Wait. Who is that singing?

I take some pride in my early discovery: At Ribfest 2005, September at Five County Stadium, Zebulon, NC., while there to support the featured band – good friends, great band – and, oh yeah, eat some ribs – surprise – a magnificent voice stopped our tracks dead. Rhiannon Giddens – wow – who is that, and why have we not seen her before?

We got home and I started a search. Turned out Rhiannon was a recent graduate of Oberlin Conservatory now singing fiddle tunes – how curious, how awesome. I fired off an introduction email and began arranging a photo shoot.

Schedules being what they are, it wasn’t until the Carolina Chocolate Drops had formed and were well on their way national attention before we met for a photo session at Stagville Plantation’s Slave Quarters in Durham, NC.

Prairie Home Companion, Grand ol’ Opry, NPR interviews, countless magazine articles, appearance in the film, “The Great Debaters”, and a Grammy for Best Traditional Folk Album – and 4 years later – I asked Rhiannon if she’d sit with Armand Lenchek and I for a video interview.

Here’s and edited 16 minutes of the 80 she spent answering our creative curiosity:

via Carolina Chocolate Drops website:
This is the story in a nutshell. Rhiannon’s father was a classically-trained singer whose legacy was a warning not to study voice before the age of 16. So Rhiannon waited until she was 16 and set off for choral camp. It was great, so she applied to Oberlin College and took on the deepest part of the classical vocal river, opera. “I did five operas and three main roles,” Rhiannon summarizes, “I got into it pretty hardcore.”

If you’re like me, you ask yourself this way too often. Here’s a good reminder from Maria Schneider of the proper answer:

For the record, I’m totally over using Wikipedia as an example of anything except as an example of an overused example. Is a Wiki encyclopedia the only creative thing the internet has produced? Please pardon my digression.

What do the movies Ishtar and Rain Man have in common? They are the consecutive movies in 1987 and 1988 in which Dustin Hoffman starred. I’ve often wondered why an obviously great actor would choose a role in a notoriously bad movie. Couldn’t he see that Ishtar was going to suck? Did he know Rain Man was going to be great? Apparently not.

By now we must all know the secret is in doing, especially since Nike changed their tag line back in the ‘80’s. Take your shot. Be overly cautious and you’ll end up sitting on every idea you’ve ever had.

I’m never “all in” though; I have doubts. Well, don’t. Have no doubt about it, your idea will fail. Your concept at the start will not be the one you take to the goal.

As a photographer I “shoot around it”; my typical success rate is 100:1 if I’m being vaguely creative. If I close the ratio I’m going safe and less with creative instincts.

My new adventure is scripting stories for film – a newbie. In a short 6 months the best quote I’ve applied is that your film is shot 3 times: once in your head, once on film (or video), and once when editing. With each success, the effort that goes out with the trash should be considerable if you’re doing it right.

I guess we don’t know until we try; we’re not as good at predicting success as one might think. Truth is, innovators fail far more than those who aren’t. That’s not what it looks like on the surface. At quick glance, you’re innovative and I’m not. In reality, I’m not failing enough; I’m looking for that 1 in 100 before it happens.

According to Frans Johansson, research tells us that the single strongest correlation between innovator success is the number of ideas they try to make happen. Example: Einstein published 240 unreferenced papers. That’s 240:1.

The secret is in taking the smallest executable step to move your idea forward. What is the minimum investment you need that will convince you to take another step? The strategy is to convince yourself it can work.

Additionally, accept failure of your first step. Start walking northeast even though your final goal may be true north. Do it right and your goal moves, the idea changes as we conduct research, collect resources and create prototypes.

[via the99percent.com]
Frans Johansson is an entrepreneur and thought leader. He is also a consultant and the managing director for a hedge fund. Frans previously co-founded and managed two companies, a Boston-based software company and a medical device company operating out of Baltimore, Maryland and Stockholm, Sweden.

Raised in Sweden by his African-American and Cherokee mother and Swedish father, Frans earned an MBA at Harvard Business School and a BS in environmental science at Brown University.

A successful author, Frans has written on a variety of topics, from business management to healthcare to sport fishing to how to save our oceans. His bestselling book, The Medici Effect, has been translated into 17 languages and was named “One of the Ten Best Business Books of 2004″ by Amazon.com.

