#whether it is successful based on what the artist was intending is up for debate but the label of art is just like someone made something

[yournewfriendshouse]

so a little while ago I reblobbed someone’s work and they messaged me and said something like ‘thanks for giving my work your ‘real art tag’ and it occurred to me that pretty much no one on tumblr now will know how that tag came to be, so maybe I should elaborate?

so if you’ve followed me for a while, you will know that I am an artist and went to art school at some point. and at art school, or the art department at the university I went to (as with many others) the tenured staff there were in a constant battle about what constitutes ‘art’ and what is a ‘craft’. and the whole thing is gross because a lot of it has to do with the way the art world has been built around westernised bullshit and so is deeply entrenched with colonialism, intellectualism, chevanism and other fun stuf that says painting and sculpture are god, conceptual art is love, photography and printing are on thin ice; and things like ceramics and textiles are crafts—despite the long and rich history of civilisation using textiles and ceramics to express all kind s of things, and also to make their houses and bodies pretty... anyway we all know that is bullshit. but it actually ended up getting the awesome ceramics studio shut down a year or two after I graduated, which was a real shame. absolutely fucked.

so anyway I went there, and it was really hard for many reasons, but I got my degree.

and then I went on to make art that involved lots of glitter. my first (and only) solo show post uni was literally involving hand cut confetti. I did talks thing like…about how it is good to make art that is nice, actually (I did that talk while wrapping a present lmao!). I ran workshops at my house whenever I caught people saying they weren’t creative, and made them draw dots on a page for an hour while I asked them questions about what kind of problem solving shit they had to pull out of their arse every day in the hospitals and classrooms they worked in until they could admit they were in fact creative. because in my mind creativity isn’t just drawing and all art is real art. the paintings that dogs and elephants make is real art. confetti is real art, fan art is art. it’s all real art.

so yeah. that’s just the tag I use, because I facetiously got into a habit years ago of calling the most kitsch sickly sweet stuff ‘real art’ because I went to art school when everyone was obsessed with plywood and any obvious emotion in your artwork was critiqued to shit.

I don’t think anyone is sitting there and unpacking what I’m reblogging under that tag; hopefully you’re aware it’s not that deep. but just in case someone was wondering, I wanted to make it clear like…I tend to put fan art on my fandom blog, but if I did put it on this one it would be under that tag like it’s not me trying to make some kind of point lol, it’s kind of exactly the opposite. If I post art and don’t, like, put the tag on it, it’s because I forgot lol, not because I in all my lofty whatever deemed it ‘not real’ lmao

.

[the-insomniac-emporium]

Bound Blood (Cassandra Dimitrescu/Reader, Soulmate AU) Pt. 4

Fandom: Resident Evil: Village Rating: T+ for language, nudity (but, like, for art), and violence Warnings: Unhealthy dynamics, including violence between the shipped pair, leaning heavily into the "enemies" part of "enemies to friends to lovers" Summary: Local vampire discusses art, depictions of certain anatomy, and enjoys the company of her feral soulmate for 4.5 minutes. Then it goes to shit (as things tend to do). 0-60 Real goddamn quick. Previous Chapters: 1: Sharing Is (Not) Caring; 2: Bloodbath, Baby!, 3: Haunt Me Dearly

4: Portraits For Ghosts

“Am I really supposed to just… stay here? Did she honestly think that I, of all people, would behave? The universe gave me two good hands, and by God, I intend to make that someone else’s problem,” you mutter to yourself as you get dressed. It’s not that you necessarily had anything in mind, rather that you hated the idea of waiting around for who knows how long for Cassandra to return. Especially considering what she had done prior to leaving. Sure, you had laughed, but that hadn’t meant much in the end. At this point, you hadn’t even been out of the dungeon for a full day yet, and the memories of what happened there were fresh in your mind. Nightmares, too, even if you had pushed them aside to deal with Cassandra’s. Why did I bother? You wonder, frowning. There was hardly any point to comforting a monster, no matter the way they trembled.

Or at least that’s the lie you sold yourself.

Soon enough, a knock at the door brings you out of your head. Daphne, maybe, you think, remembering the maiden from yesterday. When you open the door, however, you’re met with an unfamiliar woman. She’s a few years your senior, at the very least, and appears surprised to see you. In her hands is a very enticing tray of food.

“Lady Cassandra wanted me to bring this to you. I am… I am glad to see you are feeling better already,” she says, voice shaking. What was with these maidens and assuming you were anything like your soulmate? Though that last part did catch your interest. Something told you that she wasn’t at all referring to your time in the dungeon. If you had learned anything from Daphne, it was that the best way to get information was to be indirect. So you graciously accepted the food, before speaking, dodging your way around your ignorance.

“Yes, it’s amazing what a bit of meditating can do for the soul- and body, that is,” you start, watching closely for any veiled reactions. Even within the first few words you can tell that this stranger wasn’t expecting you to be pleasant. “Out of curiosity, what did my Lady say about my condition? There are, uh, a few details that I hope she did not share. I’m sure you understand.” As soon as the words leave your mouth, the maiden is nodding, appearing eager to satisfy you. Maybe a hint of fear can be useful, after all.

“No worries, Lady Cassandra did well to respect your privacy, and we would not dare question her further. She simply explained, to her family, that you were dealing with a migraine. I only heard this because I was helping serve breakfast,” she explained, smiling softly. You’re quick to nod, mimicking her expression for maximum empathy. “Do you require anything else? I am here to serve, you must only ask.” Ah, perfect. Would she have offered this even if you hadn’t attempted to be charming? Probably, but your politeness certainly didn't hurt.

“Well, there is one thing… as long as it’s no trouble.”

---------------------------

It had been a risk, asking the servant to take you to a room you weren’t sure existed, but one that had paid off brilliantly. Even if said room was nothing like you had anticipated. Who would have thought that Cassandra, you think, would be an artist? What’s far less surprising is the fact that the studio (or ‘study’, as you had called it) is a disorganized disaster. Discarded papers lie scattered around an overflowing trash can, a cabinet with an attached tool rack is missing pieces, and in one corner there are literally random shards of broken glass lying about. What is this, performance art? Part of you feels tempted to clean up the mess, if only to occupy your time. Instead, you decide to examine some of the pieces within the room. Maybe somehow they’d tell you something noteworthy about your soulmate.

First, you move to your left, where a workbench houses strange sculptures. For the most part they’re abstract, jagged edges contrasting with gentle curves, but there is one you think you understand. It’s very clearly a bust… of someone’s ‘bust’. Guess that solves the age old question of ‘boobs or ass’, you think, stifling a giggle. Moving on, you shift your attention to the exposed section of the cabinet. One row is dedicated to small vials, each labeled with a concerning ‘blood’, despite the fact that it’s clearly not refrigerated. Still, you have heard of artists painting with blood before, but you seem to recall them mixing it with something else. Perhaps Cassandra had done the same? Though you did wonder if she had any difficulty resisting the urge to drink the blood, at least prior to mixing it.

Shrugging, you continue to the other side of the studio, squatting to get a closer look at the broken glass. As expected, there’s no discernable pattern or purpose. Huh, you think, wonder why she doesn’t clean up. Maybe she’s waiting for a servant to do it? Guessing her reasoning was rather difficult, especially considering your lack of context, such as how long the mess had been here. Deciding that this was a pointless distraction, you move on to the only other thing of note in the room: An easel, in the center, with a canvas nearly as tall as yourself. So far, there’s little on it other than pencil lines, a sketch marking where to paint certain details. Only the (start of) the background has been colored. Understandably, it’s hard to make out what exactly the finished project would end up representing. Based on what you know of Cassandra and her family, however, you infer that this- with four figures, one larger than the others, protective- is a painting of the castle residents.

“Family means something to you, hmm?... I hope that mine does not miss me much, for I will never see them again,” you say to yourself, instinctively reaching out towards the art. Before you can touch it, or think better of it, the door to the studio is flying open. In storms Cassandra, fists clenched at her sides. As soon as she sees you, she’s rushing forward, pulling you away from the easel. “Hello, darling. Glad to see me feeling better, yes?” You teased, smiling wide at her. Feeling a bit emboldened by your earlier success, you go a step further, leaning in to give her a quick kiss on the cheek.

“I swear to fuck, if you touched any of my stuff-” Cassandra starts to say, intentionally ignoring the kiss, even though her cheeks get flush at the contact.

“Nope, not a single thing. Not even the broken glass. Nice touch, by the way, makes the whole space feel a helluva lot cozier,” you interject. For a few moments she holds you by your shirt collar, staring you in the eyes as if determining whether or not to believe you. Somehow, some way, she declares you innocent, releasing you with an irritated sigh. After pretending to dust yourself off, you return your attention to the central canvas. “Do you do a lot of art of your family? I passed by several pieces on my way here, though they were certainly in a different style.” Another pause, with Cassandra waiting for you to spring a verbal trap.

“Some of those are mother’s work,” she answers, tentatively, eying you closely. When you merely nod in reply, expecting her to elaborate, she starts to relax, little by little. “I doubt you passed any of mine. Mother tends to keep those closer to her quarters, or near the main entrance.” Interesting, you think, why hasn’t she addressed my original question?

“It sounds like she’s very proud of you,” you muse, still facing away from your soulmate. There’s a slight shakiness to your voice, as your mind starts to dwell on memories of your own family. Perhaps noticing this, Cassandra takes a few steps closer, one hand hovering over your shoulder, not quite sure if you needed (or perhaps deserved) any comfort. In this moment, you feel far more vulnerable than you had the day before. Taking a deep breath, you try to center yourself, before perfectly ruining whatever trust you had just established with Cassandra. “Something tells me she doesn’t know about the titty sculpture though, right? Can’t quite imagine that one being displayed where everyone can see it.”

To your immense surprise, Cassandra gives you a blank stare.

“You… you really don’t know anything about my mother, do you?” She says, after several awkward seconds. It feels strange to think that she had been furious, merely a handful of minutes ago. “If you actually behave for a while, I can show you some of her favorite pieces around the castle. Then maybe you’ll understand.” Intrigued, you debate how exactly to respond. On one hand, you did want to see the art, but on the other hand… misbehaving was your goal of the day.

“Sounds like a nice date to me. Why not start the tour right now?” You suggest, hoping to meet your ‘politeness quota’ earlier rather than later. Still, it is in your very nature to be chaotic, and you find yourself giving Cassandra an affectionate shoulder touch. It’s not at all genuine, but the two of you blush nonetheless. How could you not, when your blood was bound together, hearts made to race in sync?

“Don’t get friendly with me,” Cassandra stammers, unadjusted to the way her pulse pounded. “This isn’t a date. We’re just- it doesn’t matter, actually. As long as it means getting you out of my studio, I don’t care.” With that said, she takes your hand in her own, pulling you towards the exit. If she has any feelings about the soft touch, she hides them well… unlike yourself. Cheeks flushed, you’re half tempted to yank yourself out of her grip, hating the way your heart skips a few beats. Would I still feel this way if I didn’t know we were soulmates? You wonder, biting your lower lip to prevent any unwanted comments from slipping out. Soon enough you’d have art aplenty to distract yourself with. Hopefully.

---------------------------

“My God, you were not kidding. I don’t- I can’t even think of anything clever to say,” you chime, staring dumbfounded at the several statuettes of naked women. They seemed to fulfill some other purpose, one you couldn’t parse at the moment, but you could hardly think about the details right now. “I mean, good for your mother, for sticking to a theme, I suppose,” you continue, tripping over your own tongue, uncharacteristically quiet. Clearly amused by your flustered display, Cassandra lets out a hearty laugh.

“Good to know some things can shut you up. I’ll have to keep this in mind for next time you bother me,” she teases, light-heartedly. Her words only fluster you more, though they quickly give you room to counter, much to your joy.

“Is that so? Planning on carrying around a busty bust for the rest of your life, or thinking of going the more au naturel route?” You asked, briefly sticking your tongue out at Cassandra. It takes her a moment to understand what you’re getting at, but as soon as she does she’s smacking your arm with an offended huff. Despite her irritation, the blow is relatively soft, and you swear you can see her fighting to hide a smile. “Starting to go soft on me, are you? I hardly even felt that one.”

“So you’d prefer I hit you harder? And to think you called me kinky,” Cassandra fires back, without a hint of hesitation. Now both of you are laughing, softly, like old friends sharing fond memories. It’s… weirdly nice. A warmth fills your chest, even as you try to remind yourself that you shouldn’t be happy right now. Damn it, you think, suddenly frowning, hands clenching. We shouldn’t be having fun banter, back and forth like a real couple. Not when I’ve still got wounds from her hands on my skin. Instinctively you reach up to your face, thumb running over the marks Cassandra’s nails had left behind. The touch stings, bad, no matter how gentle you try to be. Noticing your shift in expression, your soulmate inches closer. “If your wounds are bothering you, I can have one of the servants get more ointment or whatever it is we have around. I don’t want you to-... There’s no reason for you to suffer more than you need to, besides, I don’t want you complaining all day.” Of course she couldn’t bring herself to imply that she cared. Of course. It wasn’t like the two of you were actually capable of being soft for each other, obviously. All of your confusion melts down, boiled by the warmth in your chest, turning to a familiar, albeit painful, rage.

“Right, right! Because you care so fucking much, yeah? What the fuck am I doing? Why am I-” you jab a finger towards her chest, accusatory- “talking to you? Why am I pretending you're not the one who did this to me? You’re the fucking reason my face hurts, my shoulder hurts, my brain-... I can’t stop thinking about everything that happened down there. I can’t get those goddamn images out of my head, every time I close my eyes, every time I look at you. I…” You trail off, chest heaving a little, tears pricking the corners of your eyes. Cassandra’s standing tall, unflinching, but there’s a noticeable regret in her expression.

“What. Are. You… going to do about it?” She asks, through clenched teeth, fighting back the full force of her emotions. You can’t tell what exactly she’s feeling, but you know that you want her to show you. Every part of you is itching for a fist fight, regardless of how stupid you know the idea is.

“Depends, dickwad, on whether or not these statuettes are properly secured,” you snap, already moving, fully abandoning all impulse control. By the time your hand grips the first sculpture, Cassandra has put you in a headlock, forcefully tugging you backwards. Panic sets in, making you try to jam your elbows into her stomach. Before long both of you are tumbling to the floor, bodies already aching, limbs flailing wildly in an attempt to hit a target, any target. In the end the air is knocked from your lungs as your head smacks against the ground. “Shit, shit, shit,” you grumble, coughing, finally processing just how much of a dumbass you were. It’s clear that at least one of the previous day’s wounds has reopened, and you feel something wet and sticky on your shirt.

“Finished, asshole?” Cassandra wheezes, sounding dazed, roughly pulling you up by your shirt collar. You nod, refusing to meet her gaze. Then she’s sighing in relief, letting you lean on her for support, holding you surprisingly close, considering the circumstances. “Let’s get you cleaned up. Again…”

[viktorkoolla]

Anwsers From the Culture

In the middle of the night on Thursday, 22nd of May 2020, Lana Del Rey got on Instagram, and released what I'd describe as a think piece, short essay or an entry to a local newspapers opinion column.

In the post Lana expresses frustrations at how her music has been received throughout the years. She opens up about how the stories of abusive relationships her music has told are either very personal, or realistic depictions of the world we live in, but have often been seen as glamorizing toxic relationships and abuse. Whether or not Lanas music is romantization of decadence is a debate of its own, but the way she brought these issues up made many people, me included, raise their brows.

Lana felt the need to start the monologue about her experiences in the music industry by listing off other female artists who have found success over her with music she claims to be about "being sexy, wearing no clothes, fucking, cheating, etc". She seems to try to insinuate that these songs have been celebrated by the masses, while her music has received harsher critiques for not being as raunchy. First of all, Lanas music has continually been about nudity, infidelity, substance abuse, sex, drugs and rock and roll, and she's happily presented herself as an embodiment of those things. Lanas attempt at trying to distance herself from these women and seem more artistic and deep mostly works to frame the other women as shallow and vulgar. This sex-shaming sentiment is especially harmful because she almost exclusively names women of color.

Women of color have struggled with over-sexualisation, underestimation of their talent and stereotyping from the public and the industry for decades. They have had to fight for their name to be taken into consideration in a way that Lana Del Rey will never have to. Beyonce has had a solo career of over 15 years, throughout which she has proven herself as one of the most hardworking entertainers of the 2000s. She has taken the restrictions and expectations that the modern pop scene has put on female artists as performers and producers and blown them out of the water. For that she hs been framed as cocky, agressive and undeserving. Nicki Minaj singelhandedly revived the female rap scene in the 2010s and has proven herself as one of the most versatile and fluid songwriters and rappers ever. She's been called a whore, constantly parodied and had her every move nitpicked to oblivion. Lana Del Rey performs in sweatpants.

Although I doubt Lana intended to write something as tasteless as she did, the way she phrased this letter displays a clear racially insensitive pattern of white feminism. She's taking her frustrations and jealousy out on these women, using them to lift herself higher. With her position as a white woman, she's parading herself as a mistreated creative, whos artistic process has been shot down, while the other, conveniently non-white women, get to go and have number ones. It feels self-centered and ignorant. Why not direct that anger directly towards the industry? Most likely because naming the people in the industry who actually hurt your career is a lot more dangerous to your bank account and bookings than pushing other women under the bus.

