February 21, 2012 Leave a Comment
A great share from NPR in honor of David Foster Wallace’s 50th birthday anniversary. The music video for The Decembrists ‘Calamity Song’ was created as an homage to his novel Infinite Jest, specifically through the re-creation of the Enfield Tennis Academy’s round of Eschaton, a game that simulates global crisis. The video was directed by Michael Schur, co-creator of Parks and Recreation and huge DFW fan.
February 15, 2012 Leave a Comment
Totally inspired by 718 Cyclery. This is what the future of the retail business looks like. A rock solid understanding of their purpose: “we build bikes with people.” Total collaboration on the end product that takes place both within the shop and then via online file sharing. An environment that allows consumers to completely connect with the product they are purchasing, in this case by actually playing a role in its assembly.
People want to be involved in the process of understanding and making the things they purchase. Bruce Nussbaum has recently begun calling this movement “indie capitalism” and 718C fits beautifully within his description of being a locally-minded social businesses that builds community and places a heightened focus on materials, value creation and the sharing of information. But, it’s really just the result of the very reason owner, Joe, began the business in the first place: to reconnect with humanity.
The key fundamental truth about human behavior here is that we need to be able to exercise our ability to shape and change our world, in tangible ways, especially as more of us transition into the knowledge economy, where our contributions to the world cannot be easily touched or felt. In this case, people are playing a role in the design and fabrication of a mode of transportation. It’s fulfilling something very real by giving them ownership over the product their purchasing while forming connections through the process.
February 14, 2012 Leave a Comment
[Full disclaimer: I wrote this post over a year ago on another blog, and just had to re-post. It's still fresh, timely, and of the utmost importance for individuals and brands to fully realize. Enjoy and comment if you feel so inclined.]
I recently had the pleasure of reading Seth Godin’s newest book, Linchpin and I must say, it was a worthwhile read. The premise of the book is that our economy is changing to reflect a marketplace in which goods can no longer be made smaller, cheaper and more efficiently (we’ve maxed this out). Rather, what today’s consumer is more interested in is products, services and brands that are extraordinarily unique, and help them to portray the complex story of their lives as they ideally see it playing out. As a result, Seth argues that those workers (in any industry) who are capable of producing new ideas and ways of doing things are the individuals who are most likely to become ‘linchpins’ or indispensable employees in their own company.
The book then goes on to explain how a linchpin must think and act in her given field, as well as the obstacles that she can expect to encounter. Overall, Godin’s Linchpin can best be described as motivating, remind us all that we have a responsibility to go into our jobs ready to produce new ideas, services and ways of getting things done, all things that Seth describes as ‘art’.
This brings me to the topic of this post. The most inspiring and beneficial chapter of the book is rather inaptly called, “Is it Possible to do Hard Work in a Cubicle?”. The chapter successfully urges us to consider that, as Roy Simmons put it, “most artists can’t draw”. More specifically creating great art isn’t really about drawing, painting or sculpting. It’s about paving new ground, by doing, thinking or producing something “that resonates with the viewer, not just the creator”. Being an artist is about developing insight and being brave enough to communicate it to the world, without concern over how it will be received.
When we start to open up these terms, we naturally begin to feel a sense of responsibility to produce art, regardless of our specialty. However, doing so requires us to overcome what Seth and others before him deem to be ‘the resistance’, otherwise known as fear – fear of being rejected, fired, laughed at or otherwise failing at life.
If fear can be overcome then we become free to produce beautiful art, that extends beyond the visual, taking on the power to change it’s recipient for the better. Many of you may be thinking that there isn’t room for this in your job, and I would argue against that. Being an artist can be as simple as being the catalyst in a successful brainstorm session or finding a more efficient system for completing expense reports on time or mentoring a new employee as they learn the ropes at a new company – all actions that have the capacity to change an individual or organization for the better (the true essence of artwork).
Seth carefully goes on to point out that there is no map or set of directions for becoming an artist. Some are born with the creative fire inside themselves, others must learn to cultivate it. But, as our increasingly divergent culture continues to infiltrate every aspect of commerce, those individuals who produce art in their own right, will be the most highly valued, the most likely to succeed and (in my opinion) the most fulfilled.
