• Your Job as an Artist

    Andrew Keen, the so-called Anti-Christ of Silicon Valley, tackles his common ground of technology and creativity in a piece from the Telegraph where he hopes to discover Why are Artists so Poor? After a bit of Twittering, Andrew found that his:

    responses extended to everything from lucid one-worders like “oversupply” to philosophical tweets such as “because they live in the moment” to Clay Shirky’s terse and elliptically authoritative “unequal distribution of talent + supply and demand”.

    The shift in the relationship between art and technology, as Andrew continues to explain, is due as much to the lack of gatekeepers (agents, editors, studios) on the Internet as it is to the ease of personal distribution.

    With that being said, the (new) job of the artist is more or less strategic self-promotion:

    In an age in which the old cultural gatekeepers are being swept away, the most pressing challenge of creative artists is to build their own brands. And it’s the Internet which provides creative talent with easy-to-use and cheap tools for their self-promotion.

    This is a guest post from Alex J. Mann.  You can subscribe to his blog here and follow him on Twitter here.

  • New Literacy Strategies

    Seth Roberts recently reflected on the New York Times article The Future of Reading | A New Assignment: Pick Books You Like with his own piece entitled Student Power.  Seth delivers his own constructive criticism regarding the American higher education system (emphasis his):

    1.  Students in a class are treated all alike. They’re not. All hear the same lecture, read the same texts, do the same homework assignments, take the same tests. I came to realize that my students differed greatly in their talents and career goals.

    2.  Professors teach how to be professors. Most students don’t want to be professors…“Teaching students to think” was a common way to describe teaching students how to be professors.

    Seth concludes by stating:

    Giving students more power over what they learn solves, or at least reduces, both problems.

    I’d add that one of the failures of the education system as a whole is that there is too much time, energy and money spent on forcing assignments and material on stubborn students.  “Student power” is a strategy to smooth these inefficiencies, assuming the students learning willingly.

    This is a guest post from Alex J. Mann.  You can subscribe to his blog here and follow him on Twitter here.

  • In Defense of Sampling: Why Stealing is Inspiring

    Audio sampling in contemporary music is a form of budding innovation that proves not only the evolution of the industry, but a method to build on creative works that inspire us.  The practice of sampling is common in most creative industries, but often less obvious than it is in music.  Music sampling happens to receive a poor, distasteful reputation simply because of how it’s perceived in popular culture, rather than understanding why it is a creative tool.  The critics and intellectuals bash the sample for its lack of originality. I praise it for its inspirational tangibility.

    My unique argument is that we all, especially those in creative fields, sample like music producers.  Sampling, as it’s embraced in music, just happens to be a more concrete citation of inspiration.  It’s a nod, an ode or respectful glance to those that did it before we did.  The sample is why we do what we do.

    The sample is observed in a variety of shapes, forms and frequencies.  Typically, a snippet of another song is cut out, sped up, slowed down or looped, and finally mashed, forced or hammered into new, original sound bite.  Occasionally, the sample is obvious, even identifiable at first listen.  Other times, the sample is indistinguishable, taking on a new creative life form of its own.

    The hip-hop music industry has embraced the audio sample, and has subsequently become an easy target for the so-called critics.  The critics yell that it’s stealing.  My response is that it’s sharing.  The critics cry that it’s not creative.  I respond that it’s a new type of creative.  Sampling is simply fair use of the available technology to build and advance previous works of art, displaying little difference to how we embrace the same technologies in other industries.

    My only personal, and admittedly obnoxious issue with sampling is the expected public ignorance it promotes.  For instance, Kanye West (who samples in nearly every one of his songs, sometimes distastefully) rapped on the monster, Just Blaze produced, smash hit “Touch the Sky,” which borrowed nearly the entire background instrumentation of Curtis Mayfield’s “Move on Up.”  Likewise, the Grammy nominated song “Paper Planes” by M.I.A. pulled the retro punk-rock introduction from the Clash’s “Straight to Hell,” while adding stylistic gunshots and heavy drums for flavor.  Overall, this is healthy for the industry.  But, while these songs have become mainstream hits, the references are ignored by most listeners.

    Sampling has and continues to expand past hip-hop.  Led Zeppelin, arguably the most innovative rock outfit in blues rock and heavy metal history, were actually samplers of their time.  They borrowed rifts, covered jams and even transferred lyrics into their own original music for the recording of their second album.  And, twenty-five years later, the Beastie Boys sampled the brave drum introduction from “When the Levee Breaks” into a aggressive, break beat for their song “Rhymin’ and Stealin.”  Led Zeppelin, the innovators, have been re-innovated.  The old folks scream blasphemy.  To me, it is a slight confirmation that the Beastie Boys have good taste in rock ‘n roll.