Lana claims to have paved a way for other artists to write more somber music, but fails to recognize how priviledged she is in her tools to pave that way. Her early work was built on blueprints of black music and latino aesthetic. She is where she is because those stronger women she feels so slated by worked twice as hard as she has to assure she could have a shot. She is is at the height of her commercial renaissance, more succesful than she was at her debut. Lana is not poor anymore, and she is not hated by the public, nor the critics anymore. She had one of the most critically acclaimed records released last year, undenyably her best work yet, and almost won the Grammy for the album of the year for it. And who did she lose that award to? Not to Beyonce, not to Doja Cat, not to Kehlani, not to Nicki, but another white woman writing somber music about their own pain.

So why now Elizabeth? Why now of all times did you feel it was necessary to express your emotions towards the music industry? Why not last year when you didn't win the Grammy over Billie? Why not last month when Fiona Apples album got all tens with emotional, raw music about abuse, or when Shape Of You, a shallow pop song about sex was dominating the charts? Why did you pick this day? Why does seeing other women, especially women of color succeeding get you so frustrated at your own position? Meditate on that, marinate in that thought.

Has Lana Del Reys career been affected negatively by blatant sexism? Yes, absolutely. Most female artists careers have, most women in general have sexism affect their careers. It is completely valid for Lana Del Rey to say "compared to many other musicians making the kind of music I make, I've been critiqued very harshly because I am a woman." But she didn't say that. Her approach to critiquing that unfair treatment is completely tone-deaf and absurd. She presents the topic as if her career, and her career only, hasn't been able to grow to the extent that it has, and won't continue to do so, because of other women not giving her a space in feminism, and not listening to her. Ironically enough, it seems that Lana has a problem with listening to other women herself, and doesn't want to consider the impact of her music, or her words from any other side than her own.

In the first paragraph Lana presents a question: Can she go back to writing songs about her experiences in her own way without being crucified? Here's an anwser: Yes she can, she will, and she already has. It is no coincidense that on the same day Lana has also released a screenshot of herself and producer Jack Antonoff talking over video-meeting, most likely working on an upcoming album. It's completely logical to wonder if this statement was posted simply to stir up controversy, and get the attention of some of the biggest fanbases in the world. Lana is a talented marketer, and has used situations like these in her advantage before. Based on her past conflicts, she's unlikely to back down, and why would she? Every good popstar knows that controversy sells, almost as well as sex.

[threewaysdivided]

Quality Should Not Be Binary

In my wanders through life in general - and the internet in particular - I’ve noticed a strange mindset regarding the quality of media and the people who produce it.  It’s this weird idea that something is either 100% perfect, flawless and ‘how dare you claim to be a real fan while suggesting there’s anything wrong’, or that it’s completely awful, valueless and ‘you’re a terrible person for enjoying that or thinking it has anything to offer’ - sometimes flipping from one to the other as soon as a ‘flaw’ is revealed, or a ‘bad’ work does something suitably impressive.

This mindset has never really made sense to me.  Maybe I’m a just habitual over-thinker who spends unhealthy amounts of time analysing things, but I can’t see how this sort of absolutist approach would do anything other than shut down discourse, limit the value to be had from a piece and maybe make people angry.

So in honour of that please enjoy some indulgently long navel-gazing about critical analysis and media quality.

Disclaimer: This post is going to summarise my personal philosophy. Everyone approaches life - and especially art - in their own way and far be it for me to say you’re wrong if you prefer a different approach.  You do you.

Blindness Hurts Both Ways

To an extent I get the simple yes/no mindset.  Analysis takes time and it would be exhausting to give an extensive, nuanced breakdown on your view at the start of every discussion.  Plus the whole ‘dissecting the frog’ thing can definitely apply to enjoyment of media.

However, taking it to the point where you’re denying the positive side of things you dislike or refusing to acknowledge faults in works/people you enjoy has the potential to swing around and bite you in the butt.

Why deny yourself a useful experience? I think there’s an important distinction to make between being good and being useful. Subjective, technical or, ethical ‘badness’ is not the same as having no value. Similarly, being touching, entertaining or otherwise enjoyable doesn’t preclude something from having genuine problems.

Personally, I can find it difficult to work out exactly what’s going right in a generally positive piece.  After all, ‘good’ doesn’t hinge on a single point - it’s usually the product of a lot of things working well together, and it can be hard to figure out cause and effect in a system like that. It’s much easier to look at a failed attempt and identify the specific elements that caused problems, where it had the potential to recover, and places where it might be succeeding in spite of those issues. Similarly, some works can be very strong except when it comes to ‘that one thing’, which in itself is a useful reference.  Negative examples can be just as beneficial as positive ones, and turning a blind eye to a piece’s weaker aspects just denies you that tool.

On the other hand, sometimes a piece and/or creator can be ethically awful while being technically strong or succeeding at its intended purpose. In this case, while they’re not positive it can certainly be valuable to analyse the techniques they use, and even apply those tools when selecting and creating things for yourself.

It’s important to remember that acknowledging where something is strong isn’t the same as endorsing or supporting it, and that there’s a huge difference between pointing out a genuine weakness or failing and maliciously hating on a work or creator.

Why give something that much power? Starting with the gentler side, I think it’s important to remember that a work being ‘good’ on the whole shouldn’t be an excuse to gloss over possibly troubling elements or to give creators a free pass on their actions.  Sure, even the best-intentioned artists make bad PR and creative decisions sometimes but it’s also valid to acknowledge and call out possible misbehaviour when it crops up, rather than blindly playing defence until it reaches critical mass and undermines the good of their work (or worse, actually hurts someone).

There can also be a danger to simply writing off and ignoring ‘bad works’, especially if you dislike them based on ethical grounds.  If something ‘bad’ is becoming popular it’s usually a sign that it’s getting at least one thing right - whether that be plugging into an oft-ignored hot-button issue, or simple shock-value and shameless marketing.  Attributing the success of such pieces to blind luck and ignoring any potential merits that got them there opens up the potential for other, similarly objectionable works to replicate that outcome.

Not to mention the issues that can come from letting these things spread unchecked.  Think about how many crackpot theories and extreme notions have managed to gained traction, in part due to a lack of resistance from more moderate or neutral parties who at the time dismissed them as ‘too stupid’ or ‘too crazy to be real’.  Unpleasant as it may be, I think there’s some value in dipping into the discourse around generally negative media.  If nothing else, shining a spotlight on the misinformation or insidious subtext that a work might be propagating can help genuine supporters notice, sidestep or otherwise avoid the potential harms even as they keep enjoying it.

Why lock yourself into a stance like that? Maybe it’s just my desire to keep options open, but it seems like avoiding absolutist stances gives you a lot more room to move.  Publicly championing or decrying a work and flatly rejecting any counterpoints runs the risk of trapping yourself in a corner that might be hard to escape from if your stance happens to change later.  If nothing else, a bit of flexibility can help you back down without too much egg on your face, not to mention shrinking the target area for fans or dissenters who you might have clashed with in the past.

A little give and take can also help build stronger cases when you do want to speak out.  Sometimes it’s better to just acknowledge the counterpoints you agree with and move on to the meat of the debate rather than wasting time tearing down their good points for the sake of ‘winning’.  The ability to concede an argument is a powerful tool - you’d be surprised how agreeable people become when they feel like they’re being listened to.  

Finally, from an enjoyment perspective, is it really worth avoiding or boycotting what could otherwise be a fun or thought-provoking experience just because you don’t 100% agree with it or have criticised it in the past? Sure, there are absolutely times when a boycott is justified but why deny yourself a good time just because it involves an element that’s been arbitrarily labelled ruinous.  ‘With Caveats’ is a perfectly acceptable way to approach things.

Existence vs Presentation of Concepts

A rarer argument that occasionally pops up is the idea that certain works are inherently ‘inappropriate’, ‘distasteful’, or should otherwise be avoided purely based on their subject matter.  Usually this revolves around the presence of a so-called ‘controversial’ topic; things like war, abuse or abusive relationships, sexual content, bigotry and minorities (LBGT+ relationships being a big one right now).

Personally I think this is a reductive and pretty silly way to choose your content.  No topic should be off-limits for any kind of media. (With the possible exception of holding off until the target audience has enough life experience and critical thinking skills to handle it.  There is some value in TV rating systems.)  Yes, some concepts will be uncomfortable to confront, but they are part of life and trying to keep them out of mainstream art simply stifles the valuable real-world discussions and conversations they might spark.

What we should be looking for is how a work handles the concepts it chooses to use.  There’s a world of difference between presenting or commenting on a controversial topic as part of a work, and misrepresenting or tacitly condoning inappropriate behaviour through sloppy (or worse, intentional) presentation choices.  The accuracy of research and portrayals, use of sensitivity and tact, consideration for the audience and overall tone with which a topic is framed are much more worthy of consideration than simply being offended that the idea exists in media at all.

‘Bad’ Art, ‘Good’ People and Vice Versa

I think it’s important to remember that our content creators are, well, people.  They’re going to have their own weird taste preferences, personal biases and odd worldviews that will sometimes show through in their output. They’re also going make mistakes - after all, to err is human.  Unfortunately, in the creative pool you can also find some genuine bigots, egotists, agenda-pushers, abusers and exploitative profiteers who don’t care about the damage their work might be doing.

It can be discomfiting to notice potentially negative subtext in the work or actions of a creator you like, and upsetting to realise that a work you love is the product of a person who you can’t in good conscience support.  Which of course leads to the discussion of art, artists, whether they can be separated and what to do when things go wrong.

Obviously I’m going to be talking primarily about the ethical/moral side of things, as I think most of us are willing to forgive the occasional technical flub, production nightmare or drop in outward quality from creators we otherwise enjoy.

It can also be a touchy subject so I’d like to reiterate that this is just an explanation of my personal philosophy.  My approach isn’t the only way and I won’t say you’re wrong for taking a different stance or choosing to stay out of it entirely.  

‘Bad’ art from an apparently ‘Good’ person In general, when it comes to apparent bad behaviour or negative subtext from otherwise decent creators, I favour the application of Hanlon’s Razor.

Hanlon’s Razor Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence - at least not the first time.

Art is a subjective medium, with multiple readings and interpretations being possible from the same piece.  It’s definitely possible for an author to lack the  awareness or experience needed to notice when unintended implications or alternate readings have crept into their work.  Sensitive topics are tricky to handle at the best of times and seemingly harmless edits or innocuous creative choices can stack into subtly nastier tonal shifts. Similarly, being a good creator doesn’t automatically make them good at PR or talking to fans - it’s easy to get put on the spot or to not realise the connotations of their phrasing and how it may have come across.   Of course this still means someone messed up, and it’s totally reasonable to call them out for ineptness, but I’d take an unfortunate accident over malicious intent any day.

Then there are times when the negative subtext is a lot less unintentional.  In that case I think it’s important to make the distinction between creator sentiment and the sentiment of the work, character or their production team (if collaborating) before making a judgement on them as an individual.  For example, the presence of casual bigotry might be justified in historical piece that’s attempting to accurately portray the culture of the time, and a creator/actor might write/portray a protagonist with biases and proclivities that they personally disagree with for the sake of a more compelling story.  The presence of a worldview within a work doesn’t automatically translate to the opinion of it’s creator.

Similarly, when considering a problematic production or team it’s worth acknowledging which positions hold creative power, if every member is complicit and why a dissenting individual might stay silent; whether out of contractual obligation, a desire not to throw colleagues under the bus or just because they don’t have the financial security to risk rocking the boat or walking away from the role.   It’s important to figure out who the buck stops with before we start pointing fingers.

Overall, I don’t think there’s much value in passing judgement on an artist for the troublesome content in a single work.  You’ll get more mileage and a fairer assessment from looking holistically across their collection and personal/private channels for telling patterns of subtexts and behaviours.  For the most part I prefer to offer the benefit of the doubt until there’s enough supporting evidence or they do something to definitively out themselves.  Speculation fuelled witch-hunts are no fun for anybody.

‘Good’ art from ‘Bad’ people Exactly what defines a ‘bad’ creator will vary (there’s a reason I’ve been putting the terms in inverted commas).  Whether it’s a disagreement with a key opinion/ creative philosophy/ method, that they’ve done something actually heinous/ illegal, or anywhere in between, enjoying a work while being in conflict with the creator can be a difficult situation to reconcile.  Personally I think there's power to the Death of the Author argument in these cases:

Death of the Author An author's intentions and biographical facts (political views, religion, race etc.) should hold no special weight in determining an interpretation of their writing.

If you’ve found value or enjoyment in a work then you’re well within your rights to enjoy the work on those grounds, even if the message you’ve personally taken from it runs counter to the original author’s opinions or intentions.  

It’s also important to remember that a creator’s personal and/or moral failings don’t retroactively invalidate their skill and achievements in their field.   It’s possible for a person to continue offering valuable insights, observations and lessons on their chosen speciality in spite of their other behaviour or stances.  Their work can have value in isolation, although it may be worth taking the information with a grain of salt when it comes to possible biases.

This becomes a little harder when the disagreeable sentiments bleed directly into their creations but, again, there’s no reason why you can’t decide that the strengths of a work are worth looking at even if they take some squinting past uncomfortable elements to appreciate.

The question should never be ‘can I still enjoy the art?’ because that answer is always yes - if you liked it before learning about the artist then you’re allowed to keep doing so afterwards.  The new context may add caveats to the discussion but it doesn’t demerit the existing positive aspects.

However, Death of the Author runs into problems when the creator is still alive.  If the artist is out of the picture then you can engage freely without any financial support or publicity going back to them.  When they’re still around the question becomes ‘do I still feel comfortable supporting them?’ This is particularly relevant when it comes to online creators, as just interacting with their content can generate passive ad revenue, increase view counts and contribute to algorithm boosts.

I honestly don’t think there’s any one answer to this particular question.  It all comes down to a personal case-by-case judgement; weighing the severity of the conflict against how much you value their work and, in the case of creative teams, whether you think their colleagues are worth supporting despite them.  Even if you decide to pull back there are soft options before going for a full boycott; using ad-block to limit passive financial contributions, buying physical media second-hand or lending/borrowing hard copies to avoid generating any new purchases.

There are creators that I disagree with politically but continue to enjoy because their stance isn’t especially harmful or is relatively minor compared to the value of their work.  There are creators who I no longer want to support but whose pieces I like enough that I don’t regret having purchased from them in the past.  On the other hand, there’s a creative team whose content I adore in isolation but who I’ve had to drop entirely after their leader was outed as an emotionally manipulative office bully.  Where someone else would draw that line comes down to their own personal standards, and it wouldn’t surprise me if another person took a completely different approach.

Don’t be a Jerk

I feel like this should go without saying.  Rational discussion is great.  Being able to have a critical discourse - even one that’s focused on the more negative sides of a work - is wonderful.  Opinions are fun.

However, the thing with opinions is that a lot of them differ.  We aren’t always going to sync up and there are times when you shouldn’t, and won’t be able to, force someone to agree.  In that case, please don’t attack them over it.  You don’t have to like or respect their views but some basic civility would be appreciated.  You’re trying to have a conversation, not win a catfight.  Condescension, derision, high-horsing, ad hominem and otherwise getting personal doesn’t tend to win many friends or endear them to your perspective.   And to the rare few who go so far as to threaten or harass fans, creators and their families; that’s an awful, completely unnecessary, out of line thing to do. (Seriously, never do this, it won’t help and just makes you look crazy.  Also, it can be considered criminal behaviour.)

It’s also important to know when to let things go.  You’re not always going to be able to turn the tide and constantly chasing the argument, stirring the pot and fighting waves of push-back eventually reaches a point of diminishing returns.  No matter how important the issue is there’ll be times when you’re just screaming into the void.  The best you can do is make your peace, say your piece and take your leave.  After all it’s not the school playground.  And unlike the playground, we’re not obliged to stick around.

Value Judgements: It’s Good to Examine Your Tastes

At the end of the day I think you get more mileage from reaching an opinion based on a value judgement of a work’s positive and negative sides than you do from just bandwagoning into blind adoration or hate.  ‘Perfect’ and ‘Unsanctionable’ aren’t binary boxes - they’re points on a scale, and figuring out where you stand on a piece can be a useful mental exercise.  Even if your opinion ends up matching the general consensus, at least you know how you got there and can defend yourself if challenged.  

If nothing else this kind of thing can help you figure out what elements you like, dislike and prioritise in media, and where your personal boundaries lie in regard to different issues.

Still, even after all this there are plenty more factors that determine whether or not you’ll enjoy something.  I’ve dropped way more pieces for not being to my subjective liking than I have due to technical or ethical flaws.  Your tastes are your own, and if needed you can stop the conversation at ‘it’s just not my thing’.

In the end there’s no ‘correct’ way to be a fan of something.  We’re all just here to have fun.  So try not to be an ass when you run across someone who does things differently.

[bygosscarmine]

RETAIL THERAPY

a Yoon So Hee one-shot from the W: Worlds Apart continuity

while we haven’t actually reached this point in the fic, it is largely based on canon--barring that I’ve made a case that So Hee and Chul had a relationship, though it was never written in the manhwa. Enjoy!

In a way, it had been coming for a while. From the time of their break-up there had been a certain necessary reserve between So Hee and Chul. Personally it was easier, but professionally it put a strain on them. She had been so valuable to Chul in the W5 corporation because she would challenge him, and now she didn't, because it would seem personal. Things that should have been said earlier turned into later resentments.

