Abe Lincoln & Local Jingles: If it were update to me…

Posted on January 26, 2012 by admin

A collection of assorted thoughts, opinions, and recommendations on a variety of life’s issues ranging from politics to web use. I’m not qualified to make most of these assertions, but if that were the criteria for proposing ideas, then we’d rarely move forward. So on the strength of that reasoning (or excuse), here are a few ideas.

1. Stronger restrictions should be put in place to regulate the creation of companies’ musical jingles, especially for local business.

I don’t know how it would work – maybe a committee to determine whether the effectiveness outweighs the annoyance factor for each local ditty. And maybe these folks have to be elected. But they’re only allowed a $10 campaign budget, and they’re whittled down to about 20 by election. Then, we give them an IQ test, a character quality test (probably involving a lie detector), a social awareness test, and some sort of hip-ness test to reduce the number to ten. Maybe this is excessive and a bit Communist, but I’m just the idea man. Somebody else can turn this into a democratic process. This probably applies to all the ideas that follow as well.

2. There should be a cap on the number of reality TV shows that can be part of our programming at any time.

I’m only about 10% joking on this one. Ideally, they’d go through a similar quality check as described above. Scores can be given based on criteria like the following:

  • Level of potential character-building, knowledge-building, and utility
  • Level of anger/unrest provoked by 15-second commercial clips of the show (most non-HGTV shows would currently fail this test, and shows involving angry, gossipy wives and guys punching girls obviously fail this test)
  • Level of connection to actual reality

Again, is this bordering on dictatorship? I respond with a paraphrasing of Abe Lincoln, assuming President Obama was correct in his State of the Union quote, which goes something like this: government should do only what the people cannot do better for themselves. Brilliant! Lincoln is a master of quotes, second only to Jesus and possibly Einstein. And we clearly cannot filter these things better for ourselves, evidenced by a quick browse of the TV Guide.

3. There should be a team of people who are authorized to tag up cars whose owners have intentionally double parked them.

I’m not talking about a slight crossing of the line by someone who was in a rush to get to a doctor’s appointment. I’m talking about people who straddle the divider lines as if they are the rail which carries kiddy trains around at an amusement park, with the goal of ensuring nobody blemishes their shiny new car.

The tagging material should be something that will wash off without damaging the car, but it should require significant effort on the part of the owner, to discourage this annoying practice.

I don’t own a shiny new car at the moment, although I do have a relatively new vehicle which was recently egged for no good reason. I might feel a little differently if my (hypothetical) freshly-painted ’66 Mustang was dinged a few times, but I hope that my stance on this wouldn’t change. So if you know me, you see that I’ve gotten a new car, and you see me doing this, I authorize you to tag up my car. But please follow protocol: nothing damaging, nothing permanent.

Lastly, here’s a solution proposal: businesses can build a few extra-wide parking spots for those who’d like (understandably) to protect their new toys, and charge a small fee for a permit to park in these spots. More profits for businesses. Peace of mind for protective car owners. A place to park for the rest of us. Win, win, win.

4. Anyone wishing to vote for elected officials should be required to first take a test that determines whether they’re qualified to do it.

The test needn’t be an evaluation of education level, or even of intelligence for that matter. It should simply ensure that we know a bit about the folks we’re voting for and what their stances are. This is a test that I’d currently fail. I’m resolved to become more aware, though I still have no desire to get “into politics.” A sample question:

Firsty Lasterson believes that acceptable methods of government-sanctioned torture include:

  • Whipping
  • Waterboarding
  • Tickling
  • Reciting Black-Eyed Peas lyrics without the music
  • All of the above
  • None of the above. Any method of torture is unacceptable.

5. There should be no option to vote “straight republican” or “straight democrat.”

You could still do it, but not with one flick of a pencil. The best case scenario is that we’d have to actually vote for individual people, and we’d be encouraged (but still not forced) to use our brains and judgment just a bit. The worst case scenario is that it’d be a small punishment for those who would normally vote strictly for a party – they’d have to spend the time to check each individual box.

Am I a hypocrite, not only in my actions vs my prose, but even within this article? Possibly, even though I tried to mention where I know I’m a failure. Am I doing that thing where I point out my own faults so that you can’t do it without sounding redundant? Absolutely.

Okay, enough with the politics.

6. Country singers should not be allowed to use R&B, “Gangster,” or Rap-born slang terms that have come about in the last ten years in their country songs.

