So selfish...

As much as I'm not a fan of the 'real' world, I'm finding that I increasingly go through life in almost complete silence. Admittedly that which we miss is very thin and insubstantial, it is nonetheless a loss in human contact. Any noise is artificial - often horrendous music - or is on the peripheries. That is, other people's conversations, tantrums or laughter.

If I go to a supermarket, I will choose it on the basis of being able to self-serve. I can now pay at the pump of a service station, even self serve at the post office. When all this is added to the self serve playground of the internet, any remaining interactions are very minimal.

This isolation feeds other beasts. This lack of contact means social skills are compromised. We - as others - are very uncomfortable in groups, especially those where we are the 'foreign' and the din of the other is overwhelming.

I often wonder how long it will be before we overcompensate and seek human contact in odd or cringe-worthy ways. Will we start asking people to explain something or direct us, just to have a micro-conversation? If we know where the toothpaste is, will we still ask? Many conversations seem to be tied to consumption so it's increasingly likely that marketers will exploit this loneliness.

Will we over-share in other ways - like this post perhaps? - in order to get attention?

Re-reading rants....

From September 15, 2002 - 'Present'

He who has the knowledge can be a cog in the machine and can participate in the fulfillment of the narrative. The machine defines and redefines our existence, allocates virtual authority, ethical qualities and determines what is beautiful.

Those outside the machine have only the ability to believe.

The individual - providing he/she is qualified - can affect change from within the machine but is limited by developments in language and science.

He/she can (re)define subjective points of view and submit them to the machine for approval as tenets. These are considered conditionally.

From September 15, 2002 - 'Future'

He/she who is strong is he/she who can redefine him/herself and amputate the unnecessary.

Language will fragment itself so extensively that we can only communicate through machines.

That which defines our person is only limited by our commitment and our willingness to sacrifice our 'greeds'.

There are only copies.

From March 2010:

I have a constant itch in the back of my throat when it comes to the subject of public art. It - as often the artworks themselves - is extremely irritating yet at the same time I struggle to formulate exactly what my 'problem' is with it.

Too often these artworks - in Perth at least - would seem merely large-scale 'architectural flourishes' designed to a brief than artworks. Shouldn't these objects also somehow engage with their surrounds and context on more than a superficial level? This is not to say that the quality of the artists is 'not there' but rather that I sometimes feel that the briefing process itself might be flawed.

For those on the 'outside', the Western Australian Government allocates a portion of capital project funding (that is, to projects over a certain value) to 'public art'. This scheme being imaginatively titled 'Percent for Art'. Typically a small amount of money is then distributed via a tendering process to selected artist teams who essentially 'pitch' for the big gig. The winning team is then given a significantly larger amount of money to produce the actual artworks themselves.

In the initial process the team selection is normally weighted on three criteria. These being 'artistic merit', 'ability to complete the project' and 'previous experience'. Considering the last criteria can make up 30-40% of the total 'score', the process is skewed heavily to mid-/late-career artists and/or 'wet' process artists (sculptors, metal smiths, etc).

There are also at least three parties involved in this process: a (mostly) independent project manager, the client (typically a Government department) and the artists. Into that mix can also come a committee made up of 'stakeholders' and other production companies/service providers depending on the skill set of the artists involved.

In the briefing process terms often abound akin to 'uplifting', 'optimistic', 'engaging', 'community' and a consultative phase is sometimes included where stakeholders are engaged in the creative process.

There is an inherent danger that an artwork is then 'designed' (the choice of words is very deliberate) to check all the boxes and the result is homogenised and mediocre. If an artwork seamlessly 'fits' and doesn't illicit any emotional response - positively or negatively - is it a successful work or a failure?

There is also the issue of process abuse. Clients could simply brief for 'artworks' that accomplish architectural goals (ie. signage, wayfinding, etc) in order to kill two or more birds with one stone. Pre-determined suppliers could ramp up pricing and artist teams could recycle work without really addressing the new artworks true context.

This is not to say that I think all Perth-grounded public artwork is flawed. There are obvious exceptions that are successful, those being the ones that engage and enliven communities.

The other extreme of this process, and arguably more valid, would be an artist or artist team simply presents in the tender process previously created work and, if selected, is left to create work of a 'similar' style that fits various schematic and safety parameters. In such a process, terms such as 'the new work shall reflect the quality, scale and materials of supplied sample work' are integrated to ensure that both the artist and client is protected. If the new work is of a similar standard but the client is displeased then the artist is not liable to produce another at no cost. The inverse also being true.