She knew she was right about how they should have approached the Oh Yeon Joo issue--at first. She had allowed herself to stew on it, instead of just addressing Chul openly. Taken matters into her own hands when she should have known how he would feel about it.

Well. It was over now. So Hee allowed herself one glass of delicious pity-wine, at a bar that smelled slightly of money, like her father's suits fresh from the cleaners and the leather seats in custom company cars. She didn't want to get drunk, though--it was still early, so that would end in hours of misery. Instead, she left the bar for her other pleasure in life.

Clothes were important to maintaining a professional image--but that's not really why she bought them. It was the beauty of clothes design. She knew girls who bought tons of bags and shoes because they were status symbols, or even because they were lovely, but she preferred the artistry of clothes on the human form. 

She was glad her father had talked her out of going into design--she was really good at negotiating and running the logistics of a firm and it exercised a part of her mind that she enjoyed. She would have only worn her love out by trying to become someone who could create designs, when she wasn't particularly skilled. Instead, she was one of the most discerning buyers in the high-end shops, and while she went in to most of them quarterly, she did not buy on every occasion.

She only wanted clothes that would be a delight for her every time she pulled them out of the closet. It was nice to be able to afford stunningly expensive clothes--her modest taste in bags and shoes helped with that. So did having an apartment her father sublet to her for a pittance. Still, when she was a schoolgirl, poring over the magazines her aunt passed on to her, she'd always considered fashion a dream, not reality.

The clean, unfussy glass door of Atelier White was her first doorway to joy today. The women inside knew her by name (as she knew most of them) and they invited her to sit down, to bring whatever was new since she last visited.

"And how is Director Kang these days?" the manager asked as she rolled over a rack of clothing they had pulled just for her.

"He is well," So Hee said, smiling brightly.

It was astonishing how it always came back to Kang Chul. She was going to have to get used to this, a low gnawing heartache. Similar to the break-up she didn't tell anyone about. This time her sense of self, as a professional, was wounded.

It didn't seem right that she had given Kang Chul such power to destroy everything she had worked for, but she had, willingly.

He was even one of her first fashion projects.

Even as a teen, she had valued her clothes. She was probably the only girl in her school to press her blouses. Though occasionally tempted to try some of the modifications the others did to make their uniforms a little different, she had always valued the simplicity and fit of the uniform.

It helped that she'd always been a little bit taller and lankier than most of the girls. The uniform suited her. Just as it had suited Chul. The trial with him had been convincing him to start wearing suits outside of formal occasions. They had negotiated this, eventually, where she also chose formal-looking denim outfits. Once their company started really making money and having to meet with investors, Chul had quickly seen the value. So Hee hadn't chosen anything for him to wear...well, since they broke up. Perhaps even a little before they started dating, if you didn't include some gifts.

Chul had a slightly less nuanced approach to fashion--but since he looked better wearing a suit just how it came off the hanger than the model had, he could afford to keep to the basics.

She wished she could hate him. Honestly, it would be so much easier--to hate him for breaking up with her when he hadn't. For firing her unfairly. But he didn't.

Chul was self-centered, but she was accustomed to that. His arrogance had a certain unswerving honesty that was charming. Today's fight had been more than that--he had truly put someone else in his life first. While it shouldn't have been a shock to her it was still painful, to know that he had never done so for her, and never would.

It would be nice to hate Oh Yeon Joo, too, but that was below her. The woman had taken being treated as a criminal in stride, even though she had intervened to save Chul's life. So Hee wanted to doubt her claim to being a doctor, but she also had an unflinching self-confidence about it that made So Hee admit it was unlikely she was some kind of con artist.

"Do you see anything you like?" the attendant asked, and So Hee realized she hadn't even really been looking.

"Nothing seems to be striking me today, but that could be my mood," she said. "Feel free to show me the pieces you like again next time."

She left the shop, and strolled down the street.

The windows were like small worlds. So Hee loved to see even the ugliest of clothes in these microcosms. Evaluating the way the window dressers had chosen to stage them, what they were trying to say their shop was about.

She was staring at a pink and cream confection with a vaguely hanbok-like silhouette, and debating on whether to call a taxi to check out the hit-or-miss vintage shop across town, when her phone began to ring.

It was her father. Oh, wonderful.

"Daughter. How are you?"

"As well as I can be, when I was fired by my best friend this afternoon," she said. There was no reason for him to be calling unless he had heard.

"I would offer to strangle him with his own scrotum, but you are still calling him your best friend," her father said in his dry way. "So perhaps that isn't what you have in mind."

"No. The truth is I overstepped."

"Then this is a real failure?"

"Yes." He defined real failure as something that was a mistake on one's own part--with the attending need to learn from it. "I will have to pick myself up from this one."

"I have only one piece of advice. And it goes against my first impulse, which is to ask you to come take over my office because I'm being driven crazy by this Jang woman, so know this is a very selfless act on my part. I think the next thing you do should be something just for yourself. You grew up learning about my business, and you took that to Kang Chul's company to make him a success. Take your time, figure out what you'd like to do next, and then go for it."

"Thanks. I think that sounds good."

Her father hung up, satisfied he'd done his part.

Really, it wasn't that strange that she'd put up with Chul's autocratic ways, and been able to steer him well. Her father had raised her to it.

She put away her phone, and looked back up in the window. She was seeing something different, though, than what had been before her eyes before the call.

In a few hours, she was buying a drink for the purchaser who oversaw the Swanne Shop boutiques, after scheduling a lunch with the Atelier White COO.

"I hope you'll keep my confidence," she said, "but I would like to change the industry I work in, and it is a good time for me to transition. I'm interested to know what you think is the most interesting work in your industry."

"So the famous Kang Chul is ready to let his weapon Yoon So Hee go?" Purchaser Roh said, teasing but also curious.

Funny, how things always came back to Chul.

"He will have to," So Hee said with a sharp smile.

Truthfully, she knew he would help her get a start. He was still a friend, one who had only fired her for breaking his trust when it harmed someone else he intended to protect. She would learn from this--and one thing she could learn was that Chul did not take friendship lightly.

Her father was right. She had given W5 her time and skills because of Chul's passion for it. Now it was time for her to find a passion of her own.

[gyroshrike]

To everyone who saw the Kalematsuba Call-Out Post

I’m not sure where to start, and my chest is getting kind of tight just trying to plan it in my head, so I’m just gonna try and start saying words and hope it comes together in the end.

Now, I’m absolutely not well known on this site, so you really have no reason to listen to me, but all I can do is speak from the heart and those of you who read this will have to decide whether what I say is worth anything.

Also, I’m not here to show you proof of anything. I can only share my opinions of and my experience with Kale and of these events in a way that I hope resonates with people who aren’t sure how to feel or who maybe jumped too quickly when faced with a call-out post.

I’ve been following Kalematsuba for two years, since he first made his current blog. Since then, this is the first I have ever been confronted with the idea that Kale has the past he does. And I know that’s the cue for a lot of you to claim he’s been keeping it a secret, but what I mean is, is that since I followed Kale I have seen nothing that alludes to him drawing anything other than wonderful, enjoyable, safe content and being anything other than a genuine, trustworthy human being.

I pride myself on having a pretty good bullshit detector and judge of character. When I meet someone, people who usually turn out to be negative or bad people I don’t want to associate with, I usually feel the vibes instantly. I listen to what people say, how they say things. I listen for those same vibes. Kale has never, EVER, not once, given me those vibes. I have never felt uncomfortable talking with him one on one, in a group setting, or as part of his audience.

Now, this not a post debating on whether or not what Kale did was wrong. I’m not here for that. Sexualizing children and child-like characters is bad. (I’m also not here to argue how ethical it is to age up child characters for the purpose of sexualizing them because that’s a whole other can of worms.)

Kale fully acknowledges what he did. When the news broke out in the personal discord channel he mods for his followers he admitted immediately to anyone who didn’t already know the situation:

“for the sake of transparency, I DID used to draw femboy art and "shota" like characters..but it was never about drawing "cp" it was so i could cope with being an effeminate boy..and then people sarted commissioning me for that type of work and it got way grosser than i ever intended it to”

For people who are construing was Kale said in a post he made earlier, then deleted, it wasn’t about sexualizing children in order to cope with dysphoria. That was not what he meant. He was referring to drawing effeminate boys, “effeminate boy” being how Kale felt at the time. It wasn’t about an attraction to the characters he drew. He saw himself in his art. These effeminate boys were representation of him to varying degrees. Unfortunately, what happened is this expressed itself using a very shota style and characters that were originally created to be underage.

That being said, Kale himself admits that it got out of hand. He is not denying he did something bad. He’s not denying the unhealthiness of the situation.

A follower who experienced this with Kale also added this about the people who would commission artwork from Kale:

[ALL SCREENCAPS ARE STAMPED WITH HST TIME ZONE]

“Kale was groomed into their incredibly posessive circle he tried to escape and they threatened to hurt him [and] eventually they finally lost interest”

Kale said nothing of this and did not ask to be defended. This was said unprompted. This is not meant to excuse Kale, but to perhaps give a little bit more insight into the context of the situation. He talks about it fully here.

All of the screencaps are from Kale’s discord, which was the first discord I ever joined and Kale always made it very clear that it was a safe place and had little tolerance for bullshit or anything that made any of his followers feel unsafe. Kale’s discord is now the standard I hold other discord channels to. They need to be safe, healthy, supportive places.

“I've been dealing with an actual dangerous procontact pedophile, but tumblr goes after the savior who rescued me”

“heres the thing of it. i have been a victim of pedophiles. these people are sick and horrible. YOU kale are no pedophile. i get a vibe from those sickos but you make me feel okay, your aura is safety. YOU ARE A WONDERFUL PERSON WITH A HUGE HEART whome i respect and care about, as i do everyone i know. i will support you 100% and thats that”

“Coming out of the woodwork here to just say: Nobody likes who they were 5 years ago, you know who I was 5 years ago? A 14 year old girl who shipped my male classmates for the sake of seeing "hot Yaoi" I made and laughed at rape jokes, I contributed to the "women suck" stereotypes put out by a bunch of teenage boys

Four years ago I pushed away friends I loved dearly for the sake of saving face with a "good artist" I admired, I regret it immensely, but my mindset from 4 years ago was different from what it is now. I used to judge who I become friends with based on their artistic ability alone

Three years ago I made a post that got really popular about the "jock/nerd soulmates" trope, I was the originater and romanticized an abusive trope bc I thought it was a good idea, I was 16, now I realize what a mistake that was and I've learned the error of my ways

TL;DR: Tumblr fucking sucks, it's a toxic place, and people will jump at any thread of drama they possibly can if it means they can unravel someone being successful in a way they can only dream of being

Kale, whether you were into shouta art or not doesn't matter, what matters is that you've moved past it, you're done with it, that's not the person you are now and you've grown as a person Your past mistakes do not define you and what you've accomplished, the things you've learned do.What you've made here, all the art, your own community, your freaking comic that a lot of people are onboard with, that's what's amazing and incredible and you should be proud of itYou are better than this, you are better than who you were 5 years ago, and if these holier-than-thou internet teenagers can't even try to understand that people can change, then they don't matter. They're not worth your time, your tears, or your work”

These screencaps are just from today. These don’t even begin to cover the time and time again that people have found support and comfort and a healthy environment in Kale’s discord from many a number of things not limited to: mental illness, abuse, traumatic experiences, suicide, and even gentler more mundane things like life and art advice.

--

Another point I would like to make about the validity of Kale’s character. In the call-out post posted today (August 21st, 2017), all OP does is link to their previously made call-out post (August 21st, 2015). There is no added material, no new art, nothing, to attest to any continued behavior or art that could reflect negatively on Kale. Which to me, implies that Kale has so soundly changed as a person and what he features in his art, that OP didn’t have anything else to say about him. Mind you, the original post is 2 years old and Kale shut down his pixiv and patreon years ago.

Kale himself said that:

“i literally havent drawn an ounce of that stuff in 4 years”

OP is not bringing anything new to the table. Nothing has changed from 2015 to 2017.

And if anyone receives hate mail from someone claiming to be a supporter of Kale, they are not from Kale’s inner circle and did not get is permission to do so. We within the personal discord agree that this situation will be met only with calmness and positive support for Kale. Anyone attacking Call-Out OP or their supporters is acting on their own or is a fake with the intention of further defaming Kale.

WHY I IMPLORE YOU TO KEEP SUPPORTING KALE

He is creating 1989nk to for trans and nb youth like him, who, from dysphoria and a lack of representation, may will seek out media or express themselves in ways that are unsafe or unhealthy.

He does not want what he experienced to happen to other trans and nb youth. That’s why 1989nk has such obvious trans colors on the front. He wants potential trans readers to see it, read it, and feel validated, safe, and represented.

I truly believe anyone who really looks into Kale’s current work, how he feels for 1989nk, the heart and soul he’s put into it, would see the kind of person he is.

Look, when I’m with my friends, I’ll be the first person to lean over and say something is problematic, makes me uncomfortable, or might be unhealthy. Anyone who knows me well can tell you that I never, ever stick my nose into tumblr discourse. So, if I’m sitting here addressing you all like this, it’s because I wholeheartedly believe in this person with everything I have.

I believe in Kale. I trust Kale. I wouldn’t follow him or support his work if I didn’t.

But then again, you have no reason to trust me. You may have to look and decide for yourself.

[conceptanddesign-blog1]

The Difference Between Art and Design

The subject of what separates art and design is convoluted and has been debated for a long time. Artists and designers both create visual compositions using a shared knowledge base, but their reasons for doing so are entirely different. Some designers consider themselves artists, but few artists consider themselves designers. So what exactly is the difference between art and design? In this post, we’ll examine and compare some of the core principles of each craft. This is a subject that people have strong opinions about, and I’m looking forward to reading the various points of view in the comments. This post isn’t a definitive guide, but rather the starting point for a conversation, so let’s be open-minded! Good Art Inspires. Good Design Motivates. Another difference between art and design is how the messages of each are interpreted by their respective audiences. Although an artist sets out to convey a viewpoint or emotion, that is not to say that the viewpoint or emotion has a single meaning. Art connects with people in different ways, because it’s interpreted differently. Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa has been interpreted and discussed for many years. Just why is she smiling? Scientists say it’s an illusion created by your peripheral vision. Romantics say she is in love. Skeptics say there is no reason. None of them are wrong. Design is the very opposite. Many will say that if a design can be “interpreted” at all, it has failed in its purpose. The fundamental purpose of design is to communicate a message and motivate the viewer to do something. If your design communicates a message other than the one you intended, and your viewer goes and does something based on that other message, then it has not met its requirement. With a good piece of design, the designer’s exact message is understood by the viewer. Good Art Is a Taste. Good Design Is an Opinion. Art is judged by opinion, and opinion is governed by taste. To a forward-thinking modern art enthusiast, Tracey Emin’s piece “My Bed”, which was shortlisted for the Turner Prize in 1999, may be the height of artistic expression. To a follower of more traditional art, it may be an insult to the medium. This goes back to our point about interpretation, but taste is more about people’s particular likes and dislikes rather than the message they take away from a piece. Design has an element of taste, but the difference between good and bad design is largely a matter of opinion. A good piece of design can still be successful without being to your taste. If it accomplishes its objective of being understood and motivates people to do something, then whether it’s good or not is a matter of opinion. We could go on discussing this particular point, but hopefully the underlying principle is clear. Good Art Is a Talent. Good Design Is a Skill. What about the creator’s abilities? More often than not, an artist has natural ability. Of course, from a young age, the artist grows up drawing, painting, sculpting and developing their abilities. But the true value of an artist is in the talent (or natural ability) they are born with. There is some overlap here: good artists certainly have skill, but artistic skill without talent is, arguably, worthless. Design, though, is really a skill that is taught and learned. You do not have to be a great artist to be a great designer; you just have to be able to achieve the objectives of design. Some of the most respected designers in the world are best known for their minimalist styles. They don’t use much color or texture, but they pay great attention to size, positioning, and spacing, all of which can be learned without innate talent. Good Art Sends a Different Message to Everyone. Good Design Sends the Same Message to Everyone. This really falls under the second point about interpretation and understanding. But if you take only one thing away from this article, take this point. Many designers consider themselves artists because they create something visually attractive, something they would be proud for people to hang on a wall and admire. But a visual composition intended to accomplish a specific task or communicate a particular message, no matter how beautiful, is not art. It is a form of communication, simply a window to the message it contains. Few artists call themselves designers because they seem to better understand the difference. Artists do not create their work to sell a product or promote a service. They create it solely as a means of self-expression, so that it can be viewed and appreciated by others. The message, if we can even call it that, is not a fact but a feeling. What Do You Think? Depending on how you look at it, the difference between art and design can be clear-cut or hazy. The two certainly overlap, but art is more personal, evoking strong reactions in those who connect with the subject. I’ll leave you with this quote from Craig Elimeliah, who covered this subject in a fantastic article for AIGA, which I discovered during my research for this post. “I do not claim to be an expert on defining what art is and what it is not, but I do know that if we look at the differences between art and design we will see a very clear line drawn between the two. An engineer, if given the exact co-ordinates to place different colored pixels in specific places, could render a beautiful website or ad simply by following instructions; most design projects have a detailed set of instructions and most design is based on current trends and influences. An artist, on the other hand, could never be given any specific instructions in creating a new chaotic and unique masterpiece because his emotions and soul is dictating the movement of his hands and the impulses for the usage of the medium. No art director is going to yell at an artist for producing something completely unique because that is what makes an artist an artist and not a designer.” Further Reading and Sources Art and Design: What’s the Big Difference – Michael Brady, Critique Magazine: 1998. Mona Lisa Smile: Secrets Revealed – BBC, 2003. The Turner Prize – Tate Britain, 2008. Tracy Emin – Wikipedia, 2009. Talent vs. Skill and Experience – Acland Brierty, 2005. Art vs. Design – Craig Elimeliah, AIGA, 2006.

