. There were others in the collection from the same studio session that were more important. I’m not so sure but what waiting serves the best interest of the photographs. The processing method we used on these wasn’t possible back then. Sometimes waiting is worth the frustration.
Below is the end result. After all the limits came to bear, we still ended up with a set of images I really like. I hope you enjoy them as well.
This younger generation of adults is happy putting other things above sex. Maybe that’s why their music sucks.
My 18-year-old son recently moved in with us, something that makes me very happy. He’s a great kid and I love having him around. Since the amount of space we have is small, however, one of the first things we did with him was set down some guidelines regarding having girls over. Basically, we told him to limit such activity to when the little ones are either at school or asleep, pretty much the same rules we hold for ourselves.
He rolled his eyes in that way only a teenager can do effectively. “I don’t think that’s going to be a problem,” he said. He then pulled his 3DS (handheld gaming console) from his pocket and headed toward his room.
This is the new millennial, the younger end of that generation, between the ages of 18-25. They are markedly different in their attitudes towards sex than any generation before them. While they like sex, they’re having a lot less than their immediate predecessors. Compared to their parents’ over-sexed generation, the kids almost seem prudish. What the hell is going on? Do we need to be concerned about this?
The Washington Post published an extensive article on this very topic last week. This is where newspapers such the Post really shine. They’ve taken the work of a fairly involved study [Twenge, J.M., Sherman, R.A. & Wells, B.E. Arch Sex Behav (2016). doi:10.1007/s10508-016-0798-z] and put some real-world application to the academics. The numbers are fairly daunting. Consider this:
Among those aged 20–24, more than twice as many Millennials born in the 1990s (15 %) had no sexual partners since age 18 compared to GenX’ers born in the 1960s (6 %).
Think about that. Fifteen percent of those 20-24 years old have had no sex at all since they were 18. That means they’ve gone as much as six years without sex. For most of those from my generation, anything over six months has us at a point of desperation. Not these kids, though. They’re just fine waiting, and that may not be a bad thing. Stephanie Coontz, director of research at the Council on Contemporary Families, told the Post:
As people have gotten much more accepting of all sorts of forms of consensual sex, they’ve also gotten more picky about what constitutes consent. We are far less accepting of pressured sex.
What the details of the study point out is that the sexual attitudes of this generation might actually be more progressive than any before them.
While there are multiple reasons for the decreasing numbers regarding sexual activity, one aspect that stands out is the degree to which women are more in control of their sexual experiences. Recent attitude shifts regarding things such as on-campus date rape have resulted not only in severe crackdowns on such activities, but an increased awareness that has women on guard and watching for such dangers.
Redefining consent has also played a significant role. Young men are now, rightfully, being taught that a drunken “yes” is still a no. Even more, most young women regard such attempts to get them drunk as downright creepy. Where their predecessors might have hit the clubs with the intention of letting someone else pay for their drinks and risk the consequences of inappropriate behavior, young women today are more likely to pay for their own drinks so as to control both content and quantity. They’ve heard too many stories of young men who were not to be trusted, so they are responding in a way that makes sense.
Pick up lines aren’t working like they once did, either. They’re not working at all, in most cases, and gender doesn’t necessarily matter. Both men and women within this younger age range are likely to completely ignore advances from someone outside their group without a previous introduction. Those who approach people they don’t know are likely to be seen as predatory. This is a generation that is all too familiar with stories of rape and kidnapping at the hands of strangers. Their trust level is already low. Why would they trust someone hitting on them?
Another significant factor in this trend away from sex is that young millennials are more cautious about entering into relationships. Specifically, they want to avoid those relationships that are not going to be long term. They don’t want the baggage of running into an ex at their favorite coffee shop. They don’t want to mess with the emotional turmoil. In short, they don’t want to make the same mistakes they’ve likely watched their divorced or single parents make.
Helen Fisher, a biological anthropologist at Rutgers University and chief scientific adviser to the dating site Match.com told the Post:
It’s a highly motivated, ambitious generation. A lot of them are afraid that they’ll get into something they can’t get out of and they won’t be able to get back to their desk and keep studying.
Well, that’s assuming they’re “studying.” This is a generation not yet ready to be tied down to anything, especially a person. Not having sex does more than keep them out of a dating relationship, it keeps them from having children they don’t want as well. Again, women of this age are very sensitive to maintaining control over their bodies. The difference between being tied to a baby or tied to a boyfriend isn’t that significant and many young women don’t want either of them.
Norman Spack, associate clinical professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, tells the Post:
The nature of communication now is anti-sexual. People are not spending enough time alone just together. There’s another gorilla in the room: It’s whatever is turned on electronically.
Characteristics and habits that many young adults now embrace would have been considered “nerdy” or “geeky” by their parents’ generation. Had you told me 30 years ago about a video game that involved tracking make-believe creatures out in public, I would have laughed and called you a geek. Now, I think I’m the only one not running all over the place playing Pokèmon Go. In public.
Video games aren’t the only distraction, mind you. Many young adults would rather sit home and binge-watch a television series than go out and interact with people. Then, there are the omnipresent social media that sufficiently distracts people of every age, allowing hours to pass without any direct human interaction. There are so many other things to do, things that don’t involve risks of disease or emotions, that many millennials would rather not be bothered with the whole dating thing.
While this study looked specifically at the habits of young adults, the Post also raises information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showing that sexual activity is down among high school students as well. One of the things I found surprising was the number of people interviewed who admitted to still being virgins despite being well into their twenties. None of them cited any religious reason, mind you. In fact, religious influence doesn’t factor in any significant way throughout the study, something that is probably worthy of deeper consideration.