[Photo by: Christophe Kiciak]
February 8, 2012 Leave a Comment
Netflix, CCO Ted Serandos, shares a solid insight into why TV is more popular than movies by identifying what type of storytelling we’re drawn to:
The reason why television is becoming so popular–for us it’s become more than half of what people are watching on Netflix–[is because of] this long-form serialized storytelling. In some ways it’s like the new literature, you know, where you have the ability for a story to develop and for characters to develop, and more importantly for the audience to develop relationships with the characters.
Read the entire piece here.
January 28, 2012 Leave a Comment
A fantastic two-part interview with Maurice Sendak.
January 25, 2012 1 Comment
During a discussion about the evolution of music last week a buddy recommended that I watch a TED talk given by David Byrne in 2010 entitled, How Architecture Helped Music Evolve, a subject Byrne is clearly very interested in if you recall his Playing The Building Project. I watched it and you should too, but simply put, Byrne is talking about how the environmental conditions effect or determine the qualities of the product. Sounds a lot like how nature works. In this case, how the venue (concert hall, arena, bar) determined the musical styles that were produced there. It’s about context.
Byrne sort of concludes by asking whether, creative expression is influenced more by context than what traditional romantics might believe. I love this because I think the same is true with technology. For example, the electric guitar was invented to allow musicians to be heard in front of larger crowds, not for guys like Jimi Hendrix who eventually came along and did unthinkable things with it. So, in a way it seems like creative expression is sort of contained.
This, then got me thinking about how it feels like the live music experience, which I personally feel like is undergoing a sort of resurgence, hasn’t benefited from a re-imagined or updated architecture. Even new venues (one was recently built near my house that will host all sorts of amazing bands this year) haven’t been modernized in any way. The design and layout are the same and more focus goes into the placement of concessions than crafting a space that allows for emotional connection and sensory immersion. So, I’m now wondering what the concert venue or, more appropriately, concert experience of tomorrow might look like.
Any ideas?
January 22, 2012 Leave a Comment
Bryan Curtis wrote a great article for the New York Magazine about George Lucas and his new film Red Tails, which premiered in most theaters this weekend. However, the part that really got me was the analysis of the relationship between Lucas and the hardcore Star Wars fans:
What the blistering fan reaction illustrates is one downside of Lucas’s naïve style. By persuading us to drop our snarky defenses and embrace his fables, Lucas had forged a bond with fanboys like no filmmaker, outside of Spielberg, before or since. (Adjusted for inflation, the three original “Star Wars” movies and “Raiders of the Lost Ark” still rank among the top 20 highest-grossing movies of all time.) But naïveté is a fragile emotion. When Lucas goes back and futzes with his mythology — has Greedo shoot first or creates a goofball like Jar Jar Binks or makes Indy uncool by sticking him in a refrigerator — he isn’t just messing with beloved movies. He’s telling fanboys the naïve belief they gave to him was misplaced.
“What more could one ask for than to have one’s youth back again?” Lucas once asked his biographer, Dale Pollock. Now imagine it being yanked away. If the fanboys had become like the studio to Lucas, then Lucas, to the fanboys, had become the man who breaks the bad news about adulthood. He’d become their dad.
I’ve always been conflicted about the the anger that fanboys have towards Lucas since he began tinkering with the films. Their his movies. Go make your own masterpiece. But, as a lifelong fan of this saga, every edit and change he makes, is like a small wound to that inner child I work so hard to keep alive and Curtis nailed it.
[Image via NY Mag Slideshow, "George Lucas, Hitman"]
January 19, 2012 1 Comment
Last night I watched, PressPausePlay, a documentary that addresses how technology is impacting our culture and it’s art forms. The film primarily focuses on music, arguing that greater access to better technology is making it easy for anyone to create art. But, at what cost?
They interview a variety of thought-leaders and artists, including Seth Godin, Andrew Keen, Moby, Bill Drummond and a bunch more.
I have to say, author, Andrew Keen, as always, makes some startling but compelling points about the cultural dark age he believes we’re heading towards. Keen postulates that technology and social media are leading everyone to believe that they’re an artist of some sort. The result is a sea of mediocrity that obscures the ability of the limited number of truly talented individuals in this world to shine through, ultimately destroying our beloved art forms when the world eventually becomes accustomed to sub-part art. Pretty ominous stuff.
