Week 6 - I HOPE you like this entry

I remember the first time I saw Fairey's image. I was 19, about to drop out of college and completely disenchanted with everything about the world around me. The posters were being given away by something like a 'Students for Obama' group that swarmed the campus that fall semester. What drew me to it, first, were the colors. Something about the tinted red white and blue against the faded white background. I got back to the apartment I was living in and hung it up next to my bed. The corny part of the story, is that after seeing that image every day and absorbing the election buzz kind of through osmosis, I think I actually found a sliver hope in everything that was going on in my world. It got to be that I associated Fairey's image with the thought that maybe my future wasn't going to be the shit-pile that I thought it would. At that point, I didn't need the poster by me bed anymore. It had given birth to an outlook I carried with me until the night of the election.

Then the next six years happened. Not quite as hopeful as I would have liked, but hell, I'm doing ok. I think that there are a lot of people that share a similar experience to what I had with the colorful picture of Mr. Obama. That Fairey's rendition of Garcia's original image generated more emotion than it did currency is one aspect of this argument that makes it so legally messy. If Fairey's intention was to make as much money off of HOPE as possible, then the legal battle wouldn't have gone on for as long as it did. The Associated Press probably saw how much they could have made, had the idea been theirs, and proceeded on the war path. They were broke in 2009--selling off assets to keep their heads above water and still posting profits way lower than the year before.

All of this lawyer talk makes my head hurt. What do I think? Yes, fair use applies to Fairey's Obama poster. It looks different enough than the original. Fairey doesn't have a private jet full of money because of it. The AP's original wasn't doing much before Fairey sampled it, so no potential market loss there. Most importantly, as was the case with me, it "stimulate(d) creativity for the enrichment of the general public." (I can't quite find where Wikipedia pulled those words from, but they illustrate my point wonderfully)

If you want my opinion, money brings out the absolute worst in humanity, and The Associated Press is no exception. I may take a hit this week for not dissecting the legality of Fairey's case into as many pieces as I should have, but the degree to which my head won't be spinning by the time I go to sleep tonight will be worth it.

Oh, and here is a testament to Shepard Fairey's artistic abilities. I tried Obama-izing an attribution-liscenced pic of our Head Cheese, and it came out looking awful. By the looks of what came up in the Creative Commons image search I did, Fairey probably could have found a workable CC picture of Mr Obama. We don't choose when inspiration strikes, though, and have to work with what's available in the moment. I would imagine that he'll stop to think before he pulls another picture from the internet, though.    

This image is a derivative of "Obama Speaking (15)" by borman818, used under CC BY. "TIRED" is licensed under CC BY by Dan Smith.

Week 5 No Selfies, Please

I got an iPhone about two years ago and picture taking completely changed for me. I had always liked the idea of taking pictures of things--you know, that I thought looked interesting--but who wants to develop film or even carry around a digital camera everywhere they go? I guess carrying a small digital camera wouldn't be so horrible but GOD how inconvenient is it to upload pictures to a computer?

My iPhone was the first time I had a relatively high resolution digital camera at my disposal and I loved it. I was living in Charlotte, VT at the time, at the top of a big old hill with a gorgeous view looking over the lake. I would ride my bike home from work every day and by like halfway through my ride, the sky was just friggen blazing over the lake and BOOM I had a camera to take a picture of it. Maybe even more important than just having the camera on my phone was my ability to then share what I had captured with people.

On vacation for example, I was seeing the West Coast for the first time, and I knew my parents were going to want to hear all about it. Instead of having to call them after everyday, which I'm just awful at, even when I'm not on vacation, I was able to post the pictures I had taken to Instagram and Facebook--like, on the bus, going from one picturesque scene to the next. No stupid uploading to a computer involved-- and was able to include them in what I was doing, while it was happening.

While I think it's nifty that, now, I can take a picture of a sunset when I see it, there are others that aren't so tickled. Advances in technology always seem to spur resentment among those in the field. In my experience,  I've heard purists complain that the real art is drowning in the sea of amateur uploads, and soon enough, people won't know the difference. Or, the reaction is to get as far away from digital as possible. One of the hippest things a hipster photographer can do is find an old camera that takes old, distressed looking pictures that look like what people are churning out on Instagram and other photo apps, and say that they had been using it all along. Way before Instagram even came out.