Recent examples include the words “badonkadonk” and “bling.” Please feel free to use the words all you want in daily life. I, for example, use tons of words in speech that I would feel embarrassed to put in print, words which are not becoming to me or which I simply have no “right” (according to PC standards) to use. I do this under the sorta hipster guise (no, I’m not proud of that connection) of doing it satirically, but I use the words so often that it in reality it’s more than that: it has become a type of Friendspeak.

But would I sing these things in a song, and expect to be taken seriously? No. Unless I was covering a 90′s R&B song (which I quite enjoy, actually) – and that’s barely permissible, only because I’m not presenting them as my own words.

This one is riddled with hypocrisy. And these folks have achieved success, made plenty of money, and facilitated a good time for lots of people. I guess it just bothers me. Speaking of what bothers me…

7. The words “communist” and “socialist” should be used much more judiciously.

All the talk that is common in some circles about how ‘the government is trying to control every aspect of our life’ is getting really old. Maybe because of my ignorance, which I mentioned above, maybe because I’ve been hearing it for nearly 4 years, or maybe because I don’t think we’re ever going to be China. In any case, it has created a little time bomb in my head, and the word ‘communist’ is the trigger. So the uttering of this word could set off an explosion (figurative), and if you’re close enough that I’m within earshot, then there’s a good chance that you might get busted in the dome piece by some debris. Again, figuratively; I’m not a violent person.

Thus ends this edition of What’s Eating Derek Weathersbee?

I don’t think it should need to be said, but I’ll say it anyway: although what I write is based on at least something I believe, I write it only for the sake of humor and fun. I do many things, I’m sure, which are just as annoying or nonsensical as the things I’m criticizing. Like using the word “thus” in a meaningless post about things I like and dislike. Or using far too many parentheses (seriously, I’ve actually deleted about ten pair before publishing this). Or talking about parentheses. None of these things are issues that keep me up at night, or things which I plan to act on. That’s why I’m writing a silly blog post rather than penning letters to mayors or senators or trying to provoke an uprising.

Share this: Twitter | Facebook
Posted in Culture | Leave a comment

The Difficulty of Writing “Pretty” Music

Posted on November 8, 2011 by admin

I’ve noticed what seems to be a pretty universal trend in the evolution of musicians and bands: their more memorable creations often gradually move from “ugly” to “pretty” as the musicians become more proficient.

Ridiculous? Let me elaborate. By “ugly,” I don’t mean bad, weak, or off-putting – I mean dissonant, off-beat, very clearly not mainstream (if you’re a musician, not Em | C | G | D). And by “pretty,” I don’t necessarily mean good, happy, or superior, and I certainly am not talking about elevator music. A decent example of the contrast I’m talking about can be found by listening to Mogwai and then Explosions, with the former being “ugly” and the latter being “pretty.” Obviously, there are exceptions even in my example, but I’m referring to the overall mood of an album.

If you don’t believe me, go back and listen to the earliest music that you remember from your favorite band. There’s a good chance you’ll spot some weird, persistent little clash resonating throughout the song. And there’s an even better chance that this little idiosyncrasy is what’s been stuck in your head all these years.

I’ll propose a guess as to why that is.
Let me preface it by saying a few things:

  • I am no authority on music, don’t know every chord in existence (or even a considerable fraction of them), and by most standards am largely ignorant on music theory.
  • My hypothesis doesn’t apply to bands who have been making “ugly” music for years. They do this very purposefully, and could play “pretty” music if they chose to. (Mogwai, for example, are more proficient musicians in my opinion than EITS, yet I still favor the latter.)
  • I listen to and enjoy a great deal of “ugly” music.

Okay. If you’re still with me, here’s my take.

When you’re first beginning to blossom as a musician – you’ve gotten past learning basic chords, and can strum along if given the key of a song – it’s much easier to make unique, memorable compositions when you drop a few dissonant notes in the mix. An out-of-context note or two played consistently under a standard chord sequence often produces a provocative, fresh, albeit melancholy result.

It takes more skill, musical intuition, and technical prowess, I believe, to create equally expressive and memorable music without the unsettling dissonance creating by adding that little piece that doesn’t belong.

As of my last attempt to compose a song, this is the rut that I am still stuck in. My reasons (read as “excuses”) are a-plenty, but I’ll spare you for now.

The more time passes, the harder it will be to create “original” melodies and compositions; it’s just simple math. Those sarcastic quotes come from a belief which I chant over and over: there’s nothing new under the sun. Yet we somehow can still differentiate between one song and another, even though they’re following a similar formula, and working with the same notes that have existed since the beginning of time. The reason: as long as different people continue to create music, they will each combine these elements in new ways. A drought of music is nowhere in sight.

