The Feld-Blog

There are two categories of intellectual weakness -- one might even say intellectual hubris if one thought I was in the mood to sprinkle irony (and I always am). Some cannot bear the burdens of human limitation and so turn to an omniscient, omnipotent God. Others cannot conceive of the burdens of human limitation and so turn to infallible Science. Each huddles in the false divinity of his idol, coddling his bruised ego in an attempt to live comfortably by explaining away the central conundrum that defines the intrinsic inadequacy of human existence: there is so much that we do not understand. Put more poignantly, neither God nor science is the source of human existence; they are symptoms of human inadequacy. 

Note: As this entry will deal with distinctions between various kinds of creative individuals, I will use the term “creators” as a general term for all artists, designers and editors.

Creative identity is the realm of the artist, the editor, and the designer. The very philosophical choice to act as artist, editor, or designer necessarily colors the creator’s point of view and form of expression. Each approaches self-expression from a fundamentally different frame of mind and though our society chooses to categorize creators based on occupation, I submit that distinguishing between their basic mindsets will be a more useful tool – or at least a more accurate one – in terms of discussing the creative process. In fact, to my mind, colloquial understandings of the terms artist, editor, and designer actually obscure their respective functions.

Fundamentally, editors filter, designers solve, and artists question. Editors create by juxtaposing the creations of others. Their source material goes largely unquestioned and untouched, at least in terms of ideas; it comes pre-packaged for approval, disapproval and re-arrangement. Designers, by contrast, are problem solvers. They are given some source material, informed of their constraints and asked to create a solution. There is a beginning and an end, carving the path falls to the designer. Finally artists question our underlying assumptions. Their job is not to craft or carve any source material, but to discard it entirely in an effort to generate something unquestionably new, though often questionable in every other sense.

EDITORS:

Editors are the gatekeepers. They express point of view by sifting the good from the bad, dividing the profound from the trite, and creating sense and order from an otherwise cacophonous jumble of creative visions clawing for their attention. Whether on a large scale – choosing which films appear at Cannes – or a small scale – deleting commas and reordering paragraphs – the function is essentially the same: emphasizing and encouraging truly creative work while minimizing and revising that which… well… needs improvement? Besides the editor-in-chief of the New Yorker, the President of Cannes Film Festival, sound engineers everywhere and the President of Interscope Records who more obviously fit this mold, I think most actors, authors (prose), photographers, and the entire Dada movement fit this bill.

Gilles Jacob (The President of Cannes) and the David Remnick (editor-in-chief of the New Yorker) filter in a more easily identifiable and literal sense. They choose which works are good enough to represent the flagships of film and fiction respectively, editing out the rest. Dr. Dre, president and Founder of Interscope records, seeks out new talent and gives it a louder voice – a more proactive and constructive approach to filtering, and the compliment to the more passive and destructive (neither is meant pejoratively) approach of Jacob and Remnick. And in a stroke of literal textualism that could shock even Antonin Scalia, sound engineers and sound designers (though clearly I think the latter is a misnomer) filter musicians’ work to emphasize, exaggerate, minimize, or shape various elements of the music to afford the overall sound a depth it simply could not otherwise have achieved.

A bit more abstractly, actors observe people and filter those details of our behavior – facial ticks and verbal affectations – which betray our otherwise hidden thoughts and emotions. They sift through millions of subtle clues and they choose the most efficient combination to recreate the appearance of a desired emotion on stage.

Similarly, authors whittle away at the real world until their book captures a single narrative. They must pick and choose which details most effectively convey the story at hand. Even in works of fiction, good writing holds back the floodgates of possible information, and lets only the relevant details trickle through to create a narrative stream rather than an ocean of directionless, extraneous information.

Photographers observe everything they see with an editor’s eye. Photographers capture those moments of accidental or natural creative genius, which escape the careless glance – the filter – of most people. Thus, the beautiful images they capture, in some sense did not exist until they were immortalized on film, yet objectively their source material exists for all to see or imagine, if only we would consider everything we see with the same critical filter talented photographers uniquely posses.