This is a 'commission' whereas the other is a 'design' job.

Artists are not the best designers and designers equally not the best artists so perhaps public art projects are too often trying to squeeze the wrong person into the wrong job. I have to wonder if both would be better served if they all sat down and had a reality check on some projects.

Artwork - public or otherwise - should challenge you, stimulate your senses and help you engage with your surrounds. Does it really need to be smothered head-to-toe in sunscreen with bacteria 'wipes' immediately to hand?

Da Vinci's Wit and Wisdom

I recently purchased Da Vinci's notebooks as well as Taschen's 'complete works'. The scale of the man is extraordinary! Just some snippets:

"Some there are who are nothing else than a passage for food and augmenters of excrement and fillers of privies, because through them no other things in the world, nor any good effects are produced, since nothing but full privies results from them."

"It is as great an error to speak well of a worthless man as to speak ill of a good man."

"… It is thus with the hypocrite, whose face is bathed with tears over every slight thing, showing himself thus to have the heart of a tiger; he rejoices in his heart over another's misfortunes with a face bedewed with tears."

"The bee may be likened to deceit, for it has honey in its mouth and poison behind."

http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/book/9781579129460/?a_aid=artperth

Other people's words...

"To this snapshot style, Mr. Eggleston has added some effects borrowed from recent developments in of all things–photo-realistic painting–a case, if not of the blind leading the blind, at least the banal leading the banal." - Kramer writing about William Eggleston.

“[Basquiat’s] contribution to art is so miniscule as to be nil” and that the only reason for the painter’s success was that “liberals need to make a gesture." - Kramer writing about Basquait.

"He was essentially a talentless hustler, street-smart but otherwise invincibly ignorant, who used his youth, his looks, his skin colour and his abundant sex appeal to win an overnight fame that proved to be his undoing ... Basquiat never showed the slightest evidence of being the kind of serious talent he was touted to be by the sponsors who stood to profit from his success." - Kramer writing about Basquait.

"I was just tired of seeing white walls with white people with white wine." - Diego Cortez.

"Whatever art is, it is no longer something primarily to be looked at. Stared at, perhaps, but not primarily looked at. What, in view of this, is a post-historical museum to do, or to be? ... The artist, the gallery, the practices of art history, and the discipline of philosophical aesthetics must all, in one or another way, give way and become different, and perhaps vastly different, from what they have so far been." - Arthur C Danto (1997) passed away on October 25.

Some thoughts whilst suffering from GSMD

Gallery sitting for hours on end tends to drive me a little bit twitch-twitch. Red curtains start slowly descending in front of increasingly tired eyes and the boredom does give me dangerous amounts of time to think.

Today is the last day of sitting at Kurb and then we deinstall the show this evening. That makes for an extremely long day.

Observing the people through the shows has been interesting and it has been one of more engagement-heavy shows I've held. That is to say that I find myself talking to proportionally more people much longer than normal as the work itself is less abstract for an audience than my recent series.

I've always been interested in how people engage - or rather don't - with artworks. In particular, how they deal with the dynamics of something like a white box of a gallery. I was speaking to someone a few days ago about how some people seem to have problems entering a space, often querying 'is this free?' and constantly looking out of the corner of their eye in nervousness.

In some cities, barriers are erected in the form of closed doors and buzzers to keep out the unwashed but even a wide open door with flashing 'open' signs, a red carpet and inviting waves still prompt 'is this free' and perplexed looks.

So… what happens when/if you get them inside? Ideally whatever they want, short of a viewer damaging the work that is. An artist opens their space for you to enter. You are encouraged to look at, think about and comment on whatever you encounter. That ultimately is the POINT of putting on shows. Dialogue is encouraged by the process.

As an artist, you can digest comments however you wish. If anything, I have found negative comments much more rewarding in the long term. Particular when I saw that one person had spat on a (public) work of mine a few years ago. It doesn't mean that I have adapted my practice to appease that particular person, but rather it occasionally makes me aware of weaknesses I might not have previously seen.

Speak up!

It could be an audience's inability to formally deal with photography (as many forms of artworks for that matter) that results in them falling back on seemingly simple tenets of art appreciation.

This is resolved using relatively harmless phrases related to quality (ie. 'so realistic', 'love the colours') and quantity (ie. 'this must have taken hours to do', 'wow, that's a lot of dots!').

