Searching for Space (for your hackerspace)
So, once Em, David and I decided that we didn’t need a space, we immediately started looking for a space. It was as if knowing we did not absolutely need a place made the search easier to handle. As I have mentioned previously, there are a lot of benefits to having a location around which to build a community, but the location need not be a defining part of the community. Still, I do think it’s easier for a community to define itself if it has a physical home. (But it’s not so necessary that a group should wait for space to start doing stuff!)
There are a few things you should know about when looking for spaces. (Warning: this could get a little long)
What kind of zoning fits your needs?
This can be a big one, and is going to vary a lot depending on your location and goals. If you are just getting a private space to have a few people share as a studio, lounge, hackerspace, etc. then you may well be able to get by with a residential place. This will generally keep everything cheaper, but you could run into issues with the landlords (who often frown on non-traditional use of residential space), neighbors (people coming and going at odd hours, suspicious of what you are doing, noise complaints), and government agencies (running many businesses out of a residence is illegal, gathering of people for commercial events is problematic, etc.).
A popular co-working facility I know started in a residential area, which served them well for a while. But with their growth and popularity on the rise, friction with the neighbors and landlords have forced them to look for a new space.
How much space do you really need?
Space is a paradox. It simultaneously goes further than you might expect, and is always smaller than you think. It pays to think this one out well. Get too little space, and you won’t have anything better than the corner of your bedroom where your soldering iron is threatening to send the bed up in a blaze. Get too much space and you may not be able to afford it long enough to get your community off its feet.
In: Observations, projects · Tagged with: DINO, diy, hackerspace
Do you really need a space?
Recently, Emily Daniels, David Nunez and I decided that it was Time To Do Something. We were all struggling with some personal creative projects, and felt that we needed a community of people around us who were making interesting things. With the right kind of people gathered, a lot of magic can happen. We were especially interested in exploring the energy that’s created when productive, enthusiastic, creative people come together – whether they are working on their own projects or a collaboration.
In: Praise, projects · Tagged with: community, DINO, diy, hackerspace
Making money (on twitter, without a record label, with fans)
These days, I am a total fanboy of Amanda Fucking Palmer. (Please check her and her music out if you do not know her and The Dresden Dolls) As with more and more artists, AFP is dissatisfied with her relationship with her music label, Roadrunner Records. While the restrictions on her expression may be the root of her disagreement with them, the problems run much wider – including lack of support, general idiocy, and more. Simultaneously with this realization, AFP has made steps to support herself – on her terms – without the involvement of her label. This is something that has, inarguably, been made possible by the Internet and will likely gain more and more steam in the future.
AFP has a moderately sized, but rabidly loyal fan base. This is not an accident, she is not simply “lucky” – she reaches out to her fans, cultivates the fields and, above all, remains honest and approachable. Such an interested and loyal group of fans seems to be a far more valuable asset to AFP than any record company ever will. And recently, she has really begun to figure out how to tap these fans for what they will gladly, emphatically give to see their favorite artist continue to create.
In: Observations, Praise
New project released: iSrch Rndmzr 3000!
I’ve finally finished the photography for my project, “iSrch Rndmzr 3000! by Subverted Industries”. The “project” really consists both of a device I fabricated (from an Arduino, display, and salvaged enclosure) and the corresponding web site. I’ll let you visit the site for details. My comments on the project can be found under the “about” section at the site.
There will be more to come for the Subverted Industries brand. Keep an eye out.
~w
In: Me, projects
Bizarre.
I’m on a plane. The guy in front of me just reached over and grabbed the back of his chair, stretching. I wanted to lick his hand. Just to see what he would do. I would deny it, of course, because that would make for a more interesting exchange.
Is that wrong?
In: Uncategorized
Trademarks gone to far!
Did you know that you cannot use the word “apple” in a Google ad for any reason? Even if you are advertising products made from or with the actual fruit? Did you know you cannot use the word “philosophy” either? (that’s the one I got dinged on) In fact, here are a few more common, every-day words that cannot be used in Google ads because someone owns a trademark on the word:
palm
swatch
fossil
tide
crucial
latitude
sloe gin
mulberry
pirate
olympic
smooth
juicy
leap
freedom
citizen
coach
core
crank
pilot
Look very carefully at that list. Every word in that list can be found in any English dictionary and have been part of the language for (in most cases) hundreds of years. How can we even remotely interpret trademark law to allow companies – who took the risk by using common words as their names – a blanket ownership of these terms? Trademark is a narrowly defined right to exclusive use of a term or mark in conjunction with a specific area of business. It is not an exclusive right to use that word in all commercial endeavors!
