Creators and Performers

More often than not, media today is promoted by the performers who play the role of creators. In reality, the fundamental creators are rarely seen or known by fans while the performers (typically the actors), make their rounds on a promotional circuit as puppets of the far-removed financial backers. The consequences of this is a spirit of superficiality. If the media (a movie for instance) has some value in depth, it is largely lost through this system and is therefore of little value to it. Therefore, the next time the backers fund a film, they look to invest in something the actors (who are not necessarily invested in the deep story) can sell.

Artists are part of a broadly diverse group, whose specific media varies as much as their specific role in creating it. Some artists specialize, while some are renaissance men. Others are technicians, while still others are conceivers. The difference between those who hands-on make a film and those who do the thinking work behind the labor is the principle difference between "creators" and "performers" in this context. For example, the main creators of LOST are JJ Abrams, Damon Lindelof, and Carlton Cuse; while the performers include writers like Adam Horowitz, directors like Jack Bender, and actors like Matthew Fox and Evangeline Lily. Both categories include both art and science, but a performer's art is dependent upon the creator's art.

Performers are responsible largely for the form of the finished product, while creators are responsible for the function. The physical actions that are done to produce the appearance and sheen of the product are important, but not as important as the core principles which drove the creative conception of the product. If a work of collaborative art is to stand out from from the pack, then it needs to be distinctive—by definition. However, to whatever degree the performance is unusual, the principles and story arcs upon which the performance is based must be timeless. The reason is that unusual stories are too challenging to the average viewer, and need time to find the audience, which in turn, explains the deeper significance to those who missed it.

Three things are needed to solve this problem:

1. Performers need to be creators or work closely with the creators.
2. Creators need to be involved in the promotional process more than performers.
3. Media productions need to mini-factories, each independent of third-party interests.

If performers are involved in the creative process from early on, at least with respect to their individual roles, then they will have the opportunity to be informed enough about the purpose of the project in order to better promote it when the time comes. Better informed performers will better inform the mainstream audience. Überfans are those fans who are inclined to be fanatics about the project, and they are already interested more in what the creators have to say. Should creators be more involved in promotional appearances, these fans would more tenaciously and accurately promote the project to mainstream viewers. Both of these are only achievable to the degree that all the major interests in the project form a cohesive brain-trust, which can only happen with a relatively small group.

The more unity, the more depth. The more division, the more shallow.

FEATURED MEDIA
Lost: The Complete Sixth And Final Season - This groundbreaking, epic TV series is based largely on philosophy and classic literature, but is told in a mysterious and thrilling style which is very contemporary. In my opinion, the most important thing ever aired on television.
The Coming Aristocracy - A rapid read, yet a meaty book, which puts into black and white the problem with tyranny and elitist thinking—and actually provides a solution through independent "mini-factories."

"LOST: Dr. Linus"

DISCLAIMER: In a previous post, I discussed the importance of ABC's "LOST." Therefore, I am beginning a series which briefly explores thoughts on the show with respect to FITmedia and Truth in Fiction. Being as the posts are philosophical in nature, I will try to keep story spoilers to a minimum. However, because many of the philosophical pillars are tied to critical events, it is impossible to discuss without some spoilers. For those of you not following the show, I hope that these posts will be worthwhile on their own merit, and should they inspire you to watch the show, that they will not have ruined the plot for you. You have been warned.

"Dr. Linus"

As one might expect from the title, the seventh episode of this season centers on Ben Linus. We are introduced to the main theme right away as Dr. Linus teaches his European History students about the island of Elba, where Napoleon faced the test of his lost of power. Ben has, from the very beginning, been a power broker. Even in his most difficult positions, he always had a plan. The numerous times he played the role of prisoner, he was really in control of the situation.

This was especially true in the hands of John Locke, from whom he elicited much frustration. Trapped in the Swan Station (Season 2), Ben spurred on a growing friction between Locke and Jack. He manipulated Locke's need to be special, and Jack's need to be right to eventually drive them both away from the station in order to escape. In Season 4, Locke is holding Ben prisoner at a house in the barracks, but in a matter of a few episodes, Ben is living among them as a free man again.