These comments are, of course, completely valid and not without merit. It is however sad that more thorough querying is often avoided due to a fear of reproach.

An audience shouldn't be afraid of challenging and talking to artists but should treat an artist with as much respect as they would every other person. The artists are putting themselves 'on the line' so if you don't like something you should still express that provided you are willing to discuss why. Simply saying 'it's shit' isn't worth the breath it's spoken with.

Equally, artists and arts industrialists shouldn't coldly rebuff any criticism as 'ignorance' on behalf of the viewer. Admittedly, much art has been made over the years almost specifically for the arts 'crowd' and can be heavily referential. Basically, you won't 'get it' unless you know this or that.

Whilst difficult to resolve in an exhibition format, many people truly appreciate clarification. It is not necessary to dumb it down but giving context helps immensely. A classic (and simple) example of this is Jeff Wall's 'Gust of Wind' and it's referencing of Hokusai. Without it being contextualised, it would seem to many like an extremely 'lucky' shot but with context it prompts really interesting discussions about truth in images.

It's all in the details…

Many exhibitions that I have seen over the last few years are very much about the extraordinary details in the images.

Images from Gursky, Crewdson, Ward and many others work effectively on audiences in that they can immerse themselves completely in images due to scale. They, put simply, often have more to look at and feel more comfortable in the act of dwelling longer.

I have been wondering lately if the detail fetish on the audience behalf is a reaction against our 1024 x 768 worlds.

For artists, it might also be an attempt to 'rise above' the mass photographic swarm in that quality of image still has a price point on some levels.

To be continued...

Is 'rustic' another name for...

We have to laugh when we see stuff branded 'rustic'. It implies something hand made, rough around the edges but brimming with substance. Such products are then often sold as a premium product. The truth is more likely akin to 'these are the rolls made by a first year apprentice with a hangover.' As consumers we demand symmetrical, blemish-free apples but asymmetry is accepted without a blink provided it is branded 'right'.

I often have similar feelings about the institutional approach to conceptual art. Work can (should?) be conceptually 'up there' but is it necessary that the art objects are often so poorly 'made'? Are they only accepted as valid if they are clearly 'sketches'? Do we value well crafted objects less as 'art' simply because they are well made?

Further to that, I personally find process-driven work far more interesting in the form of documentation ... Ie. I would much rather see a photograph of paint flying through the air than the resultant puddle - framed or otherwise - three days after the fact. If it's all about the process, an artist's meditative experience or some form of self-flagellation then show me substantial and well made documentation of that, not some half-baked stain of an art object.

Just a thought - admittedly a skewed one - after buying some rolls today and realizing how foolish the qualitative process was only when at the cashier.

Tangled Knots....

Thought of the day: "The making and presentation of useless art is a massive, twisted knot of hysterical delusion. The perpetual challenge to artist, institution and viewer alike is whether the attempt to disentangle or 'smooth out' any resultant art object is warranted."

Plastic, some paper and a bit of chemistry...

For the exhibition of 'five' at PCP I wrote an essay titled 'Nothing to see here....'. In it I talked about the inability of people to disconnect content from form, especially when portraiture (ie. friends or family) is involved... Imagine burning a family photo. This lack of disconnect is exploited by ambiguous images that play with personal reference points. As an example, consider an image of a particular style of chair and how that might, for some, be associated with a lost relative or other personal moment in their own history.

Over the last few days I've been cleaning out various sections of my archive and disposing of proof sheets as well as test prints, etc. The source material is still whole so that which is in the bin is merely non-unique process objects. What I found interesting was the significant twinge I had when it came to getting rid of any image that was mildly personally. It almost feels disrespectful and I'm still tempted to sort them out from the rubbish.

I feel queasy for both their disposal but equally with the thought that I don't have the disconnect I thought I had.

Failure as a motivator...

Often when spurned, people mutter under their breath that they will 'show them'.... With that in mind, I've always loved this from the Raconteurs' 'Salute Your Solution'.

"...And I got what I got all despite you ... And I get what I get just to spite you ...."

Pointless in the whole scheme of things but typically how I get past every other hiccup on the road towards my Pulitzer.

Monday's analogy redux...

... the not insignificant problem with getting into the 'right' lane early is that you then spend a ridiculous amount of time concerned that you might have chosen wrong.

Worse than that, you also worry that you might even be driving the wrong 'sort' of vehicle.