Rather, young millennials are content enough with other forms of activity, or inactivity, so as to not make sex a priority in their lives. More are holding out for that “perfect” relationship that will lead to marriage and kids (we’ll not tell them the bad news about that pipe dream just yet). Many are focusing first on their careers. More are dedicated to building a lifetime of other experiences that are less likely to tie them down. Sex would just get in the way and, since they’ve never actually experienced it, they don’t miss it. As a result, there may be more virgins in the US now than there has been since the 1950s.
All this talk about not having sex, paired with other data showing that couples are putting off having children or not having them at all, does have a couple of negative factors to be considered. One is that we could be looking at a future where there are not enough people to handle all the jobs the future will create. Already, we’ve been hearing of shortages of farm workers, and Nicolas Colas, chief market strategist for Convergex, told Bloomberg last year that we’re beginning to run out of “employable workers.” That is, those with specific education and experience in the fields where they are most needed.
Not that the world population is in any danger, mind you. There are still plenty of countries churning out more babies than they can support. What this means, however, is that immigration is likely to become an even more critical issue in the future as there are fewer people already here capable of filling the job market. Historically, we have not handled such situations terribly well. Just ask the Chinese who worked the railroads, or the Irish who built up our cities.
There is also the danger that this generation may not know how to handle intimacy and might run from it or respond to it inappropriately. This isn’t something we’ve dealt with on a large scale before and we, as a society, are ill-equipped to deal with a generation of loners, those who have few social skills and avoid public encounters. Everything from the retail economy to work environments could be adversely affected.
This is the point at which someone needs to emphasize that the vast majority of people are still having lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of sex and enjoying every minute of it. We’re only talking about 15 percent of the millennials population that is not having sex. Any great level of worry about a negative outcome or adverse affect on society is probably misplaced. Relax, kids, everything’s fine.
What we must realize, though, is that attitudes toward sex, across the board, are changing dramatically. Younger generations don’t hold the same viewpoints toward sex that their parents did and it’s on my generation, we old folks who were fucking anything and everything, consequences be damned, to get up to speed. Much of the behavior we considered “normal” in the 60s and 70s was hurtful and does not need to be continued. This younger generation is improving society, correcting our errors, and building a better world.
Okay, so not as many of us will have grandkids to bounce on our knees and spoil. Or if we do, we may have to wait longer to get them. That’s not a bad thing. Our children are more likely to make life decisions that don’t place them in compromising positions. You know, the kind that made you have to abandon your hopes and dreams to deal with a reality that sucked.
Now, if we could just get them to write better music.
Everyone keeps telling us to do what we love, but maybe that’s not the right tact to take
Imagine me not being a photographer. It could have happened. My degree is in music, after all. I loved it then and still do. Yet, the reality of the world was such that I was not afforded the opportunity to pursue that career. I love what I do, but only because I’ve developed that emotion over time. When I first started, I assumed it was just a temporary gig and couldn’t wait to move on. Had there been someone standing near my ear back then telling me to do what I loved, I would have set that camera down and never looked back.
I’m fortunate in that my skill set and interests are broad enough to offer several different career paths, any of which might have been successful. Not everyone is as fortunate, though. Generations before me weren’t even given the option of falling in love with their work. “Grow up and find a good job,” was the mantra parents repeated to their children. If you were lucky, that job might be at least mildly interesting, but no one really expected you to like it. Work was just something you had to do. If you wanted to enjoy something, get a hobby.
Today, however, we see articles encouraging people to either do what they love or follow the money. Both are bad advice. The first sets one up for idealistic disappointment if not outright disaster. The second is based on greed which eventually leads to hate and that rarely ends well. Contentment is more likely to be found somewhere between the dream and the disaster. The key is not what you love but knowing what you do well.
You love your mom. You love your spouse or whatever you call that person who sleeps on the other side of the bed. You love your pets. But, what does it really mean to love your work? Do you take your work home with you? That’s not healthy. Do you live for your work? That’s a quick path to personal destruction. The reality is that we don’t actually love our occupations as much as we love the concept or idea of spending our days engaged in a specific activity.
I recently came across an article headlined, “You’re not meant to do what you love. You’re meant to do what you’re good at.” by Brianna Wiest, the founder of a magazine called Soul Anatomy. The magazine is a blend of Western psychology and Eastern philosophy that often starts out sounding like good advice but ends with an over-the-top dose of feel-goodism that negates what might otherwise be a practical statement. While I am not comfortable wholly endorsing Ms. West’s thesis, she makes some observations that are sounder (yes, that’s a word) than we care to admit. Such as:
People usually can’t differentiate what they really love and what they love the idea of.
One doesn’t just wake up one morning and say, “I love the idea of dentistry, I think I’ll go drill some teeth.” There are requirements and licensing that stands in the way of that happening. But even then, how many people have gone to med school not because they love medicine but because they love their parents and don’t want to disappoint them? Do we always know what we love?
Ms. West gives the dreamers a bit of a slap in the face when she writes:
You can choose what you love to do, simply by how you think of it and what you focus on. Everything is work. Everything is work. Everything is work. There are few jobs that are fundamentally “easier” than others, whether by virtue of manual labor or brain-power. There is only finding a job that suits you enough that the work doesn’t feel excruciating. There is only finding what you are skilled at, and then learning to be thankful.
One might challenge that this is an example of the backward thinking that prevents people from enjoying their life and progressing socially. Strictly adhering to such a statement leaves one stuck in a socio-economic stratus with little room for advancement or happiness. All that clap-trap about changing how we think about a job is brainwashing people into being mindless automatons that do as they’re told. This isn’t the way to have a better life.
