Selectively Utopian (Or... Small Content Creators Are The Redshirts Of The 21st Century)

I finally figured it out... People that share files and have this moral attitude that they are doing nothing wrong are not just misguided or using the technology to justify a arguably questionable act, They are just Star Trek fans!

They are trying to force the first steps of a Roddenberrien vision of the future where there is no money, there is no work other than what you do to better yourself and here is the good part... Technology has advanced to the point were all basic human needs are met at zero cost. 

Relevant Utopian Points of a Star Trek future:

1. Energy is essentially free
2. Food can be "replicated" using the free energy
3. Living space and shelter is free (somehow)
4. People create art because they can, not out of a need to earn a living from their talent
5. All human knowledge, entertainment and information, is freely accessible to anyone

So, we have the beginnings of point 5... without any of the other points to support it! What I think people who share files are basically doing is putting the IDEA of intangible media having no monetary value before the needs of the real people that still depend on the income from that content!

The file Sharing community is fond of repeating mantra like "Information wants to be free" well I think I have coined the perfect response by saying that what they are are proposing is a "Selective Utopia"!

They want certain obtainable elements of a futuristic utopia without other supporting elements that make it all plausible to a working society, and they are willing to sacrifice the well being and rights of other human beings in order to get those first elements.

They want the parts of the "perfect future" that they can have now even if that will cause hardship and difficulty to the very people trying to create interesting, unique, or simply new content for them because the other parts of the "perfect human utopia" are impossible with our current technology. I honestly think some of them understand this but instead of being sympathetic or trying to find a interim solution, it is simpler to blame large media companies and and ignore the very existence of small, independent content creators because that causes a moral dilemma for them.

In other words, they see us as expendable, much like a poor guy who made the poor choice to wear red on the day he got picked to beam down with the lading party. Problem is, I don't think this will be a reversible trend and I don't think these attitudes will be "undone" once the war with "big media" is over. How will new art be supported in the future? Good question. Its one that doesn't seem to be getting asked... let alone answered.

I have never had a problem with file sharing really,  I do have a problem with the growing lack of respect for the talent of the people that create content. It seems to get worse as time goes by. I am fearful that recorded music, photography, programing and other inherently digital skills will just be seen as valueless in the future, and thats sickening if you understand how much effort can go into becoming good at those things. I don't want file sharing to end... I just want it to grow with a healthy respect for the content being shared and to find ways to support new and unique artist... I realize this is likely a pipe dream at this point but I keep trying.

There is apparently a movement going on to grow file sharing, to legitimize it. The idea being that if enough people do it then it become the legal standard. That makes sense, I am betting it will happen in some form, but I am afraid the people pushing for this haven't really thought it out, at least from the viewpoint of a small independent content creator.

If enough people buy into the idea that they should not have to pay for intangible media, many people stand to loose their livelihood. This goes for photographers, musicians, illustrators, programers, writers, filmmakers, painters, anyone whose work starts out or can eventually be converted into ones and zeroes. 

Sometimes its only a portion of their livelihood, but it could be the difference between being able to continue to create art or not being able to continue to afford the costs associated with it. In any case, taking income away from hard working people that may need it to survive or to continue making the art that others enjoy.

We are not just talking about huge record labels and movie studios here... The same technology that has given rise to file sharing has also empowered artist and programers worldwide to take charge of their own destiny.

The concept of "Pro" and "amateur" is as outdated as the CD and SoundWarehouse. If a person can make $1000 a year off their photography then by god they should $1000 a year off if and don't let ANYONE call them a hobbyist. When was the last time any of us had a job for more than 2-5 years? If Someone can make music for the rest of their life and sell a few thousand downloads a year then its likely that music may end up being the single highest grossing job they will ever have regardless if they never have a "HIT".

That is of course if people continue to apply any value to recorded music...

We may all just end up living in a selectively utopian world and such a person just ends up working extra shifts at the Sack-N-Save because they can't yet heat their house with free power or replicate free food to feed their kids.

