Posts Tagged ‘culture’

Freedom of Information, Act

Wednesday, March 26th, 2008

It has been a while since I have written anything here. Lots of posting but mostly other people’s words. The main reason for this has been a personal shift in how I spend my free time. While blogging has for several years now been my primary hobby, that has shifted in recent months. I have been relearning a skill/instrument that I gave up a number of years ago, the turntable.

Last weekend I played my first set in public. It was quite well received. A mix of ambient/minimal techno and classical. The electronic music I played was all composed to be freely distributed. Licensed under a Creative Commons non-commercial distribution license, the music was made to be free.

The idea of truly free information, in my opinion the foundation to a truly free society, is slowly gaining ground. In music and software circles, the model of the mega-corporations are seen for the inherent failure they represent. The technology has evolved beyond the capacity for an institution to control its distribution. Fighting a war against consumers is a losing battle.

There are free software alternatives for every major commercial piece of software from word processing to image manipulation to web browsing to operating systems and more.

The group I was playing for has been producing all night music and dance events for over 12 years on an open source model. Planning procedures are maintained on a wiki, the entire organization is run by volunteers and everything from food, to music, to entrance to the event is given freely. Donations are asked for but in no way required.

In the theatre an open source model is still very much in its infancy. Charles Mee is one of, if not the first playwright to truly embrace open source ethics and aesthetics in his works.

As he says

Sometimes playwrights steal stories and conversations and dreams and intimate revelations from their friends and lovers and call this original.

And sometimes some of us write about our own innermost lives, believing that, then, we have written something truly original and unique. But, of course, the culture writes us first, and then we write our stories. When we look at a painting of the virgin and child by Botticelli, we recognize at once that it is a Renaissance painting—that is it a product of its time and place. We may not know or recognize at once that it was painted by Botticelli, but we do see that it is a Renaissance painting. We see that it has been derived from, and authored by, the culture that produced it.

And yet we recognize, too, that this painting of the virgin and child is not identical to one by Raphael or Ghirlandaio or Leonardo. So, clearly, while the culture creates much of Botticelli, it is also true that Botticelli creates the culture—that he took the culture into himself and transformed it in his own unique way.

And so, whether we mean to or not, the work we do is both received and created, both an adaptation and an original, at the same time. We re-make things as we go.

Another aspect of Free Theatre appears to be opening up as well. While many companies do pay-what-you-can nights, a theater in Ohio is trying that theory out for the whole run of its current production.

Available Light is opening Sheila Callaghan’s Dead City here in Columbus in about 2 weeks. This show is a really big deal for us. Aside from being a beautiful play that we’re all really excited about, it’s also our first show to receive significant public funding, it has the largest cast we’ve put on stage, and it’s in a space that’s costing us about 3 times what we usually pay. (Frequent readers of this blog will remember that I am very ambivalent about that particular fact.)

However, instead responding by playing it safe on other fronts to compensate for the big risks we’re taking, we’ve decided to try another big experiment. We’re making all tickets to all shows for everyone all the time “Pay What You Want”. That’s right, just like Radiohead,Trent Reznor, Saul Williams, Paste Magazine, and a small crop of restaurants.

Free culture is on the rise. It is being written into the very fabric of our larger culture. Much like free(read renewable) energy will replace finite resources like oil and coal, so too will free (read open) culture replace finite and “owned” culture.

its just a matter of time.

Cultural Anthropology

Saturday, March 1st, 2008

This is a must read for understanding one of America’s many important ethnic groups.

Visioning Culture

Friday, May 4th, 2007

Link

Culture can shape your view of the world, the saying goes. And it might be more than just a saying: a new study suggests that culture may shape the way our brains process visual information.

Researchers found that the brains of older East Asian people respond less strongly to changes in the foreground of images than those of their Western counterparts. They suggest this difference is due to an increased emphasis on the background, or context, of images in some Asian cultures. But other experts think the study does not firmly establish culture as the cause for this divergence.