At the same time, though, she’s correct in that everything is work. Even though I enjoy being a photographer, I’m not a fan of early call times, late nights editing and processing to meet a deadline, and clients who have their head stuck up their ass. No matter what one’s profession, there is always an aspect that just comes down to pure labor. One can love the career without having to enjoy every minute performing those tasks.
Imagine a world where everyone only does what they love. Right off the bat, we eliminate at least a third of the adult population who will happily spend the bulk of their day having sex, or recovering from it. Those people aren’t going to get anything productive done at all. Sporting enthusiasts are dropped from the productivity list as well, as are those who have an unhealthy relationship with food. When we tell people to do what they love, we’re ignoring the fact that what they love may not be healthy, or even intelligent.
In order for the things in our world to operate with the efficiency we expect, we need people who don’t have to be in love with their occupation. We need people who lay buried cable. We need people who build bridges and are good at it. We need people who can keep the electric grid up and running 24/7. We need those guys on the ground with the orange sticks telling the airplane pilots how to maneuver that jumbo jet. Those are not glamorous jobs and probably don’t stroke anyone’s ego much, but watch how fast things grind to a halt if those people are off, “doing what they love.”
There’s nothing wrong with working for the sake of having a job and getting it done. If anything, it’s insulting to define a person based only upon one aspect of their lives. The person who handles your baggage at the airport may have mad art skills but can’t figure out how to make it pay. Your waitress who just spilled your dinner in your lap may play guitar better than Carlos Santana. We look at people and only see what they’re doing in that particular moment. We are not defined merely by what gives us a paycheck.
Let’s make one more trip back to Ms. West’s article:
Your gifts are not random, they are a blueprint for your destiny. There’s more to your life than just what you think will make you happy. Your real talents may not stroke your ego as much, but if you apply to them the kind of higher thinking that allows you to find the purpose within them, you will be able to get up every single day and work diligently. Not because you are stoking your senses and stroking your ego, but because you are using what you have.
I start wincing about half-way through that paragraph because I’m not inclined to buy that “higher thinking” horseshit. Where she’s accurate, though, is in how one’s natural skills and abilities play into what we probably should be doing. Take people who have a gift for communicating as an example. They’re not all well-paid entertainers, but people who teach, people who inform. Do they need to love what they do? No, but it sure does help for them to be good at doing it. Knowing what you do well, being able to identify those skills to which one is naturally gifted, is more important than whether one loves a specific occupation or activity.
As school is starting back this fall, my eighteen-year-old is being asked to assess his career choices, decide whether he’s going to college next year, and choose activities that might support what he wants to do the rest of his life. While the assignments are required, I know that to some degree they are a waste of time. He will hold many different jobs over his life span. Some he will hate. Some he will tolerate. What’s important, though, are the ones he does well.
And look out, he doesn’t have to love what he’s doing to totally blow everyone’s mind. The kid is scary good at the things he does well, even when he doesn’t realize he’s doing them. Loving what we do isn’t a requisite for happiness. Adjust accordingly.
Dreams allow us to find creative solutions because there’s nothing to stand in their way.
My youngest son, the 18-year-old, has taken to wanting to watch horror movies on Netflix before going to bed at night. There is a severe dichotomy to his reasoning for choosing the last moments of the day to watch something that frightens the subconscious. He likes the emotional intensity of horror and suspense, but the movies give him nightmares.
Last night was a perfect example. I’m sitting elsewhere, reading, when I get a text message:
Why you leave me alone out here in the living room wanting to watch a horror movie?
When I didn’t respond quickly enough, he sent another message asking if I was almost done with my reading. He wanted to watch a movie, but was too frightened to watch one by himself. I stayed up to keep his mind occupied with other things while he watched some tale of creatures that live in the woods. Then, he had to watch something more fun before he could go to bed. Some dreams can be terrifying.
Dreams are strange beasts that we don’t understand in any great detail. For all the studies that have been done, scientists still don’t know why we dream. Neither does anyone really know why some dreams seem to have cognisance while others are nothing more than collections of random nonsense. If there was a failing to Dr. Jung’s research, it was the presumption that all dreams must have meaning. They don’t. Yet, without them, our lives get messed up in a hurry.
Quick biology lesson: There is a part of your brain that, primarily, manages your impulse control, the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). This is a very important part of our brain, especially when it comes to social skills. The DLPFC is that filter that stops you before you call your mother-in-law an old cow in the middle of Thanksgiving dinner. The same fold in your brain also prevents one from murdering everyone who is slightly annoying. We really need this part of our brain to work, and work well.
Care to guess what part of your brain gets shut off when you sleep? That’s right, the DLPFC shuts right down and takes a nap of its own. Actually, the entire prefrontal cortex takes a much-needed break. We work some parts of our brains harder than others when we’re awake and the prefrontal cortex uses that time to essentially catch its breath so that it can keep us from doing something stupid tomorrow.
Without the DLPFC in operation, however, our minds are free to roam. There is no inhibition in our dreams. All the creative mess on the right side of our brain, including the part that makes connections between bits of information, are allowed to wander at will. As a result, our dreams become full of really random and surreal thoughts as things that have absolutely nothing to do with each other begin to collide. At the same time, though, this uninhibited state allows us to find solutions that we otherwise wouldn’t consider.
Dreams have always fascinated us. As a result, scientists have attempted to study them for years with varying success. While there has been a lot of speculation, only relatively recently with the use of fMRI have we been able to begin to really understand what our brains are doing when we sleep, and specifically when dreaming. There are a number of different portions of our brain that are turned on and more active when we are asleep. Equally important, though, are the parts that stand down and let the creativity flow.