Art takes time and effort, it has value. If it is eventually delivered in a digital form... that dosen't mater! If you make a copy you still are receiving the VALUE when you enjoy the work that was done. If the Content creator offers a digital file for free. GREAT! I do, and I will continue to. But if you are asked to support the art by paying a licence... well, until the time that we have invented dilithium reactors, food replicators, and transporters, you have an obligation, especially to independent content creators.

You could say that the way the file sharing community is currently implementing the progression of the march towards their Selective Utopia, Will end up possibly  permanently denying any hope of a Artists Utopia in the foreseeable future.

(Note about the art: The image of The Mona Lisa in a red Star Trek uniform that you see at the top of this post was created especially for this article. I then uploaded it in its basic form to see if it would spread across the internet and to see for myself how often I was credited, linked to, or to see how often the watermark was removed. "Red Shirt Mona Lisa" or "Star Trek Mona Lisa" has traveled far and wide, so far, I haven't come across anyone selling T-shirts made from the art or anything like that, and mostly I have been happy that people leave the watermark. Every once and a while someone will link back to the original or even spends a few moments to find me and ask before using it... So it has been interesting. And, trust me the fact that it is a modest manipulation of one of the worlds most famous paintings is not lost on me. I don't usually do mash-ups, I strive to be as original as I can. So, I find the fact that it has caught on amusing, hopefully others do also).

More Amazing Short Film

This one comes from a  man named Shane Acker. He and his cohorts have created a very dark and twisted dystopia... in miniature! 

Many of you who know me understand I have a fascination with the minuscule. Mr. Acker builds a strange place from the broken, rusted, discarded gimcrack of the world we know, and somehow in that landscape of heaped refuse, something resembling life has taken hold using that same junk as raw material for itself. Of course, wherever there is life, there is struggle...

Behold "9"

*Warning* turn down your volume if you are at work.... its out of context, but the creator started the film with some "distant badly recorded sex cries" I think its supposed to  set a mood of discomfort... It's only faint at the beginning but I didn't want anyone to get in trouble.

Beautiful enough in its own right... A feature length film based on this short is in the works. I hope they don't loose what is good about it in extending it, but I am sure they will get my money regardless.

Why Maurice Sendak Puts Kid Characters in Danger

I am so glad I was not off base with the thinking of this wonderful creative man. He pretty much is every bit as cool as I have always imagined him to be.

Get to know him through his own words.

Why Maurice Sendak Puts Kid Characters in Danger : NPR

A Conversation with Maurice Sendak : NPR

I few things I found interesting...

He says that he doesn't write for children. 

He called the "current" Mickey Mouse a fat whore.

He works at night... like me. : )

Child psychologist Bruno Bettelheim warned that parents should not allow children to read Where the Wild Things Are because it would frighten them too much.

"Childhood is a tricky business," Sendak says. "Usually, something goes wrong."That theme got him into trouble with adult critics in the past, but he’s not worried about how his younger readers will react."Kids," he explains, "are so shrewd."

My already massive respect for this him just grew even more.

Where the Wild Things Is As Dark As You Are... or were.

On message boards around the globe the battle rages on about a mature minded movie involving what its like to be a child, made from a children's book containing adult concepts like the balance of love against anger and being in control of ones own destiny.

Many people seem to want this to be an all around "happy" film with no challenging content or themes. The way I read their comments, I think they would be happy if it was along the lines of Garfield or Spongebob Squaqrepants. They clearly don't see the book the same way I always have. I have even read many people complain that the Wild Things in the leaked test (now gone from the internet) were not smiling like they are in the book!

Holy crap! They think the beasts in the book are smiling! Grinning would be more like it large toothy grins, but mostly they are barring their teeth. Sometimes cracking what might be called a smirk. I mean, they threaten to eat him because they love him so much. : P

Some others in these threads try to point out that the actual words found in the book are not exactly "nice". But people seem to insist that the Wild Things are the 1960's equivalent of Mike and Skully from Monsters Inc. (I love Monsters Inc. btw but Its a different "beast") They call them "cute" and "cuddly". Good God are they missing the mark. I hope they didn't ruin those great characters for their kids by reading the book to them in a "baby talk voice"

I Imagine the parental censorship going something like this...
"They woared their terrwible woars, wolled their terrwible eyes, mooshed their terrwible teeffhies, and showed their terrwible softy-wofty paws."

