Bio not provided
Isn't this the standard for every "glamorous" business that relies on emulation (be like me, sell like me)? Picture Kim Kardashian walking out of Mr. Chow in Beverly Hills: you can be a way better actress by eating at a much cheaper place with infinitely better food. It's all a game, and it has always been.
There are believers and then there are zealots. There are optimists and then there are downright gullible people. There is no point in asking if SoMe is rigged. What if it is? People can still be successful by being smart about it.
11 months ago on Social Media: A Rich Person's Game?
@nickkellet It's all semantics in here, but I get where you're going to. Although I'm not sure if I want this to catch on.
You see, while this might open the door to, as you say, the creation of new ideas by cheapening the access fee, the methods you champion do have an inherent tendency towards unoriginal pieces born by something akin to rote. And I worry particularly about the gaming arena, where it seems the bar has been already lowered (among creators, critics and users) by means of these very same rehash/remix philosophy that yield games that offer, in substance, nothing actually new, while still becoming hugely successful and profitable.
I dunno. I do believe in progress in terms of tools that makes things easier and accessible for people pursuing creative goals, yet I still think that there has some level of meaningful difficulty in the act of creation, something that gives ideas that elusive wow factor.
11 months, 1 week ago on You Are a Curator. Creation is Fallacy.
Words are abstract constructs and, in their inception, absolutely not related to the real-world object being described by them. However, in an established language, in the context of a historically repeated pattern, words DO have meaning and as such cannot be arbitrarily changed (at least not overnight; idiomatic development takes a lot of time). Any attempt to do so by an individual or small, unsanctioned group is gimmicky, somewhat presumptuous and ultimately self-serving.
My point: as long as there is consensus to the contrary, words mean what they mean.
Creation from nothing is impossible, yes. But creation as such (in terms of what we, humans, decided collectively the word should mean) has never been about spiriting things out of thin air. Without a magic scope that points us to the real signified of this particular word, we can only use others of the same kind to convey what it really is about: invention (of things not existing before, which DOES happen in the real world) via transformation, utilization of means and mediums, combination and/or improvement of existing objects and/or ideas. Creation has always been about using what we have to come up with new or better stuff. As simple as that.
Conversely, curation in no way carries in its meaning the emergence of something new or improved. Curation is an act of selection, aggregation and collection, only up to the point where each element being aggregated and collected retains its individuality and original qualities in full.
You might be a 2.0 thinker, Nick, and you definitely are an innovator and a bright mind. But language takes time to lift off from one version to another. In the meantime, until we (and the dictionaries) all agree you have transformed the meaning of one or another word, let's call the monkey monkey and the snake snake.
Bad choice of image. That is the logo of a video game developer, Pandemic Studios. Just a heads up.
1 year ago on Influence Suicide: The Next Global Pandemic