Photography is an interesting hobby. Taken to its logical extremes, it causes the artist to see truly spectacular things and almost always be alone while doing it. Photography is about showing an audience how you see the world, and unless you have met someone who sees the world exactly how you do- you will be alone while doing it. I've even seen wedding photographers, surrounded by people laughing, crying and getting married, be completely isolated. Lost in their own world of light, angles and apertures.
I want to take you on a journey of how an idea becomes a photograph. Understand that I'm not a professional. Nobody pays me for anything. On the best days I consider myself to be mediocre. It's important to understand that because what started as a fun, short little blog about photos became much more while I was writing it. Understand that everything I'm about to tell you is coming from an amateur, and a minimally talented one at that. The amount of knowledge, experience and talent an individual must possess to be consider truly great, is exponentially higher than the ramblings you're about to read.
Pre-Shoot
Every photograph starts with an idea. Even simple photos where you grab your friend, hold the camera out and smile starts with an idea. You wanted to document the moment. Maybe to show your friends, or put in an album, or upload to whatever social media site you are using today-but, almost assuredly, will not be using in ten years.
My idea was the same. I wanted to document a moment. I write for gridlockmagazine.com and wanted a photograph of the San Francisco skyline at night to submit. That was the extent of my idea. Literally millions of people take a photograph of city skylines. So, my idea wasn't exactly original. That's okay, there's a reason so many people have the same idea: City skylines look nice.
After an idea is conceived it's important to have the equipment to transfer your idea into something more tangible. I will use an example from National Geographic.
 |
| Property of National Geographic. |
That is a California Redwood tree. It is 1,500 years old and 300 feet tall. It is enormous. But look again...notice how the whole tree is seen. This wasn't some guy who walked by and thought, "That's a big tree, let me take a picture of it." No, this photograph took months of planning. It involves a cleverly designed pulley system that allowed multiple cameras to run up and down, snapping photos, all while the artist was watching on a laptop on the ground. Then those photos were digitally combined into a complete portrait of a three hundred foot redwood, the only portrait of it's kind. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to get this photograph.
Luckily, not every idea needs that much equipment to be fully realized. Mine certainly didn't (remember, nobody pays me for this...). In fact, with technological advancements almost everyone is a photographer now. Every phone comes with a camera inside.
This isn't a blog about camera equipment, merely a comment that the realization of an idea is sometimes impeded by wrong or lack of equipment. I brought my camera and the only two lenses I own, and frankly the only two lenses most of us ever need.
 |
| Nikon D90 with 18-200mm f5.6 |
 |
| Nikon 35mm f1.8 |
The only piece of equipment, other than my camera, I was planning on to realize this idea of mine was a basic tripod for when the light got low. Like the mediocre amateur I am, I forgot it.
The Shoot
This is the only thing most people ever do. Something looks cool, you take out your phone, snap a picture and upload it to facebook. Boom, done. Simple. Never let anyone tell you that there is anything wrong with that process. It is simply, and amazingly, perfect. Furthermore, it is exactly what everyone does. It's normal. That's exactly what this shot is. I pulled up, got out of my car, and snapped. I know, be impressed.
I never expected to show anyone this shot. Almost by default, I delete the first twenty photographs I take of a given subject. Especially because this wasn't my idea. It is not what I envisioned. Sure there's the city and bridges and it's not bad. But it wasn't my idea.
Over the next two hours I will take 156 pictures. The entire time I won't move more than twenty feet from where I parked my car. In fact, for a few exposures I was standing on top of my car. (Car-a valuable piece of equipment for a photographer).
Of course, part of being good at photography is knowing that maybe your idea isn't going to happen. I realized this when I got out of my car and noticed I didn't have a tripod. Ever vigilant (after I remarked under by breath how stupid I was) I pursued on, knowing almost uniformly that what I wanted to happen was now nearly impossible.
After about a half hour of watching the sun go down the sky finally got more interesting. Rarely is the sun a good thing in photos. It is too bright and will come out white more often than not. What you want to wait for, from a photographers perspective, is after sunset. For about an hour after the sun goes down photographers can really shine. (Clever wordplay ftw)
Since becoming interested in photography I've also become something of a secret expert on clouds. See, clouds are interesting. There are many different types, and if you know what you're looking for, they can do amazing things with light.
Notice the photo above. The horizon is actually covered in a thick layer of clouds. They completely block out the sun, almost as if there is a small mountain range out at sea. But then there are the wispy clouds up higher, known in the science world as cirrus clouds. There are also some altostratus clouds in this shot, but now I'm just showing off.
Wispy clouds reflect light. If this photo was taken on a cloudless day all you would see is a slight variation of color along the horizon (normal, sunset type colors) and then solid blue. There would certainly not be any pinks as high as there is now. And to this shot, the pink/orange clouds are vitally important because of how blue the sky is behind them. Blues like orange. If you want a fun experiment google: blue/orange movie posters.
This exposure was made less than twenty minutes after the first but, obviously, it looks quite different. There are, literally, hundreds of decisions someone can make before any exposure. Composition (how everything fits in the frame), aperture (how wide your lens opens), shutter speed (how fast your lens opens and closes), focus, brightness, darkness, and on and on the list goes. Generally, the more a person progresses as a photographer the more decisions they can make.