That was certainly not my thesis when I began writing this. But it’s an uplifting one, so I’ll go with it.

Share this: Twitter | Facebook
Posted in Music | 2 Comments

Facebook: The Missing Manual

Posted on September 8, 2011 by admin

If I could write a manual on how people should use Facebook, it would go something like the following. Yes, I’m sure I’ve broken these guidelines; I might even do so in this post, but I try not to make a habit of it.

Do not post obscure or vague statements fishing for sympathy or questions. If you want to say something, just say it.

Do not do things in your real life only so you can post about it on Facebook. (The same goes for Twitter.)

Do re-examine your life if every picture you post shows you with beer in hand.

If you must make political posts, don’t say the same things over and over. Don’t post an excerpt from Fox News or your liberal alternative every day with a smug remark. Preferably, just avoid it altogether. You probably already annoy your “friends” enough with your views in real life. Give them a break.

Do take at least a cursory glance at what you’ve typed before you submit it, to ensure that, even if your spelling is terrible, other people can at least translate what you’re trying to get across. Here is an overload of great examples of this, with hilarious and sometimes genius ways of pointing out such abuses of the English language.

Do not point out that I have a typo in this or another post, in response to the previous sentence (please). I’m not suggesting I’m perfect, but I think you at least get the gist of what I’m saying.

Do not accept friend requests from everyone who sends one.

Do not reveal your deepest feeling to your loved one only on Facebook. Turn your head and open your mouth, walk across the room, or pick up a phone. Facebook is a social tool; your statements go out to a society of people, so if this is your only method of communication, I’d say your motives are suspect.

There are no doubt many more of these to come, so a Part 2 is likely.

Share this: Twitter | Facebook
Posted in Culture | Leave a comment

Rocking My Ears Off! A Little Labor-Day Rant

Posted on September 6, 2011 by admin

Here’s a riveting proclamation: I enjoy music. I really enjoy live music. That’s why, when I lived in Dallas, I attended as many concerts as my time and cash flow allowed (which, mind you, isn’t a very impressive amount). I was able to see most of my favorite bands or musicians in concert, with my favorite shows all around being a tie between Keith Urban and Radiohead.

But here’s the problem I’ve found in almost every case, with the exception of the aforementioned shows, probably not coincidentally: I can’t hear the friggin’ music. Not because it’s not loud enough, but because it’s about 47 decibels too loud. Yes, my measurements are way off, and no, I don’t care.

Here’s an example of what I’m talking about, why it frustrates me, and why my rationale isn’t that of a cranky old man. I was doubtful, but slightly hopeful, when I dragged a couple guys along with me to an Explosions in the Sky concert a few days ago, that they might share my enjoyment of the band.

But from the beginning of the show until what seemed like a lifetime later, the music was so oppressively loud that the melody and even the beat became lost in an indecipherable cacophony – a physically wearing one.

If you know this band or one like it, you know that part of the thrill of most of their songs is that crescendo – not always at the end – which straddles the line between harmony and discord, and which is balanced out and made bearable by a calming, minimalist melody which builds and ultimately snowballs into an anthem. But even at the most clashy moments of the songs, you can still hear the driving riffs and melodies that hold the song together, just transformed into a triumphant and, put simply, much louder incarnation which makes you want to throw off all your baggage and conquer the world.

That being said, no matter how beautiful the music is or how technically proficient the musicians are, the human ear can only take so much volume until all this turns into nothing but noise.

I have no clue who has the final word on these acoustic matters: the band, the promoters, the venue, or if the demand for this punishing volume comes from the fans or from someone on the band’s side. I really suspect that no one really enjoys this. At least no one who is a real fan of the music being played. How could you? First, you’ve come to see the band because you enjoy their music. Secondly, music is something that people have to share. If you love a band, you tell your friends about them. However, as was the case for me, blaring indistinguishable dissonance into a friend’s ear for two hours is no way to get them on the bandwagon of your favorite group.

As we were walking the half mile back to our cars and recovering our aural functionality, we passed by a tiny club, where a band was playing in the corner, probably for nothing but exposure and the ability to sell t-shirts. I thought, “I wish the guys would come down here and play on these folks’ tiny rig.”

So my anticlimactic point is this: turn the volume down! We are not deaf. At least not yet.

Share this: Twitter | Facebook
Posted in Culture, Music | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Hello! Goodbye.