I sometimes think of a foldable, brown Raleigh 20 which I had as a kid. This 2-speed bike got a hell of a workout at the time, even if I ached for a BMX or - time-warp moment - more specifically a HMX.

Once some local group put on a bike 'race' to raise money for something and I took my bike down and joined in.

This proved one of the great learning experiences of my life as when I was peddling at 150mph to keep up with all the 10-speeds, I was told that I didn't belong and should p*%s off.

Eventually I was one of the first handful across the line but the moment itself proved much more fruitful.

Image via oldroads.com.

A word or two on editing and gimmickry...

Shortly after I had shown 'five' at PCP, I needed to put together a proposal which required 10 supporting shots. After all the tears, tantrums and torn hamstrings of putting together the selection of 13 that had been shown I was genuinely quite shocked how easy it was to select and get rid of the necessary three.

In the end I realised that I could have easily culled four or five and - to be honest - it did knock me around a bit. I would hope that it wasn't obvious that 30% of show wasn't 'up to it' ... in my eyes at least.

The point of this post is that we often see shows around town where there would seem to be a bit of 'filler' in what has been hung. Often smaller - and frequently 'lesser' - works are included as they might 'move' better from a sales perspective. This does tend to bring the overall quality of shows down and we often then dwell on what was weak rather than what shone.

It is not easy to edit your own work and humbling to ask someone to 'help' you but we have seen more than a few potentially great shows skip through as only good because of sloppy editing.

There is also a distinctive optical 'fetish' in Perth (see the original post from September 09) and it is getting extremely boring.

Where do you get that from?

It's rare to be able to clearly and exactly pinpoint fundamentals in how you live your life. That is unless you have the time and resources to poke around with sharp sticks, blu-tack, rubber bands and snail bait.

That said, I can quite confidently pinpoint one of my early influences when it comes to 'how' I think.

I was - for want of a better word for it - supposedly quite 'talented' at mathematics during high school and I was even at one stage in the top 5% nationally of students for my age.

This essentially put me in the 'bright' kids class in the all years from age 13 on and, as such, I was allowed to journey to the hallowed halls of 3T. The 'T' pointed to the 'Terry' in Terry McMahon.

Mr McMahon had a fearsome reputation that very much preceded him. He was seen as old school and, in the times where the cane was still 'available' (admittedly only in the DP's office), this proved enough to keep many - if not all - kids in line.

We 'clicked' very early on and I found my years with Mr McMahon extremely fruitful. He taught me how to approach problems 'outside the box' and - very importantly - introduced me to the powers of logistical thinking. In amongst the multitudes of things I learnt are tools that I still use daily.

Admittedly most, if not all, of the equations, formulas and other such nonsense are long since gone, but the 'way' of approaching problems has very much stuck.

It was with genuine sadness that I learnt today of the passing of Mr McMahon in late December.

Wisdom from others...

This from Seth Godin which - at a stretch - is equally applicable to the gallery system:

It's easy to get trapped wondering what consumers want, and then being frustrated when you can't get what you cook up in front of the people who want to buy it.

It's easy to forget what industry wants.

...

If the industry can't make money selling what you're selling, why will they help you?

You can view these things as ridiculous peccadilloes. Or you can see them as parts of the system as permanent and as important as the gatekeepers who rely on them.

On the other hand, fall in love with the system and you might forget the end user. And we know how poorly that works.

And this from Phillip Adams, the balance of which will likely inspire many a wordsmith in the coming week:

Wipe the slate: an expression from the time when students scratched away on them, dusting them off for a new lesson. Just as a teacher wiped the blackboard. In life, we can't do it. We simply keeping adding layers of chalk and scratchings.

Digital Amputations and Re-Calibration

Just before I get on with my rant, 'Digital Amputation' is not something you should type into google. I've been thinking a lot lately about what's been causing me all this anxiety over the last few months and I seem to have been able to narrow it down a 'bit'.

There are multiple problems and virtues with access and awareness. The most major of which is that I can easily follow the success of others - peers and otherwise. This microstalking does tend to highlight in large, red letters any personal failings.

If not for fear of being 'out of touch', I have seriously considered turning off these taps. I crash heavily when I read about x or y doing this or that whilst I pathetically type a blog entry (aka rant) in my cave.

I try (perhaps not hard enough) not to compare or compete with others around me but I do tend to calibrate my ideas of what 'works' against accomplishments of others.

