So, good news, imaginary readers, the Working Class Hippie is now officially part of the work-force: an Architect/Urban Designer. Na’ ain’ ‘at somefin’! That’s all for the update, here’s something I wrote while reading urban articles at work until I got a task. Might seem a bit redundant, I’m pretty sure I mentioned the idea of humans being just as evolutionary as other species, but with more complexity, so this piece takes on that idea from another perspective.
“The goal should be to use social/ecological dynamics that are flexible for futures we can’t imagine”
– Chris Reed
The past two decades consisted of Urbanism merely trying to integrate new technologies into its “normal/common” form. With these attempts, and the awareness of needing to be more “green” and environmentally friendly, our “growth” has been hindered due to having more to incorporate. We now know that the future of Urbanism is as complex as any living organism, and not as simple as we once believed as we threw concepts from the sky and forced people to follow them; therefore we need a lot of time until all the forces (of the many schools of thought – each with its own set of pros and cons) balance out, to evolve the city into an organism with its own logic and balanced existence within the ecosystem. This will have to be localized for every region in order to be truly balanced in its existence within nature, rather than a set mold of materials and borrowed standards; it would have to start as an adaptation, and must continue to adapt with the rising technologies to perfect itself. The rush to catch up with the other powers is forcing us into pushing through time while leaving many behind who do, in time, pull us back, as they are left in the dark, not knowing where nor why we are going in a certain direction (I would say the increasing cost of gasoline is a good example, despite the lack of follow-up on the public transportation side).
Colonization has failed to understand locality and mutated the existing architecture and urban habits into imported and misunderstood logic; however, with new technological advances, the adaptation is able to continue, since they can be utilized to more intricately adapt, and the technologies to survive with less environmental impact is available for almost every location on earth.
So based on that quote, I would say that nothing is more flexible than evolution/adaptation.
This adaptation would not only be based on natural forces, but ecological forces, including the forces of society and humanity. The organisms (people) that use the space are just as important as the organism (plants,nature, urban fabric) being affected by it. Natural selection would even be the elimination of that which does not allow our survival, such as bad architecture, poor planning, and technologies that hurt the environment; this already happens naturally within society, with those who threaten the well-being of mankind being shunned away in prisons to preserve the survivability of the species. In a way, all of mankind’s history has been a natural adaptation (leading to an evolution), as every change in the past was in one way or another brought forth via new technologies and discoveries about ourselves and our relationship with the world around us. In other words, adapting to new-found technologies and discoveries are a natural step forward.
Arguments about what is good/bad for our world; what looks nice and what does not; people’s obsession with Kim Kardashian’s bum and those calling bum-groupies silly; are all part of the natural evolution of mankind and our growth in tiny proportions, forming a larger image. While many believe a larger image removes our individuality, truth is, change begins with single units and changes slowly, cascading along the facade of humanity, shifting, breaking, changing color, and the waves created by all the changes are what propel us forward, all due to the tiny inner-workings that make it all happen.
When people discovered that they can cultivate land, they did, and it changed the way we think of shelters. It led to many of the early settlements being near a body of water in order to better sustain themselves. Now that we see green technologies that would help us better sustain ourselves, we should logically adapt and “go green”, since it allows our use of resources to be more efficient, thus allowing us to “last longer” [no innuendo here, move along…]. Greed, I guess, would play a part in preventing this adaptation, in order to maintain income for those with the most capital and benefits from the current systems that should naturally be left out, since they do not help the betterment of mankind anymore. There are discoveries being made about the surroundings we live in (cities, natural resources) that were cut off from Nature in order to maintain the “balanced” system that we are all living in, but these systems (physical and political) are slowly becoming more obsolete and are in desperate need of change, especially since they are proving to be hurtful to nature.
I believe that is how we should be viewing Urbanism right now, and probably for a long time: without the constraints of groups, schools of thought, and conceptual prose, but with logic, and a mind open to understanding the many hands that shape our world. It is an ecosystem and should be treated as one, from the smallest detail to the entire surface of the Earth.