Posted on June 7, 2011 by admin

My website is nothing amazing. Or even great. Really not even good. In fact, it’s been an embarrassment to me for the last couple years; that is to say, I feel that it is not a good reflection of my work. That being said…

I am so freaking tired of seeing, in letters about 300px tall, the word “Hello” or “Hi”, on the home page of designers’ websites, usually followed by a period (.) and a sentence like “I build websites.” To show an example, I’d have to single someone out, and that wouldn’t be cool, because maybe the person I’d single out wasn’t being a follower, or even worse, thinking that they were being ever so clever.

If you don’t know what I’m talking about, it’s not worth your time to figure it out. This just annoys me for some reason. I don’t know why. I copy things that I see all the time if I think they are cool. But I officially declare this uncool. And, while I’m at it, the word (or words – I’m not sure) douche bag is also off the market. It was funny for a while and often quite fitting. But now, too many people use it, and the age of people using it has just gotten out of hand. So goodbye, “douche bag.”

What use is it to rant on about something so stupid as this? None, really. But it gives me something to do while waiting for my wife to put down little Natee – after which we will continue our second run of Lost – since my attempts at creating a personal website design have been so futile. Why is it so hard to design for myself?

Share this: Twitter | Facebook
Posted in Design | 3 Comments

The Origin of Species 2: Biblical & Scientific Time Frames

Posted on May 31, 2011 by admin

This post begins to address one issue – a good one – presented in a response to my previous post: “From what I read you agree that 4-5000 years is what the bible and creation theory suggests. Science does not agree and has proven as fact that the universe is much much older; more like 4-5 billion years old. This is not theory; it is hard fact, as you can measure the distance of stars and the speed of light, and from those two measurements alone you can calculate that the time frame in the bible is just wrong.”

And I respond with 2 main points:

Point 1 ) The 4-5,000 year time frame (approximately) is derived from tracing the genealogy in the Bible. So it refers to the time frame from the first created humans and our current generation. That, however, doesn’t necessarily say anything about the creation of the universe or the time period before God created humans. There are many different takes on this, but here are just a few of them:

  • The Days of Creation are symbolic days, not 24-hour days; this is a controversial topic.
  • We know nothing for certain about what existed before the revelations given in the Bible.
  • The Bible is the revelation of God to us, as humans living on Earth, and provides information relevant to our existence here; there is no requirement that it explain to us how and/or why the rest of the universe exists as it does.

Point 2 – a much clearer one, I believe ) We all come to discussions like this with our own set of presuppositions. Regarding creation (or the natural world), you bring your belief that there has been no supernatural interference with the natural world. And your reference to the speed of light and our distance from the sun is a good one, which makes perfect sense. That is, if you know how far away one thing is (the earth) from another thing (the sun), and the speed at which one thing moves from there to here (the speed of light), you can calculate the time required by simple math. And I have no reason (nor the expertise) to question the speed of light or the distance from the earth to the sun. So why doesn’t this blow away my beliefs?

If I did believe that what can be observed is all there is, then I would surely agree with you.

The key: this calculation only holds weight if I believe that what can be observed and measured is all there is, and have already ruled out the supernatural before even approaching the discussion.

I don’t carry that same assumption, however, though I carry plenty of my own. I believe there is a God. I have not ruled out the supernatural, the things I can’t observe. I would really like to, in a later post, talk about some little hints in our every day life that suggest the presence of something beyond what we can see and measure. But back to the present discussion.

Believing in God, there is no problem presented here. If there is a God (one and only one God, behind or beyond which there is nothing else), then there’s a few things I think we can assume:

  • Whatever laws of nature exist were put in place by that God. If he put these laws in motion, he is not subject to them, being the creator of all forces, and so was not constrained by them when he set the universe in motion.
  • A God who cares enough to create us and the universe would not set us up to fail. He didn’t create the sun, create the earth at the same time, and then wish us well and turn away. If the earth requires the sun’s light, then God would clearly start us in a position which allows us to survive; if that means he gave the initial burst of light a boost, then so be it. If it means the sun was created long before the earth, and we are reading things literally when they ought to be read metaphorically, that’s all well and good too. The point is, if there is a God, he is not constrained by his own laws.

Share this: Twitter | Facebook
Posted in Culture, Faith | Leave a comment

The Origin of Species

Posted on May 2, 2011 by admin

How ridiculous of me to steal that title. I can think of nothing more appropriate, however. This post is the continuation of a friendly discussion that I felt had grown beyond the scope of a Facebook comment. First, I offer a brief review of the lead-up.