Dada ‘artists’ reconstructed and re-edited the works of other people. Certainly, they created new ‘art’ out of old forms, but, in essence, they filtered what they considered to be the important aspects of creativity – the content – and destroyed or deleted the aspects they deemed unimportant – the orders and relationships between elements of content. This is perhaps the paradigmatic example of creative or ‘artistic’ editing. These editors express their creativity by juxtaposing, emphasizing, or deleting the creative works of others.

I used to be able to write. Words used to flow from my pen like… like… well, see? Now even the simplest of similes sounds trite (and are accompanied, apparently, by an abundance of aggravating alliteration*). Neglect (and schooling) has dulled the once sharp tools of my wit – to whatever extent I was witty – and voice – to whatever extent it was mine. Even when I had nothing to say, I said it well enough. When, a few days ago, I glanced at some of my previous work, I was overcome with a nostalgia for a time when words obeyed me with simple loyalty. Now my vocabulary clumsily tumbles to the page as if written left-handed.

In quite the ironic turn for the very religious Bush Administration, The number of Americans who have died fighting in Iraq has exceeded the number of Americans killed on 9/11 as of Christmas Day 2006.

I will be posting irregularly until i get back to school in September. Sorry for the frequency of these blogging stutters

Progressives and Conservatives view the world in different ways. If there's one thing I have learned working in politics, this is it. Both want to "do good" for the country, but because the framework through which they view the world, their policy choices remain profoundly divergent.

Ok, that was a lot of big words, but I'll break it down for you. Progressives view immigrants, both legal and illegal, as people first - people who are just looking for a brighter future, people who have rights as citizens of the world regardless of their status as citizens of this country. Conservatives, on the other hand, view immigration through the lens of regulation, taxes and rules. Conservatives fear big government and they fear that illegal immigration will put an undue strain on American social services such as welfare, social security and Medicare that were intended for American citizens only. I think the primary impasse is that Progressives view the situation in terms of the individuals involved and Conservatives view the situation in terms of regulations and the effect on government agencies and services.

As you probably can guess, I prefer the Progressive lens. It is unethical to decide that the individuals don't matter, or don't matter as much as the increased strain on government services. The logic extreme of this is Rep. Kings new idea to build an electrified fence along the border. He even brought a model of the wall he designed onto the house floor. Here is the video.

This is what scares me. American government must be and has always been "for the people, of the people, and by the people." It must focus on the people - how government can help or protect people within its borders. It cannot afford to get bogged down focusing on the sanctity of existing laws. If every currently existing law was sacrosanct there would be no possibility for reform and really very little reason for congress or state legislatures to meet ever.

This is why I am a Progressive. This is why I think you should be too. Government exists to serve the people, not its own rules and regulations. Given the choice, government should bear the burden of hardships, not citizens. This is the Progressive framework. I think it is valuable and I think it is right. But choose for yourself.

In a HUGE step for this administration, the Pentagon recently announced that it will abide my the minimum human requirements outlined by the Geneva convention (of which the US is a signatory). Thank God. Guantanamo has been a scourge on the face of this nation for years now, undercutting our efforts to promote the rule of law and stoking the fires of anti-American animosity burning so brightly in so many places in the world. If this country wants to remain the "light unto other nations" that it has been for so long, we can't afford to become jaded and cynical. We need to continue to rule based our ideologies of freedom and democracy - of inalienable rights and civil liberties.
In the past few years, under the Bush Administration, we have had a foreign policy of "F*&CK OFF, other countries... we'll do whatever we want" and a domestic policy of restricting human freedoms and civil rights for political gain, acquiescing to the ever-present demands of the top 1% from their tax responsibilities while taxing working-class citizens into the ground. Thankfully, the pressures of approval rates in the low 30s and high 20s, a fracturing majority party and the discovery of deeply entrenched corruption, Bush has decided to give in to the demands of the Democrats, who have only ever asked Bush to be a reasonable human being. Score one for the Democrats. Score one for the Progressives. I can only hope that this is a movement towards a more reasonable government and less hypocrisy. We grandstand and scream at the Chinese and Russian governments for their human rights abuses. Finally, we've started to move towards eliminating our own.... now lets see if we can elect a government willing to enfranchise all our citizens.