I took this exposure specifically to see the pink clouds at the top. In a perfect, I-didn't-forget-my-tripod world I would have used a technique called HDR to combine several exposures into one photograph. Basically I would have taken the top third of this photo, the middle third of the photo above and the bottom third of another photo that showed the city in more detail. The idea looks really cool in my head, but I don't have anything to show you. Because I'm stupid.
I have something to say here but let's just look at the pretty colors.
 |
| "God must be a painter. Why else would we have so many colors?" -A Beautiful Mind |
Eventually, the time comes for my idea to be fully realized. The city is alive and the sky looks amazing. However, long exposures are impossible without a tripod. The human hand shakes too much and the whole thing would come out blurry.
But here's part of what I love about photography. It's a game for problem solvers. Problem: I have an idea in my head that I want to show other people. Solution: Take a picture. Secondary problem: I lack the necessary equipment to take a picture and show people what is going on in my head. Solution: Place your camera on a boulder and use a timed delay to take long exposures.
See, look how fun that was! ...Fun for me, we all have our thing. Moving on.
This was exposure number 142 out of 156. It is the closest thing to what I wanted. The environment forced my hand, my forgetfulness limited where I could place my camera and my own abilities dictated how it would all look. At the end of the day, this exposure was never "the one" but I did like it quite a bit.
Post-Shoot
As with any discipline, there are several schools of thought when it comes to photography. A major point of contention with many people is the ability of technology to drastically alter photographs. Some people wouldn't call it photography anymore if I took an exposure and turned it into something like this.
In my mind, it's all art and it seems silly to put down someone else's work because it's not your cup of tea. Plus I think that picture looks awesome.
When it comes to editing my own photographs, I generally use the philosophy of "show what I saw." The eye is an amazing thing, and doubly amazing is our brain's ability to process the eye's stimuli. I never do anything too crazy in the post-production world. What I aim to do is remove the imperfections created by the camera or my own mistakes. I would never disavow editing because of the incredibly vast amount of work it takes to get a single exposure exactly how your eye sees it.
My eyes see in color. Vivid color. Most of the photos above are unedited, straight from the camera. (The only edited one is where I said let's just look at the pretty colors).
If you look closely however, most are a little off. They are crooked. The horizon doesn't look exactly how it should. Either because of how I held the camera or the earth I was standing on, all my photos had a slight crooked-ness to them. So I adjust things like that because my brain never saw the skyline at an angle, and neither should you.
Here's the unedited photo from above.
Here is my final edit, and the photograph that will appear in Gridlock Magazine next month.
It's cropped, straightened and "warmed," a technique that brings out the orange of the city lights. I like it quite a bit.
Closing Thoughts
I honestly thought this would take twenty minutes. Just a fun blog about the process of taking a photograph. I just passed the hour and a half mark. Thanks for staying with me all the way to the end.
Hope you enjoyed.
"Because he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now." -Commissioner Gordon (The Dark Knight)
Cords that resonate with viewers long
after the credits roll. The Dark Knight is a film that allows people
to escape only to show them a reflection of society, and it is not a
bright reflection at all.
A commenter on a blog said it
eloquently:
drvictordavishj: "The key is the way Gordon draws a contrast between (Harvey) Dent "the hero we need" versus the Dark Knight "the hero we deserve." Nolan is saying that we need a law-abiding idealist, but that we don’t deserve him."
But these are our heroes. These are our
leaders. President Obama, Speaker John Boehner, Rep. Nancy Pelosi,
Sen. Harry Reid. These are the men and women who are supposed to be
our White Knights. Yet, not one is anything more than a sock puppet
for special interest groups, banks and lobbyists.
"Because I'm tired of it. Year, after year, after year, after year, having to choose between the lesser of who cares. Of trying to get myself excited about a candidate who can speak in complete sentences. Of setting the bar so low I can hardly look at it." -Leo McGarry (The West Wing)
We continue to allow our rights to be
taken away. Sometimes piece by piece and sometimes in massive sweeps
disguised as protection against our enemies. The, so-called, Leader
of the Free World signed a bill on December 31st that makes it legal
to hold United States citizens in jail...forever. With no charges or
trial. All anyone has to do is claim they are a terrorist.
We assassinate our own citizens, apply
justice arbitrarily, allow our private lives to be searched without a
warrant, refuse the global community the right to try our leaders for
war crimes and, incredibly, denounce other states for doing the same
exact things.
Maybe America is the world's Dark
Knight. We take on the evils of the world and the only way to do so
is by getting our hands dirty. Just as the Joker brings Batman again
and again to that moral line he does not wish to cross, the
world is doing the same to America. Maybe we don't want to be the way we
are, but what other choice is there?
I turn again to an anonymous commenter:
drvictordavishj: Nolan is ultimately saying that strong societies don't tolerate Dark Knights. If we do, it's only because we lack confidence in the institutions and values that we've inherited. After all, with all his gifts, Bruce Wayne could have easily been Harvey Dent, but because he lacks confidence in legitimate institutions and his moral inheritance, he’s not the philanthropist and healer that his father was. He's the sign of a sick society."
Ask yourself, do you have confidence in
our institutions? Is the government of the people, by the people and for the people?