Here’s the video that started the discussion.

My smug (and likely unscientific) response

It’s a pretty widely known issue among scientists that there have been no actual Transitional species found. I’m not talking about a person with a tail because of a mutation. I’m talking about a true transitional species. They should be all over the place. But there are gaps. Not that many, he says above. So now the going logic is that “all species are transitional.” Now scroll to “6:09″ in the movie. Hmm…

I was watching a scientific documentary the other day in which the scientist just marveled at the miraculous fact that, around 4-5,000 years ago, our ancestors suddenly had a tripling of its brain size and became civilized within a relatively short period of time. That’s an interesting time frame.

Also, the driving force behind evolution, referred to as Survival of the Fittest, is actually proposed to be spontaneous mutations that just happen to make a creature more suited to its environment. Positive mutations. Problem is, this doesn’t actually happen. Mutations that are positive don’t happen. Mutations manifest themselves as something more like Cancer. Not such a good thing.

One more thing. Scientists are expected to follow Murphy’s Law. But evolution does not obey Murphy’s law. “Oh, that just applies in a closed system.” Oh, okay then. Nevermind.

I’ve offered no irrefutable evidence, probably nothing we haven’t heard before, and no fossils. But neither has this guy, just his stick figure diagrams and a couple not-so-subliminal screens of extremists.

Original poster says:

Murphy’s law (what ever can go wrong will go wrong) does not apply to science; secondly, the speed of light actually does prove with science evidence that the time frame the bible suggests is impossible. And what exactly did you see that you are calling “screens of extremists?”

And my final response

I guess the case is blown open then :) . I made the irresponsible (if common) mistake of interchanging murphy’s law with the similar Second Law of Thermodynamics (the tendency to move from order to chaos). If this law doesn’t apply to science though, then what does it apply to?

The reason I say “irresponsible”: so many people are under the impression that the current, mutation-fueled explanation of our existence is a proven fact. Hence the misconception that someone has to either accept empirical evidence or believe something “supernatural”…that these are mutually exclusive.

Another way this is usually framed: believing in creationism is just a crutch for the unenlightened, or extremists, as I called them. I like how this fella (in the video) starts out talking like he’s taking such an open-minded approach, while in the background showing the caricature of the uneducated, grammar-impaired Facebook poster — as if this is the mindset of anyone who would be so ignorant as to believe the Bible.

On to the time frame. Yes, the common time frame scholars have come up with, tracking through the genealogy, is 4-5000 years. And that seems fine to me. But the bible is also a work of literature, transcribed by people, likely employing literary devices, such as metaphors, like any other ancient text. It’s something that, if you want to seriously interpret, just like any other work, you have to take  in context and work through what is symbolic and what is literal.

Most people take the creation story as a literal week; I lean that way but can’t say I’m sure. In addition, if you accept the Bible as truth, that doesn’t mean you have to concede that he has revealed everything to us, such as his method of creation, or that you have to reject any hint of evolution. (The currently-taught version is pretty weak though, in my opinion.)

In fact, one of the greatest Christian thinkers of the last century, and someone who it would be foolish to dismiss as a lunatic, CS Lewis, actually believed in some version of evolution. The reason, as I understand, was that although he was very educated, he wasn’t a scientist. And he accepted what the scientists of the time were saying as truth, not suspecting them of alternative motives. Were he alive now, I imagine his opinion might be a bit different. (There are in fact numerous quotes from some of the top evolutionary scientists of the time who themselves not only doubted the theory but admitted that they summarily dismissed any theory that would require the existence of a higher power. Some even admitted that they favored evolution simply because it relieved them of the burden of having to answer to and abide by a higher authority. I can produce these if you require, as they’re not currently at my disposal. )

This flexibility in interpretation is convenient, you might say. About as convenient, I’d then say, as, when presented with the utter improbability of mutation-driven evolution, the proponents offer this answer: “It took a really long time.”

My stance on this is undoubtedly obvious, but that’s not really the thesis here. My main point is (1) to assert that the science/spirituality riff isn’t necessary and (2) to suggest that folks actually think about the facts themselves. Ultimately, belief in either creationism or evolution require putting faith in things that cannot be proven scientifically; or more accurately, making a choice as to what evidence is most convincing to you.

