Archive for 2009

Year in Review – 2009

Thursday, December 31st, 2009

The New Year is my favorite holiday. It is wholly arbitrary and I find that delightful. One day out of the year the whole world celebrates together. Along with celebration is reflection. 2009 has been quite a year over here at Light Cue 23.

In the world of extreme emotions, my grandmother died and I hung out with rock stars.

We discussed the business of being a freelance lighting designer:

A lot of pictures were posted about:

We explored lighting angles in depth:

Over at Parabasis I was a guest writer with a series titled A Designer Prepares about my design process:

I explored my lighting process in depth through an exploration of a few specific projects:

I wrote about how I approach text:

I explored the relationship between a recession and aesthetics.

I tried to understand the nature of revolution in today’s world:

I wrote about networks:

I made a visual resume.

I spoofed my own blog with 5 Tips to build your blog audience and why my blog will never be popular.

I talked about boredom and the color gray

I discussed dance on my blog and in a guest post at On Stage Lighting.

I wrote about how to approach lighting for the floor and the balcony.

I discussed the relationship between New York and the rest of the country.

I argued that “good enough” isn’t and how type casting can be a good thing.

There was a lot more written this year and you are more than welcome to peruse the archives. This is just a sampling of some of my favorites. All in all it has been a good year over here. How has your year been?

Inside the Design Idea – Everyone Intimate Alone Visibly

Monday, December 28th, 2009

When Ben Levy, Artistic Director and choreographer for LEVYdance, contacted me about lighting his most recent full evening piece I was excited. We have worked together before and not only do I enjoy his choreography but I enjoy him as well. We have a good working relationship and appreciate each other’s aesthetic approaches. When we sat down to discuss the piece and he told me the general concept my initial reaction was that this was unlightable.

To many “unlightable” would be a place to stop, turn around, and go home. For me I saw it as an opportunity to look for new ways of approaching dance lighting. Why was the piece unlightable? Let’s look at the layout a bit. The work takes place inside a 30′x30′ square space bounded by 10′ tall screens which hang 4′ above the ground. On these screens are projections. The audience sits on all four sides in two rows thus creating a 20′x20′ dance space. On the floor of this dance space is more projection.

Because there are four walls traditional low angled side lighting was out. Because of the projections there could be no light on the floor or walls (light washes out the projection). Because the audience was so close and we could not have light in their eyes there was no high side/front/back light available. The only thing left were downlight pools but that would not have worked aesthetically for the piece. What to do?

As we talked more about the piece it became obvious that A) the projections were not on all the surfaces at all times, B) there were times when the projections could be, at least partially, washed out by the lighting, and C) we could light into the audience’s eyes on occasion when used judiciously. In addition to all that the walls do not make true corners but have 4′ openings where the “corner” would be. Lastly, because of the immediate proximity of the audience very little light could go a long way towards illuminating the performers.

One of the ideas with the piece (reflected in the video) is that the dancers are, at least initially, controlled by the space or there is a direct dialog between performer and venue. It opens as a kind of video installation with audience mingling about looking at images on the four screens. At some point the video fades out while our dancers get in place. Once in place a new reactive video begins which illuminates any movement in the dance space. Since this is not your typical dance show I knew that attempting to force “dance lighting” into this space would fail. I had to approach the space on its own terms.

This freed things up a bit and led me to look formally at the space as an object in which action occurs. I saw the open corners as alleys through which light could move. I saw the screens as walls off of which I could bounce light to illuminate our performers. Taking that idea one step further I chose to add bounce cards in the air which I would light to give a soft glow to the space. That idea of bounce light caused me to think of juxtaposing hard and soft sources in addition to varying the lighting by direct and indirect sources.

The light plot is a formally organized system of lights that creates an ordered geometry in the space. By giving myself control over each of the lights I could turn on all of a given system to create that formal geometry or only part of a system to throw the formality off balance as dictated by the needs of the choreography.

The video images are low-res black and white with one notable exception. As such I chose to follow the lead of the projections and keep the lighting in that same color world of gray tones. The video, music, and choreography run the gamut of soft and tender to harsh and severe. I wanted the quality of light to follow that same range and looked for a variety of options through which to achieve that.