I demand that we have our words back. We can’t let the land-grab of trademark continue unchecked. If so, we’ll eventually be forbidden to use these words in writing, emails, and even casual conversation!
UPDATE: After complaining, Google has re-approved my ads using the word “philosophy.” While I think that a system that, by default, bans the use of common English words due to tenuous claims of Trademark, allowing their use only after review, is a very flawed system, I do appreciate that I did not hit a stone wall at Google. I understand that they have a real issue here, but I believe that in the case of Trademark – especially in weak trademarks like common English words – the burden should be carried by the trademark holder, not the numerous other people using those common words innocently. The system is backwards.
—
Some bad flash fiction:
The pilot had to seriously crank the yoke just to avoid crashing on the smooth shoreline. but despite his sweaty palm and pirate hook, he touched down safely in the tide. He had made a crucial mistake in calculating the latitude of the island, and now had a problem of olympic proportions. The leap from the small plane literally shook him to his core, and he landed with a thud in the sand. He realized he would be stuck on the island for a while, but his military training kicked in and he could see the face of his survival coach pushing him in drills. He had to eat and he had to drink. Near the beach, he found fresh water and juicy berries which he wrapped up in a swatch of fabric from his shirt. Combined with the bottle of sloe gin from the plane, he had a meal that would get him though until some adventurous citizen, out for a pleasure cruise, would eventually grant him his freedom. Either that, or he would become part of the permanent fossil record of the island. He popped a mulberry into his mouth and considered which outcome he would truely prefer.
In: Annoyances, Criticism
Give me less privileged accounts!
I’m quite sure this has happened to you: You are surfing along. You find that your favorite blogger/website links to a cool new social network/application/utility and you sign up/download it. Then it starts asking you for your Google/Yahoo/Bank/Credit Card/etc account information. If you are like me, that’s when you stop, back away, and just say NO. It’s not that I don’t trust the developers of these services… Oh, wait, that’s exactly the problem – I don’t trust them. I don’t trust them to keep the information to themselves; I don’t trust them to ensure that each and every employee who has access to the info is a fine, upstanding person who won’t run off with it; I don’t trust them to have super-bullet-proof systems that keep everyone else from getting ahold of my keys. To me, it’s just not worth the risk.
I do wish I could give them my account info. I miss out on a lot of potentially neat features by not feeling comfortable doing this. For instance, I was reading up on a new iPhone application today called A Personal Assistant. (review) This app, despite its current rough edges, actually seems like a good idea. It’s essentially a dashboard for all one’s important accounts – banks, credit cards, airlines, social networks (if those are, indeed, somehow important) and more. A one-stop shop for the information that is probably a good idea to keep tabs on, or that you at least want to check quickly. But, of course, to access all this info you have to turn your keys over to the developer. Nuh-uh.
What I want: for each and every site that I can log into that in some way provides or contains personal information about me I should be able to create an alternate account (or accounts) which has basic read-only and, preferably, customizable rights. For instance, an account that can see my current minute and dollar balance for my cell phone, one that can read the basic contact info from my Google account, one that can see my current flight schedules on NWA.com, one that can see my order status and tracking info at Amazon, etc. But none of these accounts would be able to change anything or see any sensitive data that I didn’t want them to see. So, sure, I may be giving someone the ability to see that I currently owe $60 on my cell phone bill and that I’m nearly out of minutes, but that person would not be able to change my plan, order a new phone, or even see my call details. And I should be able to do this absolutely everywhere it makes any sense at all.
Software agents are just going to keep getting more and more prevalent in our society – whether they take the form of Dashboard widgets, iPhone applications, or even web site aggregators, they are here to stay. More sites need to start offering data access in a way that enables this functionality without compromising the security of their site or their users.
(Props to the few sites out there with a robust API for read-only access. It’s a start.)