The sad truth is there are a great many
things wrong with this society. We need no more evidence than the
existence of all the Dark Knights we allow to exist. Whether they be
vigilantes fighting crime in New York City or the very
countries we live in.
These are the heroes we deserve. These are our silent guardians, our watchful protectors. The existence of Dark Knights is a
sign of a sick society. And our society is filled with them.
The following is an article I found by
Nick Meador. I read it originally at Reality Sandwich.
It's main premise regards the backwards rationale surrounding
copyright laws, but it also covers much, much more. I thought it'd be
good to share, especially in regards to the upcoming congressional
vote on SOPA/Protect-IP.
~~~~~~~~~
As a long-time supporter of the
peer-to-peer torrent network evolution, it became clear by the time I
entered grad school in 2007 that there was something very wrong with
the implications of copyright law in the United States. I don't think
I fully realized it until I found Creative Commons ("CC"
for short) -- the innovative service which provides partial copyright
protections (sometimes called "copyleft") to creative
authors according to their sharing preferences -- and, by extension,
the 2004 book Free Culture, written by law professor and
activist Lawrence Lessig.
I have been a "pirate" -- a
file-sharer -- since computer programming class in the fall of 1997,
when my fellow ninth-graders and I exchanged MP3s over the Internet
(using Internet Relay Chat, as was customary in the pre-Napster era)
without so much as a momentary consideration of the legal or ethical
implications involved. So when Lessig wrote that U.S. copyright law
has been drastically over-extended not only in duration but also in
application, in such a way that it has a chilling effect on
creativity itself, I believed him wholeheartedly.
A part of me was grateful for the
multitudes of music to which I had been exposed because of the
paradigm shift brought forth by the Internet. Another part of me was
giddy over the thought of pop stars, record label hot shots, and
their RIAA pit bulls sobbing (and, in the case of the RIAA, hopefully
contemplating suicide) in empty mansions because we (by "we,"
I mean millions of geographically separated people acting on common
sense and a love of music) were dismantling their power pyramid block
by block.
But I was always slightly dismayed by
Lessig's approach. Being a law professor (then at Stanford), it was
clear that he hoped, at least in practice, to take a moderate
approach in his activism. What he proposedin theory, sometimes only
between the lines, was that copyright law is irrefutably broken and
we should do everything possible to deconstruct it. It seemed as
though he didn't want to spark a violent backlash from either the
masses of law-obeying (and sometimes righteous) consumer-automatons,
nor from their multi-million-dollar-funded and drunk-on-power
counterparts in the biz. Clearly he had considered the history of
revolutionary process - if only in post-war America - and he was
trying a more constructive approach with less media conflagration and
the public hysteria that comes with it.
The core of Lessig's argument was that
modern copyright law has been extended to the point where it comes
into direct contradiction with common sense. The forces of the dark
side could call us thieves for committing the moral equivalent of
stealing a CD from a store, but we knew it wasn't completely true.
Even without the beneficial context provided by Lessig's book, kids
and adults alike could sense intuitively that, in some way, they were
entitled to rip, share and download music, burn it to a CD for
personal use, and -- for the more adventurous -- create a remix or
mash-up. As long as they weren't taking a physical product or selling
copies, the common people saw themselves as innocent.
Copyright law has always included a
"fair use" element, which allows certain kinds of copyright
rule-bending for activities like teaching, or writing an essay with a
reasonable number of direct quotes from someone else's book (as I'm
doing right now). But as Lessig explains, fair use now carries a lot
of legal weight because the technology of the Internet is
"...a distributed, digital network
where every use of a copyrighted work produces a copy. [...] Uses
that before were presumptively unregulated are now presumptively
regulated. No longer is there a set of presumptively unregulated uses
that define a freedom associated with a copyrighted work. Instead,
each use is now subject to the copyright, because each use also makes
a copy." (1)
Hence, by 2004 the RIAA had engaged in
a suing spree. As Lessig writes, "If a family's computer is used
to download a single CD's worth of music, the family could be liable
for $2 million in damages." (2) In the past there was no
possible way for a major record label to know if, for example, you
created mixtapes from CDs you had purchased and then freely
distributed the tapes to your friends. But that time was suddenly
over.
* * *
Fast-forward to 2010, a time when we
can no longer afford to ignore the work of R. Buckminster Fuller. In
his 1969 book Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth, Fuller had
the incredible foresight -- 20 years before the invention of the
World Wide Web (3) -- to write, "A new, physically
uncompromised, metaphysical initiative of unbiased integrity could
unify the world. It could and probably will be provided by the
utterly impersonal problem solutions of the computers." (4) By
"metaphysical," Fuller essentially meant intangible
creations, ideas and knowledge -- versus "physical" items,
like a computer itself.
The U.S. government developed the
Internet -- the global data infrastructure that enables the content
system known as the World Wide Web -- in the ‘60s, and I wouldn't
be surprised if Fuller knew about it when he wrote this statement.
(5) Most people living in the civilized world have already witnessed
something spectacular on the Web, whether it was looking at Area 51
via the satellite view on Google Maps, finding a long-lost friend on
Facebook, or -- to keep in line with this discussion -- gaining entry
to a p2p (BitTorrent) music network so organized and comprehensive
that it serves the purpose of music distribution better than any
store in the world (including the iTunes Music Store or Amazon.com,
for that matter).