[biofunmy]

The Rise Of Skywalker” Misinformation Hell Is The New Future Of Everything #ReleaseTheJJCut

Woody Harrington for BuzzFeed News

Last week, a post on the r/SaltierThanCrait subreddit — a forum that started as a place for Star Wars fans to pick apart 2017’s The Last Jedi — caused an eruption. Written by a user named egoshoppe, the message claimed director J.J. Abrams’ original cut of The Rise of Skywalker was 40 minutes longer than the film’s two hour, 22-minute theatrical runtime and contained a large chunk of material that would have made some fans happier, including a scene featuring actors Hayden Christensen and Samuel L Jackson, reprising their roles to help fellow Jedi Rey defeat the resurrected Emperor Palpatine.

Why would Disney, the media conglomerate that bought the science fiction franchise from its creator George Lucas in 2012, cut huge chunks out of Abrams’ final edit? According to egoshoppe, the reasons were twofold: to make the film more palatable to the Chinese government and to damage the professional reputation of Abrams, whom Warner Brothers was courting to work on films set in the DC Comics Cinematic Universe, which includes characters like Batman and Superman.

“Marvel’s biggest threat is a well-operational DC. They want to keep DC in the limbo that they’re in right now,” the post reads. “Abrams jumpstarting that franchise with something like a successful, audience-pleasing Superman movie makes them nervous. Their goal is to make JJ look bad to potential investors/shareholders.”

The post inflamed long-running Star Wars fandom paranoia that Disney has been using social media to manipulate fans. In it egoshoppe warns that all previous leaks about the The Rise of Skywalker were shared by users “tied to Disney directly.” (Fans have accused Disney of molding social media for years.)

It was impossible for Redditors to ascertain whether egoshoppe was telling the truth, trolling for fun, or lying to help Abrams, whose film has faced a critical and fan backlash. Regardless, #ReleaseTheJJCut trended on Twitter as fans pieced together links and quotes from the cast, screenwriters, and directors that seemed to prove a different cut of The Rise of Skywalker existed.

The Star Wars fandom is now a nesting doll of speculation, paranoia, and anxiety about corporate overreach — growing more insular and reactionary in the eight years since Disney took over Star Wars.

The misinformation and anger inside the Star Wars fandom is what happens after decades of corporatization and anonymous decentralized networking. It is a glimpse of a future in which anxieties over the motives of the megacorporations that drive our culture — down to our very mythologies — set off conflicts between warring information tribes who inhabit their own artificial narratives. What began with small but vocal insurgent online communities like 4chan or the alt-right has now come for the mainstream.

Except there is no “mainstream” culture — just as there is no central Star Wars fandom anymore. Today, popular culture is just Gamergates of varying size.

Frank Trapper / Getty Images

A Star Wars fan works on a computer while waiting in line to see The Phantom Menace in Los Angeles on April 15, 1999.

Fandom isn’t new. Most of the tropes we associate with modern fan communities, like fanfiction, letter-writing campaigns, zines, conventions, and infighting entered the American consciousness in the ’60s, thanks to the female audience of a different star-based sci-fi franchise: Star Trek. The girls and women who loved the show were excluded from male-dominated fan spaces and so created the networks that built the foundation for how communities now find each other online. Women all over the US started creating zines and sci-fi clubs as a way to share Star Trek fanfiction. Star Wars, released in 1977, was a late entrant.

But Star Wars fans have used the internet to socialize (and bicker) since the beginning of the franchise and the internet. The earliest archived Usenet posts about the movies date back to at least 1983, the year that Return of the Jedi came out. “Are you sure other scenes showed an abnormal (or no) star field while in hyperspace,” one user writes in a thread — which wouldn’t look out of place on Reddit in 2019 — titled “Continuity error in STAR WARS – the ANSWER.” Through every stage of internet development, Star Wars fans have been at the forefront — two of the first viral memes were “Star Wars Kid” and “It’s a trap!”

And for as long as there have been Star Wars fans, there have been discontented Star Wars fans. According to a 1999 Empire interview with George Lucas, some have been angry with him since A New Hope. “Fans absolutely hated R2 and C3PO in the first film; in the second film they hated Yoda,” Lucas said.

In 1997, Lucas, still the owner of the franchise, released a remastered version of the original trilogy. The most infamous change in the special edition concerned a shootout between the smuggler Han Solo and the Rodian bounty hunter Greedo. In the original version, Han shot first. In 1997, Greedo shot Han first, missed, and then Han shot back. Fans were outraged. The “Han Shot First” meme spread on early blogs, via novelty T-shirts sold at conventions, and in forwarded emails. The issue is still debated. (In the version of the film just released on Disney+, a new change was added. Greedo now shouts the word “maclunkey.”)

A Han Shot First moment occurs when a previously unified fandom is suddenly given two realities to choose between. Once an HSF moment occurs, it’s impossible to bring the fans back together. And Star Wars has experienced many such HSF moments since.

The Phantom Menace and the subsequent prequels Attack of the Clones and Revenge Of the Sith were never going to appease every fan, but the frenzy around the lead-up to the movies, led by early internet communities, imploded when they arrived in theaters.

There was no longer a central agreement about what Star Wars actually was. There were older fans who thought Empire Strikes Back was the only good movie, younger fans who thought the podracing in Phantom Menace was wizard, fans who thought Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith should have been edited differently, and critics who retroactively decided the whole series was just embarrassing. The actor Topher Grace cut the prequels down into one 85-minute movie. There’s also the Machete Order, a way to reorder all the films. There’s even an infamous 20,000-word “Ring Theory” blog post, in which a fan spent two years writing about how the prequels and the original trilogy “rhymed” with each other when viewed within a concatenated structure. There was also Red Letter Media’s viral-before-viral 70-minute demolition of The Phantom Menace, uploaded to YouTube in seven parts, most of which have been viewed over 9 million times each.

Walt Disney Co. / Courtesy Everett Collection

Daisy Ridley as Rey (left), and Adam Driver as Kylo Ren in The Rise of Skywalker.

Things move a lot faster now. Something like Baby Yoda from the Disney+ show The Mandalorian can balloon into a worldwide phenomenon in days. And fandom toxicity can now manifest instantaneously. In 2016, fans of Cartoon Network’s Steven Universe harassed one of the show’s artists off Twitter because they were upset that an episode didn’t confirm a same-sex romance between two characters.

Disney, the current owner of both Star Wars and Marvel, has, more than any other company, figured out how to harness this chaotic energy into a massive financial engine. Marvel’s 23-movie, $22.5 billion cinematic universe is a direct descendant of Star Wars. The studio made $13 billion in worldwide box office in just 2019. And once The Rise of Skywalker crosses the $1 billion mark, Disney will have released seven movies last year that grossed that amount. Armed with a nearly unlimited portfolio of intellectual property, an integrated network of theme parks, and the new Disney+ streaming service, Disney is inching closer and closer to a completely seamless transmedia reality its audiences can live inside. Once fans would have had to travel to Disneyland for that immersion — now it travels to them online.

It isn’t just Disney. As corporate monoliths amass more money and power, consumers become more feverish, fanatical, and paranoid. Supreme hypebeasts, Fortnite players, PewDiePie commenters, VSCO girls, K-pop fans, Tesla evangelists — there seems to be a divided fan community for nearly every form of media or product or service.

And as quickly and strangely as modern fandoms form, so are they mutated by Han Shot First moments. These schisms are rarely deliberate — rather, they are sparked by a director’s cut of a popular film, an offhand remark made in an interview. They are willed into existence by conspiracy theories, by fanfiction, by leaks of material never intended to be seen.

Since Disney took the reins of the Star Wars franchise in 2012, fans had a racist meltdown over the casting of a white woman and a black man as the leads of the sequel trilogy. Some of them brigaded against 2017’s The Last Jedi because they thought it was too woke. (This campaign was amplified but not created by Russian trolls.)

These campaigns have had real consequences. Vietnamese American actor Kelly Marie Tran, who played mechanic Rose Tico in the film, suffered so much racist abuse she deleted her Instagram. Tran ended up with significantly less screentime in The Rise of Skywalker. Disney has been accused of caving to a racist and misogynistic vocal minority of fans. The film’s cowriter, Chris Terrio, said that Tran’s character Rose appeared in fewer scenes because of the difficulties that arose in repurposing footage of the late Carrie Fisher.

Walt Disney Co. / Courtesy Everett Collection

Writer Chris Terrio and director J.J. Abrams consult on the set of The Rise of Skywalker.

On websites like Tumblr, vicious fights have broken out about which characters should be shipped, or romantically paired together. Those who believed the villain Kylo Ren and the Jedi hero Rey should end up together — Reylos — have waged extensive flamewars, and in the wake of the Kylo Ren’s death at the end of The Rise of Skywalker, are sending Abrams death threats.

And it’s not just the fans: Star Wars actors have gotten in on the HSF moments too. Oscar Isaac, who played pilot Poe Dameron, has told every news outlet who will listen that he thought he and John Boyega’s character, former stormtrooper Finn, should have had a romance. Meanwhile, Boyega spent New Year’s Eve trolling Reylos on Twitter, arguing that his character should have ended up with Rey.

Any one of these things could be true. Or they could all be false. It doesn’t matter.

Whether it’s fans of the K-pop group BTS believing there’s a missing eighth member of the group, fanatical Facebook groups for enthusiasts of smart home devices like the Ring surveillance cameras, the near-constantly forming pockets of misinformation on TikTok, or the DC fans who purchased an ad at the FA Cup demanding Warner Brothers “#ReleaseTheSnyderCut” — a reference to that group’s struggle to see a different cut of the Justice League movie — we’re awash in our own home-brewed misinformation.

Seventy-one days before the release of Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, a Reddit user named JediPaxis published a post titled “The Rise of Skywalker: Reshoots and Edits (Story Summary v3.0)” on the r/StarWarsLeaks subreddit. The post was JediPraxis’s fifth post documenting information gleaned from what they claimed was a “trusted source.”

JediPraxis’s story summaries nailed down details with shocking accuracy. They knew the name of the planet Emperor Palpatine was hiding out on. They guessed the movie’s twist — that Rey was his granddaughter. They even knew about Babu Frik.

As with egoshoppe’s #ReleaseTheJJCut conspiracy theory, JediPraxis’s predictions meant one of three things. They’re telling the truth and had a source involved with the film’s massive production who was comfortable leaking. Or JediPraxis was actually working for the production. Or JediPraxis’s leak was sanctioned by Disney, as part of a meta-campaign by the film’s producers to fuel a grassroots hype cycle.

“I’m pretty sure [LucasFilm] is feeding a ton of [bullshit] to leakers,” one commenter wrote under the post, two months before Rise of Skywalker had hit theaters.

“It’s now MORE likely this than anything else,” another commenter replied. “What’s more likely, that a Reddit user has a direct line to the top .01% of people involved in one of the most anticipated films of the last several years, and this person is still employed despite leaking the ENTIRE plot, AND that they managed to reshoot this much of the movie AND cut it in — or that someone is taking the piss?”

Any one of these things could be true. Or they could all be false. It doesn’t matter. There will be fans who believe whatever gets posted and fans who don’t. Every leak or fan theory creates a new reality. Han shot first. Or he didn’t. ●

Sahred From Source link Technology

from WordPress http://bit.ly/2NbpObX via IFTTT

[lsbuniblog-blog]

Time and Progress

Time and progress have both recently become increasingly debatable topics, specifically regarding their intrinsic links and discordant relationship. There is lots to be said about how they behave, both above and below the surface. This essay will examine how the two terms behave, both in relationship to each other as well as their perceived qualities; that being, the notion of time-space compression, spaciotemporality, and the continued trajectory of postmodernity, including the heightened importance of appropriation, in relation to the work of Richard Prince.

To begin with, one must understand the definition of both terms. Oxford dictionaries define ‘time’ as follows; “The indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.” - Stevenson, A. (2010). Oxford dictionary of English. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. This particular definition is intriguing because of its secondary use of the word, ‘progress’, contextually describing existence. It is clear that the English Oxford Dictionary holds strong modernist views, quantifying progress through time, as to suggest that we as a society, are consistently progressing as time passes us, with no deterioration or counter-progression taking place at any point. Perhaps the reason for this over-simplification of what is a far more complex term, is a result of the clear correlation between time and progress, evident through technological advancements. However, this fails to consider that correlation does not equal causation. To counter this, an example of a disadvantage of postmodern society might include the introduction of nuclear weapons. It is difficult to classify this as progress, as defined by the English Oxford Dictionary.

Time is perceptual. It is not a fixed concept. it is relative to interpretation, and speeds up and slows down accordingly. This is why quantifying it through minutes and hours is in many ways a redundant practice. This only allows us to map out the past and future, like coordinates on a globe. Jorge Luis Borge (1970) states, “Time can’t be measured in days the way money is measured in pesos and centavos, because all pesos are equal, while every day, perhaps every hour, is different.” The Oxford English Dictionary fails to take into account either of these two very important factors; relativity, and time’s discordant relationship with progress.

After questioning the relativity of time, one must consider if the same rules apply to progress. What one person might describe as progress, another might not. The English Oxford Dictionary defines progress as follows; “Forward or onward movement towards a destination.”. The use of the term ‘destination’ assumes a finishing point, which again, is a relative concept. This fails to take into account that what might be one person’s destination, might not be consistent with many other people.

Taking for instance, the shift from Realism into Postmodernism, we can appreciate that it allowed society to develop individual nuances through beliefs, and challenge the sweeping assumptions and generalisations that are perpetuated through Modernism. Postmodernism developed a new epoch of art and media that catalysed individual expression and identity. However, one might argue that this deconstruction of governing conceptualisation and perpetuation of increasingly significant individual expression has consequently led us down a path of narcissism, cynicism, and ultimately isolation. “Postmodern irony and cynicism's become an end in itself, a measure of hip sophistication and literary savvy.” Wallace D, (1996) Infinite Jest. One must question if this is progress, a cultural shift, or even a step backwards.

You can see this transition through portraiture, well before the invention of photography. Whilst the intention of art was to present reality in its truest replication, the art ecosystem stagnated. Take one of the most famous and influential painters from the 17th century; Rembrandt, who was one of the great leaders in the renaissance era. Rembrandt understood light in a way that no other painter did. Rembrandt would argue that the most accomplished painters would be those who were capable of replicating reality in the most mirror like fidelity. However, moving on some years, where abstract works began to emerge, you will notice a shift in intent. No longer is the need for replicating relevant. That job has been made redundant by photography, Instead, postmodern influences push art into adopting notions such as semiotics, and tackling lazy assumptions once relied upon.

There are two main philosophies regarding the movement of time, each relevant, borrowing from each other in some way or another. We start with absolute time, which as the name suggests, dictates time as a linear, 2d structure. It acts only as frame upon which we plan events and record history. “Absolute space is fixed and we record or plan events within its frame.” Harvey, D. (2005). Spaces of Neoliberalization: Towards a Theory of Uneven Geographical Development. Stuttgart: Steiner, p.94. It is perhaps the most common way that time is viewed. It is currently 10:43am on Tuesday 1st May as I write this, and I know for a fact that offering this information is an accessible way for anyone to visualise exactly how long ago it was, in relation to their position in time. Absolute time also introduces the ability to recall information; I could ask you where you were and what you were doing at this time, and perhaps with the help of a calendar, you would be able to give me an accurate response. However, if I were to ask how long ago this feels, I danger confusing absolute time to one of relativity, because the latter is entirely subjective, whilst the former is not.

The next main structural philosophy regarding time is variation, or relativity within time. This theory addresses the fact that time is experienced at different speeds, depending on the individual. One of the most influential minds denouncing relativity was Einstein, who believed that all forms of measurement depended on the frame of reference of the observer. "When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That's relativity."  Einstein A. This premise is referred to as spaciotemporality.

One of the major contributing factors to the relativity of time, is time - space compression, which dictates how as technological improvements are made, space grows smaller. The introduction of global telecommunications, faster transport, and most notably the internet, means that now, sending a message to someone halfway across the world, no longer requires weeks of foot travel, and can now instead be sent virtually instantaneously via text, email, or any one of the many social medium we now heavily rely on. “As space appears to shrink to a global village of telecommunications and a ‘spaceship earth’ of economic and ecological interdependencies - to use just two familiar and everyday images - and as time horizons shorten to the point where the present is all there is, so we have to learn to cope with an overwhelming sense of compression of our spacial and temporal worlds” Harvey, D. (1989). The Condition of Postmodernity. (p.240).

The interpretation of time also depends on the volume of events that occur within a timeframe. The experience of boredom is only encountered once the body is deprived of sensory stimulation, which causes the experience of time to elongate. On the other end of the spectrum, keeping levels of sensory experience up, catalyses its passing. However this is only short term. Long term side effects of experiencing boredom causes the complete opposite effect. This is the main reason as to why adults in their 50’s, feel as though time passes them faster than whilst we were younger. This causes us to value the time we have more while we have less of it, and to treat it more like a commodity. “The findings support the contention that depressed affect produces a subjective slowing of time” John D. Watt, (1991). Effect of Boredom Proneness on Time Perception. Vol 69, Issue 1, p.323 - 327.

