[chris] the best
A number of my friends love to argue about "bests" in a given field-- who's the best guitarist or poet, what's the greatest horror film of all time, etc. While these debates can be fun, I've never been too keen on this type of dialogue. There's something about framing a discussion in this feverishly comparative way that seems enkindle scornful dismissals (of decent artwork as well as of others' considered tastes). By pitting one piece of art against another, it's all too easy to get swept up in attacking instead of appreciating. This is not to say that we shouldn't bear in mind other artworks when assessing a given piece -- indeed, contrasting artworks with one another can be rewarding and illuminating. It's not comparisons that I have a problem with; it's when comparisons needlessly take on a tenor of dog-eat-doggyness.
I know that this instinct to seek to prove the relative superiority of one's art (or sports team, country...or favorite radio host) is deeply rooted in the human psyche, but so as well is our sense of love, kinship and compassion. Some like to think that humankind is on a promising pre-determined path, that we're fated to evolve into an ever more enlightened, civilized state of consciousness, which is a quaintly optimistic take on things, but in its denial of our free will and of our responsibility seems as fatalistic as counting down to Armageddon. What seems more likely is that through every little gesture, through every tiny comment, we tip the scales towards either viciousness and tribalism, or towards support and community spirit. To bring this down to a less cosmic level, we the participants in this talent quest have the power to make these coming rounds as barbaric or civilized as we like. Let's do it right.
Each of the contestants is trying to create a little art to hopefully entertain, inform and engage the good folks of radioland. But this is also a competition, wherein some 1400+ artists agreed to a constructed set of rules of elimination. These conditions, while not as harrowing as found in, say, Sophie's Choice or bumfights, do test our natures, do tempt the most base and schadenfreudig parts of our character. For the most part, people have been great, erring more on the side of forgivably treacly praise than on cheap shots. But here and there some partisans have sought to support their preferred contestant by lashing out at others. To those people, I ask only that you consider the effects of your actions. If you think your contestant is the best, lavish him/her with five stars, and email your friends, rallying them to support your favorite. If you feel you need to negatively impact other contestants, you're free to give 'em one star. But vicious attacks only hurt the contestant personally, not the contestant's chances in this competition. Unless you're an irretrievable sociopath, why would you want to do that?
So we're down to seven now. The judges (and in one case, the public) have decided that these seven are in some regard, "the best". While we're all thrilled to be here, to have made it this far in this competition, I know from my chats with the other contestants that we're all taking this experience with humility and deep appreciation for the opportunity. We are certainly trying our best, but are keenly aware that so many other round one entrants could well have made the cut. And, after what I'd have to admit was in many ways a pretty lackluster round two across the board, we're keenly aware that had this contest been arranged differently, we could have been blown out of the water by what many others could have done with that round two challenge. But the chips landed where they did, and while some inevitably will wish things had turned out differently, grousing about it too much only makes you seem like the kid who excitedly joined the snow-ball fight then cried foul when he got hit. Yes it's a cool contest, yes there is some money and a vague possibility of getting one's own show at stake, but really, more than anything it's supposed to be a fun time. The contest isn't perfect, and we're not perfect. But for most everyone involved, the goal has been to have a new experience, make art, meet people, have some laughs and take some risks. In that sense, I think the quest has clearly succeeded.
Looking forward to seeing all of you around the forums. Especially you, Bee, Komal and Carrie. And of course, Mavis (where is she?)
delicious
diggYou're all probably way over this conversation, but I've been chewing on it for days. Especially the part when Chris pointed out that adults seem obsessed with asking kids what they like. Since I have my own four-year-old science experiment here at home, I would add that people are always asking him about his favorites. "Who's your favorite cartoon character?" Or "What's your favorite food?"
My son seems bemused by the questions and automatically tries to come up with the most outlandish answer. "I like spiderman food!" (Not a made-up answer. I just asked him.)