The Net is arguably (or maybe
undeniably) the greatest example of metaphysical innovation to arise
from humanity thus far. In fact, one p2p network recently held a poll
-- containing both physical and metaphysical choices -- that sought
to identify mankind's best invention. The clear winner at 54 percent
was the Internet (it beat cold beer [17 percent], the wheel [13], the
condom [5] and macaroni with cheese [3], among other things. Of
course, the survey pool of twentysomething computer nerds wasn't
exactly projectable onto the general population). In other words, for
the inhabitants of a universe that is, as Fuller described it,
"nonsimultaneous, nonidentical and only partially overlapping,"
our whole species is pretty amazed, all at the same moment, by what
we can do on and because of the Internet. (6)
Here's where my problem with copyright
law arises. There seems to be a fundamental clash between Fuller's
rightful suggestion that computer technology could save the world,
and the observed fact that interconnected computers have made a whole
generation of people into criminals. This fact is so troublesome that
Lessig's activist side (which proposed measures to rebuild
the public domain -- the realm of totally unprotected content -- and
restore balance to the creative process) has often been overshadowed
by his law professor side (which had moral qualms about
fighting for something our country deemed illegal, while he was
supposed to be preparing students for a career in legal practice).
It seemed that the decriminalization of
file sharing would be more likely to happen than any massive
restructuring of American copyright law. But six years after the
publication of Free Culture, I don't see much indication that
we've gained ground in the war. Lessig himself has transferred to
Harvard Law School, and his efforts have shifted to his new group
Change Congress, which aims to end corporate funding in political
campaigns -- probably the largest source of conflicted interests in
our semi-democratic system ("semi-democracy" is another of
Fuller's terms). The RIAA announced in 2008 that it would stop suing
individuals for sharing songs (they had attacked 35,000 people since
2003), and instead began working with Internet service providers to
disconnect offenders who didn't obey cease and desist orders. (7) So
in a way, both sides went for a broader, more systematic approach in
this fight that, sadly enough, now goes largely unnoticed by the
general public.
The law is extraneous to my main
concerns, partly because I feel that fighting from a legal
perspective alone omits some of the most important considerations.
"Bucky" Fuller had some other wacky ideas aside from, but
related to, his futuristic projection about computers. He said
Einstein's equation E=Mc^2 changed our entire conception of the
universe by showing that matter and energy are interchangeable.
"Thus the metaphysical took the
measure of, and mastered, the physical. That relationship seems by
experience to be irreversible. [...] If the present planting of
humanity upon Spaceship Earth cannot...discipline itself to service
exclusively that function of metaphysical mastering of the physical
it will be discontinued..." (8)
In case his unusual wording didn't
smack you upside the head, he's saying we each have to "put mind
over matter" and obey our natural inclination to develop a
comprehensive set of abilities -- or else the primate known ashomo
sapien will inevitably go extinct.
If we apply this theory to the debate
over copyright law, it tells us that Lessig's aims, even if executed
successfully, will never be enough. The legal approach is
insufficient because what we're talking about goes well beyond the
common understanding of copyright law. We're essentially fighting
over the control of our collective metaphysical universe, which
amounts to half of "total universe" -- though the half that
is literally hidden from view (especially these days, when most
physical media formats have given way to MP3s and other digital
media). And since the metaphysical universe is inherently invisible,
it can never be weighed or measured, and it has no objective value.
Its worth has been, and always will be, whatever we ascribe to it.
If you were to poll the general public
on the meaning of wealth, the top responses would undoubtedly contain
some reference to money. We assume that a $1 bill is actually worth a
dollar, when in reality it's a piece of paper --
practically worthless in physical terms -- with an agreed upon
metaphysical value. The problem with our popular understanding of
wealth is that it's now based on metaphysical factors alone. Money
generally used to be valued on a gold standard system, wherein paper
currency was exchangeable for gold coins or bullion.
But the start of the Federal Reserve
System in 1913 allowed the government to print money as needed. (9)
And then, after occasionally moving off the gold standard in times of
war or economic hardship, President Nixon decided in 1971 that gold
and U.S. dollars would no longer be convertible. (10) The combined
effect of these two measures is that the value of our money steadily
decreases in value (i.e., inflation), and the value itself is totally
arbitrary (that is to say, metaphysical). The Fed creates more money
without having to match it with gold reserves, so each dollar bill
(or dollar number in a bank account) comes with debt built into it,
ensuring that inflation will continue in a regular fashion.
As Fuller writes in Spaceship
Earth, the gross national product of the U.S. was valued at $3
billion of assets in 1810, but by 1970 it was considered to be $1
trillion. (11) Since the total gold supply (i.e., the physical
monetary reserve) on the planet is actually around $40 billion, the
perceived growth in wealth was all metaphysical. That isn't to say
that our entire economy is worthless. The point is that our
definition of wealth is totally skewed.
Therefore, people who accept
or affirm the consumerism and materialism of the status quo aren't
just shallow; they're completely ignorant as to what wealth actually
means. But "we, the people" are not totally at fault, since
no one in a position of power has ever explained this to us.