So I found this one lying around in my drafts, and I really do believe in its idea in one way or another, but I’ll just disrespectfully agree with whatever you think, if that’s what your mind likes. Sadly it has been writer’s block this week (especially since I get some nice and beefy poetic ideas, but then forget to write them down somewhere) so I just tossed myself into previous half-done pieces. It was that bad.
Anyway, I hope it’s thought-provoking and interesting to you as it was for me while I was tip-tapping it away on my keyboard. Have fun.
This essay does not support any political side – because politics are games of apes using “civilized” tools -, it merely points out facts and theories to be held over our society as a magnifying glass for an up-down planner’s view of our current situation, and those to come. The purpose is for better-understanding, and critical, deeper thinking before bearing sticks and phones for a demonstration.
After going through a “rough break-up” and the colonization, the Arab world has seen a range of scenes and historical moments in the last century that many other cultures/regions have witnessed over a course of centuries. Perhaps we lagged on a global scale due to our materialistic detachment from the fleeting, rough, yet constant land, or our attachment (emotionally and even physically) to our tribes, or perhaps it is due to our stability in the Islamic times, but we have managed to catch up industrially, again on a global (foreign) scale. Although we had a previous safe and booming nation, our technologies were not technologies as they are thought of in our time. Looking back at our marvels as an Islamic nation, we had green local technologies which worked for us and a society with its own mind and body, almost like a fantasy novel or the eco-friendly, peaceful elf tribe with a grand, majestic leader. But alas, this is being written with a foreign language, using foreign technologies; our ways were not up to par with other, more “advanced” societies. The mud and stone buildings might have been interesting but they were neither slick nor fast enough for the others. Inter-cultural communication was non-existent as most cultures were similar, and we were the second (after the Native Americans) to face the almost-peaceful takeover. The balance in the nation was disturbed, and while that was inevitable, the breakup of the country led to a large difference in resource availability, leading to inter-Levant communications as different powers with different agenda, political interventions, and foreign aids with different agenda. “Are we driven or driving?” is not the question, as we were driven into another direction. Just as ideas spill over each other to create new perceptions and ideas, as well as open and closed doors, being driven has turned our world around and has resulted in many good and bad results.
We were driven by the earth’s humble environment into our current situation, the earth was driven by the sun, the sun was driven… well, then we reach a line where people argue who put what where, so in that sense, it is something out of our reach, so it is out of question, but we are driven by default. However, even as humans, one can say that we are driven by our god or sub-consciousness, again, a “who put what where” situation. That is why, the only things we are (almost) sure of being in control of are our actions, due to our conscious act in most of them. Even though our environment has put our thoughts in our head, we do still have control over what we do with those results.
The thing about our culture (and many religions and regions, as it played a huge part of creating it), however, is that we accept the fact that we are not completely in control. Islam literally means, surrendering control. “Is it a good or bad thing” is up for debate. Then again since the appearance of democracy, or rather “Hollywood democracy”, through globalization we are no longer accepting the fact that we are driven. It is not an easy thing to accept, as we do believe that we are all loved by each of our gods. Nevertheless, breaking away from our culture or from religion in general, while driven by yearning for freedom (as it is fed to us in its glorious box) is seen as a relatively bad deed, as people without religion are seen as people lacking morals. Beliefs are not enough to hold people accountable or trust them as before, people are not becoming more honest about their faith (or lack of it) as we slowly open up to American ideas of freedom. To some it breaks our social fabric into cogs and screws which have no life but only work for a production machine, while to others, the fabric already is restraining, and the democracy brings freedom. One can safely say that the spilling of the idea of democracy is surely to shift the balance, and whole movement of globalization is shifting our scales, we are currently amidst a spill and mix of cultures, and it will take time for the mix to happen. The spill is driven by one side driving into the other, and it has its causes to do so; it is driven to do so by political agendas.
