Simon Fraser (IV)

Zounds!

I think maybe we’ve been putting the cart before the horse.

Success comes first, then failure.

Then a new success, then a new failure.

Etc.

So fail ON TOP OF success.

Got it.

Moving on.

I love the Internet for the opportunities it presents. An email I received:

On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Arkadiy Tumaykin wrote:

My reply:

Hello Arkadiy,

Thank you for your email and thank you for giving me the opportunity to help you.

I can provide you with a Canadian perspective to your question; some of these points might not apply in all parts of the world.

There are two ways to take part in theater, TV or movies – the hard way, and the harder way.

The hard way is that of what is usually called an “insider”. It relies primarily on the structure of the entertainment industry that is already in place.

The hard way involves many of the following :

- going to film or theater school for 1 to 4 years,
- working on other people’s poorly executed artistic productions for free,
- working at a job that has little to do with your artistic passion but at least it puts food on your plate,
- struggling to find an agent who can provide access to employment opportunities,
- competing with other artists for the very few opportunities that are available,
- networking with other artists to create opportunities for expressing your passion,
- dealing with personal insecurities when you are faced with 100 rejections for every 1 acceptance,
- endorsing products that you yourself would not purchase,
- trusting other artists,
- eventually, working on artistic productions only because they pay well, not necessarily because they create an artistic playground
- being hired by someone else for the same kind of role or performance over and over and over and over again
- possibly making your artistic expression your sole means of income
- being boxed, packaged and labeled by someone else as a brand and commodity

The harder way is that of what is usually called an “outsider”. It relies primarily on the structure that the artist creates for themselves.

The harder way involved many of the following :

- reading as much as you can about the history of any kind of art or form of media
- listening to as many DVD director’s commentary tracks as you can – I recommend Robert Rodriguez and Steven Soderbergh
- practicing everything that you learn,
- creating your own poorly executed artistic productions,
- learning from your errors, recreating the circumstances that led to those errors and making a different choice before the same error reappears
- working at a job that has little to do with your artistic passion but at least it puts food on your plate,
- networking with other artists to create opportunities for expressing your passion,
- building or joining a community of others with similar artistic intentions,
- dealing with personal insecurities when the community you’ve built or joined begins to outgrow you,
- trusting other artists,
- eventually, working on artistic productions that create a playground for those artists involved, though these productions might pay little, if at all
- feeling the joy of hiring, engaging or inviting another artist to express their own passions
- being able to make your choices before anyone else makes their choices
- possibly making your artistic expression your sole means of income
- boxing, packaging and labeled yourself as a brand and commodity

Either way is valuable and legitimate and both provide opportunities for you to express yourself.

Personally, having tasted both ways, I prefer the harder way. And I am a fan of any who follow it. Following the harder way is what creates the opportunities for other artists to follow the hard way.

Ultimately, the choice is yours.

One more thing : nobody tries to be an artist. If you create art – any kind of art – you are an artist. The audience that experiences the art you create decides for themselves what value to take from it.

spasiba,
sf

Dear G20 Protest Organizers, a piece of advice: next time don’t show up, don’t protest.

Because inaction as action would have acutely demonstrated to everybody how wasteful and counter-productive the top 20 economies of the world actually are.

Had there been no protests or protesters, no visible action, no civil disobedience for the mainstream media to twist into hyperbole, then there would have been a billion dollars spent on security, solely to arrest one confused homeless guy with a crossbow.

And then you’d have had millions – literally, MILLIONS – more voices closer to your side of the socio-economic debate in which you’re entangled.

Fires are extinguished with water, not with gasoline. If G20 security forces had had nothing and nobody from which to protect the G20 leaders, their presence would have been so obviously unwarranted.

As it is, the protests and riots and vandalism completely justified the presence of ridiculously over-reaching security measures.

You blew it.

Doesn’t anybody understand how even more overpopulated the world would be without homosexuals in it!?

The more homosexuals there are on this planet, the lower our global birth rates will be. The lower our birth rates will be, the more likely we will all be to survive our impending collapse as a species.

I’d prefer to see quality of life than quantity of life.

What is going on with God these days? I mean, isn’t God supposed to be all-powerful? And yet, if many of God’s followers would have you believe, God is about as powerful as a 98-pound wimp getting sand kicked in his face at the beach and as precious as a baby in a cradle hanging tenuously from a tree branch on the side of a cliff.

The guys from South Park got death threats recently because apparently they depicted Mohammed in a mascot bear suit. To the people who issued these death threats, I would love to ask, “Is the perception of your deity so weak that it cannot withstand mockery?”

After all, it is mockery – the second lowest form of comedy. And you want to kill someone over it? Really? I submit to you that perhaps you just want to kill someone. And South Park is simply your raison d’etre du jour.

Elsewhere, I read a comment in a discussion thread that sprouted from an article about Stephen Hawking’s recent revelation of his fear of alien contact. The comment was from a Christian who was complaining about all the heresy he had to endure in reading the article and the discussion that followed.

Again, just as with the issuers of Islamic death threats, I would love to ask Christians who complain of heresy, “Is the perception of your deity so weak that it cannot withstand an idea?”

After all, it’s only an idea – it doesn’t actually exist. No one’s putting your deity in the middle of a street in Pamplona, where actual trampling does occur. And you want to shut someone down about it? Really? I submit to you that perhaps you just want to shut someone down. And square pegs make for the easiest of targets, don’t they?

We can put a man on the Moon but we can’t cure the lowest common denominator.