The systems I used were as follows:

  • Daylight Fluorescents in CLR
  • Head Highs in L202
  • Overhead bounce in L201
  • Screen bounce in L201
  • Downlight pools in L202
  • Downlight Specials in L201
  • High Cross in L281

The Fluorescents make “corners” at the corners of the dance space. Booms are placed in each corner outside the screens with two lights each; a head high (for an alley shot across the space) and a low unit (for the overhead bounce cards). Three Source-4s and a Fresnel hang just above each screen; the Fresnels are for the screen bounce while the Source-4’s make up the high cross system (individually controlled and sharp edged to make boxes that the dancers can move in and out of). The downlights are a 3×3 grid of Fresnels. The downlight specials are for a special moment at the end and are hard edged Source-4s.

Here is a look at the light plot:

This show has a very controlled color palette ranging from 4300° K – 5700° K. Despite such a tight range of color the quality of light varies radically from sharp edged focusable lights to diffuse flood lights to indirect bounce light. Most lighting for live performance uses color and angle as the main story telling devices. In this case I was largely limited to variations on top light and had to look to the quality of light for variation. It is a sensibility common in television and film but rarely encountered in live performance.

The show tours to DC and New York before playing in San Francisco. On the road this design will be modified slightly at each venue as the equipment will vary. While some venues will not allow for the precision of hard eged vs. soft edged I should be able to maintain the direct and indirect sources with full integrity.

What did you think of this post? Let me know in comments.

Inside the Design Idea – The Sisters Rosensweig

Friday, December 25th, 2009

I wrote last week about a few projects I am working on that have embraced an aesthetic of minimalism in their productions due to budgetary issues. But how do these ideas arise? More importantly how do they develop into a final product? I have written generically about my design process but I thought it might be fun to explore a single project more in depth to see how these ideas make it to the stage.

I was approached by Aaron Davidman, Artistic Director of The Jewish Theater – San Francisco, to light his production of Wendy Wasserstein’s The Sisters Rosensweig for their 2010 season. I had never read or seen the play so my first read for this production was my first time ever through the play. I had no preconceived notions of what it was about or how it “should” look. So I sat down with the text and began to read the play fresh.

Upon that first read I was struck with how important time is to the play. It takes place over a 36 hour period and all the action occurs in the same location. It is almost Greek in its unity of time, place, and action. As a lighting designer time of day is a central concern when working through the text. While location is important it is not central in the same way that time is. Even when the work is highly abstracted there needs to be some unity of expressing a changing time of day. Because time plays such a central role in the storytelling of Sisters Rosensweig I became instantly curious about how to provide that.

The script calls for a rather elaborate setting inside a well furnished apartment. While the action takes place in this well furnished apartment what is more central to the dramatic storytelling is that everything happens in the same room. I proposed to Aaron that we consider setting the play on a rather minimal set and utilize lighting conventions borrowed from the dance world to approach the piece. He readily welcomed the idea and we set out with our scenic designer to craft this world.

I find that audiences respond quite favorably to naturalistic plays happening on abstracted settings. When abstracted in the right way, such that the core storytelling elements are highlighted, the abstraction makes the reality of the characters resonate strongly. One trouble that can arise in naturalistic settings is that the characters get lost amidst the scenery. While it is a perfect approach for film, strict naturalism can impede an audience’s ability to process natural dialog. Abstract minimalism takes the benefits of abstraction even further and gives the audience a clear focus on the actors. After all the audience pays to see actors not well executed scenery, beautiful costumes, or fancy lighting.

As we developed our setting for Sisters Rosensweig we were very careful to create a space and develop ideas that will always keep our focus on the performer. A white rectangle set against a black floor to bound our room filled with a few simple furniture pieces, a staircase, and a chandelier all backed by a large and expansive sky. The sky, truly a white cyc, will be variously lit to show the passage of day into night and back into day. The performers will be clearly and cleanly lit and set against this shifting sky.

Through a clear focus on the performance we will create a visual space which can ebb and flow along with the emotional moment of the play. Each of the seven scenes take place at a slightly different time of day. In order to show these transformations the cyc will be lit variously from the top and bottom in a range of colors from morning pastels, to cool gray midday clouds, to nothing late at night. A shifting sun will illuminate the cyc variously from the sides as well as low and center on the horizon for an evening sunset.

