theme authorship

[PJ]

zona owns a plane , too.

Mine's bigger.

[x why z]

>have you *read* the four point plan? it's all about maintaining control over the bm community, and not letting it develop on its own.

i think where you see slavish devotion to larry, there are really people who think the theme is a silly place to fight the autonomy fight.

No, I haven't read it. Where can I find it?

And I agree, this is a relatively trivial issue-- I was thinking of it more as the first in a series of small but progressive increments. First place the theme in the hands of the community, then something a bit more foundational, like maybe art funding, and next... and I re-re-restate, it has nothing to do with committees.

well placed points, III.

[stuart]

So maybe 10% of the community would care enough to vote-- all that would mean is that the general burner doesn't have enough concern for the general direction of the community to add their voice.

sorry to Tom you on this one, but your conclusion does not follow your premise. I care enough about the event to put up a fight about not letting a bunch of senior prom planners run the theme angle. Art by democracy/comittee/vote/whatever:crappy art. I got 3 words for ya: back street boys.

I am not an org worshipper, but I think it a safe bet that if the running of the event gets more 'democratic' we are going to be in a lot of trouble. Strict majoritarian rule does not yield pretty results.

[Badger]

You sure got that one right - especially when so many ideas get fired off to do it one way or another. Yet, when it comes time for the rubber to hit the road it seems the majority of folks generating all the input often can't be found when it comes to investing the footwork until after the decisions have been made and the work performed. Then they come out howling about things were 'railroaded', 'sabotaged', etc.

[PJ]

I was thinking of it more as the first in a series of small but progressive increments. First place the theme in the hands of the community, then something a bit more foundational, like maybe art funding, and next...

IMO that wouldn't accomplish anything positive. At least, not any more than the death of Walt Disney did for the creative output of Disney Studios. An autocrat at the head of an artistic organization might rely upon input from his staff, but in the end it should be one person's decision if the product is to be original and good. (And that person should not be an MBA--but the intrinsic value of professional managers is a separate rant.)

[III]

>I haven't read it.

hmm. apparently i haven't either. i went looking for it, and it seems that what's in my head is an amalgamation of a couple of newspaper articles, and talking to a couple of regional contacts.

i guess we'll have to wait until the town hall thing to see how it really plays out.

[x why z]

Art by democracy/comittee/vote/whatever:crappy art. I got 3 words for ya: back street boys.

I am not an org worshipper, but I think it a safe bet that if the running of the event gets more 'democratic' we are going to be in a lot of trouble. Strict majoritarian rule does not yield pretty results.

Again, it is not "art by...", it is "selection by..."

Example: major architectural projects are often done by competition. Many architects submit designs, then the group that held the competition goes through a selection process. The selection process has absolutely nothing to do with, and has no say in, the creative process that produced the designs. All the creative work remains entirely in the hands of the architect(s), but the group decides which design offers the most of what they are looking for.

[stuart]

At least, not any more than the death of Walt Disney did for the creative output of Disney Studios.

ow PJ, that hurts. Oh, uh, but true.

[stuart]

Example: major architectural projects are often done by competition. Many architects submit designs, then the group that held the competition goes through a selection process....

those trade towers sure were beautiful

[TestesInSac]

sorry to Tom you on this one, but your conclusion does not follow your premise. I care enough about the event to put up a fight about not letting a bunch of senior prom planners run the theme angle.

Holy cats! I think I just lost a kilo laughing here!

Oops, better put that back in.

[TheDude]

Thank you Princess! I need someone to edit my ramblings. Most of my spew can be edited down to a spit, then it's much easier to swallow. And, Yes I read all of what Lary had to spew, and I think he's on the right track. Complete anarchy isn't the way. I.E "Lord of The Flys" We gotsta have some facade of order. Don't we?

[x why z]

Yeah, the walt disney example is a good one... except that disney co. is a profit-driven organization, and that is a much greater threat to creativity than any group vote could ever be. As long as BM's premises remain intact, it should be able to steer clear of that fate...

Though in some of the other threads there are mutterings of LLC slipping on this issue. I don't know the story, can anybody fill me in?

[PJ]

disney co. is a profit-driven organization, and that is a much greater threat to creativity than any group vote could ever be.

Why, exactly?

As long as BM's premises remain intact, it should be able to steer clear of that fate.

Burning Man is not a non-profit entity.

[x why z]

disney co. is a profit-driven organization, and that is a much greater threat to creativity than any group vote could ever be.

Why, exactly?

As long as BM's premises remain intact, it should be able to steer clear of that fate.

Burning Man is not a non-profit entity.

Because a yeah or nay at the end has less consequences on a creative process than starting with the goal of cashing in.

And I realize that BM is non-profit, my question is why some folks feel like BM is not remaining true to that rule...

[blyslv]

So maybe 10% of the community would care enough to vote-- all that would mean is that the general burner doesn't have enough concern for the general direction of the community to add their voice.

It might also mean that 90% of the burners don't have all day to dink around on the eplaya. I think you should go for it and see what happens.

[nymphgonebad]

FUCK THE THEME - How about some reserved camping spots and I would really like to have one of those faucets sticking out of the ground right in front of my camp too. I think those whinie DPW Fucks ought to be able to supply running water. Like they already got the streets layed out to see where to bury the water lines. Man, when is Larry gonna get with the program!!!

what you said.

ack - thanks guys.
move along nothing to see here

[antron]

Mine's bigger.

size isn't the only thing that matters

[Stormy]

The general gist, "Committees suck."