It is interesting to see the role that "Locke" now plays in Ben's life—both as the disguised Man in Black on the Island and as the substitute teacher in the flash-sideways. It is now clear that Ben's struggle was to balance the desire to protect Alex and a desire for power. In the flash-sideways, the well-meaning John Locke encourages him to pursue the job of school principal (a position of power) when he expresses a concern for his History Club (of which Alex is a member). On the Island, Locke tempts him with the job of leading the Island now that Jacob is gone (a position of power), which he sees as his only purpose now that Alex is dead.

In both timelines, Ben's desire for power leads him to do something unethical. As a teacher, he enlists the help of a colleague to find evidence of an "inappropriate relationship" between the school nurse and the current principal in order to blackmail him into retiring. On the Island, he accepts the help of a "man" who should be his enemy if he were truly a follower of Jacob. In both timelines, he faces the choice of sacrificing that which is more dear to him than power—his relationship with Alex.

In the flash-sideways, Ben's attempted power-grab reveals a choice (at the hand of the principal) of becoming the "leader" of the school or letting Alex "live." This is a parallel of the events in the main timeline, where Ben kidnaps baby Alex, but is told by Charles Widmore that the Island wants her dead. Later Ben becomes the leader when he exiles Widmore because of an "inappropriate relationship" with a woman off the Island. Widmore "changes the rules," which causes Alex to be killed. Despite the dark path he takes on the Island, Ben decides to sacrifice his own chance for advancement to give Alex that chance instead. He appears to feel a sense of liberation at this, even offering to give his parking space away. This is a petty thing, but symbolically very unlike the Ben we know from the Island.

When Locke helps him escape from his shackles in this episode, it is his pain over the loss of Alex that stops him from killing Ilana. We see a more human side of him for probably the first time, as he sympathizes with her loss of Jacob. She ultimately gives him the chance at redemption, forgiving him rather than letting him go to Locke. Interestingly, in the seventh episode of Season 1 ("The Moth"), it is John Locke who gives Charlie the chance at redemption from his drug addiction.

This event seems to conclude Ben's story in the same way that "The Substitute" concluded Locke's story, as discussed in an earlier post. They both continue to live, but the life seems to have gone out of them. Basically, they have accepted their fate or embraced their destiny. This episode seems to reveal that Jack has done so as well, but unlike the now-powerless Ben, Jack seems to have found new power in the confidence of his purpose. Only time will tell how this plays out.

FEATURED MEDIA: Preorder the final season!

Creative Control

Media, money, and marketing: the three M's of any artistic/creative endeavor, which have a naturally close relationship and therefore require the close attention of the key creator(s) or artists. Media is the thing itself; the "souvenir" or the channel through which the content is transfered to the consumer. For most artists, the chosen medium is important to the specific content (i.e.: a cookie is the ideal medium for a fortune). Whatever medium is chosen, some amount of money will be needed to give it life, and once alive, marketing is needed to recoup funds at a profit—if for no other reason than to personally fund another project.

Money is the lifeblood of a project, and is necessary to even begin the process. It can be in the form of cash, as from an investment by financial backers or from the profits of a previous success. It can also be physical assets (like props or equipment), which might be given or loaned to the artist by friends or interested third-parties, or might be given or loaned to the specific project by the artist from his private resources.

Marketing is a subset of information, ideally related in character (if not in form) to the artistic content of the media. The act of including information about a product or service that is already saleable, and which is valuable to the media consumer can provide faster revenue for the artist, which ought to be of interest to financial backers. The earlier such marketing can be effectively implemented by the artist or close associate, the less the artist's media will be dependent upon third-party financial concerns and the biases they might bring to the form of the art.

The more directly an artist controls these three parts, the more freedom the artist has. The more removed the artist is from the money and the marketing, the more he is controlled by those who provide them. If it is true to say that money (cash or assets) is the lifeblood of a creative media project, then it is true to say that a media artist cannot complete his project without it. If marketing is the act of transferring information to those who find it valuable, then it presents an opportunity for a media artist to build revenue. Therefore, the degree to which the artist controls and operates the marketing which is paired with his media, is the degree to which he both maintains the integrity of his art and promotes third-party products and services which possess the same integrity.

To maintain creative control, the artist must have a hand in supplying his own funding and marketing his own product. There is a relational buffer area (as I see it) between these three parts of a total media business. Any one of these three can be in the leadership role. The determining factor is not the control of the other two, but the control of the rites of passage, as it were. The artist is creating something of value, that is a priority. He is offering a sound investment opportunity to prospective backers, and a high-class market block to prospective sponsors.

