America, leave Iran alone!

I watched the BBC with mounting horror last night as America’s Secretary of Disaster Capitalism, Condoleeza Rice, ‘declared war’ on Iran by announcing the imposition of sanctions that are designed and intended to do nothing more than provoke Iran and provide Fascist Imperial America, the Duperpower (opposite of Superpower: a duplicitous, deceitful, dishonest rogue nation whose words of ideal mean nothing) with the opportunity to begin World War III.

“Under the influence of politicians, masses of people tend to ascribe the responsibility for wars to those who wield power at any given time. In World War I it was the munitions industrialists; in World War II it was the psychopathic generals who were said to be guilty. This is passing the buck.

The responsibility for wars falls solely upon the shoulders of these same masses of people, for they have all the necessary means to avert war in their own hands. In part by their apathy, in part by their passivity, and in part actively, these same masses of people make possible the catastrophes under which they themselves suffer more than anyone else. To stress this guilt on the part of the masses of people, to hold them solely responsible, means to take them seriously. On the other hand, to commiserate masses of people as victims, means to treat them as small, helpless children. The former is the attitude held by genuine freedom fighters; the latter that attitude held by power-thirsty politicians.” - Wilhelm Reich, The Mass Psychology of Fascism

I want to see Bush and his cronies in the International Courts at Nuremberg for War Crimes, crimes against humanity and the subversion of democracy. The last time Fascism raised its head in the world, the world said “No,” and for 5 years fought to create freedom and liberate the German people from tyranny, millions died. An attack on Iran today is going to be Poland in 1939 all over again. I hope you will all join me in telling the Duperpower to leave Iran alone.

Marketing: Quality of Promotional Items

Marketing is first and foremost a Perception-thing; it’s about image in the PR sense. “What image do you want to have?” is the same as saying “How do you want to be perceived?” The answer will determine the quality of your promotional items.

You can determine to control perception or you can leave it to chance. The techniques, tools and items of marketing are employed to bring about the control of perception. Depending on how they are used they can heighten perception of value — enhancing want — or they can degrade it.

Read more

The Points of the Creative Artists’ Code: Six - Art is a powerful communication channel

The most important thing in this sixth article explaining the points of the Code is the truth - only, in a much different way than the subject of truth was approached in the last article. The only words with true power are those with true meaning, and any form of power that is based on lies and deception is not real and lasting. Those who run the communication channels of the world cannot create the entertainment that is broadcast on them; they come to us, and artists must protect these channels with the power of truth. This is so important to the direction of culture and civilization that if you are an artist, you need to read the following article, immediately. Joel Falconer, Editor-in-Chief

Read more

The Points of the Creative Artists’ Code: Five - Always seek the communication of truth to your public…

This is NDK Creative Artist’s fifth article in the series covering each point of the Code. It’s essential reading for Creative Artists who wish to give their works the gift of longevity. Think of all the great works that have stood the test of time and still remain great today and ask yourself why were they written? If you’re familiar with the works you’ll notice that they all communicate a great truth, and often, an inconvenient one. It’s quite a challenge to try and top Shakespeare in terms of longevity (and you won’t be alive to see it happen), but you won’t make any progress towards that lofty goal without first grasping the fifth point of the Code of a Creative Artist. Joel Falconer, Editor-in-Chief

Read more

Create Effective Titles

It is common knowledge that in the world of naming products, entities, and causes that a success can be based utterly and solely on the name or title something is given. This applies to songs, books, games, cars, anything you care to name. The following article is all about creating, crafting and using effective titles, and it provides an analysis of what works and gives useful techniques anyone can use to help bring their creation to market. Read more

30 Second Review: Elizabeth, The Golden Age

I’d read somewhere it’s taken Shekhar Kapur, the director of the first Elizabeth movie, all these years (nearly a decade) to convince Cate Blanchett to reprise the titular role that made stars of them both. A word of advice for Blanchett - You should have said “No.”

I haven’t seen the first film, but I found this one overwhelmingly long and disjointed. At just under two hours the movie plodded for as long as all the years it covered. The film awkwardly spends little of its time on the Holy War England faces and the epic Spanish loss to the British in favor of frivolous court scenes, romantic intrigue and CGI sea battles. Also incessant and unnecessary is the director’s determination to rewrite a powerful monarch into little more than an angst-ridden teenager with astounding historical inaccuracies.