"They cried, Oh please don't go, we love you so! We'll eat...er kiss you on your belly welly!"

Ugh.

Anyone really looking at the art and reading the content should see that it is not a "cute" story. Its supposed to be a bit on the edge, without crossing the line. Max is an angry boy. He is frustrated, a bit out of control, and he is trying to deal with his anger at being punished. When he "runs away" what he is doing is working through his problems with his imagination. The wild things ARE his dark side! At least that is my take on it... It seems so clear to me and It's quite brilliant really.

In addition to its simple and elegant story, Maurice Sendak's art in the book is stunning and I can say with no hesitation that it was one of the things that influenced me to pursue my creative abilities. I am a bit subversive, dark, and spooky myself... coincidence? Only somewhat, I am sure I was drawn to the book because of those budding aesthetics in me, but all kids NEED influences that cover a full spectrum of tone. Spooky, joyful, wondrous, dire, playful. Just giving them one "flavor" of life is cheating them and not giving them the tools to deal with the dark uncomfortable feelings they may already have. Children can understand a lot, we just don't give them credit for it. Maybe the fact that I got my hands on a dark and creepy little book about a bad little boy that imagined being the king of the Wild Things helped me work through some of my problems.

Maybe some kids out there need a equally powerful film about that same boy to help them with their problems.

So I guess what I am saying is if you had a happy go lucky childhood, or choose to deny yourself access to those dark feelings you had as a child, then the monsters were smiling... for the rest of us, they were "gnashing their terrible teeth" in an attempt to keep the rage under control. If you grew up like I did, constantly feeling under attack and in danger, you may be more interested in the Spike Jones version... in the same way that the original work by Maurice Sendak was more than just a cute little book to me when I was a kid.

Mr. Sendak gave me a tremendous gift back then... he showed me how to escape.

Where The Wild Things Are film... Laugh or cry?

I just learned of this a few minutes ago and it was a bit of an opinion roller coaster...

Doc learns:
Someone is making a film of his favorite childhood book Where The Wild Things Are
Immediate Response: Yes!
Slightly delayed response: Oh no... what if they don't honor the art or story

Doc learns fact #2:
Its a Spike Jones film
Immediate Response: Yes!
Slightly delayed response: Wait a minute... that could be bad, or could be good. Better look for pictures...


Immediate Response to image: No! No! No! Its never ending story 2008! please "random deity" NO! *sobbing ensues*
Slightly delayed response: Sure its live action, sure those are guys in big furry suits, but it still kinda looks cool. *sobbing ceases*

Doc learns fact #3:
The creatures are lovingly crafted by Henson studios
Immediate Response: Yes! If anyone can pull it off they can...
Slightly delayed response: But can they do it without inserting themselves into the designs? The beasts of WTWTA have a look that is very unique and classic, the same can be said for Hensons creations, problem is, muppets usually LOOK like muppets. Even ones not supposed to, like Yoda for example.

Doc learns fact/rumor #4:
The whole thing is getting killed. Warner Brothers is considering reshooting the entire film, fireing Jones and the writer Dave Eggers so they can rework it as a much more "Kid Friendly" film
Immediate Response: That never sounds good, Studio executives tend to think of kids in the lowest common denominator. The EXACT thing I loved about the book when I was a child was that it WAS subversive! It did make me feel like I may have some power or control over my own destiny, at least in my imagination. Children are smarter than anyone EVER gives then credit for, at least some of them are. When you make dumb media for them, you fail to challenge them and thats a tragedy. Please do NOT make a sub par "kid friendly" overly bright and cheery, trend laden, product placement filed, piece of crap in the name of Maurice Sendak!
Slightly delayed response: Eh, It probably would have sucked no matter what... *sigh*

Doc learns fact/rumor #5
Maurice Sendak has been quoted as saying that he loved Jonze and Eggers's script and that it was the perfect approach to the movie and if the movie was not made that way he would prefer there never to be a Where the Wild Things Are movie.
Immediate Response: Yes! Go get them Maurice!!!
Slightly delayed response: Wait a minute... Artist never have any control. Once he signed that paper WB can do what ever the hell they want. Even if thats a film version of Wild Things On Ice! Staring Dorothy Hamill as Max!