While the sky will be changing behind us, the performers will be lit in cool shades of gray. Keeping the light on the actors in a tight color range of 3400° K – 5700° K will provide a clean and crisp look appropriate for both the sharp witted comedy as well as the darker moments of the piece. This color palette also evokes the cool light of London wherein the play is set.

Here is a breakdown of the lighting systems:

  • Two color Backlight in L201 (for daylight) and CLR (for the chandelier)
  • High Crosslight in L202
  • Head Hi Crosslight in CLR
  • Diagonal Frontlight in R3216
  • Scenery specials in L202
  • Cyc Top in L281, L161, and L119 as well as GAP508 templates in L201
  • Cyc Bottom in R53, L161, and R68
  • Cyc Sides in L025, R68, L201, and L193
  • The center sunset is a fresnel in L176 and the morning sunrise templates are GAP228 in color L101

All the actor lighting is done with frosted Source-4 Lekos. This will allow me to make shutter cuts to the white performance space and keep as clean a look as possible on the stage. The CYC is lit with various FarCycs, Mini-Strips, Fresnels, and PARs.

As of this writing the lighting paperwork is all finished and sent off to the master electrician and production manager. I have seen an early run through of the piece and have some basic cueing ideas although that will get fleshed out in later meetings with the director. We load in the lighting and scenery at the end of December, focus the lights, and then walk away for a few days over the New Year. When we come back in January we will begin lighting rehearsals.

Doing a post like this which goes into the specifics of a design for a show is new for me (I typically stick to theory). How was it for you as a reader? Would you like to see more of this?

Drop me a line in comments and let me know what you think.

Learning is a Choice

Monday, December 21st, 2009

In the last year I have been spending a lot of time around a five year old. Let’s call her “The Child.” The cool thing about kids is that they are learning all the time. Everything is new. You and I take stuff like what symbols are used to indicate safely walking across the street for granted and yet to a child this is new information. Every day, it seems, something significant is learned and processed by a child’s brain that will later become rote background information but is now revelatory new information. Split a half in two and you get two quarters, yes like a quarter dollar, four quarters make up one dollar. Etc.

A big focus recently has been on reading. For about the last year The Child has possessed the cognitive skills to read. Letters and their various sounds were known as were combinations of sounds to make bigger sounds or larger words. Using this knowledge of sounds, words could be sounded out and thus read. Yet, despite these skills being in place for over a year “reading” was not something she was comfortable with. It was intimidating. In the last few months, however, that intimidation has shifted to interest and excitement. Instead of being read to she want to be the one who reads.

Watching this process unfold reminded me of myself as a little person. I remember one day standing in front of that huge book shelf at school (probably less than three feet tall) and staring down those rows of books in a game of chicken until I walked up, picked one out, sat down with the book, and began to read. Once that initial hurdle was past I was a reader. It took finding science fiction much later in life to be an avid reader but nonetheless, the process was begun.

Watching this process go on in someone else has made me think about how much of life, particularly where it involves skill sets or any sense of identity, comes down to choice. We do this all the time. Life presents us with a challenge and if we do not already have the necessary skill set we say we do not do such and such a thing. We are not saying we can’t but rather we won’t. “I don’t understand computers” often means “I am intimidated by computers and would rather live in fear and ignorance of them than learn a new skill.” It comes down to choice.

We have a choice, to limit ourselves and say “I am nothing more than what I already know,” or to explore the unknown with the wonder of a child asking how something works and why it does so. The choice is between a fixed notion of self or a dynamic and fluid self. It is a choice between looking at life as a series of endings, as a series of walls. Or looking at life as new beginnings and doorways opening onto new vistas of possibility.

One project I am working on currently is forcing me to get a much deeper understanding of computers and video projectors, not to mention rethinking how to call a cue. For a while, despite saying I was trying and despite convincing myself I wanted to learn, I was resisting. It was not overt (and certainly not conscious) but I was pushing against the new information because it would force me to rethink how I do things (and in a small way, who I am). As a dance piece, for which I am lighting designer and stage manager, I had to find a new way to call and execute cues. The video system requires much more involvement during set up and playback than does a lighting system thus requiring a different skillset than I am used to when running a show. Also the computer runs on a different operating system than I typically work on so there were new things to learn there as well.