This leads the question of how these state of affairs intend to progress. One of two things might happen. Firstly, stagnation occurs, through technological superiority; technology has advanced so far that it becomes impossible to travel any faster through space, and thus no more progress is made. One must question whether time - space compression will continue in the same trajectory, and what a future world might look like if this were to occur. One must entertain the idea where everything is experienced simultaneously and instantly, all at once. It is difficult to fathom such an idea, however it remains relevant for the duration of this potentially worrying trajectory.

Time can also be broken up into categories based on influences regarding art and media. The phrase, ‘Avante Garde’ is commonly used to demote what is ‘new’, or ‘original’.  Cambridge dictionary defines the expression as “The painters, writers, musicians, and other artists whose ideas, styles, and methods are very original or modern in comparison to the period in which they live, or the work of these artists”. Cambridge University Press. (2008) Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Derived from French terminology, ‘Avante Garde’, or ‘Vanguard’ in English, refers to the part of the army that is positioned ahead of the others, with the intention of breaking through the resistance of their adversaries. This aids in defining its current use, that being a style in which artists of all media platforms use which is considered new and original. Artists who use this tactic intend to ‘break through’ mainstream tropes in order to create something new and thought provoking. These works often stir controversy, however successful works are later on appreciated for their contribution to whatever field of media they belong to.

An example of a controversial and ‘Avante Garde’ creation might be Richard Prince’s ‘Malboro Man’ piece, where he took photographs of the Marlboro cigarette campaign by Sam Abell, subsequently selling it for over one billion dollars at Christie's New York in 2005. It was the most a rephotograph had ever been sold for. This is considered ‘Avante Garde’ because of the way that Prince changed how photography and its relationship with art was viewed. By re-appropriating an existing photograph, Prince essentially destroyed the idea that duplicates hold less value than the original, challenging ideas of context, and what makes art art. Prince was one of many different artists who explored context and appropriation, alongside people such as Warhol and Duchamp. “To photograph is to appropriate the thing photographed” Sontag S (1977) On Photography.

In conclusion, both the terms, ‘time’ and ‘progress’ are absolute and relative depending on their context and individual preference. Both are relevant yet not mutually exclusive. Progress on the other hand is entirely relative, and is conditioned upon individual beliefs and morals. It assumes a destination, yet remains fluid through individual interpretation.

References

Cambridge University Press. (2008) Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Einstein A Geographical Development. Stuttgart: Steiner, p.94. Harvey, D. (1989). The Condition of Postmodernity. (p.240). Harvey, D. (2005). Spaces of Neoliberalization: Towards a Theory of Uneven Jorge Luis Borge (1970) Sontag S (1977) On Photography Stevenson, A. (2010). Oxford dictionary of English. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Wallace D, (1996) Infinite Jest

[brittneymickens-blog]

You Create Me Delighted Mark Set Altenew.

Within this day as well as grow older, you might presume that being happy all the time only isn't feasible, but actually that is actually. And, not merely is it achievable for you, that's also feasible for everyone you recognize. Our company are going to replace your automobile along with a brand-new among the very same make style and also requirements if your car is wrecked past efficient repair or even stolen and certainly not recovered as well as you purchased your cars and truck coming from brand new within the past YEAR. It will definitely accelerate points up if you quit aiming to get him back and also create him think you don't desire him anymore. If you are like me, your intelligence understands that product things do not produce you happy.

This offers some tantalizing meals like Grilled Mahi, Shrimp Jumbo Shrimp Scampi, Spanish Paella, Frying pan Seared Atlantic Salmon, Cuban Braised Fish, and Veal Piccata and so on I assumed that the methods I perform are going to bring in folks ponder as well as this is actually certainly not thus vital just what I state. I constantly attempt to instruct folks on my weblog and also write-ups to become responsive and not to create any type of limitation on their own. If you have any inquiries relating to wherever as well as tips on how to work with yellow pages online uk; inteettspelforkost.info,, you'll be able to e mail us at our own web site. Delicious chocolate peanut butter no bake cookies create excellent grandparents presents, educator presents, birthday party gifts, thanks presents as well as more. After the party has actually been actually kept, customized stationary is best for thank-you notes. One more idea to create the location and the event extra exquisite is actually to make a screen of photographes of the celebrant with the years in sterling silver as well as white colored structures. Whether that's having the ability to express your own self artistically or even managing to making a decision on your own, personal liberty is essential. As a result, try other techniques to regulate your life once again and be successful in being actually happy and also healthy and balanced. What Makes Me Satisfied was made through Annie Gibbs for The Ragdoll Base coming from a concept through Anne Hardwood, Creator and also Creative Supervisor of Ragdoll Productions Ltd as well as Fiduciary of The Ragdoll Groundwork. Vacation playgrounds may vary hugely so that's regularly most effectively to perform some research study and make certain you opted for a park that meets your family members's demands. Staying in contact along with loved ones is among the best five remorses of the perishing 7. If you prefer a lot more documentation that it is actually valuable for you, I have actually located some analysis that shows it can easily create you more pleased immediately. As you may find, amusing companionship quotes are a terrific way to keep in mind exactly what creates our relationships thus special and also our friends so dear. When you were much younger or currently have regarding exactly what are going to make you definitely satisfied, have it a step even further as well as really think about aspirations you possessed. Aries is extremely supporting when in a connection, if you may think of something he has actually refrained from doing that you think he may enjoy you need to take that up. The many things is actually that the Aries male are going to enjoy themself very most when you are happy and given that he is not timid regarding having opportunities, he will certainly attempt anything the moment. Effectively, that is actually effortless - of course, presently I can easily possess some horrible state of mind swings (which carries out not create people around me delighted I make certain!!), very hot flushes, my 'center aged escalate' is there and also more, but when that is actually throughout, I will definitely no longer possess time periods each month, no more must bother with acquiring expecting, as well as I will certainly simply manage to live my lifestyle without the month-to-month tension! Having said that if you still really love the guy and also want him back you can not permit him understand you burn and also pain, yet that doesn't mean you can not create him have the feeling from being rejected as well as reduction. If you don't need to have to create any sort of more funds and also you are satisfied along with your present income but faster or even later on you are going to need some additional funds, even. Acquire creative or find a track you love showing your feelings as well as sing it to them. Make up a trivia examination for your guests, using unfamiliar realities or even activities from the birthday celebration man or even female's life. That can be your concern, you are attempting to produce him go back instead of producing him intend to come back. Giggling definitely is actually the most ideal medication as well as to become a pleased individual you need to laugh. There are still a lot of factors to worry about, and lots of selections to make as each selection will certainly calculate just how your CDs will offer. Send invitations to an event; celebrate your country and even more along with individualized stationery created the activity. Still, that doesn't imply you ought to permit your emotional states say every thing you carry out or claim. This does not make any type of feeling to choose not to most likely to a celebration with him tonite since he overlooked you acquired your hairstyle previously today. That's all-natural to rejoice when you experience truly fantastic traits in your relationship, your life, or even your career. It is a fact that a lot of men believe that they could obtain their girls back by dating an additional girl to earn their ex-boyfriend jealous. The way to take advantage of your right brain is by carrying out points that create it stretch and also grow in ways that support imaginative and also imaginative thinking. Make sure not to exaggerate the arrangements to preserve the celebration actually sophisticated. As well as while selecting, be sure you are actually going with the one that uses you the facility from eating at one of the most preferred restaurants. Pleased folks have the tendency to be actually even more useful, creative, philanthropic, selfless and healthier. Only be sure you tag every one, so the other parents recognize exactly what their little ones are enjoying! Maybe you find your own self during that classification-- unsatisfied yet productive, certainly not satisfied however productive. Getting to grasps with locating mugs and also saucers for the property style, checking out new plans for table tops and mats with seat seats; ample sufficient to obtain you an average credit rating from 20/20 making your own self happy. Create a claim aloud per various other preparing your goal to locate even more tranquil and beneficial ways from engaging to ensure that you communicate much better, have a lot less debates, and extra helpful conversations. You possess a readiness to stand up once more as well as try - that will create you an absolutely satisfied person. We simply submitted an url to this to our brand new facebook webpage referred to as Create a satisfied and also well-balanced life". Thus, listed below are actually some guidelines for every single female available reading my short article, that will create your partner crave for you! Truly, most of us honor that modern technology is remarkable, however when you spend lengthy hours in front of one, it is very important to take a break and also make certain there is actually additional to lifestyle compared to the digital.

[bruceeves]

“Work # 950: From Birth to (Near) Death and Back Again -- In Four Parts”

The fluidity of power – the idea that authority can be both effectively enforced from afar as well as allowed to fester quietly within – is a proposition that has been explored in much of my work over the course of my career. While the task at hand is to address the issue of “risk”, I’ve chosen to tackle this question by greatly expanding upon an artist’s statement accompanying four works that were presented together at the Robert Kananaj Gallery during the summer of 2015 to celebrate its fourth anniversary. These works were created over the past five years – from the birth of a culture-defining method of social control with centuries-long ramifications, to the acceptance over a brief period of time the tyranny of aging (along with tangents about the death of the avant-garde and the trouble with selfies) this further elaboration and close reading of the four works at the centre of this discussion both explore and expose the political, psychological, and emotional implications of power dynamics from the macro (on a societal level) to the micro (on a cellular level). This closer examination reveals a continuity of spirit and an intellectual engagement supplemented by real-world (as opposed to art-world) experience firmly grounded in art history.

1

As a work of literary fiction, the first five books of the Old Testament (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) may provide a gripping narrative, but in 1604 when James I commissioned a translation from Hebrew and Aramaic to consolidate regal authority his intent was never to lay out the blueprint for an equitable society, but was to produce an officially sanctioned standardized document to regulate daily life as well as act as a blunt force weapon entitling the sovereign the power to supersede the rule of law. By allegedly relying on the services of the leading literary lions of the day (Shakespeare et al) to gussy up an otherwise dry narrative, the King’s political mission reached fruition. “Work # 808: Leviticus (Updated)” is the first in a series of large scale conceptually-driven photo-based works begun in 2010 after suffering a crisis of faith that the future viability of art was something other than that of a diversionary caprice for the so-called one percent. A crisis actualized by the seemingly near-universal desire to kowtow to the limitless demands for the familiar and the safe and the conventional; a crisis triggered by the despair of witnessing in the late 1970s what little remained of the historical avant-garde devolve into a morass of triviality and disposable mass entertainment. To swipe a couple of lines from Michel Houellebecq  “at this stage we don’t give a damn about the reviews. It’s no longer there that the real decisions are made, [and] we’re at the point where success in market terms justifies and validates anything, replacing all the theories.”  (I have my own theory about the late ‘70s collapse – having been a part of it – but that is fodder for a separate discussion.) We’ve reached a point in which an increasingly public debate (Bürger, Danto, Foster, Vargas Llosa et al) questions whether art even continues to exist. From Manet forward to the beginning of the Reagan/Thatcher/Mulroney era artists willfully maintained an antagonistic relationship with their patrons. And while every art student makes an unspoken pact with the notion of capitalist consumption, any engagement with or against the marketplace is a situation fraught with peril. I can think of no significant time during that century and a half before the late ‘70s when artists were willing and eager to service the slumming diversions of the well-heeled as today. The death of innovation that followed the avant-garde’s collapse saw the advent of post-this and neo-that. It’s not for nothing that “In the Return of the Real: The Avant-Garde at the End of the Century” (MIT Press, 1996) Hal Foster dismissed the “neo-s” as the “necro-s”.

  With “Work # 808: Leviticus (Updated)” the idea was to hit the reset button and return to the beginning. Relying upon David Plotz’s exceedingly witty and acerbic “Good Book” (HarperCollins, 2009) as my guide, my “Bible for Dummies”, my “Coles Notes for Scripture”, allowed me to approach the inherent foreignness of these foundational texts as raw material and to respond to and contemporize a work introduced to the world by King James by reducing the words he authorized to their visual essence.

   “Work # 808: Leviticus (Updated)” is enormous. It consists of a 228.6x304.8 cm (90”x120”) photograph of a drought-stricken riverbed chopped up into a framed grid of nine 76.2x101.6 cm (30”x40”) panels randomly covered with the word ‘no’ repeated twenty-four times. The source material’s narrative was intended as an instrument of rigid social control through behaviour modification and took the form of an exhaustive litany of prohibitions combining the ludicrous and the lethal (from the sumptuary to the sexual). My visual rendition of the document takes it’s laundry list of diktats and offers them up as a series of tiny but emphatic, foot-stamping no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no’s sprinkled like seeds across a desiccated landscape that will never allow anything ever to grow. Leviticus was the book that fun forgot; it’s only value has been to allow generations of sanctimonious hypocrites the free rein to pick and choose their weapons of mass bullying. And like the book, the artwork that dares to speak its name is heavy and dour and negative, hung so low to the floor that it becomes an all-powerful, all-enveloping vehicle of oppression.

2

Accepting as its personal saviour the guiding spirit of “Salò: 120 Nights of Sodom” – Pier Paolo Pasolini’s 1975 enumeration of abuse of power, corruption, sadism, sexual perversity, and fascism – “Work # 864: The Nature of God” (2013) is one work from a series that explores the outer limits of masculine behaviour – a behaviour that is traditionally still expected from the boy before he is considered to be fully a man. While I have long delved into the question of the "gay sensibility", this is neither a trip down memory lane nor a retreat into the stereotyped suck-and-fuck paradigm. I'm positioning myself as an ironic spectator of this world of men ripped from the daily headlines where the 19th century notion of a romantic friendship is kicked into the gutter. With titles like “Trailer Trash Terrorism”, “Behave Work Obey”, “Yes I Will Yes”, “Cell Block Bitch”, “Ash(And)Tray”, and “Shhh . . . (How to Conduct a Successful Interrogation – Lessons 1-20)” this is not a series of works intended for the faint of heart.

  Cherry-picking at will from mutually exclusive sources - the morning headlines, the official record of 20th century art, the signs and signifiers of the gay male underground – has allowed me to explore the spaces between these charged relationships. What I do with this series is the opposite of aestheticize the gleaming muscleboy or explore the romanticism of male bonding. It is old news that the male body continues to be a provocation; ironically, a critique of masculinity has gone largely unexplored. Herein lies the challenge: it furthers the proposition examined in much of my work that it should be possible to be simultaneously hot and sweaty and critical and detached. It is desirable – even exhilarating – to question the givens of our cultural baggage while at the same time allowing ourselves to be wrapped in its brawny arms.

  Work # 864: The Nature of God” allows that the rigour of discipline often morphs into the disciplinarian running amok. Notwithstanding the fact that this work has been described as ‘the water-boarding piece’(which is an interpretation that I don’t dismiss), it is a multi-image cum-soaked force-feeding enacting either the predetermined choreography of an arcane sexual ritual or the resolution of cold-blooded revenge. That’s up for you to decide; it’s September and (reform) school is now in session.  

3

The seven rows of deceptively random, densely packed, brightly coloured and seemingly arbitrary numbers that completely fill the 76.2x101.6 cm (30”x40”) picture elude easy interpretation. The clue to unlocking the meaning of this secret code is somewhat revealed by the presence of “Untitled Self-Portrait #49 (Nine Readings)” along the bottom edge of the image. With study the apparent randomness resolves into a series of dates and medical readouts, and carnival-coloured though it may be and written in the language of numbers that only cardiologists would love at first sight, it is a work perhaps at its most personal and exposed because it addresses my own mortality.

  As a darkly witty attempt at wresting control away from the terrors of aging, “Work # 842: Untitled Self-Portrait # 49 (Nine Blood Pressure Readings) Old/Sick #01” (2012) is a work that grudgingly acknowledges my being granted a visa to enter the Republic of Oldmanland. After being diagnosed with a heart condition that required a surgically-implanted stent to open a dangerously blocked artery close to my heart, and thus narrowly avoiding a probable fatal cardiac event, a six-month stint in cardio rehab was mandated. It’s not without a sense of irony that the author of this self-portrait fails to appear in any recognizable form. (A target blood-pressure reading should be anything below 140/90. During the period when this piece was being put together the high point, so to speak, was 181/114. This was moving into stroke territory.) At the most recent annual meeting with my cardiologist there was no mention of me as a person but the evaluation was based entirely on my numbers. All of my numbers were below the desired targets. My electrocardiogram numbers looking good; my blood pressure numbers look good; my heart rate numbers look good; my cholesterol numbers looked good . . . With only having to rely upon minimal medications and lots of walking and a decent diet I’ve been given a clean (if slightly diminished) bill of health; so there.

  There’s obviously a difference between quiet introspection and narcissistic self-admiration, between mindfulness and histrionics, between documenting an experience after the fact and being the experience itself. There’s something charming about the humbled expressions on the faces of tourists posed in front of a wonder of the natural or built world that moved them to such a degree that total strangers were asked to document the memory of what they just witnessed compared with the more than too many sensitivity-challenged grinning idiots in front of a death camp episodes. Every moment, every experience, is reduced to having the same value as every other moment and experience. There’s something desperate and needy, something deeply anti-intellectual about not understanding the importance of an insightful experience because it’s been clouded by auto-infatuation. Karl Ove Knausgaard states that “only a poet would see the difference between poetry and poetry that resembles poetry [and] you were constantly on the verge of the insight that what you were doing actually had no value.” A quick search of Google for answers to “why I hate selfies” produced 6,090,000 results. This makes plausible the fictional encounter of a selfie taken in the Sistine Chapel where photos and video are forbidden: “God is right next to ME and he’s sticking his finger in my ear LMFAO!”

