Showing posts with label creativity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label creativity. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

The World’s First Advertisement for Sex is a Work of Art (via Salon)

An ad promoting sex, who woulda thunk!? The visuals are actually pretty inventive. It's only NSFW at the very end (word, not images).

The world’s first advertisement for sex is a work of art

"When sex becomes a routine it is necessary to change something," artist Matus the First said of his ad VIDEO


Jenny Kutner | Wednesday, Oct 15, 2014

(Credit: Matus the First via Metropolitan Film Institute)

Sex is the most common theme in advertisements, and yet… when has there ever been an advertisement for sex? When has there ever needed to be an advertisement for sex? It’s about the one thing in the world that doesn’t need to be promoted for people to want it, buy it or have it.

But that’s not always true, as Slovak artist Matus the First claims, and he’s right. People lose touch, get disconnected and or fall into a routine. Sex becomes rote, or it doesn’t happen at all. With that in mind, Matus created what is believed to be the world’s first ad purely for the sex act; it’s not selling anything else, just the idea of having sex.

“When sex becomes a routine it is necessary to change something,” Matus told The Mirror. “Therefore this is not a product commercial, because you can’t buy a solution to some things. … I felt though that in some cases it might be important for people to change something in their minds and this commercial is not only about sex but also about thinking.”
advertisement

The spot doesn’t explicitly depict any actual sex. Instead, Matus relies on the classic “pencil sharpener” metaphor to indicate penetration. That means the commercial is just a little NSFW, and definitely not intended for television. “The commercial was produced to share on the Internet,” Matus said. So, here it is.

Watch Matus the First’s first advertisement for sex below:


(h/t Jezebel)

Jenny Kutner Jenny Kutner is an assistant editor at Salon, focusing on sex, gender and feminism. Follow @jennykutner or email jkutner@salon.com.

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

A.O. Scott on Robin Williams - "An Improvisational Genius, Forever Present in the Moment"

Via film critic, A.O. Scott for the New York Times.

It's sad to see another talented and tormented man succumb to depression and end his life in what appears to have been a suicide.

Below the NYT obituary, there is an article from The Moderate Voice that addresses Williams' issues with depression and addiction.

Robin Williams, an Improvisational Genius, Forever Present in the Moment

By A. O. SCOTT
AUG. 11, 2014


Robin Williams was an irrepressible performer, on stage and off. Credit Gary Settle

Some years ago, at a party at the Cannes Film Festival, I was leaning against a rail watching a fireworks display when I heard a familiar voice behind me. Or rather, at least a dozen voices, punctuating the offshore explosions with jokes, non sequiturs and off-the-wall pop-cultural, sexual and political references.

There was no need to turn around: The voices were not talking directly to me and they could not have belonged to anyone other than Robin Williams, who was extemporizing a monologue at least as pyrotechnically amazing as what was unfolding against the Mediterranean sky. I’m unable to recall the details now, but you can probably imagine the rapid-fire succession of accents and pitches — macho basso, squeaky girly, French, Spanish, African-American, human, animal and alien — entangling with curlicues of self-conscious commentary about the sheer ridiculousness of anyone trying to narrate explosions of colored gunpowder in real time.

Very few people would try to upstage fireworks, and probably only Robin Williams could have succeeded. I doubt anyone asked him for his play-by-play, an impromptu performance for a small, captive group, and I can’t say if it arose from inspiration or compulsion. Maybe there’s not really a difference. Whether or not anyone expected him to be, and maybe whether or not he entirely wanted to be, he was on.


Robin Williams | Credit: Jay Paul for The New York Times

Part of the shock of his death on Monday came from the fact that he had been on — ubiquitous, self-reinventing, insistently present — for so long. On Twitter, mourners dated themselves with memories of the first time they had noticed him. For some it was the movie Aladdin. For others Dead Poets Society or Mrs. Doubtfire. I go back even further, to the “Mork and Mindy” television show and an album called “Reality — What a Concept” that blew my eighth-grade mind.