Even though Blanchett keeps the film aloft with her immense acting power, presence and grace, she is no match for the overwhelming detail of her costumes. A small detail compared to the movie’s other shortcomings, but they are simply tiresome to look at after the five years it takes the film to end.

The Points of the Creative Artists’ Code: Four - Never accept or agree with a destructive criticism

Criticism is a necessary ‘evil’ that done right, helps us. But how do we know when it is valuable? In the fourth of the “Points of the Creative Artists’ Code” Articles, NDK Creative Artist provides some information that helps us to tell the difference and identify the intentions of those who would ‘help’ Creative Artists. When I first started working with NDK, I was surprised by the way he dissected my compliments and criticisms and asked me for the why of it. I soon learned that it was to find out why I felt that way so that the problem could be fixed inherently, and not just superficially. Read on to find out why this is important, and how to get to the roots of a criticism - Joel Falconer, Editor-in-Chief

Never accept or agree with a destructive criticism about your art or your performance. Accept only constructive criticisms that enable you to better your communication. A constructive criticism is identified by the communication of an accurate observation. It is therefore a fact and not an opinion.

When it comes to works of art & entertainment, what is a destructive criticism? It’s important to identify this sort of thing. There are some artists who are absolutely terrified of criticism, but it is not really criticism they are terrified of; it’s destructive criticism that they wish to avoid. Certainly, there are some malicious people living in the world, and sometimes artists are no better than these. I have spent a lot of time exploring and experimenting with different ways of criticizing creative people and their works, and it can be a difficult thing to do. Editing is a great way to master the art of constructive criticism while improving your craft as a writer, but we’ll cover that particular subject at another time, and only touch on it here as it may serve to illuminate this point of the Code of a Creative Artist.

You have no option other than to receive a criticism directed at your work, or even you personally (though that’s an entirely different thing). People are going to criticize your work. Whether or not that criticism is constructive or destructive is all you need to determine at the moment you actually receive that criticism.

Destructive Criticism is the toxic side of communication, and the people who utter destructive criticisms are basically pretty shallow, desperate, and sometimes malicious people of consistently ill-intent. Destructive criticism is frequently personal. It’s not about the work at all. It’s about you, who you are, what you represent to the person offering up a serving of poison.

Destructive criticism is not always intended to be destructive; it’s sometimes the simple unthinking utterance of someone who is really communicating their frustration with something or someone else, and you’re simply the target of convenience. You have to observe and listen actively enough that you perceive and grok the difference between destructive and constructive crit.

…this brand of destructive criticism is entirely intended to…

However, there is this brand of destructive criticism is entirely intended to symbolically slay the work and those who create it. I use the term ’symbolically’ rather loosely, and ’slay’ precisely. These are the sort of remarks that are totally designed to undermine one’s confidence. They are cruel, they are rarely accurate and often have no basis in observation, or fact. They are simply intended to destroy. Buy into them and you’re buying into the proverbial fate worse than death, letting such criticism poison the rest of your creative existence.

It is important to take on board the entire nature of such remarks and examine them closely and dissect them for tone, intention and effect. Work them backwards from their effect, because it is the effect that defines the nature, and often, the intention of the remark, where they are not always so obviously malicious in intent. These types of remarks and comments are similar to the sort of intellectual and emotional abuse that is visited upon people in domestic and workplace situations. Destructive criticism is the sort of behavior bullies engage in.

It is important to understand the difference between opinion and…

Opinion is a big part of how those who are destructive communicate. It is important to understand the difference between opinion and conclusion. A conclusion is drawn from close observation of what one is presented with. An opinion is simply a shallow statement, that observes almost nothing. One can question criticism of a destructive nature and quickly discover that there is no substance to the remarks made. You ask someone “What observation did they make, that lead them to formulate such an opinion?” and you go after the specifics, and not any sort of “I don’t know” or other evasive, equivocal and prevaricative answer.

Constructive criticism however, is very precise and entirely different. It’s a compassionate statement and that is perhaps the initial observation one will make about it. The constructive crit is communicated with an attitude of care and respect that is intended to be (and is) truthful, without necessarily undermining the creation that is being observed and critiqued. A person who is going to deliver constructive criticism is going to set up the communication and preface the observation they have made with remarks intended to prepare the author for criticism.