Either way, it's gotten people more into photography. Whether its the former techie learning his roots with film, or the novice experiencing things for the first time because of the ease and accesibality of cameras on iPhones. It's not like photography is dying because quality digital cameras are now on millions of people's smartphones. Like, I'm sure there was that stubborn guy who wouldnt put down his abacus when calculators were really catching on. Sure, it's nice to do all of that work by yourself, but technology can make things a hell of a lot easier, too.

Week 4 - Fight The Power like Public Enemy.

My neighbors and I started our first band when we were 11. 14 years later, we're still playing, and we've made a total of like zero dollars. We played a show as recently as last night, and I'll have you know that we probably lost money. I guess the pipe-dream of making a living off of my music has always followed me, but it's certainly not something I ever anticipate happening. I've come to terms with that. I'll live out the rest of my days working jobs I don't really care that much about because my real "career" path will eventually lead to a life (or early death) as a musician. Now, why can't I really ever make a career for myself as a musician?

Let's take a look at the record. I started making music around the same time that digital recording became super easy for any idiot--myself, included-- to use. Soon, any asshole could grab his Dad's Macbook, record a miserably mediocre and really just awful sounding collection of songs in Garageband, and create a Myspace page for his cool new band. Without the need for expensive studios or production or someone to physically edit your stuff--like, actually cut the tape of what you just recorded and glue it back together so it sounds good--digital recording and the internet let you almost instantly bypass the checks and balances of the last 20 years that had kept so much bad music from reaching the public domain. This, according to John Buckman, is just one reason why it's so damn hard for musicians to make any money.

Today, if a musician wants to achieve commercial success--strictly in terms of making as much money as someone with probably a real career who went to a lot of school-- they need either to be unbelievably lucky, or have a fat wad of income they can use to try to propel themselves to a moderate, tepid success. If you are of the one in 1,000,000 who happens to be lucky (or talented, but not necessarily) enough to gain the support of a major record label, then sit back and let the music industry fulfill your every want and need until they run out of ways to squeeze money out of your popularity. The other 999,999 of us, though, continue to piss away our hard-earned income, trying to do, ourselves, what the industry could do with its toilet paper budget.

This situation creates desperate musicians, willing to give almost anything for a chance to have their music reach an audience that they couldn't by their own broke-ass means. Too often these dumb, desperate sonsofbitches gloss over the fine print in their contract with Joe Bigshot Records and end up signing over the rights to their material along with it.    

Magnatune, however, will not rape or pillage your musical dreams. They are a much-needed, benevolent force in the dark and scary music world. Now, just because John Buckman created Magnatune doesn't necessarily guarantee your discovery and fame, but your chances have sure as hell gone up--maybe from one in 1,000,000 to like 112 in 1,000,000 (That statement is by no means supported by any factual or scientific findings, btw.)

Judgement Day

Did anyone else think of The Terminator when Kevin Kelly mentioned how the internet was doubling in capacity every two years and will easily be more capable than the human brain by the end of the decade? Like, seriously. The Matrix? Irobot? War Games? It seems like as long as there has been the notion that computers could one day be smart enough to destroy the world, they most certainly will. Whether that's paranoia or insight isn't for me to say, but smarter technology is where things are going. My new iPhone recognizes my thumbprint, so if I accidentally leave it on the bus, a thieving stranger won't have access to what's inside. It knows where I am right now and can tell me where I want to go and the fastest way to get there.

Kelly predicts that the way things are going, the “web” will be smarter and more personalized, but for this to happen, we're going to need to be comfortable with a heightened level of transparency with our technology. It needs to understand us to be used to it's fullest potential.

How much are we ready for? The change needs to be gradual enough so humanity isn't struck slack-jawed at the capability of the technology that's been made available to them. Maybe 5000 days is gradual enough. Hell, even if it does some day hit the fan and web-based technology becomes so smart that it decides that the best thing for the human race is it's complete destruction, at least I've seen The Terminator, The Matrix, iRobot, War Games, Eagle Eye, Tron, and Bladerunner (I'm sure I'm missing a bunch) enough times to know what to do.