Back then, it was clear that Mr. Williams was one of the most explosively, exhaustingly, prodigiously verbal comedians who ever lived. The only thing faster than his mouth was his mind, which was capable of breathtaking leaps of free-associative absurdity. Janet Maslin, reviewing his standup act in 1979, cataloged a tumble of riffs that ranged from an impression of Jacques Cousteau to “an evangelist at the Disco Temple of Comedy,” to Truman Capote Jr. at “the Kindergarten of the Stars” (whatever that was). “He acts out the Reader’s Digest condensed version of ‘Roots,’ ” Ms. Maslin wrote, “which lasts 15 seconds in its entirety. He improvises a Shakespearean-sounding epic about the Three Mile Island nuclear disaster, playing all the parts himself, including Einstein’s ghost.” (That, or something like it, was a role he would reprise more than 20 years later in Steven Spielberg’s “A.I.”)

Onstage, Mr. Williams’s speed allowed him to test audience responses and to edit and change direction on the fly. He simultaneously explained and acted out this process in Come Inside My Mind, a two-and-a-half-minute tour de force of manic meta — “I’m doing great! I’m improvising like crazy! No you’re not, you fool! You’re just doing pee-pee-ca-ca, no substance!” But if Mr. Williams was often self-aware, commenting on what he was doing as he was doing it, he was rarely arch or insincere. He could, as an actor, succumb to treacliness sometimes — maybe more than sometimes — but his essential persona as an entertainer combined neediness and generosity, intelligence and kindness, in ways that were charming and often unexpectedly moving as well.

In his periodic post-“Mork and Mindy” television appearances (on “The Larry Sanders Show” and more recently on Louie), he often played sly, sad or surprising versions of himself, the Robin Williams some of us had known and loved since childhood, which means an entertainer we sometimes took for granted or allowed ourselves to tire of. Many of his memorable big-screen performances were variations on that persona — madcap, motor-mouthed, shape-shifting jokers like the genie in “Aladdin,” the anti-authoritarian D.J. in “Good Morning Vietnam,” Parry in The Fisher King and even the redoubtable Mrs. Doubtfire herself.

That was a role within a role, of course, and Mr. Williams’s best serious movie characters — or maybe we should say the non-silly ones, since an element of playfulness was always there — had a similar doubleness. Watching him acting in earnest, you could not help but be aware of the exuberance, the mischief, that was being held in check, and you couldn’t help but wonder when, how or if it would burst out. That you knew what he was capable of made his feats of self-control all the more exciting. You sometimes felt that he was aware of this, and that he enjoyed the sheer improbability of appearing as the straight man, the heavy, the voice of reason.

He was very good at playing it cool or quiet or restrained as other actors in his movies — Nathan Lane in The Birdcage, Robert DeNiro in Awakenings, Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting — brought the heat, the noise or the wildness. He was an excellent and disciplined character actor, even as he was also an irrepressible, indelible character, a voice — or voices — that many of us have been hearing for as long as we can remember.


A version of this article appears in print on August 12, 2014, on page A14 of the New York edition with the headline: Improvisational Genius, Forever Present in the Moment. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe
* * * * *

From The Moderate Voice

Comedy, substance abuse and depression: reflecting on Robin Williams’ life and death

Posted By KATHY GILL, Technology Policy Analyst on Aug 11, 2014

I learned about Robin Williams, 63, the old-fashioned way. My husband walked in the house and announced, “The world is a sadder place today.”

“Mom and dad just heard on the TV. Robin Williams has died.”

A quick search of Twitter confirmed the sad news.

And then the double-whammy: suicide.

According to news reports, Williams had been “battling severe depression”. Last month he had checked himself back into rehab “to fine-tune and focus on his continued commitment” to sobriety.
In 2006, he talked publicly about substance abuse and treatment.

A Good Morning America interview hints at the darkness of his depression:
“It’s the same voice thought that … you’re standing at a precipice and you look down, there’s a voice and it’s a little quiet voice that goes, ‘Jump,’” Williams told Sawyer.
He continued:
“The same voice that goes, ‘Just one.’ … And the idea of just one for someone who has no tolerance for it, that’s not the possibility.”
He elaborated in a People magazine interview:
“Cocaine for me,” Williams told PEOPLE in 1988, “was a place to hide… It slowed me down… And I was so crazy back then – working all day, partying most of the night – I needed an excuse not to talk. I needed quiet times and I used coke to get them.”
Depression + Substance Abuse Too Often = Suicide

Clinically, the two — depression and substance abuse — increase the risk of suicide.