Although Thomas Thwaites is a masters graduate of the Royal College of Art Design Interactions, and considers himself a Designer (of a more speculative sort), it seems to me that he’s just a very curious fellow.

My thought is that Thomas’ toaster building project illustrates two main truths:

1) As a civilization with a variety of cultures, we’re all slave to existing technology. Our knowledge is technology dependent.  Go ahead, try building a toaster from scratch. Try and build anything from scratch for that matter; how about a tooth brush or a pencil?

Allen Kay‘s definition of Technology: anything that wasn’t around when you were born.

2) The second and in my opinion the more salient point is, that while we may not be able to build a pencil from scratch, we can find something with which we can draw; we can toast bread, and we can clean our teeth. All of this can be done if we remain creative at the core.

It’s easy to be obsessed with building a toaster and forget that all we need is toasted bread.

Help me out.

Following the PermissionToSuck.com post from Jan. 4 about Jaron Lanier, I’ve had regular conversations, both online and off, about sources of creative artistic brilliance.  I’ve put hours of thought into it; hundreds even.  Here’s a quote I pulled from a 2010 post that I tweet regularly mostly to defensive responses:

Can a “10,000 hour” creative professional compete with 1,000 “100 hour” creative amateurs?

The real questions being, now that we live web 2.0 – with its many collaborative tools – what is happening to creative virtuosity? Why haven’t we seen a virtual avalanche of great literature and song writing? Shouldn’t the music industry explode beyond its traditional business model as promised? Is it because we have yet to fully embrace the tools?  Do we still need the Match.com of creativity?

I’ll confess that PermissionToSuck.com isn’t the most well researched blog out there, but then, blogs in general aren’t all that well researched; think “brain droppings”.  The best of the best are blogs from authors about their well researched subjects; think primary and secondary research data supported hypotheses.

Still, I do my share of listening, reading and surfing without finding evidence of artistic brilliance that originated online beyond the usual cleverness or somewhat unique mash-ups.  Musicians pass half finished ProTool files via the web, saving gas money and travel time, but is that really helping improve virtuosity?

We see youtubes of brilliant creativity that was recorded posthumously.  We see short films distributed via Vimeo or Vimeo-ish channels that would have existed without web-tools. Where is the promised land? Why do we continue to marvel about the success of Apple and speculate that Open Source is going to kick its butt? Waiting.

Side note on the Apple thing:  I have a friend who’s a staunch believer in open source. You know, “Android is going to kick iPhone’s ass – remember Microsoft v. Apple – same thing”.  But … what phone did my friend buy when he needed one that worked?  Yup, an iPhone.  Furthermore, which stock would you rather be gifted right now? Apple or Microsoft?  I digress.

Here’s a great example of “social net” collaborative creativity; Clever, yet nearly un-listenable.

[via B Flat website]

“In Bb 2.0 is a collaborative music and spoken word project conceived by Darren Solomon from Science for Girls, and developed with contributions from users.”

The In B Flat Project

The Johnny Cash Project is by far the best I’ve seen. It’s a mash-up of illustrations that create a music video that would otherwise not have existed if it weren’t for internet collaboration. I’d rate it Excellent but I want more; I expect more. Furthermore, as outstanding as it is, the Johnny Cash Project is build around a music icon from the 1960′s. Does anyone else find it odd that excitement for online collaboration needs an established “analog” artist?

I’m beginning to think true creative brilliance comes from a closed system – but I’m still open. Waiting.

The Johnny Cash Project

Leaning into discomfort, it’s what the creative professional does if they plan to be successful. Brene Brown, researcher, storyteller and TED presenter, helps explain why we’re so miserable except for when we do. This is the closest thing to video therapy I’ve witnessed.

Vulnerability and creativity are intertwined. As soon as we learn to be ashamed of our creative selves we need someone protecting our back. Shame is fear; we fear exile once our unique brand of humanity is discovered. Am I worthy of your affection, admiration, respect; venture further along the career path the fear of shame only gets worse.

