Not too long ago I saw a clip from an interview with country music star Dierks Bentley. In this interview, he revealed that he still uses a flip phone as a mobile device. His reasoning is that being constantly connected to multiple mediums robs him of being ‘in the moment’ and he feels his creativity is sorely diminished. So, a simple means of communication only when communication is necessary is all he feels he needs. I can relate to the creativity comment. I am gaining some momentum with my guitar lessons and I find some forms of modern technology do take away from the ability to focus on tasks at hand – namely, creativity. Maybe I’ll get back into blogging. And maybe even a new song or two will emerge.
I’ve tried to do the one or two month social media (SoMe) detox or cleanse at times (to the relief of some :-). I did this by disabling accounts and making myself invisible and unfindable but not gone. Inevitably I return to the same old time stealing practices that ate more nonsense than not and is void of value for me.
When buried in a mobile device or almost any modern technology, you are always ‘there’, and never ‘here’.
The second half of 2018 starts today, July 1. So I am initiating a new SoMe approach. Kinda like a mid-year resolution. I am not exiting social media – and let me be frank, I am referring primarily to Facebook and Messenger. I am not leaving altogether – at least not now. I will be removing mobile apps thus cutting my 24/7 access to it from my phone. If my current phone was paid off, I’d look into a lesser smart phone. I will still check here and there every few days – Messenger also. But, it will be on a laptop and only when I permit myself a legitimate break from all of life’s ‘in-the-moment’ moments. And there are always an abundance of those moments so visits to SoMe will, by God’s grace, be few.
Ciao for now,
With the exception of these opening two paragraphs, the entirety of this post was written by George Bruno. I met George in the Fall of 2013 and in only a handful of interactions with him, I can assert that he is grounded in his distinction between “celebrity” for it’s own sake (i.e. ego) and “celebrity” for the purpose of being impactful in the world. Having felt incomplete myself in an otherwise well paying and relatively secure career, I voluntarily took the exit ramp in 2008 (not the best of economic times) with only one idea – to create something new. Although that which I was to create was not even defined.
What follows is a recent Facebook post by George and his subsequent comments. It is full of such resonance for not only me, but also so many others I have come to know in the past several years.
A lot of people will eventually say “I dabbled in a little acting for a few years”, then will go back and look for a “real” job. They needed that little diversion where they actually thought they were going to “make it big”. Every city has it’s community of “superstars”. Then you dial it back to a dribble and subscribe to the longterm plan and you roll the dice every now and then. BUT you needed those few spectacular hopeful years, made a few friends, and learned to stretch your brain in new ways. It was all good. It’s OK to pull off the road to the rest stop or even just change the route altogether. You’re not a quitter. You just had a reality check. You’re smart. You’re a better speaker now. You’re fearless in front of crowds. You network better. You can go back to a career or life with some new skills. So when someone says “Oh, you’re an actor..or an artist…or whatever creative title you choose” It’s Ok to respond, “Yeah, I dabbled a little”. It’s all good.
Most actors would be better off as motivational speakers or trainers. Same skills. Same gratification. BUT ten times the income. Some people love hearing others say “I saw your commercial”, but don’t know it only paid the actor $400. In their mind, the recognition is the pay. (That pays a lot of bills doesn’t it?) Commercials seem to be the actors version of a selfie, lol. Been there. Eventually you get tired of being broke.
Want to be a celebrity? Start a business, be successful, create jobs, help others get rich and achieve their dreams.
Thanks for reading and thank you again George.
Have a great day!
Algebra – the bane of existence for countless secondary school students. And for many, algebra is a source of entertainment in the way of puzzle solving for many others. I fall into the latter category. Engineering was my undergraduate academic path perhaps in part because, at least from my perspective, the path to problem solving was more prescribed than not. By this I mean we were taught algorithms and formulas to use when solving the myriad of problems we might encounter. When we were faced with a new problem, our creative latitude was bound by the constraints of mathematics and science. We were in a sense always guided by rules in our pursuit of a solution.
Later in my career I was involved in computer coding of moderate complexity at best to automate repetitive computational tasks. While I had creative license to derive the solution, I was nonetheless limited by the rules of logical syntax – and yes, even algebra. Any computational line of code using variables to store numbers is, by definition, using algebra.
Contrast that with what we refer to as ‘design’. Perhaps not the textbook or mainstream definition, I would not be for off in tendering a definition of design as something that is bound only by the limits of human imagination and can arouse strong and enduring human emotion. Design is manifested in so many parts in our lives: architecture, furniture, appliances, automobiles, technology and yes, even – dare I say especially – literature.
Design is what it is because of what it evokes in us. That is perhaps its most significant distinction from algorithmic problem solving. Other than a transitory personal victory, (“Yay, I got the right answer!”), algorithmic problem solving is not evocative in the way that design is. Emotional reaction to design is a highly personal matter. And since we are all different from one another, successful design can be especially challenging. It requires a level of creativity than goes far beyond the creativity required to overcome challenges of the situational and physical environment.
Building a structure to withstand the demands of its environment offers few creative options; all bounded by the rules of physics. Designing something, on the other hand, to move people emotively is to operate without rules and its limits extend all the way to the expansiveness of the human mind. Similarly, writing a collection of words to entertain or otherwise maintain engagement of an audience is one thing. To write something that shifts the way a person sees the world and how they operate in it is another. As I have suggested, there are no rules in design. There is however, a necessity in understanding and contextualizing humanity’s common denominators – whatever they may be.
My point in opining on this is personal and poignant. I am (for better or worse) in the throes of trying to bring – yet again – a new idea to the marketplace and thus into the world. It is relatively new and the even the sense of need itself requires no small amount of effort to create. At this stage, there are no rules, no sets of formulas or equations to arrive at an answer – other than a few known fixed costs. The answer is not known. The answer itself is being created by constantly moving forward. And that is a paradigm I am not used to. I am extremely grateful for the support and contribution of a few friends without whom I wonder if some days I would be overcome by otherwise feelings of despair.
I close with a quote from Charles Kettering, the famed inventor and head of research for GM. “A problem well-stated is half-solved.” Perhaps design and problem solving are two sides of the same coin. We solve for x and we design for y, or z, or p, or q, or r, or…
Thanks for reading. Have a Great Day!
Image credit: pixelsaway / 123RF Stock Photo