We don’t know if there are “genetic as well as social or environmental factors that predispose an individual to an increased risk for both disorders” — substance abuse and depression.

But we do know that one increases the risk of the other:
The analysis revealed that the presence of either disorder doubled the risks of the second disorder…Further evidence suggests that the most plausible causal association between AUD [alcohol use disorders] and MD [major depression] is one in which AUD increases the risk of MD, rather than vice versa
Dark comedy

Last year the Express (UK) explored the relationship between comedians and depression. The Mail (UK) followed up in January: Why comedians ARE a little bit mad: Funnymen’s personalities are similar to those with mental health conditions.

What does it mean, that a celebrity as gargantuan as Robin Williams could talk publicly about depression and substance abuse … and yet succumb to suicide?

That it is still a mark of bravery to talk about depression (your own)? Despite a long list of notable depressives?

How do we, as a culture, begin talking about mental illness and alcohol abuse with the goal of helping, coping, preventing (rather than blaming)?

We can hear/see commercials for Erectile Dysfunction, for pete’s sake. It’s past time we talked openly about depression.

Can we find a silver lining in Robin’s death?

Friday, July 12, 2013

The New Man 138: Stutz and Michels – The Tools That Stop Negative Thoughts

Phil Stutz and Barry Michels are "Hollywood psychologists," with a new book out, The Tools: 5 Tools to Help You Find Courage, Creativity, and Willpower--and Inspire You to Live Life in Forward Motion. Tripp Lanier spoke with them on the New Man Podcast a couple of weeks ago - here is that conversation.


TNM 138: Stutz and Michels – The Tools That Stop Negative Thoughts


25 JUNE 2013



Podcast: Download




Do you ever get negative thoughts that you just can’t seem to shake?

Do you get all fired up to make a change but then eventually end up quitting?

And are you hoping that one day you’ll have all this crap figured out and you won’t have to worry about it anymore?

Phil Stutz and Barry Michels are here to discuss The Tools that’ll pull your butt out of a rut and share how these tools have helped other guys do some amazing things. Is it too good to be true? Let’s find out.

In this interview:
  • A tool to beat procrastination
  • How to let go of a grudge
  • What to do if you’ve lost your temper
  • How to stop freezing up in social situations
  • Making peace with the parts you want to hide from the world

Also:
  • How to get out of the worry and negative thinking spiral
  • What to do when you quit and feel like crap
  • The hidden expectation that is driving us nuts
  • How to stop being a personal development jackass
  • The two demons that kill your motivation
  • When thinking screws things up

And:
  • A story about a guy who “had it all” and then hit the wall
  • How did he bounce back?

Click here to learn more about The Tools by Phil Stutz and Barry Michels.


About Phil Stutz and Barry Michels

From Studio360.org:

Phil Stutz and Barry Michels are Hollywood psychologists with a roster of A-list clients. “Especially among the actors, you have people where no one’s told them the truth ever for the last eight years, 12 years — literally never,” Stutz tells Kurt Andersen. “We tell them the truth about who they are, both the strong points and the weaknesses,” Michels explains. “And we’re pretty brutal about the weaknesses, because we want people to change.” Stutz and Michels have shared what they’ve learned with the stars in a book geared to the rest of us: The Tools.



Their tactics combine Jungian analysis with cognitive behavioral therapy. One chapter deals with what Jung called the Shadow. “Everybody has a piece of them that’s insecure — everybody,” Stutz tells Kurt. “It’s not particularly rational and you can’t get rid of it.” When, for example, a screenwriter sabotages his pitch at an important meeting, it may be because he or she is trying to hide the Shadow. Instead, Stutz and Michels say, the screenwriter needs to visualize this “shameful” persona, make friends with it, and enlist its aid in judgmental situations. “Although most people think of their Shadows as the source of their insecurity, if you can change your relationship with your Shadow, it becomes the source of your confidence,” Michels says.

The pair started their careers about as far from celebrity as you can get: Michels as a lawyer with political ambitions, Stutz as a prison psychiatrist at New York’s Rikers Island. In prison, Stutz explains, what you say is nowhere near as important as what you do and how you communicate non-verbally. “There’s a whole level of communication that, within psychotherapy, is not usually dealt with.”