What may be most interesting is that we don’t have to dream all night to receive the creative benefits. Studies show that a good nap wherein we achieve REM sleep can boost cognitive association and creative problem solving by as much as 60 percent.You might want to let your boss in on that bit of research the next time you get caught sleeping at your desk (Ulrich Wagner and Jan Born in Nature, 2004).
Chances are you’ve experienced this phenomenon before. You have a problem to which you cannot seem to find a solution no matter how hard you might try. Then, you go to bed and in that foggy space between being awake and asleep the answer suddenly comes to you. Eureka! Problem solved.
Our minds can be at their most creative when we’re asleep, as well. Rocker Keith Richards tells the story of falling asleep on a night in May of 1965. Near his bed were a guitar and a tape recorder. When he woke up, the tape was at the end of the reel. Upon rewinding the tape, Richards found the opening of a song, along with an entire verse, followed by forty minutes of snoring. The song? (I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction.
Life can be cruel sometimes and one of them is a nasty disease that specifically affects the DLPFC. While shutting that thing down during our dreams is a good thing, losing it completely kills us. However, before we die, we can get very, very creative even if we’ve never shown an inkling of artistic interest or ability before.
The disease is frontotemporal dementia. There is neither a known cause nor a cure. Like many forms of dementia, the process can be slow and doesn’t present itself the same way in every person. However, one of the things that happens as the DLPFC deteriorates is that people suddenly develop a tremendous artistic interest and ability they have never shown before. People might suddenly develop an interest and ability to paint, or sculpt, or write, or compose music when they’ve never had any training or even any overt exposure to the medium. Their skills develop more quickly than normal because that part of the brain that tells them they can’t, or shouldn’t, is no longer there. The creativity flows unabated right up until the point of death.
Yeah, creativity can be a killer. I’m sorry, did no one mention that to you before?
I don’t think too many of us really want to die for our art. Being creative is wonderful and we love it when the ideas are flowing freely. However, few of us are willing to trade off longevity to capture a new photograph or develop a new style of painting. Is there a way to be so creative without winding up in a pine box?
Turns out, there is. We can actually teach ourselves to temporarily turn off the DLPFC so that, for a moment, we can experience the creativity found in a controlled dream state. The practice is most frequently found in forms of improvisation, especially jazz music and improv comedy. Artists such as John Coltrane, YoYo Ma, John Baptiste, and Steve Martin all learned to develop that ability to let go, turn off the part of the brain that says, “No, don’t do that,” so that nothing stands between them and the pure flow of creativity.
Not that such spontaneous creativity comes easily. Years of practice are involved. There are basics to be learned so that when the creativity begins to flow the mind automatically knows what to do with that information. When it works, though, many artists describe the effect as being in a dream state. Many don’t even realize that they’ve completed a performance. With the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex shut down, it’s like being awake and dreaming at the same time.
What do we take from this? Perhaps we need to take Kierkegaard a bit more seriously when he asserts, “Sleeping is the height of genius.” For some, that may mean breaking up our day so that we have shorter periods between dream states (aka frequent naps). For others, perhaps taking an improv class to learn how to let go of our inhibitions might be appropriate. Everyone is a little bit different, so each solution is going to be somewhat unique.
No matter which path you might take, though, the power of dreaming is real. Let’s tap that source and get creative.
Adding filters to photographs may provide an interesting effect, but don’t mistake the results for art
The photographs above are not art. The photographs below are not art. We’ve covered this topic before and those who are long-time readers know exactly where I’m going. Adding a bunch of filters to a photograph to make it “look cool” is not art; it has never been, it never will be. All we have here are heavily and spontaneously manipulated photographs. The whole batch took no more than an hour to process from RAW files. I spend more time processing a single portrait.
So, what has set off this latest artistic angst that has me gnashing my teeth? The use of online filters by people who I expect to know better. When the average pedestrian Instagram user applies some stupid filter to their picture, I typically roll my eyes and chalk it up to a certain level of ignorance; they don’t know better. I don’t say anything about horrendously filtered online photographs for the same reason I don’t correct everyone’s grammar: it’s socially rude, even though both are likely to have me banging my head on my desk.
Yet, what I’ve noticed over the past week or so it the frequent use of a new online filter that gives images a sort of stained glass effect. The filter divides the image into a vertical mosaic, blurring out details but keeping just enough information so that one can infer the basic contents of the photograph. Some impressive math work is behind the filter, to be sure, but it still does not make a photograph a work of art.
Here’s what has me irked: the filter is being used by professionals who should know better. I’ve seen the filter applied by photographers whose portfolios are impressive. I’ve seen the filter used by designers whose normal work is quite amazing. I’ve even seen one graphic artist who applied the filter to one of his works and then tried to sell it as unique.
Why would a professional engage in such cheap and lazy effects when their other work is of such high quality? How does a professional, especially those whose artistic opinions I normally trust, find such corner-cutting applications acceptable? Is this a sign that we are losing our footing in understanding the difference between art and digital doodling?
Artistic integrity has always been a bit of an oxymoron, but when I see professionals resorting to a free online filter and then presenting the resulting image as though it has any artistic merit is extremely disappointing. I expect, fans and patrons of one’s work expect, an artist to present original work, not something that is duplicated at the touch of a single button. I fully expect artistic professionals to have better judgement.
Mind you, in the right hands and administered correctly, there can be an appropriate use of filters. Graphic and digital professionals understand how to manipulate filters in conjunction with other processing and artistic techniques. Filters are generally applied only to a specific portion of an image to generate a specific effect. Dozens of layers and masks blend a touch of one filter here with another effect somewhere else until the whole work comes together as a single piece. I have absolutely no problem with carefully considered and detailed use of filters in this way.