The whole process was getting me rather frustrated until one day I realized the trouble was not in the interface (there were problems with the interface but I was reacting out of proportion to the technical difficulties) but in my orientation to it. Rather than treating this as a new skill and new opportunity for learning and growth I kept wanting it to be what I already knew and would get frustrated when it was something other than that. In that direction lies madness. The first step to sanity is recognizing reality for what it is and acting from there. Getting frustrated because reality is different than you want gets you nowhere. Accept reality. Then you can work to change it, or work to understand it.

While there are areas that I am constantly challenging myself (I intentionally try out new ideas in my lighting all the time and see artistic evolution as central to being an artist) there are other areas where I am as stuck in routine as anyone else. Spending time in the presence of children has certainly helped me to choose to learn. It has helped me to see how everything we know and everything we do is learned. And more importantly than that, the act of learning is a choice.

What will you choose?

From the Archives: The Corporatist War OR The Human Will to Freedom

Friday, December 18th, 2009

Note: This was originally published in August of 2006. I noticed interesting parallels between the writing here and my recent series exploring revolution and economics. Enjoy!

The Battle of Algiers by Gillo Pontecorvo is a powerful testament to the human Will to Freedom in the the face of the brutal dehumanizing violence of colonial oppression. Using cinematic devices borrowed from documentary film making, we are presented with a detached yet immediate realism. The dirt and the grit of warfare feels right on top of us. Surely far more powerful than anything presented on Faux News yet somehow resonant of the truth of the situation in Iraq that we are not given.

We see repeated instances in the film of Edward Said’s notion of Orientalism. The Otherization of the oppressed that must occur for the colonial powers to feel secure in their occupation. The dehumanization of the enemy that must manifest for war to continue. For sympathy can not exist in war. Care and concern can not exist in war. Only duty. The duty in this case for the blond people to oppress the brown people.

Theatre provides a possible escape vector for the totalitarian control that political language places upon the individual. The political realm, far from being one of individualism, is itself a totalitarian product. One can not be Self. Large and contradictory. Rather one must be of a party. Of an ideology. The ideology itself providing discursive paths upon which one may walk but not diverge.

The language of colonialism creates the body politic necessary for mass revolution. By “otherizing” the mass of humanity that once existed as a multifaceted and contradictory heterogeneous thing, they become a single unit. Revolutionary conditions are created by the very linguistic structure used to justify the presence of totalitarian regimes. In fact, the threats that these new groups pose are constructed from a necessary reaction to the language used to engage them by the otherizing self.

At the end of World War II the “Threat” of Nazi Germany ceased to exist, and with it the justification for the military industrial complex that had brought the American, and world, economy back from collapse. Just as that threat was ready to go away, Churchill gave his famous Iron Curtain Speech and the threat was continued. American politics-as-usual were saved for another fifty years, but then The USSR disappeared. Almost overnight. We were left limping along for nearly ten years trying out various threats, but none would quite suit our needs. China was too big an economic necessity, North Korea too small, even Iraq on its own was not quite enough.

But, as with the shift from the physical Nationalist threat of Nazi Germany to the Internationalist ideological threat of Communism, we suddenly got our chance for a new shift. Moving further into the realm of ideological conflict in a post-nationalist approach, the War on Terror was born. The human Self is no longer of concern as that can only be inviolate in service of the Nation State. But with the end of Nation based warfare all tactics are allowed. This is not an American war, it is an economic war. The great symbol of the west is not the Statue of Liberty, but rather the financial center of transnational corporations. And corporations do not like war at home.

Mother Courage would certainly be able to tell you that war is good for business. But if that war gets too close, even the most tenacious of entrepreneurs can not survive. And I am reminded of the lesson Joshua learns in War Games that, “the only way to win is not to play.”