Click here to learn more about The Tools by Phil Stutz and Barry Michels.

Saturday, June 2, 2012

TEDxLSE - Nilo Bagga - The Art of Samba Soccer


Nilo Bagga (above, with some of his players) is an undergraduate at the London School of Economics and Social Sciences (LSE) and the Founder and Director of Samba Soccer Schools. He employs Brazilian soccer (Samba Soccer) to help young people (mostly boys) develop creativity and spontaneity, as well as to develop interpersonal skills and self-esteem. This is a young man making a difference in the world through, to quote Pele, the Beautiful Game.

From TEDxLSE.


Nilo Bagga - The Art of Samba Soccer 



Nilio Bagga is an undergraduate at LSE and the Founder and Director of Samba Soccer Schools. He also operates as the Head Coach employing teams of coaches to deliver projects in local communities across Warwickshire. Samba Soccer Schools is a fast growing, innovative and inspirational soccer school that teaches football the Brazilian way. Nilio established the enterprise during his gap year in 2009 and in that time, has delivered 23 projects and taught over 500 young people. Samba Soccer Schools has a two-fold purpose. The first is football; to learn how to play with the flair and freedom that epitomises the Brazilian game. The second is social development. By using Brazilian football as the vehicle Samba Soccer Schools is able to develop discipline, confidence and knowledge in young people. Nilio was recently shortlisted for both Coach of the Year and Football Development Project of the Year at the inaugural Asian Football Awards, Wembley 2012. Currently, he is researching the under-representation of British Asians in coaching and managerial positions at top flight football in the UK for his dissertation.

Saturday, April 14, 2012

Ze Frank - An Invocation for Beginnings

Somehow I have not been a fan of this Ze Frank's work. Possibly it's the ever-present smirk just below the surface when he speaks that I found annoying and so I tuned him out. But this video is cool - and now I suspect I may need to go back and look at more of Ze Frank's stuff to see what I have been missing . . . .

Ze Frank - An Invocation for Beginnings



Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Jospeh Gelfer & Laki Sideris - Men and Meaning

Joseph Gelfer has a new project that looks pretty cool - he is providing text for photographs by Laki Sideris. There are only five entries so far, but it looks like it has excellent potential as an eventual book.

Here is the announcement from Gelfer's blog.

Men and Meaning

The start of a new project I’m developing with Laki Sideris: Men and Meaning is a photographic and textual exploration of how men go about constructing meaning in their daily experiences. This meaning-making journey unfolds on two primary levels: what it means to be a man and perform masculinity, and more generally how the subjects derive meaning from the world around them. The images are a mixture of the staged and the documentary, the text a mixture of the biographical and the imagined.

And here is one of the first few posts, a simple but moving photo - Photographs by Laki Sideris | Words by Joseph Gelfer.

04 Desire

Žižek clearly tells us that, “Desire named as desire in this Other is what we think we have chosen, while in fact, by a logic we are not aware of, it was the only choice allowed.” So I have thought long and hard about this desire. From where does it come? Does something stir in the DNA at the sight of these child-bearing hips? Is it the passive availability in her stance that piques my conditioned need to dominate and consume? Could it be—more romantically, more spiritually—the elusive search for completeness? And then I cannot decide if its potency is evidence of the fact that it is indeed the only choice allowed, or whether it is evidence to the contrary (assuming, of course, that such potency can only be authentic). In the end, after all these years, all I know is the net effect of desire: the dissolving away of all things so there is nothing but her and me.

Sunday, February 26, 2012

In Waiting - A New Short Film Made by Boys in Westchester Jail


This story ran in the local paper for Eastchester, NY. It's great to see boys (young men) who have been in trouble make something creative from the experience. Sending blessings for these young men to create lives that their backgrounds would never have predicted.

Film Made by Boys in Westchester Jail to Premiere

Rick Pezzullo (email)




VALHALLA, N.Y. – A film created by students in a youth program at the Westchester County Jail in Valhalla will premiere at the Jacobs Burns Film Center (JBFC) in Pleasantville Monday night.