Fuller realized that these topics are
far removed from everyday discourse, so in order to illustrate the
fundamental shift that was necessary in society, he proposed a total
redefinition of wealth:
"Now we can account wealth more
precisely as the number of forward days for a specific number of
people we are physically prepared to sustain at a physically stated
time and space liberating level of metabolic and metaphysical
regeneration." (12)
Stated another way, wealth can only be
measured by how effectively we're using our intuition to ensure the
survival and well being of the human race.
As Robert Anton Wilson argued in his
1983 book Prometheus Rising, economists and Marxists are both
wrong in thinking that wealth arises from some combination of "land,
labor, and capital." "The real source of wealth is correct
ideas: workable ideas: that is, negative entropy -- Information. The
origin of these coherent (workable) ideas is the human nervous
system. All wealth is created by human beings using their
neurons intelligently." (13)
This redefinition reveals the utterly
backwards state of our current economic system. Einstein's theory of
relativity contains within it a law stating that, contrary to how we
commonly perceive it, energy can't ever be created or destroyed.
Energy is always conserved in a closed system, such as the universe.
It's irresponsible to think of wealth as a physical thing, since, as
we witnessed in the economic crash of 2008, many people lost a
sizeable portion of their life savings in an instant. None of these
victims would admit that their worth as human beings had
suddenly decreased, but that is exactly what is implied by such a
flawed vision ofwealth. The current definition only takes
metaphysical wealth (e.g., knowledge, ideas and wisdom) into account
if the idea or content has a commercial value - that is, if it can be
copyrighted and sold.
In reality, every new human endeavor
can only result in a gain in knowledge, not a loss of it. So "wealth
is irreversible in evolutionary processes" because it's a
function of physical energy (which is constant) and metaphysical
knowledge (which continually grows). (14) As Fuller wrote, "we
find that the physical constituent of wealth -- energy -- cannot
decrease and...the metaphysical constituent -- know-how -- can only
increase." (15) Therefore, any economic arrangement in which
it's possible for "wealth" to decrease is bogus, for the
simple reason that it's not in line with the universal truth of
evolution.
* * *
Towards the end of Free Culture,
Lessig proclaims that the goal of Creative Commons licensing "is
to build a movement of consumers and producers of content...who help
build the public domain and, by their work, demonstrate the
importance of the public domain to other creativity." (16) If
the thinking behind this goal was influenced by Fuller's radical
redefinition of wealth, Lessig certainly doesn't admit it. In fact,
Lessig's narrow focus on copyrighted content suggests that he was
unaware of the two-faced physical/metaphysical nature of our
universe. To clarify, he believes copyright is necessary because it
provides incentive for people to create and then share their
creations with the world, thereby reaping a monetary reward. It's our
overblown application of copyright law, he says, that's the real
problem.
But if we are to take Fuller's
redefinition seriously, it implies that copyright law
contradicts the workings of the universe. This isn't about developing
a new ideology or dogma; it's about understanding the nature of the
system of evolution that brought us to our current state of
existence, and then trying to live consciously in that mode. Fuller
went so far as to say that, because "the part of our wealth
which is physical energy is conserved...the word ‘spending' is now
scientifically meaningless and is therefore obsolete." (17)
Spending is obsolete? Then what are we
doing when we go to Walmart, Target and Best Buy? What is that
action whereby we get stuff with the swipe of a plastic card or the
surrender of paper bills and metal coins? Perhaps Fuller's words
imply that the vast majority of these "transactions" are
both worthless and imaginary. Even worse is the suggestion of what
this means for the lives of all the enthusiastic shoppers, the proud
upholders of our consumeristic system.
Before your socialist/communist/Utopian
alarms start beeping, let me provide some more context. According to
Fuller, the most powerful men throughout history were the ones who
best fulfilled their will by organizing other people to work. This
meant partly that they were smart men equipped with cunning (since
they had to manipulate others) and good memories (because it would be
dangerous to write down their tactical information). Yet each of
these "Great Pirates," as Fuller refers to them, depended
on advice from a "comprehensively anticipatory design
scientist." Leonardo da Vinci is the first example given, and he
serves as a sort of archetype. Specialization of workers then
developed as a way for the Great Pirates to remain in power, since
all knowledge traveled vertically up the hierarchy, not horizontally
between lower masters. And this was enforced by punishment, in order
to ensure that the peons remained oblivious, though still proud of
their role in the scheme.
By World War I, technology had
developed to the point that the G.P.s could no longer control the
spread of information. Similarly, technology made it theoretically
possible for humans to stop doing super-specialized work and get back
to developing our comprehensive abilities. In other words, we could
start enjoying "the orgiastic future" that America has
failed to grasp so many times now.
Due to misinterpretations of Malthus's
economics and Darwin's theory of natural selection -- which, when
combined, seemed to suggest that resources were limited and that only
the fittest would survive -- sovereign nations set out to horde
reserves as much as possible. This is embodied in the 1950s Cold War
game theory strategies of John Nash, best known through the game
"Fuck Your Buddy." It meant specialized work had to
continue, in order to preserve the long-standing power establishment.
Hence, today the status quo demands that we "work for a living,"
even if the work is degrading, feels absolutely pointless, infects us
with a constant state of nausea, or worse.