I really (read REALLY) don't like this model of competing - very much evident in arts funding, awards and other such things - as it's not healthy for those who regularly 'fail'.

We are all told repeatedly to 'not take it personally' but it's inevitable that the failings jolt. Thoughts creep in as to whether the work is unsuccessful and 'needs' to change. This is also extremely unhealthy for a practice, especially if the change is influenced from the 'outside'. Work should evolve naturally and in healthy, creative environments not under outcomes-based pressures.

There is also the issue of opportunity and choice. Growing up in small-town, pre-internet New Zealand, access to information was very much an issue. Something that frustrated me - as others - no end.

Having access to so much can be very rewarding, inspiring, challenging and engaging.

At the other end of the extreme, we are now flooded with so much that we need to work extremely hard to filter out the 'fluff' and avoid distraction.

If you'll excuse the long bow, instead of a single generic can of soup, we now have to choose between not just the aesthetics of the can and the taste of the product but a multitude of other criteria.

We might know that a market in Togo has '...the best tomato soup in the world' and that we are 'foolish' to consume anything less. How do we resolve the 30 cans in front of us at any given moment? Do we taste them all? Have we made the correct decision? Did 14 Dolphins just die because we took a mouthful of this or that? Dare we show our choice to others for fear of ridicule?

There is always this stress (self-imposed) that I should do this or that and if I don't then I feel like I've squandered an opportunity. This fear is something that is widely and financially exploited by a multitude of institutions.

I don't know the solution - personally and otherwise - but I do know that the current cycle I'm in is leaving me so disillusioned that it's extremely hard to pick up the camera.

I did see Kick Starter a few months ago which I appreciate. Even if it's still outcomes-based I think the micro-model opens philanthropy to a different and more excitable demographic than - warning: pomposity - institutionalized, homogenous mediocrity.

Every now and then...

... I stumble upon an image, idea or poignant sentence that changes things. In this case, I was looking around for Death Masks (something I've been interested in for a while) and I found L'Inconnue de la Seine (French for “the unknown woman of the Seine”). It's a fascinating story - irrelevant of it's truth or otherwise - and I like the dynamic of how it's influenced artists, writers and the like.

A few years ago I was playing around with the idea that photographs are like death masks or tombstones. This is similar to an idea that I read (heard?) once where someone in the 19th century equated the photographic image to an Exuviae* - literally a 'pealing' of he/she who has been imaged.

I'm not so sure anymore about the appropriateness or robustness of the analogy but I can still see the virtues of how a mask indicates pose and lack of context and a tombstone/obit might be an ideological construction.

* I've now got another new word that I can't pronounce: 'Exuviae is a term used in biology to describe the remains of an exoskeleton that is left after an arthropod (insect, crustacean or arachnid) has moulted.' (source: wiki)

Roll up, roll up...

Source: Library of Congress Collections.

In Perth there would seem to be a - mildly unhealthy - obsession with sanitised optical illusions in artwork.

Whilst I admit to occasionally enjoying the 'side show' aspect of it all, I do find myself physically losing energy in the sigh that always eventuates when I walk into 'yet another one' of these shows.

That is not to say that such work doesn't have it's share of virtues or that it can reach euphoric heights. They are often much more sophisticated than what otherwise could be 'experimentation' disguised as finished artwork.

That said, it feels like an easy ride some how. The work is not necessarily confronting, challenging or engaging. The audience has an easy 'in' but are they really getting good 'stuff' out?

It returns to the spectacle aspect that I've previously talked about... does that little 2 second gasp really equate to more than just appealing to the 'easy' sound-bite demographic.

This all needs much more consideration but my back hurts and I need to get away from this computer!

Stuff on my mind...

Running a bit distracted today. I just got off the phone with a property manager about a potential artist studio/wall space so even more so now.

The following is to purge a few things - not least of which nervous energy - all that's bouncing around a bit rough.

I get the Magnum eNewsletter and this week they had an image from David Seymour of a child in a Polish home for 'disturbed children' from 1948.

It's a very striking image that reminds me of Roger Ballen who - ironically enough - is 'featuring' as the masthead over at The Monash Gallery of Art's site.... twitch, twitch ... as I await the wash of disappointment on September 11.

I'm staggering through a few new ideas and tidying up some old. One involves the soon-to-be-extinct incandescent lightbulb. I have a series planned where I am going to look at the fragility, toxicity, (non)uniqueness and futility of that particular object.

I intend to - eventually - put out a call for old bulbs from sheds, garages, etc that have developed a patina and recontextualise them.