If the artist is to lead and maintain creative control, he has to lead and maintain creative control. That wasn't a misprint, but a call to action. The artist must know and trust those he is in business with, and the closer they are in friendship, the more cohesive their individual roles will be. Essentially, artist must decide—and commit to the decision—to accept only that help from others which is in tune with his personal ethics, and to hold the line on those ethics—independent of the loss of partners due to ethical differences.

You're only selling out, if you're losing creative control.

Control or Communicate?

I recently read a short article in the February issue of Wired Magazine, entitled "Brain Candy." The article is about a fledgling company called MindSign Neuromarketing, who wants to use fMRI technology to map movie viewers' brains in order to fine-tune the editing to achieve a certain [emotional] response. Writing with a general spirit of disgust, the author sarcastically promotes the idea. While the potentials for abuse are enormous, the information produced could be of great value if (and only if) it is used moderately.

My first question is how universal are fMRI results? Can a general mapping of stimulus response be a sufficient example of every human's response? As with any mass approach to information, there is the question of the bell curve. People, as we all know, are different. For every generalization, there is a portion of the population that falls as outliers. These outliers—both above and below the standard—represent those that are unreachable by a mass message tailored to the generalization. The degree to which the fMRI tests vary by the individual, is the degree to which any generalization would produce a murky result. If, on the other hand, the results of the fMRI tests are a spot-on standard for all humans, then there would be no outliers.

The less outliers there are, the less resistance there would be against sales campaigns that border on mind-control. That being said, those who are susceptible to the emotional message of a Hollywood movie, a TV commercial, etc. still have the free choice to run contrary to their emotions in the favor of logical conclusions. The need for rational mentors and role models would become more important than ever. Like any drug to which the body can become acclimatized, the mind can develop similar modes of defense with help. This would have the effect of promoting logic—the opposite of what MindSign seeks to exploit.

Mind control aside, this technology represents the possibility of building a mountain of data for use by media creators to more effectively communicate the truth of their message. Part of the problem with any medium is its inherently static nature. It is what it is, and generally cannot be custom-fit to the individual. Even if the content is founded on universal truths, the expression of those truths might get lost in translation for some people. A universal language of expression would work wonders to tear down these barriers.

All in all, new technology comes with both strengths and weaknesses, and therefore only constitutes progress to the degree that the sum-total of its effects is positive. If "neuromarketing" has a chance to replace all other forms of marketing, we must make certain that it is because it is more effective in communicating truth, and not just because it is easier to make people comply with commercial ideology. The value of a skilled marketer is in his ability to tailor the message to the individual or small group. What do you think would happen if technology replaced this?

FEATURED MEDIA: The Matrix - (I'm being a little tongue-in-cheek with this one.) A computer programmer who believes it is 1999, finds out he is actually plugged into a computer matrix and only dreaming his life. Every aspect of his "life" is controlled by a computer program, designed by robots so they can use people for their bio-energy.

"LOST: Sundown"

DISCLAIMER: In a previous post, I discussed the importance of ABC's "LOST." Therefore, I am beginning a series which briefly explores thoughts on the show with respect to FITmedia and Truth in Fiction. Being as the posts are philosophical in nature, I will try to keep story spoilers to a minimum. However, because many of the philosophical pillars are tied to critical events, it is impossible to discuss without some spoilers. For those of you not following the show, I hope that these posts will be worthwhile on their own merit, and should they inspire you to watch the show, that they will not have ruined the plot for you. You have been warned.

"Sundown"

At last, evil is revealed! That is, if we are to believe Dogen, who calls the Man in Black "evil incarnate." Also, Sayid is revealed to be more evil than good, despite any progress he might have made in earlier seasons. The sides are fairly clear, as are their natures. What remains uncertain seems to be only their individual fates.

This episode marks the first flash-sideways to end on a down-note. Despite Sayid's insistence that he has changed, he kills in cold blood. This is a shift in Sayid's character which started in Season 4 flashforwards with Ben's plot to assassinate Widmore's associates, and which was officially introduced in "He's Our You." I feel that this represents a break in the integrity of the character. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that a "torturer" is not the same thing as a "killer."