Share this: Twitter | Facebook
Posted in Culture, Faith | 6 Comments

Growing Up Cheap

Posted on April 9, 2011 by admin

My sophomore post has nothing to do with art, design or music. That is, unless you consider extreme frugality, beyond the point of necessity, to be an art form. Today’s entry is dedicated to the many ways in which my family, and those of childhood friends, found to skimp on the essentials. It’s a testament to the fact that necessity breeds innovation; or, more fittingly, cheapskates make do with what they got.

Today’s post will be presented as a series of axioms. Perhaps the only people who will identify with me here are my brothers and close friends. But let’s give it a go. I present to you the basics of Growing up Cheap.

Coffee filters and toilet paper are interchangeable.

Essential. So essential. This one seems self-explanatory to me, but maybe that’s because I was raised in a house of cheapos. What this means is that if you start to brew your delicious morning pot of coffee, only to discover that you have no filters, you simply lay a few layers of toilet paper across the basket, throw your coffee in, and you’re golden. And conversely, if you find yourself in the uncomfortable position of needing to do your morning business, and toilet paper is MIA, just grab a little stack of coffee filters. Comfy? No. Effective? Indeed.

Knob, Schmob. Grab the Pliers.

If ever a nob or accessory for a radio, air conditioner, or household appliance breaks or becomes lost, buying a new one is simply not an option. Grab some pliers, channel locks, a crescent wrench, or whatever you’ve got, and latch them onto the nub where the knob once resided. Growing up, our air conditioner was operated in this way for years at a time.

Water + Coffee Creamer = Milk

Doesn’t it suck to pour a bowl of hearty cereal only to discover that there is no milk in your fridge. No need to worry if you’re a coffee-drinking family. Just mix a cup of cold water with a few spoonfuls of coffee creamer, and enjoy your Crisp Rice.

Crisp Rice = Rice Krispies

Very rarely would you find brand name food items or sundries in our pantries. Ever heard of Sure Savings sugar? Instead of Rice Krispies, we had Crisp Rice. Instead of Lucky Charms, it was Marshmallow Maties. In short, find the box of name brand cereal you want, and then grab the bagged version below it on the bottom shelf. These were reasonable substitutes, other than the fact that they became soggy a little quicker. The one food substitution that I’d fight is Dr Thunder in place of Dr Pepper. The difference is very noticeable there.

Sauce Pan + Ladel = Coffee Pot

I suspect this one might require a little explanation. There were six people in my house growing up (sometimes more), 5 of which are and were heavy coffee drinkers. So we went through quite a few coffee makers. As a house full of boys, the glass coffee pot ( or carafe for the fancier reader ) never lasted too long. But did we buy a replacement? Of course not. You just find the most appropriately sized sauce pan and lay it on the hot plate. Of course, the pan doesn’t fit in the grooves, so once the brewing is done, you turn the stove burner on 2-3 and move the pan over. Then, you use the biggest ladle you own to serve up your morning cup. Sounds ridiculous, but I literally remember doing this for years at a time.

Water the Air Conditioner

I’m not sure if this is a common experience or not. My childhood home was and still is cooled by a window unit, which normally runs using water fed to it through a small hose. But for some reason, this was not how ours worked. Instead, a few times a day, we’d go out, grab the water hose, and spend about ten minutes soaking the outer panels so the unit would blow cold air for a few more hours.

Cabinet Doors Are Just One More Step Between You and Peanut Butter

Again, as a gang of rough-housing boys ( I suppose this is the reason? ), there were several cabinets in the house whose doors become broken and lost. These doors were never replaced unless a complete rebuilding of a room took place, which happened only once as I remember. There is a cabinet door in our kitchen that was broken when I was about ten years old (I’m now 26) at the latest; it is still missing.

Powerade Bottle = Football

This one is a little baffling even to me, but I was a witness throughout my middle school years to a daily game of Powerade football. For some reason, we weren’t provided with any sort of real sports equipment or source of entertainment during recess. So, in the familiar spirit of resourcefulness, a Powerade bottle was filled with rocks or water and tossed around in a serious game of football. This happened every day. Yet still no football was provided. Maybe that’s part of the reason there were so many sixth graders already smoking the reefer.

Yahtzee is Not a Board Game

It therefore should not be purchased in a box. There should be no cups involved, unless it’s holding iced tea or beer. Come on, who rolls dice out of a cup? And pre-made score pads? A waste of money. My family has played more games of Yahtzee than 99.9% of families on earth. And I can tell you confidently that the only necessary components are five dice, a pen, and any sort of paper you can find. Notebook paper is nice though.