I was watching Freaks and Geeks the other day, only because it's been touted as the best adolescent dramedy of its time. For those who don't know, it's set in a midwest high school in the year 1980. One of the main characters is a pothead/drummer named Nick who leaves home when he flunks a test and his military father sells his drum kit out from under him. He's crashing at his ex's house, listening to Rush cranked up to 11 on the volume pot. The girl's father bursts in, telling him to turn down that noise. "It's not noise," Nick says, "That's Neal Peart, the best drummer ever."
"Oh, yeah?" says dad. "Come listen to this."
The next scene shows Nick awestruck, listening to Art Blakey. "How can he move his hands that fast?"
"I dunno," says the dad. "Maybe he took lessons?"
I couldn't forget that scene. To be so sure of something being the best only to learn that there was a better out there. It used to happen to me all the time. Maybe that's why my son doesn't even try. I want to be like that again.
That's my chime -
Theresa
100% with what you are saying..but wanted to throw this on the table for thought.....its one thing to appreciate the art and another to have an opinion whos better or whats better, or even the negative comments or cheap shots, but all in all what happens is that it builds competition...a compitition with in the artist to focus harder and do better and rise through the heartache and push foward...so in the whole scheme of things that artisit becomes even better...and better than that is the gratification he/she gets for having that pain and overcoming it and perfecting their talent. so in a way, I would welcome that. I mean your right, in the fact we should appreciate all art...and should be civilized in the critiques, but its the nastiness and the pressure of being the best that ultimately will bring out the best of any artist....have you ever known an athlete who has become the best, and then was interviewed?? they ALWAYS go back and refer to the guys that called them names or hated their performance or game, and the bad commentators who laughed at them...would they have strived to be the best and became the best without that dog eat dogginess?? I think that visousness is what brings out the full potential of that artist...or athlete or whatever you are...and in the end you truly become all that you can be.
if you've ever know anyone in the military ask them...because the military does exactly that..they beat you down with everything they got, and then rebuild you into the ultimate machine...where you are at your "full" potential...and thats what you want..as the artist..to be doing what you do at your full potential!
Oh, Chad, you had me until you brought up the military. First, the military isn't about being the best, it's about subsuming yourself. Second, if their methods really worked that well, a lot more people would have joined the military before the war. Nobody wants to get beat up on.
That said, I agree with everything else you said about competitiveness. And I, too, somehow missed the word "stupid." And I was reading everybody's pages pretty closely. Maybe it just came up in the last few days and I missed it. Even my 4 1/2 year olds know that you don't call people names.
Ultimately, we are all competing against ourselves. When I was cycling competitively, I knew I couldn't win (I would always shrink back when the cyclists started physically jostling one another), but I was determined to have a better time than my last race. When I golf, I want to do better on each hole than I did the last time (talk about setting yourself up for failure!). If you focus on who you're competing against, then you will only do enough to beat them. And when you move on to a tougher competition, you won't have it. The competitiveness has to be within yourself. If you listen to others, you might actually end up lowering your expectations.
the military part goes like this...in order to create the "ultimate" machine both in fitness/mind/warrior the army will break you down both sprit and body and destroy your self esteem, all this is done in boot camp...afterwards you are built back up again to perform at your MAXIMIM potentail in all arenas. if you've ever been to boot camp,or at least saw a movie about it you will see that this is done by negative means to sort of force you to do better than whatever it was to get you yelled at and put down to begin with...it has been a time tested medium that has been used for a very long time...and proved very effective. and yes[my drill sergent will tell you himself] that yes! the military is about being the best...the absolute best you can be[do I need to sing the jingle] the best soilder but more importantly the best rounded human in all aspects...phisically/mentally/emotionally
and as for your statement about more people joining? well thats just a personal matter you have to choose for yourself..it does work that well so well in fact that many organizations have joined forces with the military to simulate the bootcamp experiance in order to perfect people- have you ever seen[especially on talk shows] overweight people being put through boot camp to lose weight and build esteem? or juvenile kids and teenagers put through it to build character,disipline,and strong will,and mind power?? it happens everyday, the results are so iron clad that boot camp senerios are recreated everyday to tackle all sorts of different problems...of course the average person dont want to go through boot camp and get beat up on...but at the same time that average person wishes to remain average, you cant show me one graduate of boot camp who isnt a better overall person, they are the "best" they can possibly be, and would not have gotten there if they didnt go through that rigorous training process. so I respectively disagree with you in this case, and hope I've sheded light on your opinion...find a military person and ask them for yourself, and Im sure they will agree 100%, thanks for your reply!
