ROFL.

We were revolutionaries!

What was your first screenname? Mine, I’m almost ashamed to admit was “Daslyfox.” Ha. “Sly Fox”, get it? So why “Da”? Simple. “Da bomb.”

I know. Soooo "I'm-a-loser-1997." Because that’s what year it was that my parents first got the internet. We were surely behind the curve—I mean most of the people who resembled friends (who really is a friend in middle school?) were already online. All of them were already wearing badges stating their self-chosen aliases in attempt to draw a black line around their identity and give people a clearer idea of how they wanted to be seen. Most of these were not the typical bread and butter ones (SeanFox123), of course many of them had a youthful, creative “twist” to them. I won’t embarrass anyone; I don’t remember others’ screennames anyway.

We were all teenagers, eager to carve out a social presence on the net. I sought friends and allies by participating in AOL chatrooms and cheap-o online gaming communities back when those AOL communities were innovative, or at least virtually monopolizing the online community, and none of us had any idea how this all worked.

It occurred to me when I was noting some friend’s screennames that if I were 40 and instant messaging with a young associate in my company across gChat or AIM after friending them on Facebook (I’m a hip and “with-it” executive), their (our) screennames would strike me as infantile. And yet, to me, their friend, they’re nothing. These images are only digital doppelgangers or glances of the people I know and love from a time in their lives I didn’t know them—when they picked their last screenname.

Now we can “safely” use our real names on Facebook or gChat; maybe we’re too grown-up to want those fronts up anymore in any case—too grown-up to want people to think we’re interesting or cool based on a carefully chosen array of letters and digits. We haven’t totally given up yet; we are still attempting clever e-mail identities, blog titles or MySpace “names” (sorry, I hate MySpace, I have no idea what it’s actually called when you can pick a clever alias).

Do these levels of self, or more accurately, these public identifications have precedent? To my knowledge, only with pennames by great authors and fake IDs and passports. Nicknames don’t count, after all. Nicknames come from friends and social circumstances. We’ve named ourselves. And whether my friends have felt that I have been accurately portrayed by anyone of my hundreds of assumed names, or even by my current screenname, DJSharpie27 (the only one I currently have that I have that is truly disingenuous)* is not important. It was our foray, our invention, and our mysterious mutual attraction to this duality that generated the excitement and interest that led our technology to where it is. Despite it all, I don’t care what Bill, Larry, or Sergey or Mark say. We built Web 2.0.

LOL!

*For those who are interested, I want to be a DJ, I love Sharpies, and since the screenname was taken, I used 27, a number I’ve always fancied for some relatively unremembered reason. I think it was a fortune cookie from the China Garden in my hometown during a dinner celebrating the completion of the Homecoming float…one of the best times of my life. I think that’s where it came from anyway. Read more

Artomatic 2008

Last night I went to Artomatic 2008.  Artomatic (tagline: by artists, for everyone) is a cross-section of artists from all over the DC-metropolitan area.  It features photography, ceramics, sculptures, paintings, crafts, sketch-comedy, cabaret and even a tattoo parlour.  I went because some former coworkers of mine, Jim Tretick (Jim's site is down, otherwise I'd link) and Matthew Dailey, were exhibiting.  

Most of the art is modern or pop, so other than the photography and ceramics (which I just love in general), there wasn't that much I really liked.  I think the exhibit that affected me the most was actually Caitlin Phillips' Rebound Designs.  Ms. Phillips takes the covers of old books and turns them into handbags.  Given my reverence for books, even old, decrepit ones, I'm not sure if this is the most awesome idea I've ever seen or sacrilege.  

Still, it was an enjoyable evening, with plenty to see.  Last night we watched a sketch comedy group perform, and checked out the finalists of the second annual Sunday Source Peeps Diorama Contest.  

More importantly, I think, is the sympathetic environment and helping hand Artomatic extends to local artists.  Artomatic is growing in renown in the DC area, and thus attracts an audience full of potential buyers.  In addition to giving them a gallery venue in which to display their art (many of these artists do not have their own shops, or even work full time as artists), Artomatic artists and members give tips and pointers to new artists (including how to set up an affecting (and effective) display).  From talking to Jim, I got the impression that Artomatic is a big family - extraordinarily welcoming of new faces, but also very close.  Artists look out for each other, answer questions about their friends' and neighbors' work

I'm not sure how likely it is that DC will ever have a big art scene, but Artomatic seems like a good start.  Definitely make the time to visit before it closes on June 15.

Read more

Year Zero/In Rainbows

As a prelude, the Fresh Air of 13 March served to get this post (hovering since Year Zero was released last Spring) out of my head. It’s worth listening to.

If you don’t know that the music industry is changing, you’re hiding under a rock. Everyone ought to be aware by now that soon, the very meaning of music as a media and the business will be drastically different from how it is now, especially how it was two years ago. How we purchase music and, to me, more saliently, how we listen to it is undergoing a major revolution.