Even in 2010, when almost one in five
working-age Americans is without a full-time job (national
unemployment is at 9.5 percent, but "underemployment" is at
16.5), the general public feels only terror over the possibility that
those specialized positions might not return. (18) Not many are
excited that we now have a chance to cultivate a global society that
previous generations didn't have the wisdom to allow. No one
comprehends that our economic system is bankrupt because it's so
disconnected from a universal definition of wealth. Few can see
clearly that, up until this point in the history of human
civilization, the masses have essentially served as slaves -- either
physically, mentally, or both -- to the Great Pirates and their
henchmen.
Fuller had a different vision of the
future, a "future" that could have been consummated in the
mid-1900s: "While all enjoy total Earth no human will be
interfering with the other, and none will be profiting at the expense
of the other. Humans will be free in the sense than 99.9 per cent of
their waking hours will be freely investable at their own
discretion." (19) His suggestion -- which would generate as many
laughs today as it likely did in 1969 -- was to give a research and
development fellowship to anyone who couldn't find a job or who
became unemployed. Even one person among thousands would devise
something so valuable, he said, that it would pay for the whole
program.
It's difficult to predict how that
vision could come to be a reality, especially as America sinks
further towards third world status. But it's absolutely imperative
that we evaluate our options from a truly universal perspective. One
thing that must change is how we treat metaphysical innovations such
as creative works. Creative Commons licenses are amazing, and they
are beginning to rebuild a very damaged public domain -- but they
won't be adequate. By their very nature, amateur creations -- those
without large commercial value -- aren't competing with mass-market
products in movie theaters and entertainment mega-stores.
We've been duped by the Great Pirates
into thinking that we are the "pirates" for doing
what to us seems absolutely natural and ethically sound. In
fact, they are the reprehensible ones for holding our
metaphysical universe hostage. That's half of our entire universe (as
experienced currently at the human level) stuck in prison! We don't
even consciously understand that these media (by which I'm referring
mostly to music, movies, books and scholarly journals), the
metaphysical products of our civilization, are mostly locked up by a
select few corporations.
But every time someone remixes a Top 40
song, or parodies a TV show, or rips a movie and puts it on
YouTube...he or she is asserting something that makes common sense
even if the individual can't explain it with words:these creative
works belong to the public just as much as they "belong" to
the companies.
As I stated before, copyright law now
protects creative works for almost a century. Lessig makes it quite
clear in Free Culture that copyright law is intended to
protect the right of the author to duplicate and distribute the
work during a period of commercial viability. After that time,
the work should pass into the public domain so that our culture can
proceed with its natural function: to build upon itself in an ongoing
process of refinement and improvement.
This is why I can no longer pass off
copyright law as a mere inconvenience. I agree with Lessig's stance
that, at the very least, copyright terms should be drastically
reduced. As he wrote, "Until 1976, the average term was just
32.2 years. We should be aiming for the same." (20) My theory is
that, after that 32-year term of commercial viability, in which the
author or creator would have the option to control market use of the
work, all creative and proprietary work should take on a permanent
CC-BY license -- that is, Creative Commons "Attribution" --
requiring only that anyone who shares or adapts the work must
properly credit the original author by listing their name and, when
applicable, a hyperlink.
The original author would still have
the option to duplicate and sell the work...but so would everyone
else in the universe. Some things literally have no sellable value
after 32 years, like a video game console. Other things could be
adapted into the landscape of modern technology -- like paper books
turned into e-books -- in which case the incentive would be to
develop the best method of distribution and consumption.
To demonstrate, we can consider that
the original Star Wars film came out almost 33 years ago.
If copyright law was functioning within reason, anyone in the
universe would now be allowed to do whatever he or she wanted with
any aspect of that film. Teenagers could create and distribute their
own video adaptation; a craftsman could produce hand-made Chewbacca
action figures or dolls and sell them on eBay; video game designers
could reimagine the entire Star Wars universe (at long as they stuck
to the first film) in a new PC game; entrepreneurs could even copy
and sell Star Wars DVDs.
None of this would require permission
from or royalty payments to Lucasfilm. That's how copyright used to
work, when it originally lasted for 14 years. Lessig explains how, in
America's youth, books by British authors were printed and sold in
unregulated fashion across the Atlantic. The U.S. was a developing
nation at the time, and that sort of business helped build the
economy. That's part of the reason authors like Charles Dickens
became so popular among American readers. It was all part of the
progression of culture.
Another key example is how the Walt
Disney Company has used public domain stories as the foundation for
many of its animated films, likeCinderella and Alice in
Wonderland -- as well as their most recent, The Princess and the
Frog. Now that Disney has produced these movies, they can in
some cases restrict what is done with the original public domain
stories. They could, for instance, prevent Dreamworks from making a
film rendition of Alice without their permission - all the
more so because Disney has now renewed their "right" to the
story with a Tim Burton remake. (Now it's more clear why they
"re-release a classic film from the Disney vaults" every
few years, huh?).