At its root is permission to suck; overcoming embracing shame and its excruciating vulnerability. “I’m smart enough, I’m good enough and gosh darn it, people like me.” – Stuart Smalley.

You betcha, it’s joke-bait. That’s because shame fundamental to being human – the need for a sense of worthiness – it gives us the courage to lean into discomfort. Our connectiveness to others, our feeling of worthiness, and moreover, our compassion to be kind to ourselves, gives us the courage to be imperfect. In other words: Forgo who you think you should be for the genuine article; the unaffected you.

Brene Brown gives the best TED talk on creativity without talking directly about creativity.  She also has books called “The Gifts of Imperfection” and “I Thought It Was Just Me.”

Any new clever combination of A + B = Creativity, and there is more access to “A” and “B” than ever and more tomorrow than today. This is obviously true. Also obvious is the love of creativity in everything; people who never thought of themselves as creative are feelin’ it, and those who are in traditionally creative fields are pressured to be more imaginative.  Isn’t technology wonderful?

Well… to be honest, I’m getting little tired of hearing about how creative I must be; F%$# you, I’ll be who I am – you go and be fresh and new and different, I’m going to concentrate on being a better me.

Yes, we were born to be creative; hell, we were born out of a creative act. But here’s the thing, while creativity is the core of human existence, aren’t we all powerfully drawn to virtuosity? Virtuosity is human excellence of skill, fluency and style. It’s the heart skipping grandness of human achievement.

Creativity is a common and natural act. Yet, being a virtuoso is the ultimate analog goal requiring sacrifice. Great musicians, fine artists, writers, and even athletes inspire awe in what is possible when a life is devoted to skill honing and potential accomplishment. Success is visceral.

For example, when we think “virtuoso” our thoughts go to great musicians. Mastering an instrument isn’t something one can hand off to a machine in order to further increase skill complexity [architecture for example]. It takes a lifetime of devotion and it’s that devotion combined with accomplishment which draws our admiration.

The devotion to a skill that produces useless beauty is virtuous. Aesthetic aptitude + highly skilled craft + just enough creativity to be interesting = Virtuosity. This equation says nothing about being original just to be original.

No matter how fresh, mediocrity is the middle state overflowing with human weakness and unevenness. We’re pushing for fresh creativity but Larry Bird in the ’86 NBA Championship game defines virtuosity.

Virtuosity demands respect; it’s the complete loss of static in communication, it’s the defeat of flaws in the act of performance with a resonance that sends the human spirit. The virtuoso is a supreme victor in a battle over the average creative mediocrity.

Ira Gitler is an American jazz historian and journalist, listen to how he describes Art Tatum, the virtuoso pianist, in this video. Gitler is in awe of the skill Tatum achieved in one lifetime. It’s spectacular, it’s unique and it’s original Tatum. Tatum’s level of virtuosity set him apart; his virtuosity was freshness, everything he did was newly created because his level of musical skill is so rarely reached.

Zenph Sound Innovations is a creative company designing algorithms and deliverable software able to reproduce the virtuosity of artists like Art Tatum or Rachmaninoff on stage. It’s further demonstration of the lengths we’ll go to experience virtuosity. A recording isn’t good enough, we want the experience. We want to be intimately familiar with the performance down to what it feels like to be him.

Zenph’s obsession will succeed in creating a performance snapshot, a clearer portrait of virtuosity; the result, not the origin. Their technology is exciting. Our understanding of performance will be enhanced but it’s still a copy closer to a parlor trick than virtuosity.  To be authentically original is to make the sacrifice to be a virtuoso.

I’m willing to bet a huge ransom that an original low tech recording of Tatum will retain an higher value than a masterful performance reproduction of Tatum’s playing a la Zenph.  What does it say about virtuosity when reproduction quality isn’t worth as much as being closer to the authentic original?

Take a look at the technology behind performance reproduction in this video. John Q. Walker, PhD – Chairman & Chief Technology Officer at Zenph Sound Innovations.  Gave this presentation for TED in 2007.

Six months ago I was asked a series of questions for Talent Zoo by writer Sara Barton, here are some of the questions with my answers.  There are over 20 questions, but I’ll post installments updating where necessary.  Here’s part III.

Can creativity be forced/rushed?