What is interesting to note—and why I bring it up now—is the fact that it took some evolving of the character to bring him to the point of being a killer in the normal timeline, which is fair. However, it "jumped the shark" to portray him as a killer from childhood (and also made the presumption that killing a chicken is the same as killing a person). The flash-sideways exacerbates my sense of disbelief, because it expects us to accept that Sayid was a killer by nature at the time when he would have landed on the Island.

Another thing this episode gives us to ponder about the nature of good and evil in the LOST universe, is the fact that the Man in Black seems to be able "resurrect" the dead—at least in some unknown manner—and Jacob seems to be able to preserve life. This is strange, at least from a traditional view of good and evil, because evil usually represents death—especially from a Judeo-Christian view. This may support the theory that the two sides are more like chess pieces in that they are merely distinct from one another and not necessarily good or bad.

It is likely that we still have yet to see the true faces of good and evil, and equally likely that we never will. If ultimately Jacob and the Man in Black are merely the "kings" of the chess board, then the real players may be only implied, but never revealed. Like God and Satan.

FEATURED MEDIA: Preorder the final season!

The Natural Result

[Reposted from CTIF.blogspot.com]

Where does Hollywood's incentive lie? Butts in seats. That's all. If they can get you to buy a ticket, the quality of the movie does not matter. And so the quality of movies suffers. Now granted, there are artists in Hollywood who do care about the quality of the film and most studio executives know enough about business to know that the studio's name is on the line if the audience doesn't have a good time, but what long term value is there in just having a good time?

What I'm talking about is a short-sighted perspective. Many people, companies, and industries are to blame, but sources of fiction propagate this negative trend by portraying it as reality. While what's in front of you might be the truth, it may not be the whole truth.

Our culture today has some significant problems. We are an unhealthy people, facing heart disease, obesity, and cancer. We are in an economic crisis; many of us are unable to get out of debt, much less accumulate wealth. Our relationships are in peril: divorce rates are high, family members aren't speaking, and everyone shifts blame.

Health is the natural result of our bodies functioning properly. Key distinction: you may be HEALTHY right now, but if your body isn't functioning PROPERLY, you won't be for long. Our bodies function properly when they are properly maintained. Like a car, we need the proper intake of certain chemicals to keep our parts working smoothly. Is it fair to say that we don't eat properly? Is it fair to say that few, if any, of us follow the FDA's scientifically backed food pyramid? Many believe that health food is a lot of expensive hype, that as long as they're full, it doesn't matter what they consume. Many would rather watch TV than go for a jog because it's easier. The truth is there are things you need to do now to prevent health problems in the future.

Wealth is the natural result of living within our means. You see, wealth is not about how much you make, despite popular opinion. It is about how much you keep. Not budgeting your money is like trying to build a house without a blueprint. And red-lining your income (or spending every cent you make), is like driving on a narrow bridge with no guard rails. Many think it's just too hard to budget, or that they need to spend money to make money. The truth is the vast majority of millionaires in America are very frugal, and the people that look like a million bucks are broke.

Solid relationships are the natural result of putting other people first. People who feel respected are more likely to respect you. Could it be that sometimes the other person needs more from you than you can get from them? What would happen if you chose to invest in people? Many have a "take care of number one" or a "look out for me and mine" mentality. They figure other people's problems are none of their business and they are happy that is the case. The truth is, it's not. People need people. Relationships both build and crumble by small acts compounding over time.

Is Hollywood causing this? No. The only one I can blame is me. You and I are the community of people who consume these movies, what we buy is what we support. As a society, we are in love with the idea that we are victims of our environment. Hollywood, TV, and other mass media simply caters to this want. The natural result of enabling victim-thinking is the death of progress.

What if we formed a different kind of community? One where there is incentive in the teaching of truth? Stories (true or fictitious), have historically been used to teach lessons about life. Many are still with us in some form today. I believe that classic films are those that hold the most truth, because truth lasts. The films that continue to be watched hold the greatest long-term value and create the greatest residual incomes for their creators (the studios included.)

What if we learn the truth about these three areas? What if we teach the truth by bringing people into an association of like-minded people? What if we banded together to create truthful media that we could proudly promote? What if we inspired people to found organizations of their own, and create truthful media from their unique perspective? What if the process perpetuated?

Let's solve problems, build a community, and put Truth in Fiction!