    Sampling is prominent everywhere.  The Blue Note has a compilation of heavily sampled jazz tunes, most of which you will recognize.  Girl Talk developed his entire album, Feed the Animals, around snippets of samples, producing entirely new songs from pieces of others.  When you watch a Quentin Tarantino film, notice his samples of classic Kung Fu flicks.  Or, when you observe a painting by Salvador Dali, attempt to understand his influence from Sigmund Freud.  The sample is relative in all forms of art and science.

    My experience as an entrepreneur, specifically in managing software development, has been sample driven.  Although I do more reacting than planning, large aspects of my job are sampling what has worked in the past with hopes that it will work again in the future.  The team I work with began our design process by reviewing numerous software dashboards that had pieces relevant to our vision.  We then pulled and sampled these elements into our sketches, and finally implemented the puzzle pieces into an original design.

    The goal of recognizing samples in any form is to have an open, but defensive mind, and question not only the music, but how it is consumed.  Who are the artist’s influences?  Who is sampled, deliberately or unconsciously?  Recognizing sampled inspiration is more than being aware or knowledgeable of history.  It allows you to be a true, critical observer of artistic foundation.

    This is a guest post from Alex J. Mann.  You can subscribe to his blog here and follow him on Twitter here.

  • Seeing with Tongues

    A new breakthrough device, recently covered in Scientific American, restores partial eyesight to the blind by using sensors in the tongue to send sign signals to the brain.  The research comes from neuroscientist Paul Bach-y-Rita.

    Experiments have shown that:

    within 15 minutes of using the device, blind people can begin interpreting spatial information via the BrainPort, says William Seiple, research director at the nonprofit vision healthcare and research organization Lighthouse International. The electrodes spatially correlate with the pixels so that if the camera detects light fixtures in the middle of a dark hallway, electrical stimulations will occur along the center of the tongue.

    The thesis behind the the device, known as the Brainport, is that we see with our brains, not our eyes.  It comes down to how we learn, not what we learn.

    “It becomes a task of learning, no different than learning to ride a bike,” Arnoldussen says, adding that the “process is similar to how a baby learns to see. Things may be strange at first, but over time they become familiar.”

    This is a guest post from Alex J. Mann.  You can subscribe to his blog here and follow him on Twitter here.

  • To Invest is to Aim

    In the land of financial markets, the phrase too big to fail has been brought into a new light.  Two physicists from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich did a physics-based analysis of the world economy, finding in numerous cases that 80% of a country’s market capital consisted of only a few shareholders.

    The research continued to explain that:

    The most pared-down backbones exist in Anglo-Saxon countries, including the U.S., Australia, and the U.K. Paradoxically; these same countries are considered by economists to have the most widely-held stocks in the world, with ownership of companies tending to be spread out among many investors. But while each American company may link to many owners, Glattfelder and Battiston’s analysis found that the owners varied little from stock to stock, meaning that comparatively few hands are holding the reins of the entire market.

    The investment takeaway is to target investor influence rather than market timing

    “In this kind of science, complex systems, you’re not aiming at making predictions [like] … where the tennis ball will be at given place in given time,” Battiston said. “What you’re trying to estimate is … the potential influence that [an investor] has.”

    The final results from the study will be published in an upcoming issue of the journal Physical Review E.

    This is a guest post from Alex J. Mann.  You can subscribe to his blog here and follow him on Twitter here.

  • Guest Posts (1)

    Right now I’m in Japan. I’ll be staying here for another couple of weeks before heading to southeast Australia for another few weeks. While I’m away your occasional Lone Gunman fix will come from a selection of fine guest writers.

    For the coming week your host is Alex J. Mann.

    Alex has his own tag here on Lone Gunman thanks to the following posts:

    As you can tell from perusing the above posts, Alex is a recent graduate, an entrepreneur, and a damn nice guy with brains to boot.

    You can read more from Alex on his blog where he reflects on entrepreneurship, culture and technology. As expected, Alex is also on Twitter and you can follow him here.

    That’s not all, of course: Alex’s fantastic Delicious bookmarks can be seen and followed here, and you can find out more about Alex’s fantastic startup, AM Analytics, by heading here.

    Join me in welcoming Alex–my first ever guest author–by leaving comments on his posts.

    Thanks to Alex and to you.

  • The Inefficiencies of Multitasking

    Those who regularly multitask are the worst at multitasking:

    In [a test] designed to measure how well [students] could filter out extraneous stimuli from the environment, the subjects had to look for changes in red rectangles while ignoring blue rectangles displayed on a computer monitor. Infrequent multitaskers scored well on the test, but habitual multitaskers performed poorly. The blue rectangles distracted them. In another test, the students had to recognize whether they’d seen a letter before. Both groups got equal numbers right, but the high-media-multitaskers made more mistakes. They “remembered” things they shouldn’t have, indicating-according to the research team-a diminished ability to filter irrelevant information from working memory.