Rushed, I think yes – forced, not so much.  Deadlines can work well to frame a problem.  “Do your best in three days” can be easier than “take all the time you need” – it’s like built in Permission to Suck without the suck. I like limits. Yet, forced sounds too managed, and I’ve never seen that work well.

Why does the term “creative process” make you cringe?

There was this machine that processed my B+W negatives back in college called “The Versamat” – a Kodak product I think, maybe they still make it. You feed the exposed film in one end and it comes out the other processed and dried – no fuss no muss – no need to get dirty.  This is what I think about when I hear “creative process” – you get predictable results and don’t have to get dirty. Companies love predictable results because they can manage them.  Creativity isn’t like that; it’s messy, surprising, and unpredictable with every stroke of brilliance. I’m much more apt to respond to a “creative culture” in a positive way than to “creative process”.

If you had to choose between being original or adding value, which would you choose? Why?

Can I be both, original and valuable?  Well, if not – I’ll choose adding value because it sounds more team oriented. I love collaboration.  My favorite projects were driven by my relationships with team members. Collaboration is going to be more critical as marketing gets more complex too I think.  That said, there isn’t much that’s more valuable than offering an original viewpoint.

Here’s one issue I’ve been thinking about, forgive me if it’s naive: simple projects can be commoditized; think logos designers or a guy with a camera.

It’s tough to differentiate talent on a small scale; not impossible but very tough. No secret that creative collaboration is the frontier’s edge; think open source systems or crowd sourcing techniques. Forming a collaborative team that produces imaginative solutions to complex projects seems like it’s the inevitable rising tide. Make the team too big and you’ll lose permission to suck, but make the team to small for the project and you may lack the diversity to solve the problem.  Maybe big agencies will fit in well if they have the right culture.

Who do you think is the most original thinker of our time? Why?

Seriously, I thought I’d pass on this one because there are simply way too many talented brains to commit to one.  I watched Alex Bogusky’s weekly show “Fearless Q&A” on Justin.tv last week – it’s a fun folksy hour if you like that kind of thing.  Alex made a comment regarding hiring teams and said he likes to combine the more cerebral creatives with the more action oriented to make a team. I believe that’s right.  A great thinker may get credit but somewhere in the mix are the folks who get it done – 99% perspiration right?  It’s not creative unless you actually make it – saying “I thought of that” or “I could have done that” doesn’t count. However, if you want a thoughtful authority on creativity try Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (pronounced: chick-sent-me-high) – his books where ground-breaking – or Rollo May’s The Courage to Create is another must read.

Is there such a thing anymore as truly original thinking? Or have all of the good ideas been taken?

Ha – I’m sure there is an original idea but I haven’t thought of it yet.  Someone will and I’ll say, “I could have done that”.  We keep making new people and they seem different enough – I’m sure there will be an original in there somewhere.

Seriously though, when I hear “there are no new ideas” I always think that sounds like frustration talking.  It may feel as though there is nothing new under the sun, but how can that be if there are no two people alike or no identical snowflakes?

What do you think is wrong with conventional advertising?

By conventional do you mean print, out-of-home, and broadcast? There’s too much of it.  I know that sounds a little snarky but the ads that seem to break through are humorous, clever, surprising, or highly informational (to the point of enlightenment) and I wouldn’t consider that conventional.

I am a huge believer in holistic built-in marketing – there is no more hammer and nail. The marketing idea has to be highly tailored across all channels and start as close to product inception as possible; think design – both big “D” and little “d”.

What do you hate most about advertising?

I don’t like advertising when it crosses into propaganda. In general, propaganda to me is influencing through deception or selectively omitting truth.   Yet, I adore creating campaigns that glorify aspects of a product or service – see my dilemma? I’m tortured.

I’m enjoying social media for its ability to force transparency.  Once upon a time you could sell millions worth of product before being busted. Remember the phrase attributed to Ogilvy, “Nothing kills a bad product faster than good advertising?”  I’ve got a new one, “Nothing kills a bad product faster than a bad product.” – think Toyota.

Your advice to copywriters or art directors who find themselves less than inspired? How do you get over that?