The critical observations will not be delivered until the person offering the criticism is sure that the author is ready for it. The degree of care taken will be commensurate with the nature of the crit to be delivered, i.e. if the crit is particularly “rough” then you can expect the person delivering the crit to be careful about how they deliver the crit.

Of course, this is dependent upon the nature of the author receiving the crit too; some authors are very easy to work with when it comes to receiving and accepting critiques, and others require more care, especially those not used to the process and sensitive to critical comment. As they gain trust with the process then this “discomfort” will ease. By the way, I’m not trying to say one has to be too precious about this, and the approach varies with the author.

A constructive criticism communicates a very precise and…

Constructive criticism is valuable. It improves a work and it improves the ability of the creator of the work to produce good work. But it is how the constructive criticism is communicated and what it communicates that marks it out as constructive and therefore useful. A constructive criticism communicates a very precise and accurate observation. You can see it, understand it and think with it. Destructive crits paralyze thinking, they’re meant to, it’s part of the effect they create.

The Destructive Criticism is typically identified as: a sweeping statement that pretends to be authoritative and based in accurate observation (it’s a generality). It is often, but not always, communicated in a derisive tone. A particularly cruel statement can tie your mind in knots for days, or weeks, or even the rest of your life; if you let it. It is often delivered in a social setting so that the cover of a crowd prevents response and an escalation of open conflict; i.e. the cowardly nature of the barb is relying upon the social circumstance to prevent analysis, realization or defense, whilst maximizing the destructive nature of the effect.

The person who delivers such a statement wants the maximum possible social fall out, and they are relying upon your social nature to smooth the waters, or not ruffle them further. Such remarks truly identify the critic as coward. If you do manage to challenge such a person, then you will find that asking questions such as: “What did you observe that lead you to such a conclusion?” and “How did you come to that conclusion?” to be very effective. However, expect the question to remain unanswered, because such statements are not usually based on anything valid other than a desire to destroy and undermine.

The very fact that no answer is given is enough to remove the sting of the criticism, and expose the nature of the critic as someone who has, in fact, observed nothing. The questions and others similar to this expose motive. You see, any conclusion or statement of opinion is, or should be, based on accurate observation. Otherwise it is not a valid statement. It has no foundation in truth, that can be verified. And that’s all you have to do to protect yourself and your work from such attack–expose the fact that it is not based on accurate observation. That means it is based purely and only on a wish to destroy coming out of some pit of envy, jealousy or malice. Expose the fallacy and you expose the motivation.

This is a valid crit of the work.

Spectator observation is a term I use to describe shallow social answers to questions such as “What did you think of the work?” The answers a spectator who does not really accurately observe anything is typically “I liked it.” And if you press the question as to what they liked, you’ll find they don’t know and get uncomfortable. In this case you’re encountering an overall emotional response that may or may not be true, but which has not been sufficiently engaged by a work to actually have any part of it make an impact on the consciousness of the recipient. All that has occurred, at most, is a superficial observation. This is a valid crit of the work and it is useful to a certain extent as it tells you something of the ability of the work to engage and effect another.

Quality feedback is hard to come by, and that is by and large a reflection of the ability of people to articulate what they see; they lack the necessary communication skills, so you have to make allowances for this when taking in what appears to be a spectator observation. I call this spectator observation because a spectator is not involved in the work. They are standing on the sidelines of their mind, observing from the periphery and thus not involved in the work itself.

Constructive criticism…identifies itself as…

Constructive criticism, by contrast, is tactful in its delivery, and identifies itself as a sincere attempt to help and the end result is valuable and useful. One of the things that identifies those who want to give valuable criticism is that they ask what you are trying to achieve, in order to clarify their own understanding before they offer their observation.

You cannot avoid criticism, and you should not endeavor to avoid criticism because it often teaches us much about human nature and character; both of ourselves and of others. And, as the work of art & entertainment is for people, how people receive that work is valuable feedback for those who create it.

Radiohead - What will the fans (market) do?