We are all being driven into each other and spilling, and the constant spilling is what gives us the meaning of existence; we are seeking to find the balance born of the war between ideas; to bring the present-at-hand to a ready-at-hand. It was once done with wars and now it is done with propaganda and ideas. We are all units, atoms, that help to make the whole a reality; indicators for the planners of our fate, the drivers of our city. Criminals are suspended so as not to throw the system out of control, the numbers of people and statistics are studied to know how to deal with the change of situation, the residents are provided with “food” and things to keep them motivated. It does seem negative, yet it is the nature of a city, it is even the natural behavior of mammals to stick together and members do their “jobs”. It sounds brutal to the observer, but it is only for allowing certain human tendencies to take control; while we like belonging to something, we also like to be individuals. This contradicts the contemporary products and media which push for special people who save the world and celebrities who have money and live the beautiful life. It motivates people, and the products help make people feel special, but what about the cold truth that we are part of a collective and only contribute simple parts that many can do?
The individuality aspect that people yearn for shines through art and special commodities to display publicly. For the more fortunate it is custom-made objects that give meaning, while for poor people it is art (theoretically). Take Europe for example, where the most renowned renaissance personalities are poor and did their art in the streets or by barely getting by and having support, furthermore, they truly lived the city as a bourgeois never could; they were the “derive” of their time. In our region, collectivity is superior, and those seeking individuality are outcasts; like those with long hair or special fancy cars. The derive are marked as “nawar”. However, the nawar are low-class people with many of their ability hindered by their living situations. Back in the renaissance people could go by, and would not have that many expectations, such as “be a doctor/engineer/architect”. Jordan’s derive have no ability to express themselves, and must do what they can to help the collective and survive. The rest of the country’s classes benefit from having people lower than them to add drama to their lives and anecdotes for colleagues while they live their educated lives travelling in their boxes and avoiding confrontation. However there is the middle class who is currently creating life in the art scene and expressing themselves. While the people in the lower class can make a choice to create art, they are not given the push to create it; they are driven into the circumstances which force them to choose survival over art. Another possible situation that they are driven into is the fact that they do not quite know how to create art, nor do their families see art as something worthwhile as a way to bring food to the table or to maintain a shelter.
Maybe it is all planned, since it is possible due to much psychological, sociological, and scientific advancement. We do have a choice of controlling the drivers below us in the hierarchy, and working on that, we are able to do so. Although it is governed by a “higher power”, we do have a degree of control and responsibility in our positions. We are a system that works together, and we can use our knowledge to fix and add at the right spots in order to make a move in our system. Those who wish for change and those who hold the opposite opinion are two forces we need to keep a pulse fluctuating in the system. The lack of understanding creates a misinterpretation of people and their motives, our renaissance is now, but the mix of contemporary needs for survival and inclusion into society is preventing many generations in certain parts to be left out. The freedom/bohemian feel that we can use to our advantage at our artistic peak is where a huge investment should be put to put people on the same level, before we move into architectural terms to unite our beautiful mix.
Well, this is pretty much a lazy post I guess, I haven’t posted “on schedule” since I couldn’t really find much to talk about. To be honest, I did not want to talk about Gaza, because well this just isn’t the place for wars and that side of politics. Also I’m working on a “Poro Mother” piece, Poros being those adorable creatures from League of Legends, so we will see how it turns out, and I’ll post it here when it’s finished.
So I was having a discussion with a friend of mine, and I thought it was pretty interesting, he makes good points and so do I (I believe so), and I like talking to that friend, we have some nice discussions every now and then. So I’ll just post it because I like to have interesting ideas on here.
Thought you might find this interesting, it’s about art and well about what was “so great” about Andy Warhol (the guy who made a banana as a piece of art). It kinda relates to that sketch you found silly, but yeah, this is a really interesting read (these are all from a reddit thread btw):
[Quoting from a reddit thread]:
“For most of history, artist paint two kind of things: important things (portraits of kings, Washington crossing the Delaware River, etc) and pretty things (flowers, landscape, etc). Starting in the late 19th century, artists began question why can’t they paint whatever they want? Hence movements like Impressionism, Expressionism, Cubism, etc were born. Artists like Jackson Pollock took it to the extreme and created arts that consists entirely of splatters. Pop Artists like Andy Warhol felt they are taking it too far and wanted to create something non-traditional yet meaningful.”
