“Every person who works in a creative field has an aspiration for her work, a yearning for that ideal plane which is the culmination of her taste. When an environment fails, over and over and over again, to provide her with a means to follow her internal compass, then she will leave. If you are in a position to influence that kind of environment, take heed. Lay the foundations for a space that nurtures, that yields the kind of work the best creative people can be proud of.”—Julie Zhuo, on why designers leave (via maxistentialist)
The ‘Smart City’ vision is shaped by providers of big technology, who are not attuned to bottom-up innovation, or the messy, disruptive ways that people use technology. It is a vision shaped around the need of the suppliers, and by the mindset of top-down masterplanning. More damningly still, the big technology companies are selling ‘smart city in a box’ solutions to cities, walled gardens that prevent scalable local business innovation. It is not surprising therefore that the technology is not selling, as the ‘smarter’ cities turn away.
The idea of the Smart Citizen has been proposed by thinkers such as Dan Hill […] to shift the debate towards the most important dimension of cities, the people who live, work and create within them.
On the one hand there is the view that Smart City design should allow for the disruptive ways in which people use technology. But there is also a stronger claim here, namely that citizens can, and should, play a leading role in conceiving, designing, building, maintaining our cities of the future.
This is a call for a fundamental shift in the way we think about our cities and about urban development, that goes beyond a plea for wider public consultation in the planning process. Alongside ‘top-down’ master-planning, we need to enable ‘bottom-up’ innovation and collaborative ways of developing systems out of many, loosely joined parts.
I love this post. Especially calling out the top-down mentality that routinely forgets to navigate by the customer/audience/individual as it’s “north star” - and ends up being surprised when they disrupt their plans again and again.
“I don’t think you can last by meeting the
contemporary public taste, the taste from the last
quarterly report. I don’t think you can last by following
demographics and carefully meeting expectations. I don’t
know many works of art that last that are condescending.
I don’t know many works of art that last that are
deliberately stupid. You may be a geek, you may have geek
written all over you; you should aim to be one geek
they’ll never forget. Don’t aim to be civilized. Don’t
hope that straight people will keep you on as some kind of
pet. To hell with them; they put you here. You should
fully realize what society has made of you and take a
terrible revenge. Get weird. Get way weird. Get
dangerously weird. Get sophisticatedly, thoroughly weird
and don’t do it halfway, put every ounce of horsepower you
have behind it. Have the artistic *courage* to recognize
your own significance in culture!”—
I understand trying to make comics female friendly, but aren't you guys worried that you're going to lose your core audience which is male? In the X-books you've had more focus on the likes on these females like jean and kitty while it should be Cyclops who has been the star of the X-Men comics for years. What warrants these characters more page time than him? Jean and kitty are secondary characters. You guys listen too much to women bitching. They cause so much freakin drama in comicdom.
Wow. you are the first person who I am kind of glad asked your question anonymously because I don’t want to know you.
as a reader of my work I want you to listen to me very carefully: you have major major issues. almost every line of your question reeks of complete misunderstanding of yourself as a man and of women in general.
it’s okay to find yourself more interested in something than others, of course it is, it’s okay to like Cyclops more than Jean Grey, but for you to draw the line at women characters not being interesting to you because you are a man or that you think I am being manipulated by some bitching women is really out there.
and as a reader of the X-Men whose entire philosophy is about tolerance and understanding… you are missing the point.
scared-rebellion asks: What advantages have you found to writing longhand as opposed to doing the majority of your work on the computer?
You never get distracted trying to send a tweet from a notebook. A notebook never pings you with an email.
More seriously (although the previous statements…
“An outline kills the character in question before she ever gets a chance to think for herself. I hate that. I work scene-by-scene, putting a character in the moment, and then trying to think through her particular responses, trying to hear what she’d say and see how she moves. I don’t find this can be done in the abstract, but only by working close, going from one instant to the next.”
“A ravishing display of intelligent, often wonderfully witty visual design, every frame alive with coherent language, in the service of what is at heart a children’s story. A children’s story for a very dark time, our own, about a very dark time as children understand such things: monsters, from beneath the bed — our own or the ocean’s! It restores heroism to the realm of the humanistic, an extraordinary accomplishment given so much of the film culture of our day. The protagonists know, and demonstrate that they know, that it isn’t about them. A sweetly simple fable, for all the titanic grandeur of its cosplay (which I took to be the message of the slowly pumping wooden bellows in the kaiju-drifting machine, which became for me the sly sweet heart of it all). A demonstration of the degree of heart *and* physicality that even very big-ticket FX can convey when there’s an honest will to avoid the opposite; mega-scale FX that don’t drain either away. A baroque that doesn’t curdle, that never fetishizes itself.”—William GibsonReviewsGuillermo del Toro’s Pacific Rim (via kateoplis)