Art, however, is not a global application of a single effect. Art is something conceptualized by its creator, even when it doesn’t turn out exactly as one envisioned. There is purpose, there is intent, and there is reasoning behind every brush stroke, every method, and every experiment. The value of art is in the individuality of the work, even if there are others created in similar fashion. That each piece was given its own concept, was separately planned and carefully created is what separates art from cheap wallpaper,
Globally applied filters are fun at a pedestrian level, perhaps, but they serve no purpose other than as entertainment. A dog’s snout placed over the image of a toddler might be amusing. Rainbow-colored vomit coming from your mother-in-law’s mouth might generate a chuckle or two. Everyone likes to be entertained, but no one in their right mind would confuse such mindless pastimes with art.
To illustrate my point, I took a collection of images from the archives that share some commonality. They were all shot in the same place, under the same conditions, with the same concept and intent. The models were even posed similarly. When we processed the images for their original intent, I painstakingly worked with each one to achieve a careful nuance and style consistent with the project. What we did here, though, was exactly the opposite. There was no plan. There was no conceptualizing. There certainly wasn’t any over-arching purpose. Instead, I took the approach of, “Hey, what happens when we apply this filter?”
Each image has at least five global filters applied. We partially masked some of the filters so as to make comparison and contrast between them a bit more evident and also to keep the images from becoming boring, which was a real and present danger. We didn’t worry about details, we didn’t correct any problems the filters might have caused. We just pushed buttons and giggled. Well, okay, not really giggled all that much. Actually, we just rolled out eyes and drank more coffee.
The results are, perhaps, mildly entertaining. Sure, the images are different and some people might even find them rather cool because they’re not the normal photograph. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I’m not going to bother defending them if you don’t like them. I’ve nothing invested more than a few minutes of time.
Playing with filters is just that: playing. These are not works of art. You can do this at home. You certainly won’t find these in my portfolio. I expect to not see anything like them in others’ portfolios, either.
Fighting against asking the question, “What have I done with my life,” I look back at old photos and respond, “Oh yeah, I did this.”
I am having one of those moments of extreme self-doubt this morning. Even the dog didn’t want to stay up and play as he usually does after his morning walk There’s something about Tuesday where I anticipate bad things to happen and the day rarely lets me down. In order to brace myself for whatever devastating news may come or difficulties take place, I try to keep Tuesdays low key to temper the emotional impact of today’s inevitable disaster.
This morning seems to be taking care of itself, however. I grind my own coffee for use in a french press each morning. Today, though, I look as I’m pouring hot water into the pot and realize I didn’t get all the coffee. I left half of it in the grinder for some reason. My coffee is weak.
Then, looking around for something to occupy the morning munchies, I pick up a piece of toast that might have been leftover from last night’s dinner. Wrong. It was stale beyond palpability. I tried eating it anyway, but no, two bites were all I could handle. The brick-like texture gave way to the taste of sawdust that coated the inside of my mouth with a mush to horrible to swallow.
5:00 AM and today already sucks.
Life wasn’t always like this, you know. There was a time when things were better, at least from a creative standpoint. Here’s where we put on the rose-colored glasses for the sake of sanity and encouragement. I look back at old photos, pieces that were once in my portfolio but have been dropped due to age, and find some encouragement. As I fight back against this overwhelming feeling of worthlessness, the old photos give me a reason to smile. Maybe everything hasn’t been for naught. After all, I did this.
Of course, that line of thinking only works if I ignore the fact that while I was playing with one of the first print-viable digital cameras and taking hundreds of photos almost every day, the rest of my world was crumbling. One disaster came in after another, usually on Tuesdays, though Wednesday and Thursday couldn’t necessarily be trusted. Employment? Gone. Parents? Dead. Marriage? Kaput.Security? Dissolved.
But now is not the time to dwell on those things. Right now, we need to focus on what was good, what worked, and those images that made me feel good about myself. Something to take my mind off the fact that if this coffee were any weaker it would be water. I hate weak coffee, it’s almost as bad as decaf. I’ll have to make more. Too bad I can’t just say that about the photographs.
Old photos remind me of how much work it is to be creative. I had more energy when these were taken, more drive, and perhaps more motivation. I would sometimes put weeks of effort into researching materials to make sure what we were going to do would actually work. I’ve lost that drive and I’m not sure how to get it back.
What bothers me is that I have more resources at my disposal now in many ways. I have plenty of materials already on hand and know when they’ll work and when they won’t. My need to experiment isn’t quite as great. I can tell Kat what I’m thinking in terms of hair and makeup and know that she understands what I’m wanting.
Other pieces are missing, though, pieces that are difficult to describe and impossible to replace. Perhaps part of what makes me proud of these old photos is how hard I had to work to get some of them.
My intent this morning was to share some of those old photos that still inspire me. I thought I would put them in a nice gallery displayed in a slide show. It’s Tuesday, though, so the plug-in that enables that capability has decided to not cooperate. All I can do is post the photos here and hope the mosaic works. I apologize for making you scroll through them all.
While you’re looking at pictures, I’m going to make fresh coffee, strong coffee, and maybe some fresh toast. Or maybe I’ll just have cereal.
Remember when cereal was great? Yeah, let’s not get started with that one. Old photos are enough reminiscing for one day. Good luck with your Tuesday.
Does anyone read the news anymore or do they just look at the tweets and the headlines?
I saw an interesting editorial cartoon yesterday, which, of course, I didn’t have the foresight to actually save so that I could accurately reference this morning. The cartoon lamented the fact that when historians look back at the exchanges of this presidential election, it will be candidates 140-character tweets they’ll examine rather than anything like the Lincoln-Douglas debates.