The very reason that copyright law now
applies for up to 95 years -- the impetus that led to the most recent
term boost -- was that Sonny Bono's wife didn't want his music to
pass into the public domain...that and complaints from the estates of
Dr. Seuss and Gershwin. (21) Companies who own copyrights from the
time in question (1923 to 1942) supported these causes even though,
as Lessig explains, only two percent of that material is still
commercially viable (think: Laurel and Hardy, and the Three Stooges).
(22) The net effect, according to Lessig, is that no creative
works now protected by copyright will be released into the public
domain until 2019. A million patents will also become unprotected at
that time. (23) Of course, corporations will be lobbying for another
term extension around that time, and I fear the public uproar won't
even surpass the one aroused by the recent health care debate.
It's important to understand that we're
not just talking about simple copyrighted media, but also proprietary
information: computer software, pharmaceutical drugs, medical
devices, the recipes for foods and beverages, etc. In fact, the
documentary The Future of Fooddemonstrates the absurdity of
allowing a company like Monsanto to patent genes in food seeds
(commonly known as GMOs, or genetically modified organisms). (24)
That essentially means companies and governments can control what is
done with food crops, down to the very genes. The majority of farmers
still depend on their own seed reserves. But since patented genes can
easily outcross into independent food stocks, Monsanto can claim
ownership of the plants wherever they find their genes. A simple
application of Monsanto's RoundUp pesticide determines which plants
are "theirs," since the farmer's plants all die. The
company sues offending (but unknowing) farmers to make an example,
forcing them to purchase seeds from Monsanto. This process is exactly
the same as when the RIAA sues music file-sharers, and it's the
reason that American farmers work at a loss and depend on government
subsidies to survive. But paradoxically, the U.S. government is
co-owner of a Monsanto patent, and company officials regularly cycle
through FDA appointments.
Anyone who has ever signed a
non-disclosure agreement has upheld this system that puts profits
over the progress of mankind. The counter-argument is that protection
encourages innovation, but I don't buy this. Not only does the
proprietary system encourage laziness and corruption, but it's also
the most recent example of the gangsters formerly known as Great
Pirates preventing the natural flow of human evolution.
Remember when Obama came into office
and he was chirping about "transparency"? Rest assured, we
won't have government transparency until we have it at all levels
of society, including the individual. Just look at the case of
scientific research. Verification is the essence of the scientific
method. If experiments could be verified immediately, it would speed
up the scientific process beyond measure. But if the government is
funding the research to gain a tactical military advantage over other
countries, and the lab is run by scientists and opportunists who hope
to gain prestige, awards and (most of all) money for their work, and
the research findings are published in an academic journal that
requires expensive subscription fees to view, then transparency and
progress are nearly impossible.
Personally I think there should always
be a way for anyone to access anycreative work that
has been made commercially available at any point in history,
whether it was protected through copyright or proprietary measures.
How long do you think it would take us to cure cancer if all medical
research was made public? A week? A day? Does it make you wonder if
maybe the pharmaceutical companies who profit from chemotherapy have
a vested interest in preventing the discovery of a real cure? Do you
think we'd still be driving cars with gas tanks if those profiting
from oil trade -- everyone from General Motors to George W. Bush -
hadn't actively fought electric cars (or even hybrids) from going
into mass production? Does anyone ask themselves why we power, heat
and cool our homes with coal, nuclear fission and natural gas, when
we could harness all the power we need from solar radiation, wind,
rivers and tidal shifts?
* * *
I admit that I want to see the
realization of Fuller's future. And despite my suggestion for
reducing copyright terms, I fear that our quality of life and our
prospects for the future will steadily diminish worldwide until we
discontinue any system that leaves one party worse off than another.
Soon, as unemployment crosses the 20-percent line and creeps towards
50 (or above), we may not have a choice to uphold the current system.
When that time comes, we'll have plenty of options. Since the
"weapons-backed sovereign nations," as Fuller would call
them, will stop at nothing to retain their power, we may see a
military dictatorship before we see... well, anything better than our
current system of smoke-and-mirrors capitalism.
In the interim, it's up to the "common
folk" to devise better systems for paying content creators
without enabling the middle men (such as Warner Music Group or Barnes
and Noble), the pimps of modern creativity who manipulate both the
ones creating and consuming the material. This was the focus of
Lessig's 2008 book Remix, and some places have already begun
these experiments. Certain European countries now tax citizens based
on the assumption that they are downloading copyrighted works. The
taxes are used to compensate copyright holders for their supposed
losses (though Lessig thoroughly demonstrates that file sharers don't
drastically affect profits for media companies since, more often than
not, those people wouldn't have purchased the content).
Of course, the very concept of revising
creative compensation is based on the presumption that we will still
use monetary currency with inborn inflation in the future -- that we
will still base our entire concept of wealth on a metaphysical
abstraction, one that doesn't even brush the surface of our actual
wealth. But a gradual transition (which would still be rapid, in the
context of history) would be better than picking up the pieces in a
post-apocalyptic world.
What I wonder now is if the computer,
the Internet, and technology in general can get us back on course
with evolution. Judging by the leaps in communication and content
exchange we've taken over the past 15 years with the help of
high-speed Internet access, it seems that Fuller may have been right.
The Internet will be hard to beat in terms of human innovation...but
are we really content to let the wheel, cold beer, and the condom
follow closely behind it? After all, I'm not saying that we need to
speed up evolution; I'm saying that we spent most of the last century
actively thwarting it. Much of what lies ahead will involve the
relinquishing of sovereign control and adopting a stance of humility
and cooperation.