4

As a piece of conceptual art about the state of art as art “Work # 937: April 5, 2015 (My Bedroom)” a 101.6x76.2 cm (40”x30”) is a mound of trash made up of dirt, and dust, and dog hair, and dead leaves swept up from my bedroom floor. Aside from everything else, it is perhaps a rather too gentle commentary full of Duchampian disdain for two unfortunate trends – the sentimental pining over disaster and decay and the hauling-piles-of-rubbish-into-gallery-spaces-and-calling-it-baroque practice among those armed with freshly-minted but pointless MFAs. (As an aside, does it need to be pointed out the Baroque was a reactionary response that arose at the behest of the Vatican in its counter-assault against the Protestant reformation? Then as now, reactionary times foster reactionary art.) Even though it’s tangential to the fact that if you go all squinty-eyed over this pointedly ugly pile of crap it begins to resemble the face of some hominid-like thing, it is a self-portrait in all but name. Notwithstanding a nod to Quentin Crisp’s brilliant fib that after five years the dust doesn’t get any deeper, the work operates against a backdrop of darker cultural significance as one that confront ageism – the last acceptable form of bigotry allowed to be voiced openly across all sectors of society, but most pointedly and shamefully within the art world itself. (Given that one of the edits from the Kapsula writing workshop hosted by Gina Badger made reference to grumpy old men merely reinforces my contention in this regard.) The allusion to everything else that had been set aside resides in the visually whispered text “My Bedroom”, embedded in the centre of the photograph; grounding itself as a self-deprecating auto-assault and a psychological marker of loneliness and depression and its power to destroy.

  It’s not for the lack of an alternative that I’ve expropriated control over a formal studio portrait from my boyhood and claimed it as my first self-portrait, repurposing it as my profile pic on various social media sites. It’s assumed the photograph was specifically chosen by my parents from an extended session; they saw something in my pose – The slight sneer? The slight arch of my brow? The ramrod straight haughtiness? – that foretold that this little boy from the late 1950s was never destined to be the archetypal man in the grey flannel suit.

  Over the course of the past number of decades I was the little boy in the iron lung who survived most of the ravages of polio; made it through years of vicious and violent teenaged bullying almost unscathed; escaped the genocide of AIDS by sheer dumb luck when living in New York City throughout the 1980s and ‘90s while thousands of my peers were dropping like flies; watching helplessly as my partner of twenty-five years went from robust, burly masculinity on our wedding day to a shriveled corpse after six months of being eaten alive by cancers so ravenous he didn’t stand a chance; but was finally nearly taken out by a silent genetic predisposition beyond my control. It’s the missing pieces implied by ‘surviving most of’, ‘made it through’, ‘escaped’, ‘watched helplessly’ and ‘nearly taken out’ that are the seeds from which my art has be able to sprout.                                                             BRUCE EVES September, 2015

As a visual artist, Eves has been influenced by the theoretical issues raised by performance and conceptual art. This has been supplemented by experience as art director of the New York Native, chief archivist for the International Gay History Archive (now part of the Rare Books and Manuscript collection of the New York Public Library, and assistance programming director of the Centre for Experimental Art and Communication (CEAC).

Work # 950: From Birth to (Near) Death and Back Again – In Four Parts was published in the November 2015 issue of Kapsula.

[barbaraboatright]

The Difference Between Art and Design

Thanks to the digital era, a brand’s reputation has never been more important. Today, consumers have the luxury of choice in unprecedented ways, from countless food delivery and ridesharing apps, to social media platforms and mobile devices. In this environment, brands’ core values play an ever-greater role in deciding whether a customer completes their purchase and returns in future.

For example, imagine a brand that offers fantastic products and brilliant service, but pays its staff below the minimum wage. Or a store that sells wonderful clothes –made in sweatshops that exploit their staff. Or a YouTube video showing less-than-stellar customer service getting far greater reach than any ad campaign. These cases have become surprisingly common, frequently hitting news headlines and publicly damaging reputations, value and success.

A question of business ethics Business ethics increasingly top the list of reasons consumers choose to spend their money or time with a brand. Why? Because ever since the early 2000’s, consumer trust has taken a turn for the worse and appears to be continuing its downward spiral. The annual Edelman Trust Barometer shows that public trust has fallen off a cliff. And it’s not just brands, the Government, media, public figures, politicians and CEOs are have also seen a loss of public faith.

That’s hardly a surprise given today’s political and media climate, where fake news and false promises are heard more often than the truth. The dishonest behavior of trusted companies or individuals led to the 2007 financial crisis, Volkswagen emissions scandal, the PPI scam and the latest tax avoidance scandals seen in The Panama Papers. Starbucks and Amazon have even seen a dent in their brand reputation thanks to their inability to pay the right amount of corporate tax.

Brands need to work harder than ever to convince consumers that they are worthy of their time and money. Given the abundance of choice, customers aren’t afraid to switch. Research from Accenture found that 54% of customers switched service providers in the past year, citing frustrating customer service as the top reason (64%).

The Difference Between Art and Design The subject of what separates art and design is convoluted and has been debated for a long time. Artists and designers both create visual compositions using a shared knowledge base, but their reasons for doing so are entirely different.

Some designers consider themselves artists, but few artists consider themselves designers.

So what exactly is the difference between art and design? In this post, we’ll examine and compare some of the core principles of each craft.

This is a subject that people have strong opinions about, and I’m looking forward to reading the various points of view in the comments.

This post isn’t a definitive guide, but rather the starting point for a conversation, so let’s be open-minded!

  GOOD ART INSPIRES. GOOD DESIGN MOTIVATES.

Perhaps the most fundamental difference between art and design that we can all agree on is their purposes.

Typically, the process of creating a work of art starts with nothing, a blank canvas. A work of art stems from a view or opinion or feeling that the artist holds within him or herself.

They create the art to share that feeling with others, to allow the viewers to relate to it, learn from it or be inspired by it.

The most renowned (and successful) works of art today are those that establish the strongest emotional bond between the artist and their audience.

By contrast, when a designer sets out to create a new piece, they almost always have a fixed starting point, whether a message, an image, an idea or an action.

The designer’s job isn’t to invent something new, but to communicate something that already exists, for a purpose.

That purpose is almost always to motivate the audience to do something: buy a product, use a service, visit a location, learn certain information. The most successful designs are those that most effectively communicate their message and motivate their consumers to carry out a task.

  GOOD ART IS INTERPRETED. GOOD DESIGN IS UNDERSTOOD.

Another difference between art and design is how the messages of each are interpreted by their respective audiences.

Although an artist sets out to convey a viewpoint or emotion, that is not to say that the viewpoint or emotion has a single meaning.

Art connects with people in different ways, because it’s interpreted differently.

Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa has been interpreted and discussed for many years. Just why is she smiling?  Scientists say it’s an illusion created by your peripheral vision. Romantics say she is in love. Skeptics say there is no reason. None of them are wrong.

Design is the very opposite. Many will say that if a design can be “interpreted” at all, it has failed in its purpose.

The fundamental purpose of design is to communicate a message and motivate the viewer to do something.

If your design communicates a message other than the one you intended, and your viewer goes and does something based on that other message, then it has not met its requirement. With a good piece of design, the designer’s exact message is understood by the viewer.

  GOOD ART IS A TASTE. GOOD DESIGN IS AN OPINION.

Art is judged by opinion, and opinion is governed by taste.

To a forward-thinking modern art enthusiast, Tracey Emin’s piece “My Bed”, which was shortlisted for the Turner Prize in 1999, may be the height of artistic expression.

To a follower of more traditional art, it may be an insult to the medium. This goes back to our point about interpretation, but taste is more about people’s particular likes and dislikes rather than the message they take away from a piece.

Design has an element of taste, but the difference between good and bad design is largely a matter of opinion.

A good piece of design can still be successful without being to your taste. If it accomplishes its objective of being understood and motivates people to do something, then whether it’s good or not is a matter of opinion.

We could go on discussing this particular point, but hopefully the underlying principle is clear.

  GOOD ART IS A TALENT. GOOD DESIGN IS A SKILL.

What about the creator’s abilities?

More often than not, an artist has natural ability. Of course, from a young age, the artist grows up drawing, painting, sculpting and developing their abilities.

But the true value of an artist is in the talent (or natural ability) they are born with. There is some overlap here: good artists certainly have skill, but artistic skill without talent is, arguably, worthless.

Design, though, is really a skill that is taught and learned. You do not have to be a great artist to be a great designer; you just have to be able to achieve the objectives of design.

Some of the most respected designers in the world are best known for their minimalist styles. They don’t use much colour or texture, but they pay great attention to size, positioning, and spacing, all of which can be learned without innate talent.

  GOOD ART SENDS A DIFFERENT MESSAGE TO EVERYONE. GOOD DESIGN SENDS THE SAME MESSAGE TO EVERYONE.

This really falls under the second point about interpretation and understanding. But if you take only one thing away from this article, take this point.

Many designers consider themselves artists because they create something visually attractive, something they would be proud for people to hang on a wall and admire.

But a visual composition intended to accomplish a specific task or communicate a particular message, no matter how beautiful, is not art. It is a form of communication, simply a window to the message it contains.

Few artists call themselves designers because they seem to better understand the difference. Artists do not create their work to sell a product or promote a service. They create it solely as a means of self-expression, so that it can be viewed and appreciated by others. The message, if we can even call it that, is not a fact but a feeling.

  WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Depending on how you look at it, the difference between art and design can be clear-cut or hazy. The two certainly overlap, but art is more personal, evoking strong reactions in those who connect with the subject.

  By: John O’Nolan

This article first appeared in Web Designer Depot.  |  Image credit: Pixabay

    The post The Difference Between Art and Design appeared first on Akimi Technologies.

from Akimi Technologies http://ift.tt/2yzYy0d

[haulix]

The ongoing need for a music media revolution

For the better part of the last decade I have spent up to fourteen hours a day staring at phone and computer screens in hopes of writing something people would want to read. Sometimes I have found success and other times I have not, but through it all one thing has remained unflinchingly true: Getting paid for writing well is incredibly hard. It doesn’t matter if your article or blog post got an artists signed or convinced several hundred people to buy a record they otherwise wouldn’t have given a minute of their time, unless you play by a very specific set of rules, you are going to have a hard time making anything other than memories as a digital music writer.

This makes no sense. Hundreds of thousands of people around the world, if not more, read music news online every day. Maybe they check out tour dates, or maybe they watch music videos when they should be working, but they all rely on people like me and my many writer friends to create content for them to consume. We, like many journalists struggling to pay bills in the digital age, feel there should be a way to harness their need for content to create profitable careers.

If you’re a reader and not a writer you probably assume advertising keeps your favorite site online, and that may be true, but depending on the size of those sites the income received from ads can vary from pennies to thousands of dollars per month. When that money is not enough to cover costs, and it usually is not, many sites will turn to marketing companies that supply paid content for the site to run in return for a few extra bucks. Some companies will pay sites $300 or more per month to run a handful of articles with links and SEO terms intended to help a third party company get more notoriety. Sometimes the content these companies provide is false, or at least incomplete, but in order to get paid the content must run more or less as it was received. Publishers agree to this because they, like their writers, need more to stay afloat.

When publishers find themselves in positions where they are entirely dependent on advertisers and/or paid content they inadvertently hinder their publication’s ability to grow (and by grow I mean cultivate more readers, increase digital reach, and generally raise their level of notoriety). Writers are no longer allowed to cover what they believe is important until they have met whatever agreements they have with their financiers. They are also unable to be as honest in their writing as they would like to be if their publisher believes a negative comment or review might cause advertisers to stop working with them. It’s not uncommon for a site or magazine to choose not to cover and album or event because someone at the top of the company food chain believes negativity may scare away potential advertisers. It doesn’t matter if that negativity is based on fact or if an opinion is honest because money is the ultimate deciding factor in what content gets published.

The restraints placed on writers do not stop at saying whether or not something is worthwhile. Many writers, myself included, have also been encouraged to place less importance on discovery articles because new (unknown) talent doesn’t drive clicks or ad sales. It doesn’t matter if the person you want to cover is the greatest songwriter of their generation or the next act to sell out Madison Square Garden until advertisers feel the same way. It’s a completely backwards approach to covering the best of what’s next, but it’s unfortunately become the norm. Publishers would rather cover artists who have found a way to make themselves known without the support of their magazine, and then hop on their hype train, rather than helping establish the talent’s identity in the first place because it’s more cost-effective to be a follower.

A perfect example of this approach to publishing in action is the career of Chance The Rapper. I cannot think of rap writer who hasn’t been following Chance for four years or more, yet many of the biggest outlets only started covering his career within the last 24 months. The reason for this is not a lack of pitching from writers, but rather a perceived lack of interest from people who negotiate ad sales. Online publications can be far more flexible than print, as all writing is often viewed as potentially good ‘content’ as long as it brings in clicks and doesn’t take too much time away from assigned articles. But you have probably noticed that is also beginning to change as the fragmentation of how and people consume media is more splintered now than ever before with no signs of reversing anytime soon.

And don’t get me wrong,the relatively recent burst of new ways to consume news and opinion is legitimately amazing. We are more interconnected now as a global species than at any other point in recorded history. The ability to express ideas to anyone willing to listen has never been easier or more accessible than it is at this very moment, which is why it is so important that we develop methods and platforms that allow writers of all varieties to find and tell the stories that really matter rather than the ones tied to someone’s click-generated bottom line. The corner of the internet populated by entertainment news and opinion may have been born from fandom before it was considered a business, but for countless writers, editors, site founders, and photographers around the world it is a full-time job that lacks any ability whatsoever to guarantee a return for time invested.

I wish I could tell you that I had a solution. For many months I’ve talked to friends and colleagues about these issues, and to be honest we haven’t made much progress towards finding a reasonable solution. Though we all yearn to see some shift in the respect and recognition given to those who cover the increasingly vast world of entertainment so everyone else can stay on top of what’s new we have long learned to not hold our breath. Things have gone from bad to worse, with the rates for advertising in all forms falling as the competition for those ads grows, and through it all thousands download software that prevents what ads publications can run from even being seen (and therefore helping the site).

Our culture seems to understand that following Star Wars on Twitter and calling yourself a supporter is not the same as buying a ticket to actually see a Star Wars film. Yet many do not understand the same logic applies to the sites and writers who deliver up to the minute Star Wars information on a daily basis. The same can be said for music, sports, or any other form of entertainment. Our culture demands access to the things we love 24/7, yet people seem to believe the people who service that demand don’t deserve much, if any, recognition. Even if a writer breaks a major story there is little to no credit to be found, in part because anything that goes viral is copied, screenshot, or otherwise duplicated and spread without any ties to its source. Remember ‘The Dress’ debate of last year? Buzzfeed was the source of that discussion (they found it on Tumblr), but as the picture went viral the person behind the photo didn’t seem to matter. I’m not saying that author deserve a pulitzer or anything of the sort, but some kind of recognition for creating a topic of global conversation should be given to them.

I’m not saying that every writer deserves minimum wage. The vast majority of people creating content online can barely string together sentences, let alone do so without more than one or two grammatical errors. That said, for those of us who have done the work required to be proficient in writing there needs to be an alternative to what we experience in the job field right now. Getting paid anything is a miracle, and getting paid enough to not have a side job is starting to sound like a feat equal to spotting a Sasquatch. We get the journalism we deserve, and by that I mean we get the journalism we deem worthy of our support. If you know a writer or a group of writers whose work you enjoy and want to see more of then you need to help us, the writers, find a way to continue creating without having to worry about whether or not our words will eventually leave us bankrupt. We can built a better future for everyone, but in order to make it a reality we must work together.

If you want to start supporting writing right now you can always contribute directly to the author of this post through PayPal: http://bit.ly/supportjames

James Shotwell is the Digital Marketing Manager for Haulix. He is also a professional entertainment critic, covering both film and music, as well as the co-founder of Antique Records (RIP). Feel free to tell him you love or hate the article above by connecting with him on Twitter. Bonus points if you introduce yourself by sharing your favorite Simpsons character.

[nofomoartworld]

Hyperallergic: Censorship, Not the Painting, Must Go: On Dana Schutz’s Image of Emmett Till

Dana Schutz, “Open Casket” (2016), in the 2017 Whitney Biennial (photo by Benjamin Sutton/Hyperallergic)

The presence of blackness in a Whitney Biennial invariably stirs controversy — it’s deemed to be unfit or not enough, or too much. The current Whitney Biennial is no exception — the art press has been awash this past week with reports of a protest staged in front of a painting of a disfigured Emmett Till lying in his casket and a letter penned by an artist who called for the work to be removed and destroyed. The painter is Dana Schutz, a white American. The author of the letter is Hannah Black, a black-identified biracial artist who hails from England and resides in Berlin. The protestors are a youthful coalition of artists and scholars of color. The curators being called on the carpet are both Asian American. Debates about the painting and the letter rage on social media, to the exclusion of discussion of the many works by black artists in the show, most notably Henry Taylor’s rendering of Philando Castile dying in his car after being shot by police. This multicultural melodrama took a rather perverse turn on March 23, when an unknown party hacked Schutz’s email address and committed identity theft by submitting an apologia under her name to the Huffington Post and a number of other publications; it was printed and then retracted. Up to now, none of Schutz’s detractors have addressed whether they think it’s fine to punish the artist by putting words in her mouth.