The comparison is stark. How news and information is delivered has changed not only in terms of media, but the brevity with which news is delivered. Sure, there will be debates during this campaign cycle, but even those will ultimately be reduced to sound bites of 140 characters or less.The Twitter limit applies not only to the application, but to the reduced size of our attention spans.
Once upon a time, the details of the news and the excellence of reporting and writing were honored. Winning a Pulitzer prize was an exception because of talent and skill. Now, winning a Pulitzer is an exception because someone actually put in more than 300 words worth of effort. Long-form reporting still happens at places such as the New York Times and Washington Post, but then the media departments of both newspapers instantly find ways to reduce thousands of words to a 140-character tease.
Even here, I create a 140-character excerpt that appears in social media links to the article. Hundreds of people view that excerpt, but only a fraction of those read the article. We frequently use nude imagery not because it has anything to do with the article, but because it is a quick way to get attention.
Almost every newspaper of any size now has a media department. That staff is responsible for not only creating 140 character descriptions of articles, but managing and measuring the responses they get to those descriptions. Read through the comments on almost any provocatively written tweet or Facebook post and it becomes evident that many of the most volatile remarks are made by people who never actually read the article; they’re just responding to their interpretation of what the article might say based on the structure of that tweet.
Great tweet writing is a skill and in today’s media it is just as important as headline writing and copy editing. A well-constructed tweet can bring thousands of eyes to a topic, or can leave one totally ignored. Knowing which hashtag to include, the precise verbiage that is easily understood, is not something that was traditionally taught in journalism schools. Rarely does anyone notice when a tweet is done well. Let a newspaper or politician miscommunicate online, though, usually through a poor choice of words, and watch the shit hit the fan.
To illustrate my point, let me share some of the most recent news tweets across a variety of topics. There’s more information behind each tweet, but how many people will actually bother to click through and read the articles? I’m betting not many. Fewer than 10 percent of readers ever click a link, here or anyplace else on the Internet. Let’s see how you do.
A federal appeals court has struck down North Carolina’s voter ID law https://t.co/kmgKFZgXen pic.twitter.com/pHe3L19znH
— Bloomberg Politics (@bpolitics) July 29, 2016
Flint officials now face criminal charges for doctoring water reports and concealing lead test results. https://t.co/jzpyXpVPw1
— New Republic (@NewRepublic) July 29, 2016
EXCLUSIVE: Clinton campaign was also hacked in cyber attack on Democratic groups – sources. https://t.co/Q8HhKcBwYZ pic.twitter.com/GJGCqlIOag
— Reuters U.S. News (@ReutersUS) July 29, 2016
One of the largest ever #dinosaur footprints has been found in #Bolivia – thought to be from an #Abelisaurushttps://t.co/HHyxzqYYUb
— BBC Breakfast (@BBCBreakfast) July 29, 2016
Pope Francis entering the former German Nazi Auschwitz I camp through ‘Arbeit macht frei’ gate. pic.twitter.com/dMvBzNPG7J
— Auschwitz Memorial (@AuschwitzMuseum) July 29, 2016
#TeamUSA will sport the first-ever illuminated Olympic Flag Bearer jacket by @RalphLauren at #Rio2016! 😍 pic.twitter.com/fHram8xceG
— U.S. Olympic Team (@TeamUSA) July 29, 2016
Taco Bell is testing out a “Cheetos Burrito” https://t.co/Z7Vgk5zGX4 pic.twitter.com/TxpAFVkh02
— NBC News (@NBCNews) July 29, 2016
Minnesota judge denies claims of 29 would-be heirs to Prince estate https://t.co/uL9A4vslTl pic.twitter.com/CABORiB6m4
— Reuters Top News (@Reuters) July 29, 2016
Let these swimming babies soothe your soul https://t.co/gM33icfnb5 pic.twitter.com/oVw664XBE1
— Jezebel (@Jezebel) July 29, 2016
How many of those articles did you click through to investigate? Any? Consider that a few short years ago those nine stories would have been enough to fill a 30-minute television newscast (sports and weather aside). In print, they would have dominated the A section of any newspaper. Yet, here you have it all in 140 characters and some well edited GIFs.
I’m old, so it is difficult for me to see this shift as anything other than a loss of information and understanding. Reading through a flurry of tweets, we might come away feeling more intelligent and informed, but we don’t actually know enough about any of those stories to speak knowledgeably and authoritatively. Not that such a lack of information ever stops us. We’re quite willing to go ahead and open our mouths anyway, facts be damned.
What probably bothers me most about this change in how we receive information is that without all the details we are more likely to react harshly, sarcastically, and with suspicion. We don’t trust the tweet because we don’t allow ourselves to gain enough information to understand the full story. We lack compassion. We lose the opportunity to learn. We fail to consider different perspectives. We wander around so ignorant that we don’t recognize ignorance.
If you’ve made it this far into today’s article, you likely already understand. Of the few people who started the article, less than five percent finish. Again,that’s not just true here, but for most any online reading.
Perhaps one day the pendulum will swing back the other direction and we’ll appreciate well-written and ardently-reported stories again. This 140-character world doesn’t work for me. We need more information, not less. I suppose that’s every individual’s choice, though, isn’t it?
Sigh. At least there’s a nude picture at the top.
Would You Kill Baby Hitler?
In the aftermath of one of the worst electoral decisions ever, what is the most appropriate way to respond?