“What “meaning” does 32 paintings of a soup can have? Isn’t it just masturbatory self-aggrandizement?”
“You can look at it as basically a parody of the commodification of art.
For most of history, paintings have been unique objects. Someone painted a painting, and that was the only instance of that painting, and you had to see it in its context. To see the paintings in the Sistine Chapel, you actually had to go to the Sistine Chapel and walk around with clergy in an enormous church, craning your head to the ceiling to see endless panoramas of the transcendant topics that were being passionately discussed there, and that context and location was part of its impact. Erotic paintings were commissioned by wealthy lords of their mistresses and partners and hung in their bedrooms or holiday houses as a major status symbol for their private enjoyment. Portraits of famous figures were hung in palaces and public buildings — for ordinary people, the only time you knew what the King or President looked like was when you went to a government building and saw his face 5 feet tall in a glamorous powerful portrait with dozens of other major figures, and that contributed to its impact and perception. Each artifact was unique, and most artifacts were made for a specific purpose in a specific context that contributed to your experience of it.
But in the 20th century, all of that changed. We entered what people call “the age of mechanical reproduction” — using machines, we can basically perfectly duplicate any image at will an infinite number of times, initially through film and colour printing, then TV, and now obviously we’re all armed with high-res cameras and internet connections 24/7. I could be walking through a field at 5AM, decide I want to see any painting on the planet, pull out a phone and be looking at it within 30 seconds. And this is how most people experience art — images in a book, images on a screen, reproduced prints, if they’re lucky maybe in a museum where it has become an attraction famous for its fame. But virtually never in its original context, and never as a unique one-of-a-kind object.
This changes not only the impact of art on us, but our attitudes towards art. Art becomes commodified — it wasn’t necessarily created as a commodity, but it becomes treated like one, we divorce it from its context and put them in the same context as a billion other artworks, just like products at a supermarket. If you go into a museum, many of the information cards introduce paintings or statues with their price, which is its value measured in the worth of other goods, equivocating Picasso’s La Reve with X number of bananas or Y number of shoes.
And that’s what Andy Warhol did literally: he took an image of a mundane commodity, mechanically reproduced it over and over again, put them all next to each other and called it art, because that’s how we treat art now. And in this way it’s more ‘artistically valid’ than traditional high art, because you’re actually viewing it in its intended context!”
“Or maybe he was having the biggest personal joke at the expense of art snobs ever in the history of the world.
… Or possibly both at the same time.”
I think some of the responses are dumber than a few of the worthless pieces of “art” displayed in lots of museums (I’m no artist, I don’t claim to be an expert, but appreciating beauty, creativity, ingenuity is not rocket science).
1. First of all the simple definition of art is, according to Oxford dictionary: The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination… (Focus on creative and imagination).
So when someone summarizes previous art as “For most of history, artist paint TWO kind of things: important things (portraits of kings, Washington crossing the Delaware River, etc) and pretty things (flowers, landscape, etc)” you can straight away tell that this guy is shit for creativity, imagination, history, ART, and brains, and skip whatever he writes next.
2. I sort of agree with the points others make in the next paragraphs, although the explanation sort of pitches an idea that artists no longer have options to create beautiful pieces. Although some artists do make creative stuff like:
3. Others are simply shit. The explanation made in the paragraphs only help/apply to Warhol’s concept (which is genius in my opinion), they simply don’t apply to things like these <clicky>. Compare that to this <clicky>
To make it more simple, if I ([bad] at art) can create a bad piece, and hire a pretentious philosopher/critic to write some crazy stuff about it, then make headlines about it, or if a 5 year old can create an abstract red line, then this is not art, and claiming that you are not looking at the context of it is simply lazy. Claiming that due to whatever modern technology or modern lifestyle or modern bla bla made you create such a thing is simply lazy. Here is a perfectly good example for that.