Henry Taylor, “THE TIMES THAY AINT A CHANGING, FAST ENOUGH!” (2017) in the 2017 Whitney Biennial (photo by Benjamin Sutton/Hyperallergic)

I would never stand in the way of protest, particularly an informed one aimed at raising awareness of the politics of racial representation, a subject that I’ve tackled in various capacities for more than 30 years. A group of artists staging enraged spectatorship before an artwork in a museum strikes me as an entirely valid symbolic gesture. A reasoned conversation about how artists and curators of all backgrounds represent collective traumas and racial injustice would, in an ideal world, be a regular occurrence in art museums and schools. As an artist, curator, and teacher, I welcome strong reactions to artworks and have learned to expect them when challenging issues, forms, and substance are put before viewers. On many occasions I have had to contend with self-righteous people — of all of ethnic backgrounds — who have declared with conviction that this or that can’t be art or shouldn’t be seen. There is a deeply puritanical and anti-intellectual strain in American culture that expresses itself by putting moral judgment before aesthetic understanding. To take note of that is not equitable with defending whiteness, as critic Aruna D’Souza has suggested — it’s a defense of civil liberties and an appeal for civility.

I find it alarming and entirely wrongheaded to call for the censorship and destruction of an artwork, no matter what its content is or who made it. As artists and as human beings, we may encounter works we do not like and find offensive. We may understand artworks to be indicators of racial, gender, and class privilege — I do, often. But presuming that calls for censorship and destruction constitute a legitimate response to perceived injustice leads us down a very dark path. Hannah Black and company are placing themselves on the wrong side of history, together with Phalangists who burned books, authoritarian regimes that censor culture and imprison artists, and religious fundamentalists who ban artworks in the name of their god. I don’t buy the argument offered by a pair of writers in the New Republic that the call to destroy Schutz’s painting is really “a call for silence inside a church”; the vituperative tone of the letter hardly suggests a spiritual dimension — not to mention that the biblical allusion to silence in the church seems to come from a Corinthians passage about requiring women’s submission and obedience! I suspect that many of those endorsing the call have either forgotten or are unfamiliar with the ways Republicans, Christian Evangelicals, and black conservatives exploit the argument that audience offense justifies censorship in order to terminate public funding for art altogether and to perpetuate heterosexist values in black communities.

At the Whitney, a protest against Dana Schutz' painting of Emmett Till: "She has nothing to say to the Black community about Black trauma." http://pic.twitter.com/C6x1JcbwRa

— Scott W. H. Young (@hei_scott) March 17, 2017

Black and her supporters argue that the painting is evidence of white insensitivity; that a “painting of a dead Black boy by a white artist” cannot “correctly” represent white shame; that it’s an example of an unacceptable practice of white artists transmuting black suffering into profit; that white artists who want to be good should not treat black pain as material because it is not their “subject matter”; and that Emmett Till’s mother made her son’s dead body “available to Black people as an inspiration and warning” (my emphasis). The mainstream media’s “willingness” to circulate images of black people in distress is equated with public lynching. Despite attempts by her supporters to suggest that Black doesn’t really want to destroy the artwork, she recommends this explicitly in her opening line. The insistence that white people cannot understand black pain and only seek to profit from the spectacle of black suffering is reiterated throughout.

It is difficult to reason with the enraged, but I think it necessary to analyze these arguments, rather than giving them credence by recirculating them, as the press does; smugly deflecting them, as museum personnel is trained to do; or remaining silent about them, as many black arts professionals continue to do in order to avoid ruffling feathers or sullying themselves with cultural nationalist politics. (As a commercially successful young black artist once confessed to me over dinner, “My dealer says collectors don’t want to hear about my problems.”) Hannah Black’s letter can and should be unpacked separately from an interpretation of Schutz’s painting as a painting, or as the expression of a white person’s sentiment.

Black makes claims that are not based in fact; she relies on problematic notions of cultural property and imputes malicious intent in a totalizing manner to cultural producers and consumers on the basis of race. She presumes an ability to speak for all black people that smacks of a cultural nationalism that has rarely served black women, and that once upon a time was levied to keep black British artists out of conversations about black culture in America. Her argument is laced with an economically reductionist view of artistic practice and completely avoids consideration of the visual strategies employed by Schutz. Some of her supporters assert (without explanation) that abstraction in and of itself is illegitimate for representing a traumatic figure, a claim that ignores key 20th-century aesthetic debates about the problems with realistic depictions of extreme violence.

Kara Walker, “A Subtlety” at Domino Sugar Factory (photo by Hrag Vartanian/Hyperallergic)

Furthermore, in her letter, Black does not consider the history of anti-racist art by white artists. She does not recognize that the trope of the suffering body that originated in Western art with the figure of the Christian martyr informs much representation of racialized oppression — by white and black artists. She does not account for the fact that black artists have also accrued social capital and commercial gain from their treatment of black suffering. Numerous black artists have depicted enslaved bodies, lynched bodies, maimed bodies, and imprisoned bodies in the early stages of their careers — and then moved away from such politically charged subject matter without having their morality or sense of responsibility impugned. Others, like Kara Walker, who delve into complicated racial fantasies that are tinged with abjection or eroticism, have been on the receiving end of character assassinations by black people who find the work disrespectful or prurient and claim to speak for “the community.” Whether Black intends it or not, her dismissive treatment of Schutz’s painting, her essentialist position on black and white racial identities, and her use of offense as a rationalization for censorship reinforce elitist and formalist views that ethical considerations don’t belong in the aesthetic interpretation of art.

The authority to speak for or about black culture is not guaranteed by skin color or lineage, and it can be undermined by untruths. My 25 years of teaching art have shown me that a combination of ignorance about history and the supremacy of formalism in art education — more than overt racism — underlie the failure of most artists of any ethnicity to address racial issues effectively. Many young black artists harbor deep insecurities about their capacity to “represent the race” because their Eurocentric art education leaves them with few tools or references to work with. Only a privileged few hail from socially engaged families committed to exposing their children to black art, history, and cultural traditions. They also face intense social pressure from teachers, peers, and art world power brokers not to “rock the boat” with political discussions about race. I myself was once grilled at a job interview by the white male search committee chair about whether I agreed with black artists’ criticisms of Kara Walker — which I understood immediately to be the litmus test of my acceptability at an elite institution.

As a teacher I’ve been privy to dozens of confessions from students of color at elite art schools who have been scrutinized and intimidated by visiting artists, professors, and peers if they’re perceived as obsessed with race or overly concerned with politics. I’ve been screamed at by frantic students who are afraid of calling themselves “black artists” because arts professionals have warned them not to do so. While elite art schools deploy tokenist inclusion strategies to create the impression of diversity, they actively avoid revising curricula and discourses of critique; the end result is that they produce artists and curators who lack formal opportunities to engage with critical race discourses and histories of anti-racist cultural production. In the absence of informed discussion, we get unadulterated rage.

The July 23, 1964 edition of Jet magazing, which featured the photographs of the murder of Emmett Till. (via Pinterest/jetcityorange.com)

Hannah Black claims to know more about black suffering than Schutz, but her treatment of history could use more accuracy and depth. She claims that Mamie Till wanted her son’s body to be visible to black people as an inspiration and a warning; however, according to Emmitt Till’s cousin Simeon Wright, who was with him the night of his capture and attended his funeral, Mamie Till said “she wanted the world to see what those men had done to her son” (my emphasis). There was no exclusion of non-black people implied, nor was it a deviation from the custom of having an open casket. That casket was donated to the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture by Till’s family to be on view for all, not just black, people. Scholar Christina Sharpe’s assertion in an interview with Hyperallergic that if no white people attended the funeral, no whites were supposed to see the casket doesn’t hold. The trial of Till’s murderers was filmed and shown widely, as were photographs of his funeral. Those photographs galvanized the Civil Rights Movement: activist leaders strategically and adeptly circulated them to encourage blacks and whites in the North to join the struggle, and in order to shame politicians by casting doubts on America’s adherence to its democratic ideals.

My mother, a Cuban immigrant, arrived in New York shortly before Emmett Till was murdered in 1955. She was not physically present at his funeral, but saw pictures of him in the casket and learned about his death from the news. She was so appalled by the violence that she never got over it. She talked to me about the Till case throughout my childhood and refused to let me or my brothers visit the Deep South. She was a pathologist who performed hundreds of autopsies, but the image of a disfigured Emmett Till in the casket left an indelible mark on her memory as the archetypal representation of American racism.

Black claims that Schutz’s painting is yet one more example of white representation of black suffering as an exercise in commercial exploitation. She also suggests that such representations cater to a morbid fascination with black death that she associates with lynching as a public spectacle. It is undeniable that reality TV shows lionizing cops in pursuit of an endless stream of black and brown men are extremely lucrative for their white producers. It’s also true that there are plenty of examples of simplistic and fetishistic representations of black bodies in Western art and advertising. However, it is reductive and inaccurate to claim that all treatment of black suffering by white cultural producers is driven by commercial interests and sadistic voyeurism. Black overlooks an important history of white people making anti-racist art, often commissioned by Civil Rights activists.

That history extends back to 19th-century abolitionists who used photographs of the branded hands and scourged backs of slaves to denounce the inhumanity of slavery and to target white audiences in the North. It includes the works made by white artists Paul Cadmus and John Steuart Curry, who drew and painted blacks struggling against white mobs for the 1935 exhibition An Art Commentary on Lynching, organized at the behest of the NAACP in support of its anti-lynching campaign. It also includes Charles Moore’s and Danny Lyon’s celebrated documentary photographs of police brutality toward black Civil Rights activists that circulated among white people at home and abroad, and helped push a reluctant US Congress to pass Civil Rights legislation. It encompasses the Minimalist sound piece “Come Out,” composed by avant-garde musician Steve Reich in 1966 for a benefit for the Harlem Six upon the request of a Civil Rights activist. Reich’s piece consists of a looped sound recording of Daniel Hamm, a young black man in Harlem who was a victim of false arrest and police violence. The speech fragment repeats his explanation of how he turned his physical suffering into spectacle, making one of his bruises bleed visibly so that the police would finally take him to a hospital.

In citing these examples, I do not mean to suggest that all artistic representations of black oppression by white artists and all curatorial efforts to address race are well intentioned, or that they are all good. However, the argument that any attempt by a white cultural producer to engage with racism via the expression of black pain is inherently unacceptable forecloses the effort to achieve interracial cooperation, mutual understanding or universal anti-racist consciousness. There are better ways to arrive at cultural equity than policing art production and resorting to moralistic pieties in order to intimidate individuals into silence. Indeed, the decolonization of art institutions that Black’s supporters claim to want entails critical analysis of systemic racism coupled with a rigorous treatment of art history and visual culture. Arguing that Schutz’s painting must be destroyed because whites aren’t allowed to depict black suffering, blaming Schutz for capitalizing on the entire history of racist violence in America, suggesting, as some have done on social media, that she’s tainted by having collectors who are heartless real estate developers, while ignoring the work by a dozen or so black artists in the biennial is not going to advance anything.

Over the past 40 years, critics, cultural historians, and artists themselves have devoted a good deal of attention to the problems they see with such exhibitions as Harlem on My Mind, The N*gger Drawings, and “Primitivism” in 20th Century Art and such white artists as Rob Pruitt and Kelley Walker, whose treatments of black subjects have been deemed exploitative. Black British artist Isaac Julien and art historian Kobena Mercer first gained international attention in the 1980s for their critical analysis of white artist Robert Mapplethorpe’s depictions of black men, launching an extensive debate that eventually resulted in Mercer altering his original stance to acknowledge more complexity and complicity in interracial relations within gay subcultures. My point here is that reasoned assessment involves more nuanced evaluative criteria, ones that do not essentialize racial identity, impute intent, or ignore the way distinct cultural forms hold differing degrees of power when it comes to racial relations.

The impact of an individual artist’s single, non-mass-produced artwork is qualitatively and quantitatively different from the coercive power of an advertising campaign or a Hollywood blockbuster, and to discuss their effects as if they were the same is hyperbolic and unjust. True, Dana Schutz did not create her painting at the request of Civil Rights activists — however, the fact that she was stirred to resurrect the image of Emmett Till’s open casket is a sign of the success of the Black Lives Matter movement in forging awareness of patterns of state violence by politicizing the deaths of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Freddie Gray, Tamir Rice, and others. The specter of Till’s death at the hands of the Ku Klux Klan lingers behind these more recent deaths at the hands of the police. Though six decades apart, the circulation of images from these tragedies serves the same function — and sadly signals how little American society and race relations have changed. That is not what mainstream public education teaches American children, and it is not what white liberals would have Americans believe. Schutz is stepping out of line with the dominant culture in underscoring the connection.

Schutz has stated clearly that she never intends to sell the painting, so there is little evidence that she’s seeking to enrich herself by it. Artists, myself included, often explore what troubles them for reasons other than personal gain — and if I want an art world that can handle more than pretty pictures and simplistic evocations of identity, I understand that I will have to support not only difficult subjects but clumsiness and mistakes. Though Schutz is not known for painting works about social issues, her inclination to respond to a heightened awareness of violence and injustice is hardly unusual and not inherently opportunistic; other white artists have changed their approach and focus in times of intense social unrest.

The Art Workers’ Coalition “And babies” (1969) has been described as “easily the most successful poster” opposing the Vietnam War. (photo via Wikipedia)

Philip Guston, “Untitled (Poor Richard)” (1971) (photo by Benjamin Sutton/Hyperallergic)

Philip Guston, for example, dropped abstraction in the 1960s and began making eccentric renderings of Klansmen and cartoons lampooning Richard Nixon. The Art Workers’ Coalition created the iconic, antiwar “And Babies” poster by reframing a news photo of the Mai Lai Massacre featuring dead Vietnamese people killed by US soldiers in 1969. Robert Gober, not known for an ongoing commitment to racial issues, produced what he saw as a commentary on white guilt by juxtaposing a white sleeping man with a black hanged man in a 1989 lithograph — and generated a similar controversy to today’s when black employees at the Hirshhorn Museum, where it was exhibited, protested. Hannah Black demands that all whites wallow in shame about racist violence against blacks, but in the case of Gober’s work, his attempt to represent white guilt did not prevent a protest. And despite that protest, Gober sold his piece to Harvard University, whereas Schutz has pledged not to sell hers at all.

The most perplexing criticism that’s been bandied about regarding Schutz’s painting, both on social media and in discussions I’ve had, is that some great harm has been inflicted by the act of abstraction, as if the only “responsible” treatment of racial trauma is mimetic realism. Strangely, though Henry Taylor’s painting of Philando Castile is no more realist in its rendering than Schutz’s, he’s been left alone by protesters. I would have liked to think that the days of Black Arts Movement militancy were long gone, but it seems that for some, they are not. There was a time when political correctness in black art was linked with realist aesthetics and didacticism, but it’s been widely since recognized that this stance led to the marginalization of black abstractionists. Masters such as Romare Bearden, Bob Thompson, and Alma Thomas, and even contemporary abstractionists like Jennie Jones, have bristled at the notion that authentic blackness must be equated with realism and that black art must be subject to sociological approval before being evaluated aesthetically.

Alma Thomas, “Apollo 12 ‘Splash Down’” (1970), acrylic and graphite on canvas, 50 1/4 x 50 1/4 inches (courtesy Michael Rosenfeld Gallery LLC, New York, NY)

There’s a fundamental misunderstanding at work in damning abstraction by associating it with erasure and irresponsibility. Abstraction, like mimeticism, is an aesthetic language that can be interpreted and used politically in a range of ways. It doesn’t necessarily mean erasure, but it does complicate the connection between perception and intellection — something that deeply thoughtful painters like Gerhard Richter have taken advantage of in order to make us reflect on how photographic images represent history and structure memory. Jacob Lawrence “abstracted” his black figures, not to obscure their humanity but to explore new ways of evoking ethnic identity and communal purpose through color and dynamism. The story of how the CIA championed Abstract Expressionism at the height of the Cold War to counter Socialist Realist propaganda is well known; however, abstraction can also be mandated by religious beliefs or, in the repressive contexts of many authoritarian states, serve as a rejection of narrow-minded populism. Perhaps the best argument in favor of abstraction was articulated by Theodor Adorno after the Holocaust, when he asserted that realist representations of atrocity offer simple voyeuristic pleasure over a more profound grasp of the horrors of history.

Whether or not we like the painting or consider it her greatest work — I do not, but think it still has value — Schutz’s decision to refract an iconic photograph through the language of abstraction has forced the art world out of its usual complacency and complicated the biennial’s uniformly celebratory reviews. She has, perhaps inadvertently, blown the lid off of a biennial that features an almost too perfect blend of messy painting, which appeals to conservatives, and socially engaged art, which appeals to the more politically minded. As far as I’m concerned, that’s not such a bad thing, given the ghastly state of American political culture at this moment.

The 2017 Whitney Biennial continues at the Whitney Museum (99 Gansevoort Street, Meatpacking District, Manhattan) through June 11.

The post Censorship, Not the Painting, Must Go: On Dana Schutz’s Image of Emmett Till appeared first on Hyperallergic.

from Hyperallergic http://ift.tt/2nZKfxd via IFTTT

[sam1meta]

Have you Optimised Your Business Model?

by ALAN GLEESON

This is Part I of a three part series. Read Part II and Part III.