In his 1957 book The Undiscovered
Self, famed psychologist C.G. Jung wrote of communism: "So far
as one can see, only one possibility remains, and that is a breakdown
of power from within, which must, however, be left to follow its own
inner development." (25) It seems to me that we're watching the
slow but inevitable death of market-based capitalism, a very tired
and flawed economic system built on fear and greed. That goes for the
major record labels and the Monsanto Company just the same as it goes
for predatory lenders in the home mortgage market. Each is part of a
powerful institution with very limited liability and no qualms about
manipulating millions of people. Someone gains at the expense of
someone else.
Jung also wrote,
"History will undoubtedly pass
over those who feel it is their vocation to resist this inevitable
development, however desirable or psychologically necessary it may be
to cling to what is essential and good in our own tradition. Despite
all the differences, the unity of mankind will assert itself
irresistibly." (26)
And he wrote time and time again that
change can only happen at the individual level. Any concept of humans
beyond that -- a city, a company, a nation, a religion -- is
inherently an abstraction, a compromise made in the attempt to
describe multiple individuals. An individual empowered by Fuller's
definition has no choice but to ask himself, "What is my actual
wealth?" Furthermore, if everyone on the planet was suddenly
denied an income, how many people would be able to survive without
the aid of a gun?
It seems clear to me that, aside from
ensuring access to high-speed Internet, we will need to boost our
efforts at education. Most of that will happen through personal
volition, since public schools and universities are too embedded in
the institutional establishment to approach the problem from outside
the "status quo" reality tunnel. Education will aid us in
reconsidering every assumption we hold about the way the world can
and should operate. It'll also help us flex our intuitive muscle as
we seek to fulfill our rightful place in the evolution of the
universe, which will happen eventually no matter who tries to prevent
it. Or we'll drive ourselves into extinction, at which point we will
no longer be able to care.
Fuller pointed out that we weren't
given an instruction manual for our Spaceship Earth, and in fact it
was imperative that it be so. We literally have to devise our way
into the future that lies before us, the future we've imagined for
quite some time. Every single human being will be born with the same
rights (not just told that is the case), the same access to food and
medicine, and the same potential for self-realization. Now we just
have to work our way through the labyrinth and strike down the
minotaur that is our heart of darkness, both personally and
collectively.
In the meantime, I'll be waiting for an
offer to arrive in my mailbox granting me a lifetime fellowship in
research and development.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you made it this far, thanks for
reading. I encourage you to share this, and all articles...just
remember to link back to the original.
DFTBA
December was a slow month in the blogosphere. I didn't post much and didn't read a whole bunch either. Suffice it to say, the year ended with a whimper instead of a bang. There was a reason for that.
Gridlock Magazine has just launched, and I'm a contributor.
Most of my time writing went into articles for Gridlock and even though I had a few urges to throw something up on the blog, I figured it could wait for the new year where I could return with a passion.
So what do I have to show for taking a lack-luster blogging December? Check out gridlockmagazine.com. No seriously, do it. I'll wait....
 |
| I couldn't wait |
My time spent at Occupy Oakland lead to an article that informs, but also identifies the competing philosophies going on with the movement in general. It jumps back and forth in a way I hope everyone finds interesting. What? You didn't read it. No problem, here's a snippet:
The atmosphere is electric. People are happy. Music is playing and people are dancing as we march forward throughout the streets of Oakland. Families come out of their homes and smile and wave as we head towards the port. As I attempt to change lenses, I drop my camera bag. Every person near me stops, three reach for the bag at the same time. I thank everyone as my belongings are returned to me. They smile and begin walking again. Free water is handed out. A woman comes out of her home and hands energy bars to people on the sidewalk. The atmosphere is intoxicating.
I appreciate everyone who reads the story over at Gridlock Magazine. Besides the feature, I also have an article on working out while simultaneously being a huge video game geek, it's fun and silly. And while 2011 was the worst year for theaters since '95, I went to a lot and have a few movie reviews at Gridlock as well.
Obviously this is a self-promotion piece. I do that from time to time. Here are some reasons why I think Gridlock Magazine is worth your time.
1. It's clean. There are a ton of articles but the site design keeps everything simple and easy to read. Look at the web page you're on right now...I like clean/simple sites, Gridlock is precisely that while still having a ton of great content.
2. Great content. That's not a pat on my back. Each article on Gridlock is interesting. There's interviews, gonzo-style articles, tech oriented, sports oriented, fitness related. It's got a lot of great stuff.
3. Varied contributors. The site is based in the UK and markets itself towards the urban male professional. I'm only one of those things. There's also lady-dude writers and photographers. At Gridlock you're getting different perspectives that can, hopefully, inform and entertain you in a way not done before.
4. Issu magazine. An interactive magazine layout right at the comfort of your computer screen. Yes, the website is great. It has all the articles archived. But readers can also check out the entire spread in a magazine format. As far as presentation goes, it's pretty cool.
2012 is off to a good start for me. I hope it's a good one for you as well. Please check out gridlockmagazine.com It would mean a lot to me.
Thank you and happy new year.