The question is one familiar to anyone who as ever taken a freshman-level ethics or philosophy course in college: If you could go back in time and kill baby Adolf Hitler in his crib, would you? The question caused some turmoil about this same time last year when the question was asked of then-presidential-candidate Jeb Bush. He applied in the affirmative, stating, “Of course.” The assumption is that if the infant were eliminated, then the lives of six million Holocaust victims, in addition to some 60 million others who died in WWII, might be spared.
While such thinking is understandable—who wouldn’t want to save millions of lives?—most ethicists agree that eliminating the infant from history is wrong because he has not yet done anything wrong. Specific acts and decisions made later in his life warranted his complete destruction, but as an infant, there is always the chance that he might never take those actions. I know that answer can be difficult to swallow, so let Rabbi Benjamin Blech put it in more direct terms:
A baby has the potential to be saint or sinner. No judgment can ever be made until the choice is actualized. Baby Hitler cannot be killed retroactively – not only because we can’t be sure of the outcome but because even God only executes judgment when human free will has actually chosen the path of evil.
But please do not be misled and conclude that the decision not to kill baby Hitler is predicated on any suicidal kind of compassion. Do not attempt to apply this to the contemporary reality of barbaric terrorism in Israel today. Do not, as some respondents have suggested, assert that from an ethical perspective no one is ever justified in killing another human being. That is not true. Once baby Hitler or any of his disciples make clear the path they have chosen, the Torah makes equally clear they must be stopped, even if in the process they are killed. The Talmud teaches, “If someone comes to kill you, rise up early and slay him first” (Brachot 58a). As the Torah makes clear (Exodus 22:1) someone who is a threat to life has forfeited his claim to life and to the compassion we are commanded to display to those who equally value its right for others.
Simplified, the correct answer on the test is that killing the infant makes you the monster. However, killing the man, especially after 1943, makes you a hero. Once a monster has identified itself as a monster, then all options are open.
Have We Elected A Monster?
I watched some of the shaky, hand-held footage of protest marches in various cities last night. I suppose that, in some way, they might have been cathartic for some, especially younger voters who hadn’t had their electoral hopes dashed and obliterated before. At the same time, however, five people were shot during the protest in Seattle. While police there say the shooting had nothing to do with the protest itself, it does comment on how ready we are to take matters into our own hands, whether justified or not. There are more than a few people willing to eliminate the president- and vice president-elect before they ever have the chance to prove themselves monsters.
Granted, a monster is what we’re expecting. Among the list of things the president-elect has said he will do in his first 100 days in office are some pretty horrible things:
What Does Any Of This Actually Mean?
The New York Times is running a story this morning that addresses the anxiety felt by blacks, Hispanics, and Muslims. The president-elect’s’ 100-day plan threatens to affect them the most. Threats of deportation, a “rounding up” of illegal immigrants bring to mind images of the POW camps in which Asian citizens were held during World War II. Worries of corruption within the system, which are likely valid, families being split apart, and a shifting definition of “extreme vetting” are not small issues.
If the president-elect is successful in carrying out all the steps in his plan, he could set off a global humanitarian crisis, something that has international leaders worried. The world is not ready to begin accepting refugees from the United States at the volume being proposed. Europe especially is still reeling from trying to handle Syrian and other Middle Eastern refugees fleeing far worse conditions in their home countries. Those being forced to leave here are likely to be told, “Wait in line,” by even their home countries. Abuse, neglect, and possibly even torture could be the result.
The human toll from climate and science denial is more difficult to calculate but is almost certainly an even larger disaster. From protests at Standing Rock to the increasing severity of earthquakes in Oklahoma and the death of coral reefs off the coasts of Florida, the potential for catastrophic disaster resulting from the president-elect’s stated plan could impact tens of millions of Americans. The challenge is that we’re not likely to see that effect hit us in one single event. We’ve already become complacent to oil spills. We decried the pollution of Detroit’s drinking water but have done nothing to prevent it from happening elsewhere.
Environmental impact happens over time. Like the proverbial frog in a pot of water, we don’t realize the danger until it’s too late to backtrack. If we are not ardently proactive in the protection of our planet and natural resources, by the time we actually see the danger and feel the results of bad policy it will be too late to do anything about it. We have to act in advance of a disaster we have yet to see.
At the same time, the president-elect’s policies on education mean a return to segregation not only in terms of race but social class as well. By allowing public funds to go to private education, funding for public education is gutted. Urban schools, especially, are the ones who suffer the most. Children in the poorest neighborhoods have fewer choices, are left with lower-quality schools that have the least amount of funding. “White flight” is an educational reality in environments where there are no restrictions on where parents send their children to school. Racism, elitism, and severe social ignorance is the result.
Continued militarization of police appears to be the threat seen in the Task Force on Violent Crime. Again, racial overtones dominate this conversation as charges of excessive use of force occur more frequently in predominantly black and native-American neighborhoods than others.
The human toll of repealing the health care laws will be catastrophic, but no one will pay attention because it affects primarily poor people, for whom most of America doesn’t care in the first place. Wait for it, though, your Facebook feed is about to become inundated with GoFundMe requests as desperate parents look for funding to help pay their child’s medical expenses. You won’t give, but you’ll send the parents your prayers and thoughts. I’m sure that will be enough to save their child.
This is the danger that begins January 21, 2017
Unity Is Not An Option
Immediately, even before the final results were announced early Wednesday morning, there were people calling for unity. Becoming united, we are told, is the only way we can heal. President Obama stated, “We all want the same thing.”
No, Mr. President, we do not. Some of us want a country where everyone is free to be who they are, regardless of creed, color, ethnicity, sexual preference, country of origin, gender identity, or religious preference. Unfortunately, the part of the country that elected this new president wants something different. They want an all-white, all-Christian, all-straight, non-immigrant America. I do not apologize in the least for not having the slightest intention of unifying with that kind of hate.