Recessionary Aesthetics; Money, Minimalism, and Art – Or, it’s the performer stupid

Monday, December 14th, 2009

I am currently working on two shows that, for budgetary reasons, have pulled back on the design elements and are working within a minimalist framework. It has long surprised me that smaller theater and opera companies will often spend a significant percentage of their budget on scenery (or costumes) and skimp on a lot of the other elements of the show. Dance learned years ago that when working with limited means the first thing to go should be the elaborate scenery, followed by fancy costumes. The whole purpose of live performance is to experience the performers.

Modern dance developed within a rather poor environment even for the arts. Scenery and, to a lesser extent, costumes were largely eliminated in favor of spending money on performers and, by extension, lighting. You can do any show without scenery and without costumes, but you can’t do it in the dark. As the saying goes, “If you can’t see them you can’t hear them.” One quickly begins questioning what exactly that means. Seeing the performer does not necessarily mean a spotlight on their face. If you are working on a noir piece revealing the actor in shadow and half light may be the most effective means of hearing what they are saying in a given moment. Yet the underlying logic is true. If the audience can not see the performance they will fast lose interest.

It is interesting that theater and opera companies will often sacrifice the actual performances in order to have scenery and costumes when, in the end, the audience comes for the performers. Both of the shows I am currently doing in a minimal style have made sacrifices in order to directly improve the performances and thus the audience’s experience of the piece. In one case a rather pricey scenic element was cut to hire a dialect coach. In the other case singers salaries were increased with, what would have been, the scenic budget. In both instances a choice was made in favor of the performance over the packaging. In both these cases the lighting budget is tiny (as it should be) but I will make it work overtime.

Don’t get me wrong. I am incredibly vocal about the utility of good design. I firmly believe in the value that visual storytelling brings to a work. I have seen shows whose success was largely through the design ideas alone. But no slick piece of stagecraft will make up for a poor performance. One of the great things about lighting is that it has the capacity to work scenically as well as a means of illumination. Through the use of standard American theatrical lighting instruments whole worlds can be created with variations of color, texture, shape, and angle. Interiors and exteriors can be created not to mention the more obvious qualities like time of day.

I see a lot of companies cutting back their programming or doing smaller shows in order to make up the funding gaps they are experiencing under the current economy. Sadly this is precisely the wrong direction to go. Audiences come to the theater to see shows. By reducing the programming you are reducing your audience base and risk pushing them away more permanently. Instead the most logical thing to do is revision the way in which performance is seen. Exploring minimalist approaches to design is certainly one way to do this. Cut the scenic, costume, and lighting budgets and do the five actor play you really want. Cut all the fancy drops and hire that amazing singer.

It is common in New York, and with many European companies, to forgo design altogether. No set, rehearsal clothes, and worklights. While this is often too bold a choice for most directors it is a way of producing work that focuses first on the performance.

Before these ideas get tossed to the side as the ravings of a post-modernist, keep in mind that Shakespeare operated in much the same fashion. The scenery for his plays was minimal to non-existent, the lighting was daylight (and perhaps a few effects), while the costumes were a hodge podge of items the company would carry around with it. Roman characters might be wearing Elizabethan clothes and brandishing Greek weaponry and all this in simple daylight on a more or less bare stage. The focus, once again, was on the performance.

Far from cutting back on performance, when times are tough, it is exactly the performance that needs to be focused on. Additional rehearsal times, dialect coaching, higher performer salaries (to both allow them to relax and focus on the work as well as garnering a higher quality performer) are what the money should be spent on. An audience should leave the theater thinking fondly on the performance. If they leave remembering the scenery or lighting, with no resonance to the story, we have done something wrong.

At the rate of economic “recovery” we are experiencing these are issues companies will be dealing with for the foreseeable future. If live performance is not to be totally overwhelmed by mass consumer culture something must be done to keep performance alive and growing.

How will you respond?

Towards an Understanding of Social Revolution in the Digital Age – The False Negative of Communism

Friday, December 11th, 2009

Revolution, as understood in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, meant a seizing of the means of production and state power. This no longer makes sense. To seize power is to fall into the very trap of the capitalist and anti-capitalist revolutions. The true rupture points in a society are not those places wherein an accumulation of power is exerted over a populous. The true rupture points lay in the shadows. They are in front of us yet hidden from view. They are invisible.