There is no art in laziness, it’s called being uncreative, unimaginative, not artistic.
It’s still another angle to look at art pieces: as part of a context rather than as a technical piece and you can’t deny that; whether you agree with its point or if you find it pretty is your opinion. But if it was in fact a conscious act to make people reconsider art, it sure as hell worked. You can say its lazy or whatever, but it did stir something in a society whether for being horribly silly or lazy (as you graciously put it) there is absolutely no need to do something spectacularly in order to be appreciated. So in the end it is only how you appreciate it.
The credibility of these people has absolutely nothing to do with it, they make good points and give you new ways of looking at things. So nitpicking at their words is well… silly really; I only posted their words because they brought a new idea to the table, which I tried to explain to you before: the context of art. Whether someone appreciates it is their own opinion.
You’re making this too complex for no reason, the idea of contextualism is there, everything can be appreciated in one way or another. I honestly don’t care what you personally find nice (no offense), I really just wanted you to see the other way of appreciating art.
That Joan Miro painting, it says it bridges “effortlessly bridging the transition between figurative and abstract art.” but I just don’t see how. But I did find this:
Miró worked with strategies such as automatic drawing (where the hand is allowed to move freely as an extension of the unconscious), Surrealism (which philosophically strove to reveal authentic thought through juxtaposing unexpected symbols and forms), Expressionism (which applies emotional subjectivity to evoke moods or ideas), and Color Field Painting (that meditated on combinations, and or fields of color symbology).
As for an interpretation of Miro’s Etoile Bleue the painting provides just enough information to stimulate the process of interpretation, but the same stimulation resists conclusions and continues to evoke questions.
Through the interpretive resistance of Miró’s artwork we are better able to witness our own processes of interpretation for what they are, reflections and projections of who we are—internally and as a community. And what we find is that who we are is just as unresolved as the image that we meditate upon.
So there you go, there is a way to appreciate it. The moment someone tells you that it sold for a bum-load of money, you try to understand why. Hell, if there was no google, and I wasn’t being lazy, I would have stared at it for a while, too, trying to find a way to appreciate it just because of this conversation. Man, maybe people do this for sport, I would have just stared at it for a long time doing nothing and saying it’s a lady floating to a door that represents the future or something, but yeah, due to its many different ways of interpretation, it just reflects the viewer.
Some could see a sinking ship and that woman is on it, some could see it as a silly scam and a joke, seeing the person buying it for millions as an idiot. Yet at the same time, maybe that buyer sees it as something else, maybe he’s high and sees it as something moving (emotionally or literally), maybe he sees its value as all the controversy that happened over it. Technical trash I know, but there IS a way to appreciate it, whether you do or not is your own opinion. Hell, if you think about it, it kind of reflected how cynical you are.
“There is no art in laziness, it’s called being uncreative, unimaginative, not artistic.”
Punk rock is uncreative if you’re into music, it’s literally just power chords, and is quite unimaginative in its lyrics because it wants to break free of the mold of society. It is pretty damn lazy when it comes to composition, too, if you listen to it. But it is music, and there are people who appreciate it.
Anyway, that’s an opinion, but that kind of painting could be taken as an impulsive expression or something, sure someone could try scamming due to the standards being set (hello music industry), but it could also be an honest expression.
This for example, is also not detailed at all, but look at how beautiful the lines are, and how they create a full image of a face with soft strokes. It’s an expression of beauty so it qualifies for art right?
But the technique? It’s just a few lines! Compare that to old paintings, it’s technically nothing, but that’s the beauty of it. It shows you exactly what our time is. It’s also not very imaginative, it’s just a woman’s face, is it creative? Well… not really what’s new in this one? It’s just a face.
My point is, every single thing can be appreciated in its own right. You see what you want to see in it. It’s a matter of opinion, and it reflects who you are.