Global Spirituality

Friday, March 30th, 2007

Link

Global spirituality is a fundamental component of a culture of peace or a culture of awareness as far as the religions are concerned because it is a profoundly useful inner resource for creating and sustaining the inner conditions to support such a nonviolent, wise culture. Religion cannot be content simply to contribute a moral dimension to such a culture. Again, that is not enough. It has so much more that it can offer from its hidden treasures of the Spirit. These gifts of religious consciousness in its most advanced form can and will strengthen the foundation, widen the scope, and extend the horizon of the dawning global culture and universal civilization. Spirituality can offer deep roots to this new world society that will ensure its endurance through the coming millennia.

Cultural Perspectives

Saturday, March 10th, 2007

Link

To say that an animal is like a human, or one culture is like another culture at a different phase in its history, is a metaphor, nothing more. It cannot be the case, non-metaphorically. Even when different calendars co-exist — and they do; for the West this is 2007 years after the birth of Jesus Christ, for the Japanese it’s Heisei 19, for Muslims it’s Hijrah year 1428 — we’re all living in the same moment. And we’re all living with each other, changing each other’s context, redefining each other. Today’s postmodernism has been influenced by Islamism, as Islamism has been influenced by postmodernism. Even if the Islamic 1428 resembled the Christian 1428 in every way, the fact that we were around would change the situation utterly. Context changes everything. Imagine a 1428 in which Christendom lived alongside a postmodern culture with TV stations, pop stars and the internet. It would be an utterly different 1428, one which defined itself (probably negatively) against the postmodern culture next door.

Think, too, of how insulting it is to say “They’re living our 1428. They’re just like we were.” What would we think of a Japanese writer who said the West had just about reached Japan’s Meiji 18? He’d be dismissed as an incredibly arrogant nationalist.

Borges has two short stories which have a lot to tell us here. One is about a poet who’s writing an epic poem describing everything in the world using an Aleph in his basement — a wondrous little model which makes the whole universe simultaneously visible in a space just a few centimeters across. The West really seems to think it’s the Aleph, the model, the place from which everything can be seen, and in which everything is contained. We really act as if we’re up on the hilltop, and have the answers. The trouble is that in our Aleph, everything looks suspiciously like us. The rabbits in there all have eyes on the front of their heads. Maybe we haven’t kept it clean. Maybe it’s a mirror.

The other story is Pierre Menard, Author of The Quixote, in which a 20th century man attempts to rewrite Cervantes’ 16th century novel from memory. Borges makes clear that even if Menard had succeeded (and of course he can’t, just like the famous monkeys with their typewriters and their infinite bits of paper containing close-but-no-cigar versions of “Hamlet”), he would still have been an utterly original writer, doing something Cervantes wouldn’t have dreamed of: reproducing Cervantes word-for-word.

Technology of the Visible

Monday, January 15th, 2007

It’s better than shuffle mode. No really. The future really is a fun place to hang out. It is curious that with all the technology available to us, the essential human really does not change. Biologically we are no different than we were one thousand or even one hundred years ago, and yet the potential of our lives is radically different. Or is it?

Sure there is more plastic and blinky lights, but that is all just cover. It is the superficial. It is the mask we wear. The cultural mask of technology worn by the proto-future. But what do we have behind that mask? Our needs have not really changed. Nor have our emotions. Yet far too often we find ourselves falling into habits formed by and through our use of technology.

I run into this with every project I work on. A light is a light is a light. You can make most any light perform most any function. Within reason. Similar with the lighting control systems. These are often computers, and every one has a unique programming language. Knowing how to use one kind of light allows you to know how to use most any other light. There really is only so much a light can do. Well, you know, anything. But the technology of how you control those lights is much harder to break through the surface.