In: Annoyances, Criticism
Tool Fetishist vs. Producer
For years I have been a tool fetishist. (Not really the proper use of that word, maybe a tool-o-phile?) I have been wrapped up in tools, process, and how-to for so long, that I haven’t really been a producer. I think it’s something I learned from my dad, but it’s something that I share with a lot of people out there.
I love tools. When I say “tools” you probably think about screwdrivers, hammers, power saws and the likes. Yes, I do totally love those things. And drills, and Dremels, and bits, and blades and all sorts of others. But I also love paint brushes and art boxes, word processors and idea databases, drum pads and synth keyboards, soldering irons and multimeters. I have a fascination with the tools and the processes that people use to create, make and produce. And chisels.
I have such a fascination with these tools that I buy a lot of them. I have the curse of being able to pick up just about any medium of creation and make something pretty darned mediocre, and sometimes a little better, my first try. (You may think this is a gift but, uncontrolled as it is in my case, I assure you it is not.) Paradoxically, this leads to a lot of boredom for me in my creative life. It’s why I keep buying tools and paraphernalia for different, usually only slightly different creation mediums. I like using these tools, being in the process, but I get bored with it as soon as I see that I can do it. Not necessarily well, mind you, but I seem to be satisfied about the time that I understand what it takes to get to something good. What I actually seem to be good at, mostly, is understanding what it takes to make something of quality in any one of these areas – woodworking, painting, writing – but what I’m bad at is actually going through the process to the end, over and over, until I not only understand what is needed to go beyond the mediocre-or-a-little-better phase and into the something-that’s-actually-good phase, but actually do it.
The good news in all of this is that, after years and years, I finally began noticing and understanding this a few years ago. I’ve been confronting it and tackling the monster and things are getting better. I do more now, and dabble less. (Oh, I still dabble plenty, but mostly in a few more focused areas instead taking the shotgun approach to hobbies.) I’ve begun to finally admit to myself that I need and want to be good at something, not just passable at a lot of things. And those things I want to be good at are getting the attention.
I know that this is working because, finally, I seem to be rather uninterested in the fiddly mechanics of other writer’s processes. Sure, I am still entertained and even enlightened when Cory Doctorow repeatedly tells aspiring authors to “write every day” (something I totally understand the importance of now) but I’m not so concerned about whether he uses an antique Underwood or the latest version of Open Office to write his novels. It is liberating to realize that I’m finally (mostly) past this barrier. I should point out, though, that I have found some very useful tools that do actually help me write (Scrivener/Evernote/DEVONthink and similar idea-drawer databases in particular) and without my previous levels of interest, I am sure I would not know some of the useful things I know about writing today, but it’s a relief to realize that, finally, I know that above all writing is about putting words down, hopefully in an interesting arrangement.
Who needs fancy tools to do that?
In: Me, Observations
Kindle for iPhone
OK, so I have an infatuation with Kindle. I believe in eBooks. I do not have a Kindle, eReader, or any of the others, but I do have an iPhone. I have read a lot of short fiction and even a novel on my iPhone screen. (Cory Doctrow’s Someone Comes to Town, Someone Leaves Town)
There are several pre-existing eBook readers for iPhone. Bookshelf (which has a great sync service with Baen Webscriptions and could support others, $5.99), and Stanza (my go-to most of the time, $Free) are the stand-outs. They both have good interfaces with the important bits – text size, options for tap- or swipe- to-advance, bookmarks, library management, etc. Most importantly, they also offer landscape reading.
Kindle for iPhone has an unsurpassed syncing model with what I think is the largest eBook provider out there: Amazon. It’s slick, although, like Webscriptions, not integrated. You must purchase the books via Amazon’s Kindle Store from a web browser (mobile Safari reportedly works) but then the titles are automatically sync’d to your iPhone the next time you run the Kindle app. It also supports bookmarks (which reportedly sync to your physical Kindle device if you have one), text size, and other basic features. However, it does not have a landscape mode! (At least not one I could find)
Granted, a portrait reading mode is more “book-like” in that it mimics the orientation of most printed pages, but at sensible text sizes, you get 5-8 words across the screen. That’s, maybe, half a sentence for the most part and often less. So here’s why that’s a problem – for me at least, and others I’m sure. To read a book on Kindle for iPhone, your eyes flick back-and-forth, back-and-forth, a LOT. (About 18 times/page) Then, as with anything featuring a relatively small screen, your eyes flick up to the top of the page every time you advance. In a landscape mode, you still have the same number of page turns since you have roughly the same number of words on the page, but you have the back-and-forth eye movement only 10 or 11 times per page, and only half the distance to flick back up to the top of the page on advances. Really, it makes a difference to me (40% less eye flick!) and I found my eyes becoming fatigued much faster in portrait mode – just like I did when I was originally trying Stanza and Bookshelf and the reason I very quickly moved to landscape mode exclusively.