The big question for me, is what exactly are we so afraid of? If more transparency is what web 3.0 is going to need before it can figure out how to match our socks to our ties, why not let it in? I hate matching those things. Kelly has predicted, and we've seen hypothesized in like a million ways how crazy powerful and capable the internet could become. Movies that give us a glimpse into the internetted future gross millions because we all want to see what it would be like. But, there seems to be a bold line drawn between what we day-dream of coming true and what we're terrified of happening. The recent whistle-blowing of Wikileaks and Edward Snowden made light of the latter; The age-old paranoia that BigBrother is watching. Or listening, or collecting data or probably reading our minds or something. How far will what some people see as this abuse of our basic american freedoms hinder what will be allowed to happen in the next 5000 days?

As a culture, we seem polarized. Either with our heads in the clouds, dreaming of satellite-controlled lawnmowers, or at the other end, convinced that technology will stand for nothing less than the absolute destruction of the human race. Can't we find some middle ground?   

Cloudkicker

I just heard about this band called Cloudkicker. They friggen rule, in case you were wondering. This is how I used my cloud to find Cloudkicker.

I wake up, get out of bed, and start making coffee. This happens in real life. Not the cloud. I open my computer. This is where human reality ends and digital cloudcity begins. Hmm, anything good on metalsucks? Oh look, these bands that are pretty good are going on tour. Look at the dates. No one good ever comes to Higher Ground. Who's opening for them? The Atlas Moth. Go to bandcamp page. Listen to first 45 seconds of song until vocals come in. Ok. Not in to The Atlas Moth. Who else? Cloudkicker. Go to Cloudkicker's bandcamp page. First three minutes of song is just ambient nature noise, so skip three minutes and two seconds in. Woa. Pretty good. Go to youtube, where I find Cloudkicker's latest album, Subsume, in its entirety. Press play, exit cloud, wash dishes for 45 minutes while banging my head and reveling in musical happenstance. Dishes done. Dry hands. Pour more coffee. Re-enter cloud. Go to thepiratebay, see if anyone's sharing any of Cloudkickers music. Cloudkicker discography 2008-2013. DOWNLOAD. Six minutes later, transfer eight Cloudkicker albums into iTunes. Put the one I'm most in to on my iPhone so I can listen to it whenever I need to thrash. Send group text to bandmates telling them to check out Cloudkicker because they friggen rule. Put newest album in my google drive and share with bandmates so they can thrash, too. Exit cloud. Pour more coffee. Press play in iTunes and listen to Cloudkicker "Subsume" again, and finish doing dishes.

Man oh man. What would I do without the cloud? I'd have to watch MTV, which I don't even think plays music anymore, to try to hear about new bands.Or, I could stay up way past my bedtime at concerts of bands I've never heard of, probably just to find out that once they start singing, there's nothing left to like. God forbid I'd actually have to BUY music.

Five years ago, this probably would have looked pretty similar. Some of the names different, but the process the same. Maybe myspace instead of bandcamp for the band's website, and any number of file-sharing sites that have since been shut down instead of thepiratebay.com. Anyone remember Mediafire? All of those .zip and .rar files? Those were the days.

People were definately skecpical about the cloud's potential five years ago. This week's articles looked at an angle I had never considered, though: The clouds ability to generate revenue. When I'm using my google drive, I'm not necessarily thinking of who's pockets are filling up as a result. Is the money I pay my internet provider then paying google? Money is confusing. I have my internet account set up so that my bill is taken straight from my bank account every month. I hardly even think about it, and go about my computing assuming that everything is made available for free by some benevolant compu-diety. Clearly, not the case. Who in the one percent is making a killing as the clouds power and accessibility swells?

Also, I can't tell you how many user agreements I've blown right past in the past month. Borrrrrrrinnnngggggg. What's the worst that could happen, right? A few years back, my gmail account did get compromised, and I was denied access to it. Luckily, I was 19 and had dropped out of school and had nothing important in it. The blow would land a little closer to home today, though, if either someone got in to my account or I lost access to it. As I grow up, and my responsibilities grow with me, I stand to lose more if my cloud gets kicked.