It is held as common knowledge by many that the failure of the 20th century “communist” revolutions proves that not only is any derivative of Marxist theory wrong, but that the only viable option is liberal democratic market capitalism. The true failure of the “communist” revolutions was precisely their inability to rework the social or economic order. Zizek, in In Defense of Lost Causes, argues that liberal democracy is a dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. Liberal democracy is a system which, to its very core, reinforces the values of the Bourgeois class. If this is true, most 20th century dictatorships are merely a twisted inversion of that logic. Instead of smooth market flow, we have forced top down control. Either way the focus is on pockets of wealth and power and the exercise of control from as high up the pyramid as possible.

Taking this newly cleaned Marxist lens and looking at serfdom as the dictatorship of the Aristocracy and liberal-democratic market capitalism as the dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie, what then would a dictatorship of the Proletariat look like?

Obviously when we say ‘Dictatorship’ we are not talking here of totalitarian political regimes. That kind of centralized power and socio-economic control is tied in with Democracy’s Bourgeois dictatorship. Capital(ism) is about centralizing power through economic processes. This is a vast improvement over centralizing power through brute force, but none the less causes great misery in its wake. In order to keep the engines that fuel it alive the working class must be convinced they need not only more than they have but more than they can afford. Once the worker buys into this idea the use of debt markets allows the workers to “own” the things they were told they wanted by the corporations.

Aesop Rock puts it a bit more succinctly when he states “We the American working population/Hate the fact that eight hours a day/Is wasted on chasing the dream of someone that isn’t us.”

In short the “communist” revolutions of the 20th century were mere perversions of the democratic revolution. The revolutionary forces took market agents and forced them under centralized government control in a style much more akin to the pre-democratic governments than anything since. While the rhetoric was different the shape was familiar. Instead of corporation we had government departments. The names were different. That is all.

We have yet to see the form a true dictatorship of the Proletariat would take. We have no sense of what life in such a system would be. How would our lives change if we worked directly with one another for the exchange of goods and services. If the exchange value of our goods, time, and services was not mediated by the wealth extracting capitalists and corporations would we treat each other differently?

What might a new shape look like? Aristocratic dictatorship places everything under a single control. All power radiates from a single source. Bourgeois dictatorship opens that space up a bit. Rather than one autonomous agent there are several. These multiple agents overlap. They are owned by more than a single actor and thus have aspects of autonomy yet maintain permeable edges.

Perhaps this next phase has no edges. Perhaps it is a circle whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere.

Perhaps the very nature of power is in need of revisioning. A return to the direct human experience is an opening of a potentially new understanding of power. A third possibility, to pry us free of the dichotomy of (free vs. controlled) capital, is desperately needed. Power, as an expression of authentic human relating, by its very nature destabilizes the classical power structures of capitalism (and its negative).

Capitalist modes of control are failing before our eyes. The dust has not even settled on the latest economic bubble burst and already the wealthy who control this planet are working to gain more wealth at the expense of everyone else. Already the new free commons are under attack by the capitalist forces. Were it up to them we would pay hefty sums for services that should be free.

Of course the devious nature of debt markets has made everyone so concerned with keeping a roof over their heads that we hardly have time to look up and see a world of free information, free exchange of goods and services, true freedom taken away from before our very eyes. Or to put it in the words of Dead Prez, “How can you represent if you can’t pay rent?”

Towards an Understanding of Social Revolution in the Digital Age – Credit Markets

Monday, December 7th, 2009

The genius of late post-industrial capitalism can be seen in the appearance of the expansion of wealth through the development of “credit markets” (or more accurately debt markets). At the end of WWII the United States had the highest national debt (adjusted for inflation) in its history, before or since. While that debt serviced the economy in terms of creating industries focused on mobilizing against the threat of militaristic expansion from Germany, Italy, and Japan, when the dust settled the debt still remained. Something had to be done. In the intervening years that debt was shifted from the government to the working class through the expansion of debt markets in a similar way that the “threat” of the Axis powers was shifted to the Communist bloc to maintain and expand those military industries we had just created.