I have also just learned that some clips are starting to turn up on the interwebs. Aperantly there may be a fight going on and Spike Jones may be relesing the clips to prove that the film didnt need to be reshot due to tech dificulties like WB has be making souns about.

This is aperantly an early test... thats not the actual actor as Max and thats not his wolf costume, its an off the shelf sheep sleeper they purchased for the test.



That looked pretty cool... man, I don't know about this whole thing.

As I said... I am very conflicted. One thing is for sure... creative decisions about something very precious to me are currently being made by men in suits trying to maximize gross earenings... I hate that.


Updates:
Rumor: Dan Masse / Film Threat says... "I was talking to Roger Ebert about it after he saw the preview - he said it was by far one of the best things he'd seen in the last DECADE."

The internet and its effect on the concept of an original idea

Recently we got a comment on our youtube posting of Coda from a person who seemed pretty upset and claimed that they and another person had essentially made the same film 2 years earlier. By her tone, we felt she was implying that we had seen the film they made and duplicated key elements from it.



Well, for the people involved in Coda we know this to not be the case. Whatever direct influences we had, we were largely unaware of them... well except for rules of the race of course. Old Twilight Zones, Hitchcock, M. Night Shyamalan and other such broad influences, sure, I think were clear about those... but none of us had ever seen a film exactly like what we were quickly writing and we had certainly never seen their film which was never distributed and played once at a film festival in Florida as near as I can tell. We simply would not have had the opportunity.

I still haven't seen their film, but I am taking it on faith that it has some strong similarities. (They seem like nice and honest people after getting to know them a bit) Thats really interesting to me. I have been speaking with the person that made the post and I think I have convinced her that we never saw their film. (they are trying to get it up on youtube, I hope they do I am dying to see it) If it really is as similar as they say, then it will have some interesting social ramifications to me.

Like I told her in a message "I really do understand, I know it must have been shocking to see something that appeared to be a copy of your work. Having done creative work professionally and personally for 20+ years I know that feeling... and Its always disturbing. The internet is only going to make it worse I think. In the past we may have lived the rest of our lives never knowing we did films so similar! But I suspect this is a good thing, It allowed us to meet, have a great story to tell, and perhaps have a few more people seeing our projects because of it."

Will people feel less compeled to create if they feel all the good Ideas are spoken for? what If you have a concept for a film 10 years from now and you search the web wich by that time is overflowing with films and videos from vast millions of people. and you find that in 2011 some person did almost the exact concept withsome friends on handhelds an barebulb 3 point lighting... will you keep going knowing that you will likely get accused of ripping them off?

With so many people making so much media, duplication of ideas is almost guaranteed.

The real answer of course is to not care and ignore the crys of foul... interestingly this is the same answer for both the person that honestly arrived at the concept on their own as it would be for the person that DID steal it. I just don't know if I can "not care" because I really pride myself on supporting the creators of content and just the idea that someone thought I would blatantly steal from someone else would make me ill.

By the way if you haven't seen Coda, and liked it... go give it a good rating. : )

Robot Dreams

I picked a book called Robot Dreams on a whim while I was perusing the graphic novels at a book store last night and I could tell very quickly I held a treasure in my hands. (Good thing I looked between the oversized copies of Batman Eats Lasagna, How To Draw Manga Vol. 44, and Hulk Universe Ultra.)

Every now and then I get ahold of something like Robot Dreams that really effects me.


Find it here

People that know me understand that I don't give endorsements lightly as I find so few things in this world truly special... Robot Dreams has made my list.

Go buy it....