The nine-minute feature film that chronicles masculinity in prison today was filmed entirely within the confines of the prison by a handful of now former inmates from the Southern Westchester BOCES Incarcerated Youth Program.

"It's been an incredible experience for the JBFC to work with the Incarcerated Youth Program and we are proud to be screening the courageous story the students chose to tell this year," said Emily Keating, director of education programs at the film center. "This transformational experience provides the youth with essential 21st century digital literacy skills and gives them a powerful means of expression."

The film entitled “In Waiting” is an adaptation of Israel Horovitz's seminal play “The Indian Wants the Bronx,” which tells the story of an Indian native who comes to New York knowing very little English and is subsequently taunted and attacked by some young punks.

JBCF staff spent six months teaching the students how to film and edit digital video and helped them produce, write and direct a film amid the dark, barren walls of the jail.

The film project initiative first began at the jail in the fall of 2008. “In Waiting” is the third film made by youths and JBCF. The first was called “Judgement,” which explored the idea of being judged and judging others, while the second, called “Look Inside,” looked at the daily life experiences of being in jail and reflections from students.

The Southern Westchester BOCES Incarcerated Youth Program serves approximately 900 students annually and 140 students a day. There are 18 classrooms available to students, who are in class five hours a day. Credits for the courses are given by the home school districts of the students.

Donnie Simmons, supervisor of the program, said the goal is to "provide the best quality educational services we possibly can to this entire constituent population."

None of the students who worked on “In Waiting” were available for comment.

Monday, February 28, 2011

Alva Noe - Men At Work, But In Play

From NPR's 13.7 Cosmos and Culture blog.

I don't know enough about chess to comment on the quality of play. But this video is stunning, and its electric force has nothing to with chess.

If you ever wondered why games, or sports, matter to us, then watch this video. Don't worry about whether you can follow the play.

Follow the music.

That's the first thing that jumps at you: The music. Or better, the choreography. It isn't just sound and movement organized in space and time; the dynamic pattern that emerges is the expression of a kind of necessity, or principle. They are like surfers on a wave. What is the wave? They are enacting the wave. They are entrained by their own activity.

Openness. The players are tense; they sometimes appear to be suffering. They are working very hard. They are utterly concentrated. But the effect of all this is to enable them to see and hear, not each other, but the situation (the chess situation) in which they find themselves. Have you ever been that present to a task? That involved with anything?

They are not only battling each other, but the clock as well, that is, the ever-present reminder that the condition of play is fragile and temporary. And so each player does battle with himself. He must both cast a spell and fall victim to its influence.

And then it is over. Without drama. But the very gesture with which one player resigns — gathering up the pieces and and handing them a cross the board — is the act of setting up a new beginning. A long night, a long life, of play.


Saturday, October 3, 2009

Being in Love Gives Us a "Global" Perspective

This is an interesting article that on the surface may have little to do with masculinity. However, a great many men do not allow themselves to be "in love," and tend to function more in terms of sexual attraction. But doing so robs us of a larger, more complex perspective.

This article looks at research that shows that the feeling of romantic love offers a long-term global perspective, making us more creative, while sexual attraction is more of a cognitive experience that limits us and reduces creativity.

Does Falling in Love Make Us More Creative?

A new study demonstrates that thinking about love--but not about sex--causes us to think more "globally," making it easier to come up with new ideas

Adam Kazmierski

By Nira Liberman and Oren Shapira

Love has inspired countless works of art, from immortal plays such as Romeo and Juliet, to architectural masterpieces such as the Taj Mahal, to classic pop songs, like Queen's “Love of My Life”. This raises the obvious question: why is love such a stimulating emotion? Why does the act of falling in love – or at least thinking about love – lead to such a spur of creative productivity?

One possibility is that when we’re in love we actually think differently. This romantic hypothesis was recently tested by the psychologists Jens Förster, Kai Epstude, and Amina Özelsel at the University of Amsterdam. The researchers found that love really does alter our thoughts, and that this profound emotion affects us in a way that is different than simply thinking about sex.

The clever experiments demonstrated that love makes us think differently in that it triggers global processing, which in turn promotes creative thinking and interferes with analytic thinking. Thinking about sex, however, has the opposite effect: it triggers local processing, which in turn promotes analytic thinking and interferes with creativity.