For the citizen turned consumer things like education, large quantities of consumer goods, and home “ownership” were no longer available only to the bourgeoisie (the owners of the means of production or the proverbial millionaire next door). Through the use of consumer debt, capital was given the appearance of shifting from the owners of the means of production to the workers (while some form of this has always existed the quantitative expansion caused a qualitative shift by making debt not only all pervasive, but the default assumption behind market actions). What happened was a decentralization of the “company store” allowing the working class to purchase goods beyond their means and, as a result, bind themselves inextricably to the lender. Buying in installments became increasingly commonplace, as did taking out loans in excess of one’s entire net worth for the privilege of having to do all the maintenance on one’s residence, and eventually owning a property that, when accounting for inflation, was worth what was paid for it. In short what was opened up with the expansion of debt markets was indentured servitude for the 20th century.

Once debts and assets are accounted for these workers lived with the outward appearance of the bourgeoisie and yet their personal net worth was near zero to negative. Traditionally we would call a person with a negative net worth poor. Now however we offered them the opportunity of working for the system rather than sending them to a debtor’s prison. This expansion of debt markets put much of the working class under house arrest, able to move more or less freely but suffering under the yoke of consumer debt. Because of the debt (and its commensurate lifestyle), these people now had “more to lose,” they become even more invested in maintaining the status quo, and any revolutionary potential is wiped out by the hope of owning this year’s newest gadget. At a surface level things had improved. More people had more stuff. This “expansion of the middle class” seemingly gave opportunity to millions. Yet a quick look under the hood shows a radically different picture.

The working class was now divided between those engaging with the debt markets and those living within their means. The proletariat became alienated from itself. This alienation made it unable to recognize itself due to the difference in lifestyle. Those whose lives had taken on the appearance of the bourgeoisie began to don the class actions and assumptions of bourgeois values. “Free Markets,” rugged individualism, profit as the ultimate good, and other class values of those who own the means of production got infused with the thinking of the self-alienated working class. Markets became freer, consumer debt expanded, the rights of corporations (huge pockets of wealth) began to take on a status equal to, if not greater than, that of the individual human subject.

The working class became reduced to the status of a consumer with a bank card. In short, Trotsky’s goal of reducing the human subject to a working number came to fruition through our credit cards. After September 11, 2001 we were told that our duty as citizens of the United States was to shop. Our rightful place in the order of things was nothing more than that of a consumer of goods and debt. Perhaps George W. Bush was a communist sleeper agent a la Phillip K. Dick’s Radio Free Albemuth, for he did more than most to trun Trotsky’s vision into a reality. And all the while, the rich became richer.

The profit motive was the motive. In that rhetorical action of this nation’s former President the ethical basis of this country was shifted to place profit and wealth as the pinnacle of human achievement. To quote Eric B. and Rakim, “Stop smiling. Still don’t nothing move but the money.” And money did move, as well as the labor power of the, now masked, working class, directly into the accounts of the bourgeois money lenders. Credit, of the scale and sophistication we have today, is a fairly new development. Even as late as 1948 the capitalist system was based around actual ownership.

The opening of new commons is in large part a reaction to this tendency of debt (and the illusionistic possibility it offers) to lay its noose around the neck of the worker. A simple rejection of debt markets is not enough to overcome its totalizing effect. Rather an alternate system which operates from an entirely different ethical foundation is needed. A system which recognizes the primacy of the human subject as subject provides the possibility of resisting the dehumanizing tendency of contemporary capitalism. But nothing will be possible so long as the self-alienation of the proletariat is maintained by the powers that be.

Towards an Understanding of Social Revolution in the Digital Age – The Free Commons

Friday, December 4th, 2009

Last week I opened up the possibility that true social revolution in our contemporary age might not take the form of open revolt against state power and economic infrastructure. Rather, true revolt occurs within the realm of the interpersonal. It is exactly the place outside state control wherein we are free to exercise our existence however we see fit.

In these days of advertising everywhere we go and near absolute control of our cultural choices by economic and market forces that would have us do their bidding rather than follow our own will it is difficult indeed to see a place for human Being outside the market place. To see the self as more than consumer is increasingly difficult every day. Thus I suggested that “[i]n a world increasingly mediated by technologies that give the appearance of connection, while fostering distance and misunderstanding, perhaps the most radical act we can take is to carve time out of our schedules to meet another being face to face and find out who they truly are.” Radical action then is a reclaiming, a taking back, of our authentic and unmediated reality.