There are three major examples of this that have recently profoundly influenced my relationship with the industry—Girl Talk is one just by himself, but there has also been the release of Nine Inch Nails’ Year Zero and Radiohead’s In Rainbows.

I love Girl Talk, and an entry on him is coming soon, but for now, I want to address the latter 2. Both albums are similar in that they were released under conditions that were nothing short of revolutionary. For the full story of Year Zero’s release, go to the Wikipedia entry or for the full DETAILS, go to the NIN wiki and for In Rainbows, go to the Wikipedia entry or check out the backlog “In-Rainbows” blog-tags on Radiohead_At/Ease (many of my later links are cribbed from this, the best Radiohead resource on the net).

Basically, Nine Inch Nails leaked tracks on USB keys that were left in restrooms and such containing, along with a track or two, some kind of coded or hidden message that led you to a website that had further hidden or coded messages or some other kind of statement coinciding with the concept of the album. All of it worked together to tell a narrative that registered as if we are all unknowingly trapped in an oppressed society, drugged on some undetectable substance by an authoritarian government. They didn’t just decimate the fourth wall, they decimated all four of them at once—the album’s release blurred the lines between the artist and the audience, reality and a nightmarish dreamscape, perceptions of reality and certainty, and most importantly (in my opinion) self-expression and public consumption/social meaning.

Radiohead’s release held a much more limited meaning artistically, but in the sense of the business, their model is incredibly relevant. One initial report put album sales at a staggering at 1.2 million, although these numbers were later thrown into doubt. Still it seems, that the average listener paid somewhere around 8 dollars, but theoretically only 2/5 downloaders paid. Those numbers are in doubt, as Jonny Greenwood points out in a more recent interview. And this is on top of the stolen ones.

The first conclusion I’m drawing here is that the release of albums is getting much, MUCH more creative of late; there have been other marketing ploys of late—international bonus tracks, iTunes incentives, etc. But Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead achieved unprecedented levels of media buzz and fan exuberance. One reviewer (Pitchfork) of In Rainbows put it thusly—

Like many music lovers of a certain age, I have a lot of warm memories tied up with release days. I miss the simple ritual of making time to buy a record. I also miss listening to something special for the first time and imagining, against reason, the rest of the world holed up in their respective bedrooms, having the same experience. Before last Wednesday, I can't remember the last time I had that feeling. I also can't remember the last time I woke up voluntarily at 6 a.m. either, but like hundreds of thousands of other people around the world, there I was, sat at my computer, headphones on, groggy, but awake, and hitting play.

So these creative releases are certainly heightening the interest in the album and the interaction with the band, as Trent Reznor pointed out by saying in an interview on the Spiral (quoted from Wikipedia, for the Spiral—registration required): “'marketing’ is an inaccurate description of the alternate reality [marketing], and that it is ‘not some kind of gimmick to get you to buy a record - it IS the art form ...’”.

The second conclusion is a terrible one for the future of music, in my opinion. Despite this fan excitement, despite its ostensibly free release, In Rainbows was STILL stolen (DISCLOSURE: and I say this as a hypocrite, after trying to buy the album properly for $10, there was a huge internet snafu due to China issues—so I torrented it like so many other people).

The third conclusion here is that two of the most innovative albums of the last year or so were innovative NOT because of the artfulness of their musicality, but for the artfulness of the business surrounding their release. Indeed, musically, I was disappointed by both albums, although I think it had more to do with me being caught up in that aforementioned fan exuberance than it did with a lack of quality on the part of the albums themselves (I passionately love In Rainbows). But as Trent Reznor pointed out, the ideas concerning the release become some sort of meta-statement. The release became the album and the art itself.

Clearly, we as a society are rethinking what it means to purchase and appreciate music. And as Thom Yorke and David Byrne pointed out in their Wired interview, the very value of music is at stake. I’m curious to see where this will go in the next few years.

As an epilogue, and proof that Reznor and Nine Inch Nails are not letting up, Ghosts I-IV is getting RAVE reviews (VSL, RStone), and they're still getting innovative with fan interaction.

-Sean

Read more

Comics, etc.

Two links:

Garfield minus Garfield. Andrew's right, Garfield's been off my Sunday morning comics required reading list for years, but I actually enjoyed these.

And don't forget to get your daily monsters.

Hat tip: VSL


- M Read more

So Much for the Chosen One

I really wish I could remember what the kid tells Neo in the Matrix about bending the spoon. Something about its not the spoon that bends, but him? Oh well.

Sadly, it will never happen. But Michael Crichton believes? He was totally spot-on with that whole global warming thing.....


- M

Hat tip: 3 Quarks Daily Read more

Blogworthy: Valentines Day Edition

Two really cute videos

Love in a Backwards World

The Space between Us


- M

Hat Tip: Very Short List for the first Read more