Yeah, let's do away with all of those god damn committees. Let's abolish the Senate, the House, and the Supreme Court. Things would be much better if Bush ran this country on his own.

[Guest]

Good Going, Princess.

Now nobody out there abuse what they know, or it'll be poopy dipes all over your house.

[nymphgonebad]

The general gist, "Committees suck."

Yeah, let's do away with all of those god damn committees. Let's abolish the Senate, the House, and the Supreme Court. Things would be much better if Bush ran this country on his own.

maybe he can get my ass to help.

committees don't suck; poopy dipes suck.

[Chimp]

X Why Z said -

"I thought the BM community would be welcoming to a little critical consideration of alternative ways of doing things. I didn't mean to roll in a rain cloud."

dude I love you, I want you to be in my gang, these cats are just CRAZY about criticism...

BTW Why does everyone think Larry would be so opposed to this idea - its all about participation right?

[Stormy]

The general gist, "Committees suck."

Yeah, let's do away with all of those god damn committees. Let's abolish the Senate, the House, and the Supreme Court. Things would be much better if Bush ran this country on his own.

maybe he can get my ass to help.

committees don't suck; poopy dipes suck.

LMAO

[Booker]

Coming in late, but XWhyZ said:

it's about openning up the central structure of the event

If your attention is focused on the central structure, what are you missing? The city is intentionally constructed with a minimal central structure, leaving enormous opportunity for the kind of democracy that matters: people getting up on the hind legs and doing stuff that excites them. The central structure is dictating not very much at all to you.

In fact, I see this election as a move toward central control. Does the popular selection of the theme not imply at some level that it's the consensus of the community? Am I the only one sensing some serious pressure to conform there?

The theme is much easier to ignore if it's just Larry going off for a minute. If his spurt triggers your idea, cool. If not, also cool.

And III, before you go objecting to my use of minimal up there, do me a favor. Make a list of the limitations BMOrg imposes on you--the real ones, no padding. Now compare it to the list of theme camps. Which is longer?

[PJ]

Why does everyone think Larry would be so opposed to this idea - its all about participation right?

Sort of. You can participate all you want but at the end of the day Larry is still the (benevolent) dictator that owns the event. Should Larry take exception to any committee's decision (whether it's in regards to art, infrastructure, finance, whatever) he'll simply say, "We're not going to do that."

[Ivy]

Why does everyone think Larry would be so opposed to this idea - its all about participation right?

If you had asked me last year, I wouldn't have thought he'd be opposed. Either I didn't know as much or he's altered his ideas or both. From reading what i have of his statements, especially recently, it doesn't seem like he'd be into it. You never know, though.

[stuart]

except that disney co. is a profit-driven organization, and that is a much greater threat to creativity than any group vote could ever be.

walt was pretty profit driven. If you listen to him from early on, before steamboat willie, he wanted the cash. This did not prevent him from coming up with some pretty creative shit that still holds up today. Now we got an MBA who is beholden to the largest committee, the shareholders. Shall we compare, say, hunchback to snow white?

Stormy, I at least am not saying that universally committees suck, or that I think we ought to dissolve the senate and let bush run the show. That's a straw man. The premise is: design/art/creativity by committee generally generates crappy results.

[PJ]

...disney co. ...Now we got an MBA who is beholden to the largest committee, the shareholders.

Not really. What you have is a personality cult. Thanks to recent events the worship of celebrity CEOs is mostly a bygone fad, but Disney's board of directors won't be cutting Mike's pay anytime soon. They're in his pockets even though the stock price is down because he still has people convinced that there's nobody on the planet that could walk in his shoes.

And the shareholders? What have those lazy shareholders done for Mike lately? Fuck them, he's more important. Just ask him.

[TestesInSac]

Something to keep in mind about committees is that compromise is usually a key element to the process. The Senate and the House, for example, as committees, in fact recognize compromise as a defining aspect of the intra- and intermural legislative process.

The artist, on the other hand, shouldn't be saddled with the need to compromise unless said artist chooses it. Artistic compromise, for say, the sake of others sensibilities, is just another name for censorship.

[PJ]

...Artistic compromise, for say, the sake of others sensibilities, is just another name for censorship.

Sometimes it's a necessary if regrettable aspect to the art form. No modern movie could possibly represent the vision of a single artist. Nobody has time to master everything about photography, acting, cinematography, editing, production scheduling, location research... Many artists bitch about studio control of the process but how many wannabe movie makers have enough cash to produce their own film? Take money, give up control--that's the way the real world works. And besides, those hundred other talented people are going to want their artistry to show through in the final product too.

[TestesInSac]

...Artistic compromise, for say, the sake of others sensibilities, is just another name for censorship.

Sometimes it's a necessary if regrettable aspect to the art form. No modern movie could possibly represent the vision of a single artist. Nobody has time to master everything about photography, acting, cinematography, editing, production scheduling, location research... Many artists bitch about studio control of the process but how many wannabe movie makers have enough cash to produce their own film? Take money, give up control--that's the way the real world works. And besides, those hundred other talented people are going to want their artistry to show through in the final product too.

Absolutely true. Then again, finding ways to allow everyone optimum artistic expression in a complicated project can, in itself, be an artform.