Why does love make us think more globally? The researchers suggest that romantic love induces a long-term perspective, whereas sexual desire induces a short-term perspective. This is because love typically entails wishes and goals of prolonged attachment with a person, whereas sexual desire is typically focused on engaging in sexual activities in the "here and now". Consistent with this idea, when the researchers asked people to imagine a romantic date or a casual sex encounter, they found that those who imagined dates imagined them as occurring farther into the future than those who imagined casual sex.

According to construal level theory (CLT), thinking about events that are farther into the future or past - or any kind psychological distancing (such as considering things or people that are physically farther away, or considering remote, unlikely alternatives to reality) triggers a more global processing style. In other words, psychological distancing makes us see the forest rather than the individual trees.

A global processing style promotes creative thinking because it helps raise remote and uncommon associations. Consider, for example, the act of finding a gift for your partner. If we think about a gift while in a local mindset, then we’ll probably focus on more literal and concrete options, most of which involve a tangible object wrapped in colorful paper. We’ll probably consider the usual suspects, such as a watch, a book, or perfume. However, thinking about a gift more globally might inspire us to consider a gift as "anything that will make him/her happy". This may, in turn, bring to mind more diverse and original ideas, such as going on a joint vacation, writing a song, or cleaning and remodeling the house. Of course, this doesn’t mean we should always think globally. While local processing might interfere with creativity, it also promotes analytic thinking, which requires us to apply logical rules. For example, if you are looking for a piece of furniture in a big display according to a pre-defined list of criteria (e.g., size, color, price), a local mindset may help you find a match, by preventing you from being side-tracked by attractive but irrelevant options and by making you pay more attention to relevant details.

In sum, the authors suggest that, because love activates a long-term perspective that elicits global processing, it should also promote creativity and impede analytic thinking. In contrast, inasmuch as sex activates a short-term perspective that elicits local processing, it should also promote analytic thinking and impede creative thinking.

The authors present two studies to support this model. Participants in the first study first imagined one of three situations: a long walk with their beloved one (the love condition), casual sex with a person to whom they were attracted but not in love with (the sex condition), or a nice walk on their own (the control condition). Participants then attempted to solve three creative insight problems and four problems that assess analytic thinking, which were logic problems from the Graduate Record Examination (GRE) (e.g., if A <> B then ?) As predicted, participants in the love condition solved more creativity problems and less analytic problems than those in the control condition. Participants in the sex condition, on the other hand, solved less creativity problems and more analytic problems compared to participants in the control condition.

The second study examined whether more subtle reminders of love and sex can also elicit similar effects. First, as part of an alleged attention task, participants were subliminally presented with words related to love (e.g. "loving"), words related to sex (e.g., "eroticism"), or a non-word letter string (control condition; "XQFBZ"). Next, analytic thinking was measured using the same GRE problems as in the first study. Creative thinking was measured this time using a generation task, in which participants had limited time to generate as many uses for a brick as possible. Replicating the findings of the first study, participants in the love condition generated more creative uses and solved less analytic problems than those in the control condition, whereas participants in the sex condition displayed the opposite pattern.

One of the most noteworthy implications of these experiments is that love and sex don’t simply influence the way we think about the people we love or desire. Instead, they influence the way we think about everything. The same researchers demonstrate this tendency in yet another experiment. When in love, it seems, we struggle to distinguish between the different qualities of the beloved person (e.g., "If he is so handsome, he must also be kind!"), a phenomenon that is often labeled the halo effect. Does love also promote halo effects for other objects? It seems that the answer is yes. The same group of researchers reasoned that the halo effect reflects global processing, and therefore it should increase when people think of love and decrease when they think of sex. They found the predicted pattern of evaluations (that is, less differentiation between distinct qualities after thinking about love and more differentiation after thinking about sex), not only in evaluations of a romantic partner, but also in evaluating different aspects of a chair!

The takeaway lesson is that thinking about love, or anything that promotes a distal perspective or global processing, can make us more creative. Perhaps love is an especially potent way to induce in us a sense of transcendence – being in the here and now yet also contemplating the distant future and maybe even eternity.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)
Nira Liberman is a professor of psychology at Tel Aviv University. Oren Shapira is a graduate student in the Liberman lab.