However, I don’t agree with this. My first thought is, how can more people creating, building and making things possibly have a negative outcome on our society? Art, when practiced diligently, can lead to self-actualization, a greater appreciation of life and an overall sense of purpose.
Furthermore, and perhaps more compelling, is that the democratization of art and culture should be more effective at bringing the high quality work to the surface, not less, as Keen argues in the film. Allow me to explain. No more than 15 years ago, record studios and the radio stations determined what music you got to hear. If you had adequate buying power, you could drop 15 bucks on a band’s CD. Now with sites like iTunes, Spotify, Soundcloud and countless others, you can listen to tons of music for free without having to make a financial commitment of any kind.
January 5, 2012 Leave a Comment
A couple weeks ago, NPR released a great piece about the rise in popularity of TV’s anti-heroes. While short, it identified an interesting trend in how we’re gravitating toward stories with darker, less morally-defined characters. The topic itself is extremely interesting as it can be examined through so many different cultural lenses.
From award-winning shows like Mad Men and it’s famously self-indulged Don Draper to Dexter with it’s lead serial killer bearing the same name, to shows like Boardwalk Empire with Nucky Thompson, Breaking Bad with Walter White and so many more, you can’t help but notice that the recipe for success for the modern-day drama is a morally-ambiguous anti-hero.
But, let’s take a look at why this recipe is delivering in spades.
The anti-hero is not a new type of character. They’ve been popularized since spaghetti westerns like the “Man With No Name” or even “Dirty Harry” (Eastwood seems to have had the role locked down), as well as classic comic book characters like Punisher and the Hulk. The anti-hero has a long history in modern literature as being somehow damaged, and searching for redemption by any means necessary.
December 13, 2011 Leave a Comment
The NY Times had a piece last Friday about how social media and frequent sharing has seeped into the world of climbing. The article was entitled, On Ledge and Online: Solitary Sport Turns Social. It used, world-renowned climber Tommy Caldwell as an example of how climbers are using social media and always-improving mobile technology to keep their followers abreast to the details of their conquests.
As an avid climber myself, I have been captivated by Caldwell’s multi-year quest to climb the Dawn Wall on Yosemite’s El Cap, 20-some pitches of 5.13-5.14 climbing on a nearly featureless wall.
But, I’ll resist the urge to geek out and get on to my point. The article focuses on the potential effect that freqeuent sharing through social media has on the mindset of the climber. The crux of the article (no pun intended) is this:
“In the last six years, more climbers have started engaging in almost-live updates from the mountains,” said Katie Ives, the editor of Alpinist magazine. She says she worries that “instead of actually having the experience be the important part, it’s the representation of the experience that becomes the important part — something is lost.” David Roberts, a writer and climber, said from-the-route media “introduces a fatal self-consciousness” to a climb. It removes the “blissful sense of being alone out there.”
This is great stuff. When climbers are interacting with their fans through Facebook and other channels they’re removing their focus from the present moment, and into, as Ives says, a more representational state of consciousness. [Note: we should probably give Tommy a break, he was, after all, sleeping on the side of a 3,000 foot wall for 16 days.]
But, what’s really important here, is that this state of existence is real for everyone who chooses to live a digital life. Whether we’re at a concert, out to dinner, or catching a ball game, we’re tempted to capture that experience and/or provide some commentary about it. No matter how you look at it, we are removing ourselves from living fully in the present moment.
The question though becomes, what effect, if any will it have on us as humans over time? Since the invention of the camera, man has been stepping out of the present in an effort to preserve special moments. Furthermore, research has shown that preserving memories through keep sakes like pictures tends to increase the strength and positive affectations that we associate with them, which in turn adds meaning to our lives.
So, could our incessant documenting and sharing be somehow beneficial? Since the invention of Twitter, I’ve certainly noticed that after reading or watching some piece of content, I’m much quicker to explore my mind for unique thoughts, insights or perspectives to pair with the link I’m sharing. Not necessarily living in the present, but I doubt this sort of critical inquiry could be harmful.
I certainly don’t have an answer for this. But, would love to see some longitudinal research that tracks the emotional states and overall quality of living for heavy social media users versus non-users.
Thanks for reading. Any thoughts?
[image courtesy of Brett Lowell/Big UP Productions] 