“Our neighbor is a potential enemy, as long as we cannot avoid him – but maybe a friend, if the possibility of encounter is provided.”
„Unser Nachbar ist potentieller Feind, solange wir ihm nicht ausweichen können – vielleicht aber Freund, wenn die Möglichkeit zur Begegnung zur Verfügung gestellt wird.“
– Herman Herzberger
I think this is one of the prime problems with Jordan’s design; the lack of contact.
Also, this post contains a degree of generalizing by the way, nitpicks be warned.
If you’ve read any of my previous urban-related work, you’ll know that I’m very much for encounters between people. I believe they really do cause the mending and shaping of culture. Change will only happen when people interact. And I’m sure there are Jordanians who would admit the fact that they do not know nor trust their neighbors, and that they would not talk to them unless they need to.
Furthermore, the ability to hide from people within the comfort of one’s home while being able to gain what they need for survival could further hurt the social fabric of a neighborhood. Kids do not play outside together as often as I remember. I recall the streets being ridden with kids playing with fireworks and football in certain times, and this decline in “kids playing outside” (very professional phrasing, I know) should not be allowed to go on, as kids do really make a lot of the neighborhood’s social fabric, especially when the parents are forced to meet for the sake of knowing who their kids are socializing with.
I think the government should know better and should be designing the city so as to force encounters to happen, and to force them to happen in public, so that they would not be life-threatening. Well this should all, of course, happen gradually while the education system is improved to push people away from violent solutions to problems. However, this “real” world encounter is what causes people’s opinions to change, as they are forced to improvise/react naturally.
Is it on their agenda? Possibly. Even if it were, they would not say, I think people would not like to mix that often, as they do not really trust each other as a people, except maybe in certain areas. But maybe that is why the gas prices are increasing, forcing people to walk to a bus stop more often and thus meeting more people and, hopefully, to interact.
I know this is very idealistic, but I think it’s a goal, and it can only happen when the people themselves resolve their problems so they would be able to get along, probably even creating a smoother economy and trust between people to serve better products; forcing local markets and shops to be more common and a better alternative for people than brand names and imports.
People have to have a general culture to go by that is not led by religion or tribalism or any sect whatsoever, but rather a culture created by the people. This is really why arts should be made and put out in the public realm rather than only in pubs and festivals; so they would become part of people’s everyday lives, and so they could express the streets (the public realm) more accurately.
Yes, I know, people have bigger concerns, but the government should know what to support in order to make things happen.
Whew… Let’s end it with a joke… Oh wait… I guess I already did. Low blow, I know. But I’m trying to hold any reader’s attention span by this point. Oh well.
Are the artists disconnecting from the audience due to them being afraid for their own well-being, or is the audience pushing artists away by being too shy?
Are artists ruining art, or is it the audience?
“I think people have been obsessed with the wrong question, which is: How do we make people pay for music? What if we started asking: How do we let people pay for music?”
-Amanda Palmer (The Art of Asking, TED talks)
Well think about it like this, who would support innovation? Let’s use the metal music community, those who find innovation and the latest Opeth album as absolute trash because it’s not heavy and it does not have any harsh vocals. I guess it isn’t the best example because Mikael Akerfeldt is a genius, but I’m sure Opeth lost some fans and gained others with that album. See the thing is, I think that if the band is not constantly changing then it just becomes stale.
I sometimes record things for fun alone because I composed them and like to remind myself sometimes that I do have some ideas that work and well it just makes me happy. But anyway, my music taste has gained some different influences and sounds, and the stuff that I play and compose for myself sometimes are just completely different. I could say that I grew creatively and broadened my horizon, and well it’s just a beautiful process. Just like my writing grew with time an ended up not needing to resort to using curse words to make jokes (despite that being a @*^!$!% great idea sometimes, especially in text with censorship).
Point is, everything changes and grows, and the moment something is meant to stay put because something forced it to, or because it was a conscious ac, it can become stale. That’s not like saying “OH I’M FORCING MYSELF TO WORK ON THIS DRAWING, IT’S NOT MEANT TO BE” no, dude. No. Discipline to deliver is not passion to create.