What is a business model?

A business model is a description of how your business intends to operate and make money. At the most basic level, it involves a producer making something and selling it directly to customers at a profit (but this simple model has propagated into numerous diverse models in recent years).

Alexander Osterwalder, co-author of the book Business Model Generation, defines a business model as:

‘… a description of the value a company offers to one or several segments of customers and of the architecture of the firm and its network of partners for creating, marketing, and delivering this value and relationship capital, to generate profitable and sustainable revenue streams.’

The development of a business model is essentially a strategic perspective rather than an operational assessment, and focuses on how you capture value i.e. it includes a description of the value proposition. Deciding upon a business model becomes particularly important as a concept when it is not a simple ‘make and sell direct‘ model and you are looking to create value through a non linear route.

The Business Model – An Introduction

In days of old, business was arguably a lot simpler; you produced something and sold it for a profit, building up a good reputation over time so as to ensure ongoing patronage. Before the industrial revolution most sales were essentially local, and you had a much greater steer on competition, demand levels and pricing. You probably sold your products directly to consumers as the butcher, baker or candlestick maker.

Fast forward 200 years and business has changed considerably. A lot more creativity is needed to get noticed in a time-pressed world (not to mention in making a sale). You are probably facing global competitors, and in many instances a widely dispersed audience who are increasingly difficult to reach in a cost effective manner. As a result, numerous alternative strategies have emerged to get your product to market, safely into the hands of the consumer and business model innovation has become increasingly popular.

“Companies that put more emphasis on business model innovation experienced significantly better operating margin growth (over a five-year period) than their peers.”

Source: IBM Global CEO Survey

Mark Johnson, author of ‘Seizing the White Space,’ agrees about the benefits, arguing that:

“Business model innovation is the key to unlocking transformational growth–but few executives know how to apply it to their businesses.”

In many respects the emergence of business model innovation started with Gillette and razor blades. They worked out that if they sold the razor at low cost, consumers would happily pay for the blades. Given the resultant switching costs and customer inertia, the result was often a lifetime of patronage (despite the fact the initial transaction was a loss-making one for the producer). In essence, by providing something at below the market price (the razor); you can create a market for a secondary product (the blade) upon which you make ongoing profits. A second characteristic of the model was that the mark-up on the secondary products were often disproportionate relative to their cost so were highly profitable for the manufacturer. Anyone who has had to buy replacement ink cartridges will bear witness to this!

A trend in recent years has however been the growth of companies (often Web 2.0 ones) with uncertain business models. Take Twitter, for example:

“Twitter has become an influencer in the way information is shared around the world. But while its immediacy, transparency and simplicity offer answers about all things both newsworthy and mundane, one big question about Twitter has gone virtually unanswered: how it plans to turn a profit.”

Source: CNN article (July 9, 2010)

Of course, the big challenge for the likes of Twitter, Facebook and other social media sites is that attempts to monetise come at a number of costs, often the privacy of the user and their ability to use the service without interruptions from third party advertisers. Monetising a free service invariably degrades the experience for the customer and hence companies need to walk a fine line as Facebook found to its cost in recent months.

Thinking about your business model

If you are an entrepreneur starting a new business, it is very important that you consider a number of different business models as it is possible to derive revenues from a range of different sources at various stages of the product’s lifecycle.

Businesses can also operate hybrid business models. For example, newspapers make their money from a mix of advertising revenue and the price they obtain for the newspaper. As we have seen in London, models can change over time as the value of certain portions of the business increase in value; for example, the Evening Standard newspaper is now given away free every evening (hence relying solely on advertising income to sustain itself). As U.S. Cambridge, U.K. -based entrepreneur Doug Richards proclaims:

‘One may start a business with the idea that one will sell a product to customers only to discover that no one will pay for it, but they will accept it when it is provided for free. When that’s the case, advertisers may pay for the production and distribution of the product.’

In essence, business models are essentially dynamic as new opportunities can emerge at various points on the value chain. Sticking to the newspaper industry, the dominant online business model for many years was free online content supported by advertising. However, the commercial viability of such a model is not sustainable (most sites lose money) and this tactic also results in lost sales as some people substitute a free digital copy for a physical paid one. The Times in the U.K. has recently changed its model to a ‘paid for’ access one – whether they can make it a success is debatable, given the fact so many free substitutes are only one click away!

Uses for business models

1. Starting a new business If you are starting a new business (particularly an Internet-based one) and are seeking investment, the business model will be an important element of your business plan. Any prospective investor will be very keen to understand your business model clearly i.e. how you intend to generate cash, and whether it appears that you can do so profitably.

2. Innovation and product design Business model innovation enables you to take a holistic view of the business to assess unique opportunities that exist outside of innovation solely on the product side. Business models also jump industry so it is a good idea to keep a breast of innovative business models you come across (regardless of the context). One simple (yet common) form of innovation is deploying business models from another industry in your own. As Mark Johnson claimed in ‘Reinventing your Business Model’:

“Business model innovations have reshaped entire industries and redistributed billions of dollars of value.”

The low cost business model pioneered by the likes of Irish airline, Ryanair (replicating the Southwest Airlines model) is now becoming more popular in the hotel industry, for example, where costs are being reduced significantly and entire business models are being reassessed. The CitizenM hotel in Amsterdam airport, in the Netherlands is one such example; staffing levels are far below industry averages as customers are forced to self serve.

“We looked at every process to see where we could streamline,” says Michael Levie of the new hotel chain. “Building costs and personnel costs are the biggest outlay for hotels. So we have no reception or restaurant staff. And the construction is modular. Our hotel rooms are designed as fully fitted units that can be stacked one on top of the other. This way, we’ve managed to reduce the construction time to ten months, saving on costs.”

Over time as new technologies emerge inefficient business models get displaced. One good example is the music industry. While the primary driver of the value is the musician, the actual value created is dispersed in numerous directions as the following post illustrates:

Does a CD have to cost $15.99?

$0.17 Musicians’ unions$0.80 Packaging/manufacturing

$0.82 Publishing royalties$0.80 Retail profit

$0.90 Distribution$1.60 Artists’ royalties

$1.70 Label profit$2.40 Marketing/promotion

$2.91 Label overhead$3.89 Retail overhead

(Source: Almighty Institute of Music Retail)

The value dispersion is instructive and hence it is not surprising that digital delivery of music (disintermediating the distributor) would emerge as a more compelling business model. The launch of the iPad and the growing popularity of devices such as the Kindle are also likely to drive the take up of a new digital orientated business models for the book industry.

3. Creating Revenue Streams As I mentioned in the opening sections some Internet companies struggle to monetize their customer base. Their business model is effectively parked as a trade off to attracting ‘users’. The logic here is simple; if you offer a free service you remove the biggest risk or barrier to new prospects. Once you have significant volumes of users you can then create a business model to monetise this large user base. Similarly, in the gaming industry ‘free to play’ has been a popular model where users play the games for free but pay to acquire virtual goods be it tools to play the game better e.g. buying weapons or multiplayer access.

4. Competitive Analysis A traditional means to assess the attractiveness of an industry was to undertake strategic analysis using the methodology prescribed by Michael Porter in his Five Force Analysis. His core argument was that these following five forces determine the competitiveness of an industry and hence its attractiveness:

The threat of the entry of new competitors

The intensity of competitive rivalry

The threat of substitute products or services

The bargaining power of customers (buyers)

The bargaining power of suppliers

Understanding businesses from a business model perspective can also be extremely instructive as you can build up a narrative regarding how companies perform certain activities to gain a clear understanding as to their strategies. Using this in tandem with Porter’s Five Forces will give you a good sense of the competitive landscape which can then help you decide on the optimal strategy to pursue and also to preempt competitive threats.

About the Author: Alan Gleeson is the managing director of Palo Alto Ltd, the UK division of Palo Alto Software.

Business Model vs. Business Plan

by ALAN GLEESON

This is the third of a three-part series. Read Part I and Part II.

A business plan is essentially a more detailed version of your business model. A business plan has been traditionally understood as a physical document, although increasingly this view has changed as business plans have migrated online. The business plan format very much depends on the context and business plans are often verbalised via presentations where a presenter pitches their business plan to an audience. Business models are more likely to take the form of either simple verbal descriptions or one page visual representations which can either be produced before a business plan or as part of the same planning process.

Alexander Osterwalder, co-author of Business Model Generation, agrees with the link, arguing that:

‘..when you have designed and thought through your business model you have the perfect basis for writing a good business plan.’

It is also worth noting that there are increasing numbers of business plan critics who argue that their composition is too time consuming and that people need ‘to get building’. Some of this criticism has come from software developers (many of whom are proponents of the Lean Start-up Methodology).  I personally feel their arguments are a little simplistic and that entrepreneurs need to map out a viable business model and a business plan in tandem. I also think that the arguments are more valid in an Internet business context, where it is relatively easy to bootstrap a low-cost website which can be used for feedback and constant iterative development.

you are looking to build a new business and are about to draft a business plan, you should also spend time working out your optimum business model as well as drafting a visual representation of it.  You can use the following framework to map same. In recent years there has been significant innovation in the range of business models, and some of them may be of relevance to your offering. Finally, it is also worth noting that some business models such as the Internet bubble model have largely had their day. Very few investors will invest in businesses these days that have advertising at the heart of their business model.

Resources

Articles

Reinventing Your Business Model (Harvard Business Review, December 2008) by Mark W. Johnson, Clayton M. Christensen, and Henning Kagermann

No Plan Survives First Contact With Customers – Business Plans versus Business Models by Steve Blank

Free Content as Marketing, Not Business Model by Tim Berry

How Business Models Help Generate Business Plans by Alexander Osterwalder

Virtual Goods: the next big business model by Susan Wu

A New Framework for Business Models (Harvard Business Review) by Mark W. Johnson (2010)

Business Model Innovation –the new route to competitive advantage (IBM)

Books

Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers (2010) by Alexander Osterwalder and Yves Pigneur.

Getting to Plan B: Breaking Through to a Better Business Model (2010) by J. Mullins & R. Komisar

Business Models for Content Delivery: An Empirical Analysis of the Newspaper and Magazine Industry by Marc Fetscherin and Gerhard Knolmayer (2004)

ReWork: Change the Way You Work Forever (2010) by Jason Fried & David Heinemeier Hansson

Harvard Business Review on Business Model Innovation by Harvard Business School Press

The Four Steps to the Epiphany by Steve Blank  (2005)

Free: The Future of a Radical Price by Chris Anderson (2009)

Competitive Strategy by Michael Porter (1980)    

Seizing the White Space: Business Model Innovation for Growth and Renewal by Mark W. Johnson (2010)

Tools

The Business Model Canvas is a great outline you can use to map your business model.

Videos

How to Choose a Business Model by Roan Lavery

The New Business Model by Guy Kawasaki

Websites

The Business Model Innovation Hub (Exchange knowledge on business model innovation)

Trendwatching.com (Stay abreast of business model innovations)

This is the third of a three-part series Part I: Have you Optimised Your Business Model?

Examples of Well-Known Business Models

by ALAN GLEESON

This is the second of a three-part series. Read Part I and Part III.

The following are some examples of business models that are used by various businesses. The list is by no means exhaustive and is designed to give you a feel for some of the models that exist (business models evolve constantly).

In many instances, the names can vary as they are not typically universally defined.

The Add-On model

In this instance, the core offering is priced competitively but there are numerous extras that drive the final price up so the consumer is not getting the deal they initially assumed. If you have recently tried to buy an airline ticket or car insurance, you will have spotted that the number of extras you are offered can almost reach double figures!

Article continues below advertisement

The Advertising model

The advertising model became popular with the growth of radio and TV where the TV stations earned revenue indirectly from people looking to promote services to the audience they attracted, rather than via consumers paying radio and TV stations for the consumption of their TV programmes.

Some Internet businesses derive revenue predominantly as a result of being able to offer advertisers access to highly targeted consumer niches (often in the absence of revenue from selling their goods or services).  So if your website is about a narrowly defined topic, it is likely to attract a highly defined niche audience who could be offered complimentary products or services with a higher probability of success than blanket mass market advertising.

However, this business model is increasingly difficult to justify if it is your main revenue stream. For a start, the landscape is extremely competitive and advertisers are spoilt for choice. Building brand awareness and translating that into site visits is a very difficult and costly challenge. Successes such as Facebook are very much the exception to the norm.

If this model is being considered for your startup, it is worth noting that nowadays most savvy investors ignore ‘vanity metrics’ such as Page Impressions/Visitor numbers and want to understand whether the underlying business proposition is profitable. Examples such as YouTube illustrate how hard it can be to monetise free content even when you have significant visitor numbers. In short, this model is in decline for most businesses.

The Affiliate model

An affiliate is simply someone who helps sell a product in return for commission. However they may never actually take ownership of the product (or even handle it). They simply get rewarded for referring customers to a retailer when they make a sale.  Again this business model has been a huge success given the ease with which the Internet facilitates it.

The Auction model

The auction model is synonymous with eBay, these days, but of course auctions have existed for hundreds and hundreds of years.  The tulip market in Amsterdam is one of the more famous examples. There are numerous different types of auction, from English, to Dutch, Vickrey, Sealed Bid, etc., and they all share certain characteristics: the price of the good is not fixed; each individual assesses the value of the good independently; final value is determined via competitive bids. This business model has become very popular in recent years as the Internet has helped to broaden its appeal.

The Bait and Hook model

This is essentially the razor blade analogy listed above, where disproportionate amounts of the value are captured on components, refills and the like. Anyone who regularly buys ink cartridges for printers will recognise this model where customer lock in and switching costs result in monopolistic pricing on the component side. The mobile phone business also grew rapidly on the back of this model as handsets were often supplied free of charge when you signed up for a contract. Nowadays with SMART phones, such is the level of demand for some that consumers have to pay hundreds of pounds for the phone and in many instances minimum contracts are 18 months.

The Direct Sales model

While direct selling was initially the primary ‘route to market’, production efficiencies coupled with improvements in transportation meant producers could reach a much bigger market and this resulted in the pre-eminence of the retail distribution model for many years.  However the emergence of the Internet as a distribution channel meant that producers could disintermediate costly resellers and sell direct to customers themselves, in effect going the full circle. The PC manufacturer Dell is a great example of a company who is very focused on the direct sales business model.

The Franchise model

Opening a franchise is essentially buying a working business model in a particular industry. You pay royalties for the privilege but get access to a winning recipe, a support network and an established brand. Two famous franchise business models are McDonald’s and Subway.

The Freemium model

This is where the business gives away something for free in return for your personal details so they can then market to you and hope to build up a relationship so that you buy from them in the future. It is typically used in service-based businesses where the lifetime value of the average customer is high and is increasingly popular with Internet services such as Spotify, Skype, or Flickr. Many of these offerings have similar cost structures where the marginal cost of serving an additional customer tends towards zero. The core free offering then acts as a gateway to the paid service. For example, with Spotify, the free version comes with adverts, the paid does not.

The Internet Bubble model

At one point, ‘unique visitor’ numbers to a site had a large perceived value. Many businesses offered free Internet services and businesses were valued on the basis of potential rather than underlying profit and loss metrics. There are still remnants of this today, and some spectacular examples like Twitter.com, where the notional valuation of the company is considerable even though existing revenue streams are negligible.  The actual business model is in effect getting lost in the media hype and proliferating user numbers, and it is more a case of ‘figuring the business model out at a later stage’ than up front. Naturally this is a highly flawed strategy and rarely works.

The Low-Cost model

The low-cost model can be summed up in one word: ‘Ryanair’. This is an extremely well established business model, where the aim is to drive significant volumes of customers (at a low customer acquisition cost) and by charging a very low price. In return, revenue is earned from a whole host of ancillary sources – these include:

Bank card charges                                                                                          

Advertising on seats

Lottery ticket sales

Flight insurance

Selling train tickets

Priority seating

Extortionate charges for excess baggage, reprinting a boarding pass, etc.

‘Preferred car hire rates’

The model is not simply about trying to extract a whole myriad of extra cash from consumers, but also configuring every single aspect of their business model so as to drive out cost. Examples include buying oil futures to manage oil price fluctuations, having destination tourist boards pay for newspaper advertising, having staff pay for their own uniforms and training, and so on.

The Pay as You Go model

With this model actual usage is metered and you pay on the basis of what you consume.  Some mobile phone contracts operate on this basis i.e. the user can buy a phone card which gives them credit. Each call is metered and the credit is reduced as the ‘minutes’ are consumed (in contrast to subscription models where you pay a monthly fee for calls).

The Recurring Revenue model (Subscription model)

With the recurring revenue model, the aim is to secure the customer on a long term contract so that they are consuming your product or service well into the future. Given that the cost of customer acquisition can be high, retaining customers is a primary goal for most businesses. It is also becoming synonymous with ‘subscribing via direct debit’.  Most utilities providers operate under this model. Magazine publishers have also been looking to expand this portion of their business for some time, offering heavy discounts to subscribers (who buy all issues directly), rewarding them over individual discrete purchases (bought on an ad hoc basis from various third parties).

The Somali Pirate Business model!

Business models do not just apply to legitimate businesses as this post, The Somali Pirates’ Business Model by Mark Leon Goldberg illustrates!

As the above illustrates there are numerous business models that can be considered and the number is growing on a regular basis. For example in the gaming industry alone, David Perry, COO of Acclaim Games Inc list 29 business models for games that he is familiar with