Everyone is different but there is huge value in getting distance – do whatever you do the fill your tank because it drains quickly.  Stay “horizontal” as long as you can; surf ideas, don’t take anything seriously, and just throw everything out there. Give yourself permission to suck before selecting the best of the bad ideas to explore further – don’t be afraid to start over.

As a photographer sometimes I’ll sit, absorb my surroundings and think about how I’d turn what I’m feeling into an image that would make others feel the same feelings.  I suppose any creative person could do the same with their craft: musician, painter, illustrator, or writer.

You know those stupid online “idea generators” that combine random nouns, verbs, adverbs, etc. to create faux meaningful phrases?  It works if you practice it yourself.  There were times when I kept a notebook of truncated thoughts that I’d later combine into image ideas; stuff you never thought could go together, go together if you’re clever with it.

I suppose there is no great solution other than: all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.

Who do you think is the greatest Creative Director? Why?

Let’s see, who do I want to work with?  It would be hard to argue with choices like: Lee Clow, Mike Hughs, John Hegarty, Rich Silverstien, Helmut Krone, George Lois, or Hal Riney – but I’m sure with memory aides I could go on for pages.  I guess you’d have to rule on longevity; if they inspired the creative side of their agency to repeatedly produce memorable campaigns over years, it means they hired the right people and made them want to work hard for them.

In your opinion, what is the greatest ad campaign ever created?

I’m probably little different than anyone you’d ask. Of these greats: Just Do It, We Try Harder, 1984, Think Different, Think Small, Be All You Can Be, Ultimate Driving Machine – my fave is 1984 just because it was opportunity fulfilled; an innovative product, a great idea by W+K, and great production.  The impact it had after only running one time in an era with no Social Media enhanced word of mouth, is without peer in my opinion. It still feels fresh doesn’t it?

However, for the long run, “Ultimate Driving Machine” is pretty damn good though. I couldn’t see replacing that with something better, can you?

Today the challenge is greater because your target market has atomized and attention defines scarcity. We’re sick and tired of getting interrupted plus we can afford to ignore everything because everything is at our fingertips anytime we want.  Marketing is about creating relationships from the moment we design the product.  It’s as though your creating followers – as you do on Twitter – rather than consumers.  Remember when there were Ford people, Mopar (Chrysler Dodge) people and GM people?  It’s the kind of passion you need from advocates these days. Consumers shop around; advocates want to be identified with you.

What is the campaign you wish you’d created?

Pick the longest running campaign and I’ll say THAT one.  After all, I’m a business man too; all of us want security.  Seriously though, I’m not good at recalling specific campaigns that I admire because there are so many I’ve seen that make me say, “I wish I had done that”. That said,  I’m a photographer at heart so when I see a campaign that makes great use of imagery I love it.  I’m probably a little like Sarah Palin – “All of them Katie”.

The mid 90’s Porsche print ads were damn nice.  I think they were shot by Clint Clemons; attaching the camera to the car as it moved – pioneering for a still guy.  That technique transformed the way cars look in ads I think.

I also wouldn’t mind if I could brag about shooting the original Dewar’s Profile ads – they were iconic.

What are your thoughts on commercial advertising today?

This has to be one of the most demanding, confusing, painful, and potentially innovative – wonderful times we’ve ever seen in advertising.  From the perspective of the folks who actually do the hard work of creativity, it’s been challenging and it doesn’t look as though it’s going to let up anytime soon ever.  It’s a tough way to make a living unless you’re some kind of prodigy, creative maniac, workaholic, or magician – it helps to be 3 out of 4.

If a client said to you, “make the logo bigger,” what would be your immediate reaction?

That’s happened and I asked, “what makes you want to make it bigger?” They had a good answer in that case but regardless, if they had said, “my target market is over 45 and can’t read it” my reaction would be much different than if they said, “Because I like it and want it to take up more room on the page.”  I’d have an answer either way.  Presenting creative without being able to walk your client through the design of a well integrated thoughtful plan would be a big mistake in my opinion.

You’re working on a new campaign. What’s on your iPod?