just to give you one more perspective...when your engauged with the enemy you have no chioce but to be the BEST shooter, the BEST runner,the BEST re-loader,the BEST flanker, have the BEST manuver, have the BEST confidence, have the BEST stamina, in the air you must be the BEST pilot, the BEST parachuter, the BEST gunner, in artilary you have to be the BEST loader, have the BEST accuracy, have the BEST communication and so on and so forth..there is no room for error...once you become less than BEST, guess what? your dead...and off the battlefeild, whatever you job is..you will be the BEST..weather your playing the trumpet for the band, or basketball for the army team, or wiring up the smart bombs you are made and trained to be the best...not second best, not pretty good, not the best second to Russia...but the absolut BEST you can possibly be for who you are and capable of. thats what military life is all about. they train your mind to be every bit as strong as the body. and make "you" nothing less than the complete BEST. maybe this will give you a different veiwpoint? hope it helps : )
My step-daughter, who just got out of the Navy after 12 years, swears boot camp was the most fun she's ever had. And my cousin is an Air Force lifer who was a completely more confident person when he came out of boot camp. And I see your point that if you're not the best, you're dead. And while I think that generally Americans err on the side of patting on the head (If you're good enough as your are, then where's the incentive to improve?), I can't really get my mind around the idea that somebody yelling at me is going to make me any better. I like honesty. I like brutal honesty. But I've never cottoned to the military's approach.
But, some people do. And I think we can totally agree to disagree here.
we can defiantly agree to disagree...
most people I know say that their bootcamp experiance was "fun" but thats after they completed it. the navy doesnt have a boot camp..they have basic training...its kind of the same...but not nearly as tough....and whatever you do dont ask a marine about the navy lol!
they will tell you a lot about the difference of paris island vs. navy basic training ; )....but some people dont need that type of push in order to be the very best. you for example seem to like straight up critiques and honesty, and theres not a thing wrong with that. I appreciated your imput on this matter. now maybe we cant quit posting up Chris' page lol!
Yeah, I do get where you're coming from Chad, and do agree that art formed in the hot forge of honest criticism will be all the better for it. I'm certainly a fan of cogent, passionate critiques.
When I wrote that post above, a few comments that had been left on contestants' pages were fresh in my mind -- one calling a contestant "stupid", and a few grossly misogynistic others. (It's interesting how the female contestants elicit the most vulgar online attacks. The "cybershrink" Sherry Turkle has written extensively about this phenomenon). Anyway, in expressing my thoughts that we should be personally civil, I probably didn't make it as clear that when it comes to the art itself, I don't think we should ever use kid gloves.
As for your sports analogy, I've always been athletic enough, but did sports where I felt it was me against myself (cross country running/skiing, cycling). I've competed when I've been required to, but never cared about winning. I remember once in high school when during an intramural ski race, I stopped mid-race for a tea break. My coach was aghast, screaming "Are you from outer space? Go for the gold! Go for the gold!" as I calmly sipped Earl Grey on the sidelines in my smoking jacket and cuff-linked shirt (not quite his idea of proper race attire). I finished the race, was quite happy with the invigorating exercise, and even beat a few competitors. I was at my best that afternoon, doing it my way without regard for other people's sense of best, which invariably was measured by my desire (or lack thereof) to trounce others.
This is not to say that I don't respect those who work so very hard to be their competitive best. My brother, for example, has been a semi-pro competitive cyclist his whole life, and because of the intensity of his focus, has experienced rewarding triumphs that I will never know. I admire him for it, but that's just not how I roll. When I pedal off into the distance, you'll notice on my rack a picnic basket with a dog-eared book and a half bottle of Chardonnay sticking out the top.