The San Francisco Opera uses a lighting system that I had not seen since college, and then it was a much more primitive version of the programming language. When I started working there it took me a large part of my first season to really understand the language itself. I kept running into problems where I would want to perform a specific function and it was either not possible or incredibly difficult. And at the same time, things that I was used to being quite complex became very simple.

In the short term, what one could do, at least what one could do efficiently was determined by the technology. In many ways this was restricted to how you could organize information. Through various machinations one could perform the same operations, but how it was done and the order one needed to think in to make it happen were radically divergent.

So what does that mean at a cultural level?

I remember an experiment we did in a psychology class I took in college. Can you connect all nine dots with four straight lines without removing your pencil from the paper?

dots

The results were interesting. The ability to solve the puzzle broke down along culturo-technological lines. The very presence of certain technologies precluded or radically hindered the ability of individuals to solve the puzzle. It changed the way they saw. Certain things, wholly unrelated to the technologies in question, became invisible by the mere presence of those technologies.

How much of our sight is determined by our language? Does the language we use actually hide things from us as much as it reveals.

The music and film industry is freaking out about pirated works. They want to have total control over the licensing and distribution of digital media. It seems to be a losing battle in the long run, and certain people love to point out the misguided foibles of these industries. But perhaps we could look at the issue from another angle. Why do we feel the need to own these things in the first place?

Perhaps we are owned and controlled by the very notion of ownership. It is ingrained in our culture. Happiness is only a metaphor for property. But as technology advances, notions of ownership become more a matter of sentimentality than they do of necessity. Maybe this constitutes a new mode of happiness. Or at least potentially new vectors for discovering it.

Either way, the path is uncertain and obscured. How then does this uncertain and floating reality impact us as human beings? In a world where nothing is real, how do we even find the forest?

Indie Family

Saturday, June 10th, 2006

My sister is in town for the MoCCA convention. We met for lunch and had a good time catching up. Her comics are great, but if you don’t want to risk the $3 for some fine handmade comics she also has a daily comic that you can read. If you are looking for something to do on Sunday in New York, the MoCCA could be a good way to spend the afternoon. If you go be sure to stop by her table with Global Hobo and pick up some goodies.

Rewind Concert

Friday, June 9th, 2006

I saw a wonderful concert last night. The program consisted of an interesting variety of classical works both from the ‘cannon’ as well as contemporary pieces. The stated intent of the producing group was to create an evening of orchestral works that could be considered a viable entertainment alternative in the modern world. Attempting to move beyond the concert hall model there were a series of sculptures created by a friend of mine that hung from the ceiling in this former synagog. Within this space fused by old and new were projected various lighting effects to transform the space over time.

A few more things stood out to differentiate this from ones typical evening at the concert hall. The Musicians stood instead of performing seated, and to counter the traditional audience/stage performative dichotomy, the performance space was set up like a thrust stage with audience on three sides. Further, there were musicians in the balcony and on a sort of altar. As soloists would enter the space playing, the music seemed to shift location throughout the event. This revisioning of classical works made me think of this.

Aside from all the modern trappings, what really made the evening unique musically was how the works were conducted. Rather than being a series of pieces played in sequence with time for applause in between, the evening was constructed like a DJ set. Not in the sense of adding drum machines, but in terms of having one piece flow into another. At times there were contemporary electronic works that served as bridge and sometimes one work just segued into another. It was a truly impressive meditation on abstract aural narrative.

The audience was the youngest I have ever seen at a classical music event. Over half seemed to be in their late twenties to mid/late thirties. It was a wonderful reminder that the audience for these kinds of works are not going to “die off” in the not too distant future, but rather that a new audience can be cultivated. But this further pointed out that it takes more than low ticket prices to compete with MTV and film. Works of performing art can no longer afford to be treated as museum pieces. They must be engaged with as living artistic entities. As Paul Miller says, music is like “fragments of the world.” It is our job, like it is the job of the DJ, to reconstruct from those fragments, a viable and vital world that we all may live in.


Creative Commons License

All text on this site, unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. All other rights reserved.