Soccer Ball = Basketball

We had two recesses per day in elementary school. My friends and I like to play basketball, but of course we were not provided with one. We did, however, have a soccer ball for some reason. Although it doesn’t bounce very well, that would make a reasonable substitute, assuming you have a basketball goal…

Monkey Bars = Basketball Goal

No, we did not have a basketball court or even a goal to play on. But we did have monkey bars. So the rectangular holes between bars became our basket. There are about twelve holes; so which one does it have to go in? Any of them! Come on, we’re bouncing a slippery soccer ball in the dirt. Give us a break.

If You Don’t Have Enough Gear, Make Up a New Sport

I’ve already given an example of this practice. But it didn’t stop in middle school. Dozens of obscure sports were born out of our lack of sufficient equipment, the most recent of these being Relay Tennis. The family was visiting my wife and I at our apartment, where tennis courts lay right across the parking lot. My dad and a couple brothers headed over to the courts with me carrying only two racquets. Did we take turns? No way! We partnered up and tossed the racquet back and forth to our partners between returns. It’s a pretty tough feat, especially when the opposers slam a return back quickly.

Bicycles Are 2-Person Traveling Devices: Give Me a Pump!

If you’ve got two people and one bike, both of them will get to the destination on the same bike. One rides on the seat, and the other rides on the handlebars – also known as getting a “pump.” It’s quite a balancing act starting out, but was a necessary skill growing up.

Stove = Water Heater

Our trailer house was sufficient for our family of six ( the four of us shared a room ). This number often increased, though, as other family members needed a temporary abode. The number of people around, combined with our small, hard-water-affected water heater, meant that the last several people in line had to take a cold shower. But cold showers suck! So we discovered an alternative for the times when the ice cold water was more than we could take. You partially fill up the tub with the lukewarm-to-cold water that’s left, and then fill up the four biggest pots you own with water and set them on the stove. Bring them to a nice boil, and then pour them into the tub. This should bring the bath to a nice, bearable temperature. If not, just repeat the boiling process as many times as necessary.

When the Mercury Drops Below 32, Keep the Hair Dryer Handy

I blame this one on the designer of trailer homes. The water heater and connected water lines sit in a closet accessible from outside. On cold days, the only thing between the heater and the often frigid outside air is a thin, fiber board door. As you’d suspect, our water lines were frozen about a dozen times a year. So to speed the thawing process and get the water flowing, we took turns warming the lines with a hair dryer in 15 to 20 minute shifts.

Wire Hanger = Antenna

No explanation needed here. This seems pretty universal, and just narrowly earned inclusion on this list.

———

The mindset behind all these conventions is an ongoing point of contention between my wife and I. She wasn’t raised in quite the same way as I was, and finds many of my solutions irrational. So the idea is that at some point, we can find a happy medium between our vastly different takes on resourcefulness. We actually had a breakthrough when we broke our first coffee pot; my saucepan / ladle method was employed temporarily. My goal, however, is to arrange a situation that requires her to adopt my toilet paper / coffee filter logic…and I’m not referring to brewing a pot.

Share this: Twitter | Facebook
Posted in Culture | 1 Comment

Art & Its Place in the Grand Scheme

Posted on January 10, 2011 by admin

This morning, I got into a friendly banter war with my dad, who is a master instigator. After browsing through my website, he started questioning me about what the point is of different typefaces and why my typeface is better than any other typeface. “If I wrote down the alphabet and you did, and we showed it to 500 people, who’s to say more than half wouldn’t choose mine,” he said, roughly. “Wouldn’t that make all your years of design study and work meaningless?”

A more delusional or pessimistic person (mind you, I carry my share of gloom) might say he was taking a shot at my career, ambitions, and demeaning my life’s work. However, I know better, for a few reasons

  • 1. my dad is the sweetest fella you’re likely to ever meet
  • 2. my dad likes to start arguments just for the sake of arguing
  • 3. design really isn’t and shouldn’t be the center of my life
  • 4. 95% of the general public probably feel the same way

This, I thought, is not only a universal and timeless topic of discourse; it’s also a great introductory discussion for this blog. The broad theme I’d like to explore is exactly what the title proposes. What is our role as designers, artists, musicians, and why should we keep doing what we do? What is the point of creating new typefaces? What purpose does our studying of typography, composition, and color theory serve in the real world? Who cares that you’re using a 3/4 rhythm ?