I’m talking about the creative process.
This, by the way, really relates to the teaching methods in many architecture schools (well it at least applies to mine). The criticism we get is more of a “ew, what’s that, it’s silly” and “do this” rather than, “since you’re going for this, this might work, and this aspect contradicts your idea”.
If someone makes a decision to make a point, it should not be changed; but rather helped and discussed. Especially in artistic expression. Architecture has its standards, and you really should be aware of mistakes you make, but that should not make you bind your creativity with realism. Mistakes of concept do not necessarily bring in scoffs of “what’s this” as if you’re expected to not know better, followed by a series of “point-lost” conversation, but should rather be understood, and they do not indicate technical mistakes. While composition basics are there for a reason, the breaking and ruination of such basics is what makes a point. It just all has to reflect in the logical rules. So if you are trying to break it, you should do it as best you can.
I pretty much did digress for a while, but having read (and maybe even experienced) all of that, the point might be clear to you. The artist should not be doing something forced for the audience, because while the art is for the people, its delivery of its message via its flawed artist’s ideology is what makes it personal and allows people to connect to it, not its creative method; nobody connects to whether it’s water colors or crayons, they might like the medium, but the personal connection is not done through it (with some different cases of course). If the artist is able to express joy with a wailing instrument to make joy contrast brightly against it, it is doing its job well. It is able to express it. Thus, the audience does not have a say on how it should be, unless the artist wills it. Thus, when money-making pushes how you create music, it hinders the innovation and growth of that art, and could force a compromise out of the artist. Thus, we, the people, should understand that we are disconnecting ourselves from the artists by only wishing things to be done our way when they change styles.
That lack of understanding roles can call for a disconnection between the artists. I guess it is only when people understand why the artist does something, and what their part in the art is, would we be able to support it well enough even without pushing it into a money-making trend.
I have totally lost myself in my thoughts, and I don’t quite know where I have ended up. But I would say it is this:
You make people pay by making what they want without you (as the artist) being involved personally with the product, and you let them pay by making something that you soulfully feel, and them being attracted to your honest expression.
It is pretty flawed as a statement, but I think the general idea kinda makes sense there.
“But Saed, I pirate music”… That is irrelevant.
“But Saed, I don’t pay for my music, nobody makes me”… Yeah because they sell it to the radio stations you hear it on and since you listen to it, you’re helping the radio make money so they could (yep) buy another hit song for you to hear.
Am I right? Well I don’t know I’m probably wrong, it happens. But I enjoy the exploration of the idea in theory so that it would lead to different ideas and strategies later.
…. Yeah I think that says what I want it to say. That is how we are disconnected from the artist. They are only seen as people architecting (yes, you can use it as a verb; “to architect” is a real verb) what we need for our clubs and summers and our “chill-outs”, when they actually cater to the death of individual and emotional relationship to music. Music that does not make its point extremely obvious, like classical music, has an openness to it that allows people to imagine something along with the soundscapes, thus putting themselves in that piece, and they get connected to it mentally by having a piece of themselves (poetically speaking) in it. Kind of like reading books and picturing the characters in your own way.
Whether it’s good or bad is for you to decide for yourself. But the disconnection by blunt and impersonal design is there.
Whose fault is it? Well it is partially us, because we support what we want, and maybe the greed of “make the song in this formula for money” people. Meh.
I just think it’s good to let your brain connect rather than take the easy way out by taking what you’re given.
Just thought I’d share this here, I thought it was pretty good. ^ – ^
Quick thought, why do so many artists sound dry when they post a drawing or something on their blog. It’s annoying, I mean at least be excited about it.
“Hey guys, here’s a new spray on piece of art. I called it Mary. It’s available on print or canvas.” Might as well go on and say, “but none of you will buy anything, because you’re all cheap and unappreciative.”
Anyway, that was me trying to be funny. So here’s the actual sketch (get it? Heh).