    You might expect, however, that frequent multitaskers proved expert at switching between tasks. After all, they get a lot of practice! But the Stanford study proved the opposite to be true. When asked to switch between classifying numbers as even or odd and classifying letters as vowels or consonants, the frequent multitaskers were slower than the low-multitasking students. The researchers suspect that the inability to filter out the previous (and now irrelevant) task may explain the slowdown.

    Mind Hacks has an excellent take on this research, and BBC News produces the concise version.

  • The Neuroscience of Driving

    Elderly drivers are the most dangerous on the road, we are often led to believe thanks to the news highlighting accidents involving the aged.

    This is not necessarily the case, research is showing, but it’s partly true due to the decline of many cognitive functions. In a comprehensive article looking at the neuroscience of driving, Drake Bennett looks at what safeguards can be put in place to prevent unsuitable drivers from taking to the road and why elderly drivers aren’t inherently bad.

    “[Studying driving] turns out to be an excellent way to look at the limits of our attentional abilities, especially as we get older and we start to show significant declines,” says David Strayer, a psychology professor at the University of Utah. “It’s one of the most direct ways to be able to look at how attention works, how multi-tasking works.” […]

    There is such a thing as too much caution, of course: driving too slowly on a highway can be as dangerous as driving too fast. But according to the researchers who study them, the wisdom of the elderly driver consists in treating driving as something dangerous – which, no matter how sharp our skills, it is.

    via Mind Hacks

  • Paper Towels vs. Hand Driers

    Fully accepting his bias, Paul Revere looks at the evidence in the long-standing paper towel–hand drier debate and finds in favour of the humble paper towel.

    There were four parts to the study: Part A looked at the drying efficiency of hand drying method; Part B involved counting the number of different types of bacteria on the hands before and after drying; Part C studied the potential contamination of other users and the washroom environment; and Part D took a bacterial sampling of Dyson Airblade dryers in public washrooms.

    Paper towels and the Dyson Airblade were found to be equally efficient at drying hands, each achieving 90% dryness in approximately 10sec. However, the warm air dryer was considerably less efficient, taking 47sec to achieve the same level of dryness. […]

    Paper towels were found to reduce the number of all types of bacteria on the fingerpads by up to 76% and on the palms by up to 77%. By comparison, the Dyson Airblade increased the numbers of most types of bacteria on the fingerpads by 42% and on the palms by 15%. However, after washing and drying hands under the warm air dryer, the total number of bacteria increased by 194% on the fingerpads and on the palms by 254%.

    The Dyson Airblade performed less well than paper towels and the warm air dryer in Part C in which the hands of 10 subjects were artificially contaminated with yeast suspension. During use, open agar plates were placed at 0.25m intervals from the hand-drying device up to a maximum of 2m. Yeast colonies that grew on the plates were counted.

    The Dyson Airblade dispersed potential contamination to other users and the washroom environment to a distance of at least two metres, whereas paper towels spread contamination 0.50m and the warm air dryer 0.25m.

    Part D showed that the Dyson Airblade dryers in the public washroom sampled were contaminated with large numbers of bacteria, including potential pathogens such as E. coli, staphylococcus and pseudomonas aeruginosa, particularly the bottom of the hand drying chamber

    According to Keith Redway, senior academic in the department of Biomedical Sciences at the University of Westminster: “The results of all parts of this study suggest that the use of warm air dryers and jet air dryers should be carefully considered in locations where hygiene is of paramount importance, such as hospitals, clinics, kitchens and other food preparation areas, schools, nurseries and care homes.” (Clean Room Technology [UK])

    I have odd hand washing habits in public bathrooms and have my own preferences:

    • Paper towels preferred if there are doors to open on exiting the bathroom. This is because many users of public bathrooms do not wash their hands, and I don’t want to re-contaminate my hands after washing and drying–I’ll use a paper towel to open the door.
    • The Dyson Airblade in all other circumstances.

    Odd habits, admittedly, and habits that are unlikely to change given these findings… mainly because the research was funded by the European Tissue Symposium.

    via Marginal Revolution

  • A Not-So-Good Cry

    Crying has long been espoused as being a cathartic response to traumatic or sad events and/or thoughts. In fact, over two-thirds of mental health practitioners actively promote crying as a therapy tool.

    That fact comes courtesy of Scientific American discussing the lack of empirical evidence for crying as a coping or cathartic response. One group of researcher decided to rectify this situation and found some interesting results about when crying can help, and when it doesn’t.

    Criers who received social support during their crying episode were more likely to report mood benefits than were criers who did not report receiving social support. Likewise, mood benefits were more likely when the precipitating events of a crying episode had been resolved than they were when events were unresolved. Finally, criers who reported experiencing negative social emotions like shame and embarrassment were less likely to report mood benefits.

    via Mind Hacks