While this can happen to powerful effect in interpersonal relations we need not limit ourselves to this domain. Certainly interpersonal authenticity is a foundation. But while we work on our foundations we must have a vision of where we are going from here. Just like a return to direct and authentic interactions allow us to revision the entire social sphere away from the prescribed modes of being thrust upon us by corporate interests so too can we revision economic life as well.

For this revisioning to be successful we must move beyond the commodity fetishism of contemporary life. The bling bling culture we have been sold, and sadly bought into all too willingly, can be circumnavigated. For our survival as beings who are more than their bank card numbers we must. Slavoj Zizek indicates a turn in this direction when he states that:

[T]he Left should adopt a different, apparently more modest, but in fact much more radical strategy: to withdraw from state power and focus on directly transforming the very texture of social life, everyday practices which sustain the entire social structure . . . Any radical social change must be anti-fetishistic in its approach . . . our passive endurement of power constitutes it, we do not obey and fear because it is in itself so powerful; on the contrary, power appears powerful because we treat it as such. This fact opens up the space for a magical passive revolution which, instead of directly confronting power, gradually undermines it through the subterranean digging of the mole, through abstaining from participation in the everyday rituals and practices that sustain it.

One level of this revisioning of social life lies in the economic realm and specifically the exchange of goods and services between individuals. While one could make a case for the democratizing effects of ebay or craigslist a more radical manifestation of this potential lies in Freecycle.

Freecycle provides an alternative to our disposable culture that could have potentially systemic repercussions. It not only removes any mediation between agents (people interact directly with one another) but the very notion of, and potential for, capitalization has been removed. The core essence is the free exchange of goods. Because the system has no monetary incentive there is a tendency to heighten the authenticity with which these interactions occur. My girlfriend, for example, gives items away to the person with the best story or most compelling need (rather than first responder, which would favor those with high tech gadgets, and the commensurate disposable income that goes with them).

In a similar vein to Freecycle are community gardens. Here the basic unit of production, the growing of food, is brought back into a communal mode of being. People come together to share in an activity which provides direct benefit to them and their fellow human. At the same time these action occur outside the realm of traditional economic forces. Similar too is the rise of urban farming as well as formal and informal trading between these urban farmers.

The above, as well as clothing swaps, book swaps, and other such activities, not only keep otherwise disposable items out of landfills, but bring people together to share time and space as human beings. Because the old “commons” have all been appropriated by private interests it has been necessary to open new terrain to common use.

Of similar import to these local manifestations of open commons is the rise of the open source movement and specifically creative commons. Here is a direct opening of a commons area out of a closed environment. Copyright is a closed system by design. The intent was to keep intellectual property held by its creator. Over time that has expanded ad infinitum until now genetic material which has existed inside organisms for millions of years can be “owned” by a corporation. Copyleft is open by design. With creative commons a public space has been opened up and created within the otherwise closed system. While software is the most well known aspect of creative commons, music is increasingly released under CC licenses as is a lot of writing, including this blog.

Each idea listed here provides a possible escape vector out of the misery of the disposable culture we have been sold. While it is possible that these may simply be recouperated into the economic engines of post-industrial capitalism, they none the less provide a rupture point which might be exploited to bring about a fundamental shift in society’s ethical orientation towards itself. Escaping the reality proposed by the corporate interests is necessary before we, the human subjects in this experiment, are deemed disposable too.

Visual Resume

Monday, November 30th, 2009

With the economic downturn I have been looking for work outside Lighting Design to supplement my reduced income. Because of the general flood of people looking for work these days I figured I needed to do something to make my resume stand out from the crowd. Below, and available for download, is my visual resume.

My ideal would be to work in a creative and collaborative environment where I could use my extensive research and organizational skills to bring exciting projects to fruition. I am open to new and different work experiences and would love to discuss options with you.

Visual Resume

Please download my resume for your files.

What do you think of the visual resume?

If you like this please Tweet, Digg, Stumbleupon, or otherwise let people know.

Thanks for reading!


Twitter links powered by Tweet This v1.6.1, a WordPress plugin for Twitter.

Creative Commons License

All text and images on this site unless otherwise noted are licensed under a Creative Commons License.