Unity is not an option. Perhaps the biggest mistake the people of Germany made was unifying behind a mad man. Their vocal support is what gave him the unilateral power to do the horrible things that he did. Would he have executed millions had Germans marched on Berlin? Would Hitler have annexed Poland and Austria had the people of Germany stood up against his growing fascism? While it is, to a large degree, pointless to presume the outcome of something that did not happen, we can be certain that a more divided Germany might have at least slowed the actions of the horrific monster leading them.
Instead, the need now is to make our objections so very loud, so very obvious, that those in Congress and the White House cannot ignore them. Our response to proposals that threaten our neighbors and our loved ones must be overwhelming, knowing full well that we will be met with the shouts of those who voted in favor of this disastrous situation. There are those who want immigrants and anyone who does not fit their idea of an ideal American to not only leave, but to suffer while doing so. They will attempt to yell just as loud, wave their flags just as high, and influence those for whom they voted. We must counter them every step of the way.
Taking Advantage Of The System
Those who stand in opposition to the president-elect and whatever administration he might try to form have ways and means of leveraging the system to help mitigate and perhaps even stop the actions attempted by Washington. We don’t have to re-create our government in order to change it. Rather, our founding fathers somehow had the foresight to instill within our Constitutions the means for opposing the efforts of a reckless government.
First of all, remember that we do not have to wait four years to render this new administration as lame. The entire House of Representatives comes up for re-election in 2018. Every last seat. We can replace them. We must replace them. By removing Republicans from office, we remove the President’s rubber stamp on the legislation required to move his plans forward. This is very much within our power to achieve, but we must begin focusing and planning toward that goal now. We cannot offer the same, corporate-bought, self-serving politicians that have dominated Congress the past 60 years. We have to select and campaign and vote for a different kind of representative that has a backbone to stand up to the President and his administration, to say no not only to the President but to special interests, and to take away the authoritarian power of this mad man. That implies, of course, that we actually vote in off-season elections, something for which Americans are not known for doing.
Second, keep in mind that Constitutional amendments don’t just “happen.” There has been a lot of talk in the campaign about removing some amendments and replacing them with others. Fortunately, the Constitution doesn’t make that process easy. Any new amendment would have to pass both houses of Congress by a TWO-THIRDS majority, something that is not likely to happen as long we are holding our elected representatives accountable. Then, if by some chance an amendment manages to actually make its way out of Congress, it must then be ratified by TWO-THIRDS of the states. WE have the power to stop amendments at that point simply by refusing to allow the amendment to come to a vote. The Supreme Court sets a time limit, typically seven years, for states to ratify an amendment. If the amendment is not ratified within that period of time, it is dead. We have plenty of power to stop whatever destructive Constitutional amendment might be proposed.
Third, take to heart the fact that the president-elect did NOT win the popular vote. The majority of Americans do not want him as president. Factor in the third-party and write-in votes and the opposition to the new ego-in-chief is substantial. We should not and cannot waste this power. We are greater in number, we hold the real majority, and we have to make our demands known and unnegotiable to our elected officials.
Don’t Wait Until The Next Election
We cannot afford to wait until the next election before making bold, obvious, and decisive moves against the actions of the President-elect. Turn your anger and disappointment into action and do something that can make a difference.
One thing you can probably do right now is supporting those organizations who are already engaged in the fight. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has already committed to holding the administration’s feet to the fire on civil rights causes. There are plenty of others who do good work as well. You don’t have to give a lot, perhaps the price of one latte a month, to make a lot of difference in the ongoing battle of injustice. Here are some you might want to consider:
If you can, consider doing more than making a donation. Volunteer your time as they help fight the fascism that now looms large over us.
You can also become directly involved in changing the shape and structure of the Democratic party. Many feel that they let us down this election. I will not argue that point. However, YOU can change that by participating directly in the party’s activities. Let’s be real: Third parties struggle to even get on the ballot in most states, let alone create any kind of actual power and authority in Washington. Ours is, for better or worse, a two-party system. Grab hold of the Democratic party NOW and make sure what happened in this election doesn’t happen again. If you live in Indiana, go to http://www.indems.org/ and find your local county party. Get involved right there, with your neighbors (the ones who are against hate) and make a difference in the shape of the party. The county level is where the action starts. Get involved.
Finally, stay involved in the conversations on social media. One of the things the president-elect did quite effectively was leveraging the use of Twitter. Twitter use also exploded Tuesday evening as election results came in. At the moment #TwitterBlackout, which involves changing your profile picture to a black square, is resonating on both Twitter and Facebook. One of the things we are learning is that politicians pay more attention to what is happening on social media as they do other forms of communication. Use this to your advantage. Do not let up the pressure. Writing and calling is still good, but what you say, the messages you leave, the people you tag on social media are more likely to get your representative’s attention.
Are we about to experience our own version of a Presidential monster? Metaphorically, the president-elect is still the baby in the bassinet. He does not yet have any real power. His decisions can still be swayed and likely will. We all know there is a difference between campaign rhetoric and any actual outcome. We can stand opposed to what has been proposed, but until definitive action takes place we cannot kill the baby.
And we don’t want to kill the baby. Ideally, cooler, calmer heads prevail, no one’s rights are destroyed, and no lives are damaged. There is still the chance that could happen. Our job now is to wait, to watch, and to make every effort possible to make sure that baby does not become a murderous monster.
The power is yours. Use it.
Bodypaint for the pictures in this article was done by Pashur House in March, 2008 and does not imply any endorsement on the part of Mr. House with the statements above.
Share this:
Like this: