down by the water front

Hone That Skill

 

 

I have been trying to hone my blog skills away from writing Full Blown Articles - believe me I am the first person to glaze over if text creeps anywhere near the fold. So I chose my longest post ‘Vote Here; The Lines Are Free’...and tried to edit it down to size.

I did I did! with the best of intentions...rewrite...rewrite...and rewrite some more, but had to decide this is an article and I had probably covered too many bases so my longest post on...now exactly what was it on? stays intact only for those with Text Stamina. So without rehashing I did actually notice something else that touches very simply on the subject;

Nuclear Power Stations and Right Said Fred.

Yup that’s right.

 

Couldn't embed this : P so this link will have to suffice.

 

While stifling a yawn through another episode of Newsnight a couple of evenings past (no its not Newsnight  per se – it’s just their eagerness to get p.o.l.i.t.i.c.i.a.n.s. on who never answer the questions and quite frankly deserve Jeremy Paxman). They got to some of the more interesting stuff and showed an article about Finland’s over budget and over-ran....er....disaster? of a Nuclear Power Station. Apparently the work has been constantly interrupted by ‘improvised’ workmanship ie; just plain dodgy - bit of a no-no one would think for a Nuclear Power Station. The improvisations were little things like drilling holes through the concrete container? I’m not a scientist but it sure doesn’t sound like it’s ripe for ‘Builder of the Year Awards’. The problem seems to have arisen because of lack of standards by the contractors, basically employing workers who are not skilled enough. Hey! well that’s Contractors for you!, keeping costs down to compete for a tender, hence the lack of skilledness. Not the fault of the employed but the employers I would argue.

 

So Finland’s foray into Nuclear Power has nearly ended in a toytown version of the real thing – shame with all that money being spent and everything. So I pondered was this about needing more rules? more regulation? well someone has to call the shots. But no, I think it is just that, about being skilled. Fit for purpose employees delivering a fit for purpose project.

 

Skilled and improvised do not go together in this case, absolutely not. Nor in other projects that demand a precision of execution. But when having a project  ‘contracted out‘ in the design field improvised creativity is part of the call along with skills and the two walk a fine line – think Anthony Caro, Arup and Fosters Millennium Bridge - the wobbly version or Gormley’s Angel or more poignantly Thomas Heatherwick’s B of the Bang Starburst thing (poor sod) that gave Manchester Council a panic attack cos it was too scary and too spikey. Creativity improvisation and skill go hand in hand. Creativity and skill go hand in hand. Skill and improvisation, same. But creativity and improvisation on any level without skill is dodgy ground. Walk on it, buy it, even dictate how you want the finished work to be, but don’t expect it to stand up.

 

What's My......Diet

The Subtleties in Jenny Saville's paintings of extreme fore shortened, dismorphed nudes are lost on some it seems.....

 

 

Ho Hum.....just bear with me while I get a sandwich – I’ve just got back from the gym (where bike and TV are synonymous) and aside from watching an abysmal show by Man U, (and nearly getting up and walking out, and I don’t even support them),  I caught something called The Family, another fly on the wall look at lives, including yet another very, very, fat person trying to get slim, is this a channel 4 thing? or my imagination but every time I look there seems to someone who is either fat trying to get slim or being proud to be larger than a size 0.

I suppose we all like to identify to some degree and that is the point of TV yes? to be entertained and identify with whatever, but ogling and having that feel good factor because you haven’t got an ‘embarrassing body’ Oh sorry, this is a program that is supposed to make us feel less self conscious about our bodies silly me!, I think has been lost on a lot of TV producers. ‘The public gets what the public wants’ I read somewhere once. Well it certainly does if you believe what you see on TV.

Kate Moss was taken to task last week for one of those sound bite remarks that was destined to spell trouble, on, let me get this right... ‘nothing tastes as good as skinny feels’. Out of context says her agency, murderer says the anorexic help community. Well whatever you think of her fatist remark, in or out of context – is she so responsible for leading so many astray?.

Rhianna also did an interview this week discussing her distressing and subsequently ‘publicised’ mug shots after being attacked by her ‘boyfriend’. She mentioned thinking about forgiving and seeing him again and then decided against it because of her public responsibility. She has a point; this is an example to identify with. But the current climate of anti–skinny has gone overboard with its nanny knows best attitude – give us some credit – and we might even decide for ourselves...now where’s that sandwich.

Vote Here; the lines are free

More of an Article this one.....

The definition of a joke is; 1 a statement made or short story told in order to cause amusement. 2 a trick played for fun. 3 informal a ridiculously inadequate or inappropriate thing.....

Jokes are funny otherwise they wouldn’t be a joke yes?, so the more people who laugh at a joke the more universal the theme. But what happens if you don’t get it, or find it unfunny – are you out on a limb?. The dodo of the audience?.

Are you expressing the belief that it is not funny because it resonates with something you recognise as personal or are connected to in some way?. Is a joke only funny if you relate to it with something you recognise as personal or are connected to in some way?. Or is it funny because your fears are being confronted in a thought provoking way – enough to make you laugh. Or is it funny because your fears are being distilled and clarified. Or because your thoughts are being made into a smaller more manageable sound bite that can then highlight something you don’t like or alternatively agree with.

I think it may be a whole combination of these - a joke has many sides – but two main ones – the laugh and the other one is usually the butt.  It’s a Human thing.

Aside from the evolution of humour and other creative areas– what with things going out of fashion, attitudes changing and stuff falling by the way side. What’s left is certainly mashed up and built on.

But when is a joke not a joke, when is it just dissing or plain rude? When does it cross that line? And when do the other lines of creative nuance get crossed; when is art, art - and when is it not?... music anyone?.

For example comedians work hard on the small venue circuits and fringe festivals testing there style of humour, some become very popular for a number of reasons but their humour is the thing that resonates with the crowd and proves or provokes a popular drift of thought. And I suppose like anything creative if you find a formula that works it is also tempting to stick with it and keep adding to it.

So when a formula gets overtaken by change the model becomes outdated and in turn returns to the fringe – in its faded glory - a safe haven to reinvent or fade completely.

This is a fairly simplistic version of creative process, and there are lots of different contributing factors which help keep certain genres in the lime light.

Patronage is one - from whatever source - it is usually because there is a political or astute business decision overriding. Look at the TV and media models in the US and here in the UK – Fox, Sky et al. Regardless of politics their bottom line is the business model of audience ratings which is then tinged or tainted - whichever your view - with a bent toward political beliefs. Traditional broadsheet/tabloid press mirror that pretty effectively (no, I'm not getting into the multinational squeeze-hold on things, although there are many facet’s that border onto this).

Where I believe the line between a joke becoming rude is crossed comes from somewhere else entirely.

Competition and the current enthusiasm for competition in creativity. Competition, yes it’s in our nature – look at sport – even done on some levels, for the pure enjoyment, the thrill of winning, never mind the money. No the competition I am talking about is one step removed from patronage – it is laid bare from patronage and is beholden straight to ‘the customer’   - nothing new there? . Hear me out....this is more than straight reasoning on art for art’s sake or money for money’s sake. This is the subtle, but I believe crucial difference between being creative and being exploited as a commodity or ‘strip mined’.

The difference between having a patron whose ideas you may or may not agree with, the freedom to jump ship or holing up in the metaphorical garret, all of which offer choice. And the ’coal face’ whim’s of being directly customer led.

In short as un democratic as it gets.

The patronage issue has always been down to moneyed people in positions of power, ‘letting’ a creative piece be made. A crude example of this is the historical ‘court jester’ – only telling jokes that would please the ‘master and court’ – paid to please but providing a service that the patron couldn’t do himself.

Now we have examples of a newish type of ‘master’ or patronage one of free competition – sounds nice – all the right words. Except I am beginning to think this is not as democratic as it sounds.

Examples of this free competition can be seen in lots of different areas of creativity; art and design for one, comedy another. This strategy has been around for ages as a way of getting the best ‘quote’ in most consumer led industries and also in the more directly related creative industries like architecture for example, where bids are made for projects. And it’s true - bids for art commissions, design and comedy also exist in the established structure of doing things.

No this kind of competition is more akin to the Roman form of ‘entertainment- barbarism’ and unfortunately it seems to becoming  very prevalent in the creative environment. I say unfortunately because unlike other consumer led markets I believe creativity is not essentially consumer led.

I mentioned the coal face – and the coal face is where stuff happens – it can be the place where people cut their teeth - or can stay for the rest of their lives. But when the ‘buffer’ of an employer, patron,  arts council, or government say, are removed  from the equation there is then a direct link between what the customer thinks he wants and what can be given.

The notion that people are exploited for targets and monetary gain is nothing new, and that is another area which definitely borders on this issue. But to give an analogy in the creative arena this free competition is probably best summed up like this; the ‘goods’ produced are made in advance and put on the shelves, so far so usual. Then they are surveyed by the customer the same as in a supermarket - he then chooses the best on offer or what he identifies with – basically what suits him. Customer led production.

 

 

The Internet creative 'supermarket' is a classic example; how many times have you heard some creative professional berating the abysmal standards of wanna-be’s and the reverse idea of freedom ‘to do’ without the middle man or gatekeeper. These are valid points, but the type of ‘freedom’ I am talking about is a style of creating where the customer actually says what they want from the beginning, a brief. The Internet's wonderful ability to level the playing field can only bring benefits as more creative thought reaches its audience. Whatever the medium though, is a trend to have the customer believe they are ‘interacting’ with the artist, whereas actually they have more of a say in the outcome than the ‘nearly employed with a carrot or prize dangling in front’ designer, The customer in fact ends up designing his own piece. Which in creative ‘professionalism’ or even wanna be terms falls short of the creative mark because the customer is moulding it personally.

Essentially creative thought processes are usually more ‘productive’ if the brief is not totally dictated by the customer ie; a certain amount of freedom to be creative. So areas of competitiveness such as the stand up comic circuits for example, on the holiday destinations all over the med, where comedians work hard to ’produce the goods’ that play to a whimsical, transient, and essentially didactic crowd. To the 'supermarket shelves' of designers of all hues, setting up their stall only to be as good as their last sale, if indeed they make one.

Boo Hoo I hear you say - that’s life – yes, it could be called honing a skill and good practice in that way – except this is creativity at its most difficult; constrained if not castrated.

The un funny twist of the ’goods upfront before we buy it’ model is, I believe that the ready-made goods have to be chucked, the jokes ditched - but the goods that make the sale are ‘god’, the jokes that keep the punters in the room are top banana. The whim of the customer is key.  Not the ‘relatively’ free creative thought. The rapport is one sided and of course, crucially, someone else will always step in and win the competition.

The Joke is a given – the customer had already thought it.

 

Echo's, Social Networking, and Metaphorical Bars

 

 

Had I been born in less informed times I would preferably be propped up on a bar stool somewhere in a cafe pondering, gossiping, and generally spouting to dear friends and all and sundry pretty much like I am doing here.  (note to self; hmmm I know I’ve told myself before but me thinks I need to get a life).

Anyway been watching all the Berlin Wall stuff on TV and a certain Kafkaesque image sprang to mind about online information sharing, only this time it was sort of in reverse.

Instead of the state – stasi style surveillance or  WW2 ‘ walls have ears’ references of Chad type Big Brothery things that are reasons not tweet, face-book or share online information by some. The image that sprang to mind was of people engaging despite this, in other words feeling empowered by the medium to broadcast, in a sort of ‘I’m not paranoid therefore I can’ foray into the social network  equivalent of a front room full of friends. Yup, just like the front rooms of East Berlin all those years ago, only they were bugged.  Ok no, Kafka aside, because he is really deep and the ‘is it? Isn’t it? ’ surreal ness is not really where I am going with this.

No it’s the relative ease at which some seem to want to spout off without thinking about their surroundings that has sort of surprised me more than the inevitable luddite-ness of not spouting.

I suppose the recent news worthy events pointing out unfortunate debacles like the guy ‘outing’ people in an online list of cuckolds * will put things in perspective a bit more, as will people taking online offence in not so nice ways in real time/life situations. The outing guy for; the old newspapers and TV thing of ‘don’t believe everything you read/see’. The guy who took offence*, whilst imagining having an online affair from the ‘public’ rebuff (he was massively wrong in response levels – well – criminal in fact) and hopefully not a bench mark for your usual run of the mill offended.

But the information we all put in is there potentially for anyone to see; the spur of the moment dialogue with one that could offend another is there, just as much as the ‘big brother is watching’ scenario; he is, look at all the spam.

Isnt it like that though? it's all a bit stalkery, googly and generally voyeuristic, so it’s not a paranoid thing I’m talking about here, more a socially responsible thing.  The image I have is of the networking internet as one great big cafe bar and the moaning, gossiping and off the cuff spouting will echo slightly wider than your table, with consequences to match.

The internet voice has a habit of reverberating around the room, just spouting off because you can, is the social network equivalent of the loudmouth at the bar unaware of the surroundings  and who he might offend – and equally un responsible for any offence caused – leaving the mess to be sorted out by bar staff and bystanders. Next time you visit you may find security on the door and a sign saying No Loud Voices. In internet terms ; more security against the loud mouths and anyone who has something to say.

Glamour, Warhola And a Millisecond of ....Togetherness

 

 

Having a chat with a friend the other day I came across an idea that I hadn’t thought about fully although it connected in part to a recent post I did.

We were talking about the recent Question Time hype (pushing the program that is, not the content)  and I tried to reiterate on the lines of;

‘Traditional media has always had its own agenda especially with the BBC, and now the twitter ilk has a new force de jour with its army of ‘ofenceratti’ ready, at the drop of a millisecond to join The Great Fight against...you name it...your guess is as good as mine. Without doubt there will be something somewhere that someone will be offended by, and believe to be right about.  That is the nature of our condition, thank goodness for that and for debate.’

I ended up saying; ‘You now have people able, at the drop of a hat, to follow or jump on bandwagons, effectively fighting other peoples battles without actually really believing in them.’

It wasnt the speed of the communication or feeling strongly and having a belief that was bugging me - no thats fine - jebus knows we desperately need debate and some sort of engagement socially absolutely no question – old  style ‘politics power’ is shifting rapidly and the recent internet storms have had an ‘ us and them ’ retaliation quality from traditional media,  ‘other media’ and internet groups reminiscent of world war two battle strategies.

No, the idea I had sprang from  a news article about modelling agencies charging fees from potential models and then not following up with offers of work. One of the areas being debated about on how to ‘ clean up ’ this type of business model – was to give the potential models a cooling off period in which they could pull back and keep their money.  Aside from the wider issues of some unscrupulous agencies  just ripping people off and the  other areas associated with that style of practice – which I will more than likely talk about in a later post. The words ’cooling off period‘ seemed quite a relevant term for other areas of        ‘ recruitment ' like  joining things at the drop of a hat or millisecond and the immediacy of internet networking.

Traditional media - internet included - it’s been with us long enough!, and the nature of having to (yawn) read first and then actually pick up a pen or email in order to respond directly if we find something that we feel we need to, is a relatively slow process – at least slow enough for us to have to take the time to articulate what it is we feel,  or maybe just not bother.

The recent spate of twitter storms and the like seem to me to be the grown up version of petition signing, or even protest marches for that matter. Nothing wrong, as far as I can see in signing petitions or marching or gathering to prove a point,  they  take organising and make an individual response to some issue or other a lot easier and show solidarity, but is it just me?; if you were ever asked to sign one or go on one did you at least think about it from the point of view of who was asking or why you were signing.

I’m  guessing this still doesn’t differ for a lot of people, whether the petition is online or not, but the chain letter/ snowball  effect of social network sites don’t necessarily say it in quite the same words; substitute ‘sign our petition‘ with ‘join us‘. This is where I find the cooling off period sort of crucial – the fact that people campaign for this or that or whether you agree is not the point, it is the way it is portrayed; one click away.

I think identity comes into this somewhere, not that I’m a psychologist or anything but the crux is I think, that these sites are not anonymous, moreover  they connect with people and people are aware of their own and others thoughts and actions, so joining a group or movement that seems to have a momentum  can have added  ‘glamour’ to join the swelling ranks rather than joining a fight or belief that you actually believe in had you thought about it may be a wee bit longer than it took to click yes.

How To Feel Good Naked

On Ugliness, Beauty, the Beast and why that mirror never lies

 

Squeezing into an old training kit in the gym changing rooms the other day, I momentarily had a then and now ‘ does my .... look big in this ’ flash back.

Now, I am not a big person, in fact I'm quite small, so small I have been known to get away with size three shoes in the children’s department at Clarks.  So I dismissed the fatness dismorph as a hormonal blip and entered into the hall of the fitness palace that is my local gym – actually it’s more like the no frills section of Tesco’s but that’s another story – and began my workout.

Parked on the bike of choice – carefully chosen for       ‘ pointing at the most interesting thing on tv at that moment ’ I preceded to suspend the sweaty reality of my exercise regime for the screen in front of me – I was catching the tail end (pardon the pun) of Gok Wan’s How To Look Good Naked; love the fashion shows, love the format of his fashion series – if a little tired of the obsession with ‘ cinching ’ waists – but there you go. No, there was something else that struck me about the point of this new(ish) series that, well, didnt  feel quite right.

Ok he is building up confidence in women who feel bad about their bodies (for the uninitiated the women are all larger than your average catwalk model)  and all credit to you, Gok for that – but – and this is the bit that struck me - by getting them to walk semi naked down a catwalk in what seems like a shopping centre surrounded by family and strangers alike. The logical conclusion is? Next series on a nudist beach? or on one of those, ahem, ' night time frolic beaches ' as featured on the hilariously irreverent Benidorm TV series. No I jest,  I’m not going down the route you might think, freedom, yes, free up, feel good about yourself, absolutely! hang ups – the less of those the better, we have had enough baggage from puritanical history to last a lifetime. But this is about women who have not felt so good about their bodies, walking down a catwalk.

Lets face it, and its been difficult not to - with the amount of, disjointed  and dismorphed  views of our selves being regurgitated through the media over the last few years in the wake of the perfect photo-shopped diet of ’ beauty ’ that has also been shovelled down our throats, I would be surprised if very few of us, of any gender, have escaped that little nagging doubt when looking in the mirror, do I match up? ie; does my bum/bingo wings/abs/pecs* delete as approp, look odd compared to Kate/Katie /Peter/Daniel (Craig)*delete as approp. No wonder some of us just give up after years of cringing while looking at ourselves, or, quite sensibly just don’t give a F.

But it’s one thing not giving a damn and another not giving a damn because the  ’ competition ’ is too good. This is what I don’t get about Looking Good Naked, why is the act of walking down a catwalk semi naked so redeeming?. Aside from the fact they are all women, even if the program included men, no let’s not just stick with gender, please insert any body type here that springs to mind, because on the great spectrum of  ‘ imperfections ’ this seems a slightly flawed way of gaining confidence about your body and self.

The fact that this is a TV show and has to reach an audience, yes, yes, bums on seats and all that. But the point of it? the punch line? seems to read; A Before and After scenario, with the ultimate moral being, in order to feel good about yourself you should be able to walk in front of a crowd not wearing much (unless you consider lots of cellulite banishing cosmetics). A confidence boost wrapped neatly into a Miss World style cattle market cat walk, only this time the contestants, no sorry, volunteers parade individually and the hips are bigger. In other words different bodies; the same voyeuristic story.  Just an observation here, but women’s bodies - as usual folks?.

I hope, I really hope that the logical step forward from this will be on the lines of the recent shows that had women (again) taking off their props ie; make up and things that they relied on to look good and the likes of that experiment on Horizon to see how we get our heads around being stark naked in front of a stranger.

Maybe this is my cynical side coming out; but perhaps there is some way to go before the Feel Good Naked series takes off - the voyeurism just won’t hack it because we’ll all be so perfectly, blissfully contented with our inner beauty it probably won’t be necessary.

Funny Ha Ha, I'm With You on That One

Someone took offence at a cartoon drawn by Hugh Macleod which he twittered today;

The cartoon showed his take on a ' lifestyle refugee ', the guy suggested that Hugh had a bad habit of depicting and discriminating against yet unknown stereo types such as a ‘ hipster ’ and how he was sure that if the stereo type were racial/ethnic or gender oriented he would not be poking fun at them. Most of the returned rhetoric on the thread focused on the offended being an insecure, nit picky, troll, antagonising a response and hiding behind anonymity, which in Hughs words he initially described as ‘ Big Congrats to MM for starting the silliest comment thread in the history of the planet... ’.

Other areas of creative output Comedy in particular have been under the spotlight in the UK recently, with the media waiting to pick up on un PC jokes and the like. Traditional media has always had its own agenda especially with the BBC, and now the twitter ilk has a new force de jour with its army of ‘ofenceratti’ ready, at the drop of a millisecond to join The Great Fight against...you name it...your guess is as good as mine. And without doubt there will be something somewhere that someone will be offended by, and believe to be right about. That is the nature of our condition, and thank goodness for that and for debate. But there is a line being drawn especially around creativity that seems increasingly only a few are prepared to stand up for or cross. David Mitchell sums up this up today over the recent spate of comedic faux-pa’s with his piece on being edgy.

 

Johnny Vegas also took a look at the Comedy scene in Benidorm and its different definition of edgy on Radio Four (7th Nov 2009 listen again). He sheds another light on comedians reality on the Costas, and as I see it the creative ‘ sweatshops ’ – I  use the word loosely - Where the will and enthusiasm of professional comedians is even more starkly juxtaposed with making a living - ie; down to the bar owner making money, nothing new there, but the piece specifically relates to the pared down attitude of bums on seats being critically and directly related to bar sales and the whims of whoever wanders into the bar, not by ticket sales.

As someone else put it, describing designers submitting work in a ‘ contest setting ’ they referred to the process as strip mining talent instead of the designers honing their skills. These different types of creative environment form common denominators, and evolutionary scales when the customer is the sole dictator of the style and type of creativity involved.

In Hugh Macleod’s thread, although the guy who was offended seemed to be sticking up for a yet unknown underdog, his rhetoric looked like this view came from a double standard moral high ground from which he also replied anonymously. Psychological reasons of insecurity and antagonistic behaviour were also bandied about in reply to him. Again another thread/debate of for's and against. I agree with Hugh as it being the silliest thread ever - without meaning to offend the guy who was offended - duh!.

Either way there does seem to be a magnification of the usual  moan/whinge brigade policing creative expressions. The rubbish comes when the increasingly threatened traditional media and the political repercussions start to have knee jerk  ’popularist‘ responses to these outcries. David Mitchell wrote something on the lines of this a few months ago in his  ‘ It Just Goes to Show, You Can’t Be Too Careful ’ article. 

On average how many times have you ever seen a response to events and opinion in traditional media ending in ‘ contented, from Billericay ’ or ‘ extremely pleased with this outcome, from Croydon ’

Usually its ‘ outraged ’ ‘ disgusted ’ or   ' offended ’ ..is it not?   Now online ‘ disgusted ’ doesn’t even have to pick up a pen or even email - a mere grunt of disapproval can echo into the trembling ears of a politician or suitably vulnerable conglomerate. So without brushing with too broad a brush, creativity and its edginess needs encouragement. And as Nick Cohen put very succinctly in has recent article;

‘ A mob fighting a good cause is still a mob. To fight back, you need to remember that although the internet age is hugely expanding the number of complaints, the old rules still apply. Whether you are the owner of a tiny blog or the editor of a national newspaper, if someone points out an incorrect fact, you correct it; if someone challenges an argument, you argue back; and if someone says that you must think what they think, you ignore them.’

Totally Nick....believe in what you think is right and don’t be drawn to fight other people’s battles.