Firstly, let me state that I don’t intend to answer these questions. In fact, I nearly fell asleep writing those last few sentences, because they sound like a bunch of textbook jargon. And for designers who know what I’m talking about, these all sound like stupid questions. BUT, any learned designer or design teacher would, if asked, dryly regurgitate that our first purpose is to serve and communicate with the general public. We shouldn’t cater to our designer peers….if so, then what we do really is pointless. Occasionally, then, it serves us well to think about these questions as they pertain to the real world. So let’s get back to the discussion I had.

The conversation started as a simple questioning — “What’s the Difference?” — type of thing.

I explained how even though most people don’t notice or care that different typography even exists, its usage, along with many other visual and verbal factors, really do affect how the average person perceives what they see, read, and watch. I talked about how a particular face might be better suited for one setting than another face. Addressing the question of why my typeface, or any typeface, is better than any other, I felt like I gave a grade-A answer. “Your handwriting would probably make an amazing typeface. Write down the alphabet, I’ll scan it in, clean it up, and we’ll make some money. It will be beautiful. However, set up a task, involving stipulations like legibility, uniformity, suitability for a particular task, or anything technical, and I will without question destroy you or any other non-designer.” I then stepped over the lines and pointed out that I have the resources and technical know-how to provide a usable font, while he wouldn’t know where to start. All in good fun still. We continued.

After frustratingly trying to point out the subtle differences between a transitional serif face and a modern sans, I felt myself mentally reverting into Pompous Designer Mode. Everyone designer worth his salt knows exactly what I’m talking about, whether or not they’ll admit it. Otherwise, they’re of a saintly type that I’m not familiar with. We fall back on things they taught us in design school. “Designers are of a different breed. We just think differently. They just don’t get it.We see the world as it really is. We see through the bullshit. Blah blah blah.” The underlying theme in all this hogwash is that as designers, we are somehow A Cut Above — at least as far as communication is concerned. I believe I pulled my head out of my arse & sort of stepped out of that mode of thought a few years ago, thankfully. And my playful back and forth with my dad certainly didn’t lean too far toward PDM, because we both meant well. But remnants of it still rear their ugly heads occasionally, particularly when I feel threatened or my pride takes a shot to the gut.

After my 5-6 years of working in the business, I’ve discovered that there is a balance that has to be struck in taking a simple pride in what you do, while realizing that everyone else doesn’t need to be impressed with or even interested in it. Where that balance lies, I’ve yet to figure out.

So what good or productive nugget of enlightenment has come of this rant? Well, I’ve come upon what I believe is my stance on what I do and why it matters.

In the grand scheme of things, when all things are made new, when there’s a new heaven and a new earth, when everything present has turned to ashes, I realize that no one will likely care about what typeface was used on Fox NFL. Nobody will care what software I mastered, what posters I designed, or how cleverly I transferred those initials into a waterfall. Nobody is likely to pat me on my back for my naive attempt at creating original music. After all, there’s nothing new under the sun, really. But, following that same line of thought, no one will care who ran the fastest forty, who won Super Bowl 37 (quick, tell me who it was), or who invented toothpicks. It probably won’t enter our minds how spiffily we dressed on our meager budgets, or how drastically we transformed our 1950′s-era home into a warm, yet modern haven of comfort.

So as soon as you point out the triviality of my work, I shall hold a mirror at you and be damned if you’re not convicted in the same way.

I’ve gone beyond what I actually believe, for the sake of extremism, in stating the irrelevance of our respective careers and earthly callings. I actually do believe that it all matters. I do believe that whether or not you consciously notice the unique cuts of my typeface, it in some way shapes the way you perceive the poster I’ve used it on. I do believe that choosing an augmented chord rather than the diminished effects the mood of your listener. And in either of these cases, the result could somehow be life-changing.

And beyond all earthly cause-effect relationships, I believe God cares how we use what he’s given us, and I’ve been told he’s proud of his children just like we are (only in a much grander way). If I could stifle my doubts and self-questioning for a moment, I should be able to picture our Maker with my posters and accolades on his wall, proud of what his child has done through my meager, yet heartfelt attempts. And perhaps we will discuss our earthly callings with each other in the afterlife and be proud or excited about them. I’m lead to believe, however, that we will talk about them in a way that only brings joy, without our current nasty brand of pride and ugly baggage that we carry, mentally cursing people even as we compliment them outwardly.

Until then, I’ll continue to do what I feel like I’m good at, what brings me joy, what I feel doesn’t stifle others, what I feel I’m “called” to do; you should do the same. Forgive my pomposity; there’s that pride at work again.

Share this: Twitter | Facebook
Posted in Design, Faith | 2 Comments