As a side note, whilst looking around I stumbled across BulbCollector.com.... sigh!

I recently introduced a friend to William Eggleston so this is 'obviously' on my mind... it's odd but I've never noticed the graphic in the bottom right... ?



As is this from Mr Wall...



Enough socialist purging for today. Time to do my capitalist duty and get back to the gorging.

What do you do when the system doesn't work for you?

I've been thinking about this concept for a few days. Mainly I've been focussing on what is the best strategy going forward.

My first immediate response when something doesn't work is the thought that I'm 'obviously' not good enough for that particular system. Irrelevant of any degree of rationality or outside input, I will always dig myself that little - but often very deep - hole.

Next I will move through a grieving phase. This manifests in thoughts of 'It must be personal' through 'Am I wasting my time/money/energy on xyz?' and lands back again in fields of self-doubt.

I often think - in moments of foolish idealism - that if the system doesn't work for my immediate surroundings and I then perhaps the system is flawed. I hope that thought is not delusion screaming from the roof tops.

What do I do in this case? Do I build my own system from the ground up? Is there not a danger that all I will do is isolate myself even further and just exhaust myself on multiple levels?

There is this niggling thought that I might be building my own little tree house JUST so I can 'exclude' people from my club.

I have to force myself to weigh up the genuine virtues of any new system. What does it bring me? What does it bring the protagonists? Will it improve something - no matter how abstract that might be? Will the 'energy in' generate a nice positive flow of 'energy out'? Can I afford the risk? Will I just become a simple variation of what I originally found so flawed?

I suppose I should frame this a bit ... we are looking at potentially setting up a grouping of studios with a small display space in the city. The numbers are quite painful and - no matter what - it would involve a personal and emotional expenditure that is very involving.

Each time the numbers pull us down, I visualise what it 'might' be, how it could trigger this or that and I find myself thinking in grand terms. These are - of course - completely delusional but at the same time 'risk' can be healthy.

The human factor does tend to worry me though... artists are fickle, temperamental beasts and I think stability is key to making something like a studio group work 'well'.

I guess after each show I find myself thinking was the expenditure worth it? If I think rationally about shows, it's often about getting a handful of people to look at my work... equating to four digit numbers per person. Obviously when they don't look or - worse - are apathetic then that is a rather queasy moment.

Sales are close to irrelevant... I learnt a long time ago to not expect them and especially not to hope for them... all a bit like playing lotto really - lots of wasted emotional energy.

I have often thought that I could spend that same money taking my work to an audience rather than trying to get an audience to come to me. Would it be better spent producing books or edition objects that I get 'out there'? Would it be better producing - shock - more work?

More manifesto-ish stuff...

Again from Mr Paton:
Today, artists seldom hitch their wagon to a particular movement but take what they need where they find it. There are no reigning isms, unless you count Professionalism - the watchful pursuit of an art career. The downside of this is a draining away of argument: when anything goes, the danger is that nothing counts. But there is an upside: instead of worrying about whether [an artwork] is going to make it on to history's A list, we have to decide why we value its company right here and now.

The 'anything goes' proclamation is often touted as a devaluing force by commentators. That said, in the arts there are many walls that disprove this rather idealogical concept.

It's more 'anything goes... but ... don't step over - or left or right of - this invisible line I've - in my capacity as tenet-holder - decided to draw for you.'

On more than one occasion Elisa and I - as surely other 'valid' artists - have encountered such ridiculous notions as 'media boundaries'... These even in supposedly liberal civil forums.

Imagine - for example - a highway where you HAD to drive a yellow car or access was denied?

Real world strategies for dealing with the ... real world.

1. Be spurned in some way by peers, institutions and/or other form of authority.
2. Develop an extensive revenge fantasy typically involving some form of public humilation, honey and small animals.
3. Realise the futility of such things and either:
1. Concentrate on developing a 'successful' life ... to prove them 'wrong';
2. Create your own 'tribe' (with apologies to Seth Godin) and exclude the appropriate protaganists; or
3. Create your own 'tribe' (as above) and 'steal' their support base.
4. Recognise the tokenism of all of the above and just 'get on with it'... irrelevant of the existing - often restrictive - systems. If the system doesn't work for you then be sure to simply keep working... adaption can be extraordinarily unhealthy and 'might' stiffle creativity.

... but ... keep the small animals well-feed (and hydrated) in the laundry... just in case!