This, for me, is a fatal flaw in an otherwise great app. (Though they also need tap-to-advance instead of the silly swipe-only they have now.) Now, I would like to think that they did some usability testing around this app, and maybe they have good reasons for not offering landscape mode, but until they do, I’ll be sticking with Stanza and Bookshelf and not buying any Kindle content.
In: Criticism, Observations, Uncategorized · Tagged with: iphone, review
The Shepard Fairey Thing…
…in which I ramble about his work.
I have liked Shepard Fairey’s work for a long time, though I think I really became a fan when I saw his work in the Beautiful Losers exhibit at the Orange County Museum of Art. Fairey has always appropriated/referenced/ripped-off other images in his art. I’ve always considered it *part* of his art. But now he’s being called on it in the big media – in fact, *by* the big media.
I cannot articulate my thoughts of Fairey’s work without first mentioning my position on copyright. I support copyright and believe it is an important incentive to creation and should be respected. Copyright also, necessarily, denies our common culture and society free access to these creations which is a huge blow to us all. There is a balance to be struck between these two facts of copyright, and today we have lost our way.
I have similar feelings about a very different subject as well: trademark. Trademarks are necessary, and serve a positive purpose, but can and are abused far too frequently. Trademarks, traditionally, only protected a mark within a limited scope of certain lines of business. Today, companies are given near exclusive use of common phrases and even individual words far outside their lines of business. (Do not, under any circumstances, use the term “monster” or “pod” in your product name, not even if you are making a “Monster Mini-Golf” course or sell “pea pods” at the farmer’s market.)
Shepard Fairey uses images created by others liberally in his creations. He does not credit these other artists publicly. Many or most of these images are not covered by an active copyright – they are too old, or they are anonymous creations for defunct government regimes. Some of them are covered by copyright, and some are even notable, from well-known artists.
In general, I am fine with this. I think that much of Fairey’s art carries a message, regardless of the artist’s intent. (Yes, I’m fine with that too. I think a great deal of meaning that is read into art was not specifically intended by the artist.) Furthermore, I think that much of this meaning is contingent not only on the actual imagery he uses, but its history and his recontextualization of the images. An update to their original meaning, if you will, modified enough in timing, form and method of delivery, to make it relevant today. I believe that to include a credit to these sources on the actual pieces of work themselves would compromise them. These notes would, I think, carry a strong commercial connotation that would compromise the artistic nature of the works. I think his works should, in general, be considered artistic works and not strictly commercial pieces.
Two arguments against the acceptance of Fairey’s use of uncredited imagery are that he does not add enough to the images to call the derivative works a new piece, and that since he is doing this commercially and making money off these images that his use of these “referenced” images is less palatable. Honestly, in the first matter, I believe it can only be a personal matter of taste and preference. I am a believer that nothing at all need be done to an existing image to potentially radically alter the meaning and perception of it, and that simply presenting something in a new, different, or unexpected way (or time) can be enough to reinvent the piece. It is arguable as to whether Shepard Fairey actually does in this all cases (and I believe he fails in many cases, as would any artist) but I firmly believe that it is a valid way of making art that should not be discouraged or dismissed out of hand.
Regarding the commercial nature of Fairey’s works, though, I think we enter a realm of envy and jealousy pretty quickly. I do not believe that any individual should take the protected work of another and use them to make a profit. Fairey has done this and has been caught. However, many of Fairey’s successful works have used images created a hundred years ago or more, or other works for which a copyright no longer exists. As any large publishing firm will tell you, if a work is out of copyright, anyone can do pretty much anything with it they like – including slapping a caption on it and printing a million copies. As I mention above, I do believe this constitutes a valid form of art and expression, so if it is also legal, where’s the rub? I think the objections that a great many artists have is that Fairey has taken a shortcut, and that he is making money with no effort. I think this is arguable. He has created a tremendous brand out of himself, those posters don’t photoshop themselves (in fact, I would say that there are many, many hours of work in most of Fairey’s work) and it certainly isn’t easy being arrested for bringing your art to the world. As a friend said, I think part of this sentiment can be chalked up to “sour grapes.”