I think this article: Radiohead bets on fast release, open pricing is another indicator of the music industry creaking at the seams. However, the line “It’s up to you” is a challenge to the public to embrace the independent artist’s new business model. It’s telling the audience to be honest about downloading and those who would contemplate simply taking it for free simply because they can, should consider well what they may be doing to the future of music and the industry of art & entertainment.

The question we should ask is: Are the public–the fans–as dishonest and corrupt as the industry itself, or are they truly loyal (and honest) fans who want to support the independence of artists whose talent and products they enjoy?

I think Radiohead are asking that question with “It’s up to you” which is really, another way of asking “Given the opportunity to steal, to take without fair payment, are you a thief?” it’s too bad they’re not publshing the figures as they occur, for the results would be very interesting. What Radiohead is doing is similar to Stephen King’s e-Book download experiment.

Creative Artist Marketing - Copyblogger

Here’s a great resource: Copyblogger, and especially this article: The David Lee Roth Guide to Legendary Marketing which contains a good example of workable marketing principles for artists.

We recommend Copyblogger because it is one of the best sites about developing good copy for the purposes of marketing with blogs online. If you’re going to use the internet and web to market online then you need to know how to write copy–words that inform, educate, persuade and build relationships with people who become a loyal audience for your work.

Creative Artists are skilled high quality communicators. They create realities that people embrace and use to improve their own lives. A highly skilly communicator is proficient in more than one medium and style of communication. When it comes to the internet, the ability to write in a number of different styles and most particularly in the authentic language of persuasion and promotion is of paramount importance.

The Rise of the Independent Creative Artist - Prince, Radiohead Lead Way with Bold Marketing Moves

When the Free Articulator launched its first articles on the 4th of July 2007 it did so with the Declaration of Creative Independence, and the Code of a Creative Artist, a set of principles which state very clearly how Creative Artists will deal with the business and industry of artistic creative endeavor, and interact with society and civilization.

In September the Free Articulator published my article the Traditional Music Industry Shows Increasing Signs of Collapse. It was pirated within a day of publication and came to the attention of MySpace.

Earlier this year (July, 2007) Prince caught everybody’s attention with the licensing of two million copies of his new album Planet Earth to the UK’s Mail On Sunday. It was touted as a “give away” by the international media, though nothing could be further from the truth; Prince licensed the album to the Mail On Sunday; that’s smart marketing business, demonstrating an understanding and appreciation of what intellectual property rights are all about and how to use them effectively.

This licensing deal with the Mail On Sunday permitted the legal give-away of two million albums and raised the ire of the Music Retailers Association in the UK, who warned musicians everywhere “not to do the same or else…!” Precisely the sort of attitude and response that would encourage musicians everywhere to follow Prince’s example, and by the way, I’d love to interview Prince for our Intellectual Property Series, as I’ve been following what happened to his career since he lost the use of his name to his former-label and I’m thrilled to see his comeback garnering so much attention, as it simultaneously educates and redefines the business model of creative individuals with the industry, society and the public.

Now Radiohead has adopted the idea of the market setting the price for downloaded material and generated millions of dollars worth of free international advertising that purportedly sends a shockwave through the busines, and reflects the insight offered in my article on the inreasing signs of collapse of the music industry. The old model in the recording industry (detailed briefly here) doesn’t work any more, it is a rip-off of artists who have been kept ignorant of the industry’s workings, and disenfranchised of their rights through chicanery and ignorance that is becoming well-known worldwide.

However, as AJC points out in his blog Science of the Invisible, “It ain’t gonna work.” At best, he’s right: Radiohead’s move is free international promotion and that will work, is working, but has little ongoing traction or utility, as one needs to have a large audience, and be a brand that people and the media are aware of.

AJC is also right about what the music industry should do, but, changing a bad philosophical, moral code and business model to something morally sound and ethical requires a radical change in thinking and practise that takes a long, long time. The time to change required extends when you’re talking about an entire industry that is used to having open season exploitation of creative ignorance. Can such a leopard change its blotches?

The industry is a servant of the artist and their public, not the master. That’s the new model, the model of the independent Creative Artists who license their work to others for mutual benefit, sharing the wealth and potential of a work or collection on reaonable and fair terms without giving up ownership or paying for the rip-off of their own property. End the corruption, end the decay. Let’s have an industry we can trust.