My musical taste is roots based: blues, bluegrass, blues based rock, roots country, jazz and that goes for local music too. I have some very talented friends who take up some space on my iPod; isn’t it interesting how music becomes more compelling when you know the people playing it? Springsteen, Eric Clapton, Jerry Douglas, Bonnie Raitt, Big Bill Broonzy, Delbert McClinton, Doc Watson, Emmylou Harris, Mark Knopfler, Jorma Kaukonen, Lyle Lovett, Mavis Staples, Mississippi John Hurt, Santana, Prince, Stevie ray Vaughan – You picking up any patterns?

Yet, when I need to write or when detail work gets too intense, the music goes off. Sometimes there is no extra room in my brain for anything but the task at hand.

What blogs do you read religiously?

I have a large collection but I’m usually up to date on these:

http://www.aphotoeditor.com/

http://www.pixelpress.org/afterphotography/

http://edwardboches.com/

http://www.shirky.com/weblog/

http://bbh-labs.com/

http://farisyakob.typepad.com/

http://creativity-online.com/

http://blogs.hbr.org/haque/

http://www.twistimage.com/blog/

http://thelostjacket.com/blog

http://www.creativereview.co.uk/cr-blog

http://heywhipple.wordpress.com/

http://www.heathermorton.ca/blog/

http://jmcolberg.com/weblog/

Six months ago I was asked a series of questions for Talent Zoo by writer Sara Barton, here are some of the questions with my answers.  There are over 20 questions, but I’ll post installments updating where necessary.  Here’s part II.

Do you think that storytelling is a dying art?

Dying? No not at all. I think it’s coming alive. I understand why the virtuoso story teller might say it’s dying; it may be getting sloppier but only because more people are participating. For example: I feel as though there is a part of photography that’s slipping away now that we’re almost fully pixelated. However, maybe that’s a good thing, I don’t know. Maybe it will emphasize the story each photographer has to tell now that basic techniques are democratized with a button push.

Read your Facebook wall. It’s a story of anecdotes that make a community. We’re making video clips and sharing them, we’re posting photos while on vacation; broadcasting a story of the trip. In my opinion it’s the fun in social media. I want to get better at it. Good story telling isn’t going away, it’s becoming more important in my opinion.

How would you describe the state of creativity today?

I’m not sure I can speak for all creatives but, to me, it seems confused yet explosive. It’s like we were given new toys and we’re frantically learning how to play with them, but we’re also not at all sure we’re having fun yet.

We see brilliance happening but it seems a little more accidental at times than it usually does, yes? We’re familiar with learning a skill and applying it in a creative way, but now you might say, “hey, let’s limit the message to 140 characters and give it a silly name”, the idea explodes out of the blue before the idea’s purpose is fully developed.

I’m not saying that it never happened before but I think it feels more haphazard this last decade. There are more people excited about being creative than ever too I think. Like my friend David Burney said in his interview, we’re in a “democratized renaissance” – I love that phrase.

You have said that there’s no such thing as “digital creativity.” Why?

I said that because digital – 1’s and 0’s – are reproductions created for use in machines and not how creativity starts. Humans are analog. I like framing it this way because of the ease with which we can confuse “new” with digital and digital with creativity. I can’t think of anything created that didn’t start analog. Digital is a reproduction that makes it easier, faster and allows for more complex design. Digital makes some previously impossible things possible but I think it’s important to remember that creators are analog; virtuosity is analog.

The distinction hit me when a Scott Ballew (CD Capstrat) told me he instructed young AD’s to abandon the computer when searching ideas. It made perfect sense to start analog; it’s where creativity lives. Once you have the idea, then move on to find the right tool.

How do you define creativity?

I’ll avoid any attempt at a dictionary-ish meaning because I’d fail miserably.

I once wrote these equations down, part in jest because I thought it so silly to apply a formula to creativity, but then I thought – hey – they’re not half bad.

Imagination x Craft x Emotion = Artistic Expression
Imagination x Craft x Function = Innovation

Creativity is life; do I need to get more specific than that? Ok, I think when we say “be creative” we usually mean “be imaginative”. I like to think in those terms; be imaginative. I use the term creativity a lot because it’s what communicates well but it’s a little like saying, “do you believe in God?” – what the hell does that mean anyway? The safest thing is to say, yes – then define God in your own terms. “Be creative” – it’s in you, define it yourself.