Before I mention my feelings on the specific work that has triggered this recent storm, I want to address my overall feelings as to Fairey’s work. I used to be an adamant fan of Shepard Fairey. I found his work refreshing, different, and it had a message. For me, the most powerful part of that message was one of Fairey’s original stated purposes behind the “Obey” brand. “The sticker has no meaning but exists only to cause people to react, to contemplate and search for meaning in the sticker” The idea that the sticker/image/brand is meaning unto itself resonated with me. It was essentially bringing a high level of awareness for a brand that wasn’t anything else, and who’s motive or product was not obvious. Alas, as his work has become more known, that original purpose has, necessarily, fallen by the wayside. The reason for the brand now is to promote Shepard Fairey. Not that there is an inherent problem with that, but it no longer captures my attention or receives my support like it once did. It has lost its purity and, with it, I find it harder to excuse some of the actions and works by Fairey. (see “Regarding Commercial Nature” above for a touch of hypocrisy in my feelings)
I am also very concerned that Fairey, technically, is re-copyrighting all the works that he uses. This does not have to be a bad thing, necessarily, but we will have to see what happens when we start seeing the same classic imagery used with the work “REBEL” or some such plastered on it instead of “OBEY.” As long as Fairey is careful and does not pursue unwarranted action, I don’t have a problem. What is concerning is that, in twenty year’s time, it may be impossible to find the original images that Fairey used and only his copyrighted versions will be available. However, it’s difficult to fault him for this since without his use of these images, they stand just as much a chance (or more) of passing into oblivion.
Whew – ok, let’s talk about the Obama poster. Here’s my take: Shepard Fairey used a photo of Obama as the basis for that image. It’s obvious and certainly not surprising to anyone who has studied the image or other works by Fairey. However, I object to the idea that the owner of the copyright of that image has a claim on Fairey’s derivative work for several reasons.
First, I consider that photo to be of a generic nature. Yes, I understand the trials and tribulations of the modern photographer – sure, it takes equipment, skill and experience to get a good shot. (Believe me, I appreciate that!) However, that shot was a candid that, I suspect, was one in the middle of a half-dozen shots. It was made with available light, without direction to the subject, and without any spectacular composition. It was a technically well-shot photo, but one that any adequately trained photographer should have had no problem getting. If it had been based on a composed, and unique photo, one in which an artistic hand was used and not just a craftsman’s tools, then I would feel differently. Additionally, there are many other examples of photos nearly identical to the AP photo Fairey ultimately used. (This seems to be part of the argument Lessig will be using in Fairey’s court case against the AP.)
Second, the photo is of a man looking across a room, maybe at another person speaking or some other distraction. The poster is of a man looking into the future. That doesn’t happen by accident. It is the crux of the issue, I think. It is the transformation of the generic into art – Fairey’s image carries emotion that is simply not present in the photo.
Third, it is not the original artist (the photographer) who is pursuing this matter. If it were, I doubt I would feel a ton different in this case, but the fact that it is a corporation who is not after any sort of “artistic integrity” but, rather, profit (and don’t let them fool you) makes this one easy. Sure, if Fairey was just taking their photo and slapping it around town, they should get what they deserve. But he isn’t. He made something good out of something mediocre and now they want in on it. If Garcia were challenging Fairey on this issue directly, and the original photo was not of such a generic nature, then maybe the two should talk. But that’s not how it’s going down. “Art” has no place in the AP’s claims here.
So, I have to say that all this attention to this matter has made me look more closely at how I really feel about Shepard Fairey’s work. I am still a fan and am likely to be a fan into the future. However, I think that the best thing that he could do for himself is to more publicly acknowledge the source material he uses. It need not be on the work itself, but he has a well-trafficked website – how about a “bibliography” section for each of his works? At a minimum, it would strengthen his claim to artistry, and by making the source of his images known, he could help people understand the origin of these fantastic images – and without such knowledge, Fairey’s works are seldom more than exercises in graphic design mash-up.
In: Annoyances, Criticism, Praise