FEATURED MEDIA
- The Millionaire Next Door - An astonishingly detailed book about the real millionaires in America. Authors Stanley and Danko have done an exhaustive study of millionaires, and found that many act and look like their middle-class counterparts and are first-generation wealthy.
- Love & Respect - An eye-opening book about the difference between what husbands and wives expect from each other emotionally.

Feb '10: The Month in Posts

In an effort to bring some cohesion to this blog and weed out a lot of random thoughts, I have decided to begin posting an end-of-the-month overview of the best posts from that month. Hopefully, this will help new readers catch up on some of the main ideas we discuss, while providing clarity for those who (I'm sorry) might have been confused by the clutter. Since this is the first post of this nature, I will also be including posts from January '10 and from December '09.

So How Do We Discover Truth? - Dec 21, 2009

At this point in human history, the playing field as been leveled like never before. Not only has the advancement of technology brought powerful tools into the hands of the people (not the least of which is digital media solutions for video and audio), but it has brought us a limitless marketplace in which to share our ideas. Such unfettered access to informational exchange should make us the wisest of all human generations... (read more)

The Story of FITmedia - Jan 9, 2010

FITmedia is an organizational philosophy based upon three components of sustainability: freedom, integrity, and truth. Simply stated, how well the pieces fit, is how fit the pieces are. Imagine a jigsaw puzzle that has been left out in the rain. If the pieces are water-logged, then it is very difficult for them to work together in harmony, each piece's "baggage" needing more space that the adjacent piece can give. (read more)

Media and Mealtime - Jan 30, 2010

To continue the mealtime metaphor, media can be constructed for the purpose of snacktime or dinnertime. It is not the volume or density of a given work that ultimately determines its literary significance, but its ability to fit the role for which it was intended. As with food for the body, media provides a full range of nutritional options for the mind. So it follows, in our contemporary fast-food age, that it is also more convenient and cheaper to feed the mind junk than health (same flaw, different industry). (read more)

The Manifesto of Truth in Fiction - Feb 3, 2010

Truth in Fiction is not referring to the truth of events, but the truth of existence. Fiction allows the author to orchestrate the events and characters in a universe of his or her own design. Because it is not bound by the truth of events, fiction authors can forget that it must be bound by the truth of existence. To forget this is to produce works which are at best, unrelatible to the audience, and at worst, poisonous to the unsophisticated mind. (read more)

Media and Marketing - Feb 7, 2010

Permit me to save a lengthy discussion of the etymology of the word "media," and just say, for our purposes that media is referring primarily to entertainment mass media such as television, movies, novels, and their digital kin. The content of such media is a creative (if not artistic) endeavor, which by its nature attracts a crowd. The easier such media content is for people to access, the bigger the following will be. Therefore, it is only natural that such media would ideally be free and widely accessible. (read more)

The Producer's Mind - Feb 16, 2010

A successful producer must be able to manage input and output. He must know where he is in the chain of production, what his immediate customer wants, and what the end consumer wants. He must then understand the "raw" material which he is buying, its cost and value. He must be aware of the business politics of his vendors, and to what degree they can be trusted. Basically, to be a success, he must be a gatekeeper of value. (read more)

Emotional Attachment - Feb 22, 2010

Unscrupulous advertisers seek to tap your emotional weak spots in order to push on you a product which you really don't need. Emotional attachment of this kind is unhealthy and ought to be exercised from a free thinking person's mind. This isn't to say that emotions are not valid, but a good rule of thumb would be that emotions are for people, not things. FITmedia seeks to create writers, producers, and distributors who understand that the only products that should sponsor true art are truly artful products. (read more)

Monetize the Starving Artist - Feb 23, 2010

I've found, through personal experience, that it is considerably difficult to balance the need to express one's art with the need to sustain oneself financially. Because one's art is entangled with one's sense of purpose, the artist can fall into the trap of self-satisfaction and the sacrifice of all else. In other words, it is easier to relegate one's art to the realm of the hobby and spend only a minimal amount of time bringing in a salary. This is, of course, the old concept of the "starving artist." (read more)

The FITmedia Difference - Feb 28, 2010

The consortium of independents created through this process would have an interest in the continued trade of their resources as a part of this community. Loyalty would only be sustained to the degree that the whole consortium (or at least units of a certain size) continue to operate with a spirit of freedom, integrity, and truth. (read more)