Which is more important? Being original? Or being good? Why?

To me I think being good is more important. Here’s why: be good and originality will take care of itself as long as you’re being imaginative. When I say be good, I’m really saying “satisfy you” – and btw – good luck with that! Imagination is intrinsic and being good embodies all you have to offer.

That’s just how I choose to frame it. The moment I concentrate on a being original, I get outside of myself and that isn’t creatively healthy for me. Here’s a twist: Be good but don’t forget to surprise yourself.

I see a lot of trend chasing. When I wrote, “In a quest for originality, don’t forget to be good”, I meant two things. 1) Don’t forget what you know to be good. 2) Don’t chase trends in spite of what you think is good.

Six months ago I was asked a series of questions for Talent Zoo by writer Sara Barton, here are some of the questions with my answers.  There are over 20 questions, but I’ll post installments updating where necessary.

How did you decide on the title of your blog, Permission to Suck? What’s that about?

The blog “Permission to Suck” has actually been around for 5 or 6 years but it’s only been since August ‘09 that I’ve transformed it into something more comprehensive including original video interviews.

One of my close friends, Will McFarlane, and I regularly discuss our careers as creative professionals – he’s a professional guitarist and I’m a photographer. It surprised us just how many parallels there are between the two creative disciplines.

Early on we were lamenting about how hard it can be to try something new because after a long career there is a tendency to feel as though every new thing has to be a masterpiece.  It feels as though your reputation rides on your next photo or your next song; one false move and you’re discovered for a fraud.  I’m not sure when exactly, but at some point, “what we need is Permission To Suck” was uttered and it stuck.  A few days later I had a blog with that name and a month after that I wrote a 1000 word essay titled Permission To Suck that got some traction.

So, do creatives need permission to suck?

Freedom to fail is the disinfected version but, yes, we need it if we hope to grow professionally. As soon as you default to your “A” game – frequently necessary – creative growth is slowed. As Steven Johnson discussed at length in Where Good Ideas Come From, the “adjacent possible” is virtually ignored in favor of what we know works.

Simultaneous with developing an “A” game you hear leaving your mouth: “well, it’s my style”. Without question, it’s great to have a style but be true, are you creating work to fit a style or is your creativity leaving a wake that has style?

It’s easy to say I’m fearless; I’m pushing myself, but very hard to actually “do” in my opinion.  It’s hard to force oneself to be uncomfortable and accept inevitable failure – which is very uncomfortable by the way – especially for those who work for their food.  It’s easier to go with what you know.

I suppose the key is to keep rowing; move the boat.  Embrace Permission to Suck but through hard work, refuse to suck. If you keep moving it’s still possible to steer the boat and discover Steven Johnson’s adjacent possible.

My all-time favorite article is the “Creative Manifesto.” Can you tell me what inspired it?

Most of what I write echoes personal creative tensions. I get bored with myself easily. It’s as though every 4-5 year I had hit another wall. To be clear, I don’t take this as one of my better traits.

In this case, I started reading about creativity and while everything I read had a good message, it left me wanting. It all sounded so removed from a professional’s reality and the advice, on its face, sounds so pat and easy, whereas to me it felt convoluted and enigmatic, a.k.a Effing hard. I wrote the first draft in 30 minutes; I think I was in a mood. I reread it often so I don’t forget what I promised myself – it’s still hard but the Manifesto breaks it down for me.

Like I said, there is plenty of similar stuff written about creativity, but the PTS manifesto was aimed at professional creatives; those who make art & creativity a career choice. My hope is that it sounds as if you wrote it when a little pissed off at falling victim to your need to create. Besides, it’s trendy to have a manifesto isn’t it?

Listen to this NPR Podcast with Ed Norton and Bruce Springsteen

Fans recognize the brilliant genius of Bruce Springsteen, but I think creative professionals can all relate to the process he describes in this Fresh Air podcast. Springsteen’s motivation and passion informed his style not the reverse.  In my opinion, it is the key to a long career as a professional creative.

“you’re usually motivated by fear … I was afraid of losing myself, it is possible for your talent to be co-opted, and your identity moved and shifted to a place there you weren’t prepared for.” – Bruce Springsteen