I'm also reminded here of my days as a babysitter. Through hanging out with kids a lot, I at some point noticed that adults always seem to ask them if they like things. "Do you like chocolate ice cream, Billy", "Do you like that choo-choo?" If you start paying attention to it, I bet you'll be similarly surprised by how this kind of conversation dominates our interaction with little kids. While this narrowness of conversation topics isn't the source of the world's ills, it does make you wonder if it doesn't engender a deep-seated sense that we should interact with the world primarily by pronouncing our like or dislike for things. If you hang out with teenagers, you so often find their discussions full of pronouncements about what is coolest and what sucks (in part a natural extension of this early conditioning?)
Is it really the best way to live; deciding first that we like or dislike things, and then, secondarily (if at all) actually really deeply thinking about them. I believe this proclivity in our culture to approach everything from the vantage point of whether we like it or dislike it lends itself all too easily to people feeling that that they can champion their tastes in places where their tastes just don't belong. Many people want to make laws expressing their dislike for gay marriage because they find it distasteful. Well, unless your pondering a gay marriage for yourself, it's not your business. In matters such as gay marriage, I believe there are some interesting things we can learn from a comparison with straight marriage, but framing the discussion as a competition with straight marriage is wholly misguided.
For me, I've consciously tried to stop reflexively categorizing things in terms of bests and worsts, and doing so has caused me to have to interact with things in a different way. Sure, I can arrive at subjective perceptions of "bests" in certain fields, and of course think that those rare, exceptional people and artworks deserve all the praise they get; but I definitely prefer enjoying and comparing art to ranking it.
Again, I'm not saying that I've got some militarized stance against ranking things. I'm just pointing out that sometimes people get so hung up on championing what they see as the best that they neglect or disparage some other great works. Yes, Citizen Kane is one of the best films of all time, but if it's become such a touchstone of your tastes that you can't enjoy a zombie flick anymore, well, I'd say your missing out. Also, a lot of what I'm talking about here is just me musing about some things that are only vaguely related to the contest; just tangential thoughts the contest has brought to mind.
Of course, you might ask, if I have even a modest aversion to competitiveness, what am I doing in this competitive contest? Well, I'm here to do simply my best. That I'm pitted against some other very talented people is to me a fun almost incidental aspect of this challenge. Win or lose, I'll be happy if I make some art that engages some people, and satisfies my harshest critic: myself.
dang I didnt realize someone went as low as calling someone "stupid" thats uncalled for! it seems to me there are to different approaches to this..one- you compete against yourself and challenge yourself, and if you end up pleased then thats all that matters because ultimatley you are your worst critic...two- the dig deep inside to become the best in both your eyes and others....to be the best and have that drive is equally as good as the latter, time has proven that that method has made many champions of many different subjects..some examples are Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Michale Jordan, or even Steven King...those who used both positive and even more importantly the negatives to succeed in becoming the best of the best. I think we both have very valid points to this subject and all in all it boils down to "you" the individual as to what you want to accomplish in the end to enjoy the greatest satisfaction and rewards of your efforts.
As a demure, understated, man of the people, you probably didn't mean for your subject line to declare any official status but just wanted to note the irony of it anyway..lol
(chris) the best
Is this band's signature piece by any chance "Slam Dancing Queen"?
..and called it "Queensboro Dancing". I'll have to talk to the boys about upgrading that title (if you don't mind us copping yours)
oh, wait a minute. You said not to do that. Okay, compared to... oops! not to do that either. Well, it was pretty darned okay. I don't know what "schadenfreudig" means, but from the context I assume it's a bad thing and Mavis says always try to not do bad things if you don't know what they are.
So let's keep things positive. In this finely balanced world, even one grain of sand may tip the scales.
Here's to Round 3! May you all have the opportunity to bust loose and give 1000 castaways something to get excited about (once more).
Oops, I probably shouldn't have used the adjectival form of Schadenfreude. Makes it hard to google.
Recent comments
2 weeks 5 days ago
8 weeks 21 hours ago
9 weeks 2 days ago
9 weeks 3 days ago
10 weeks 3 days ago