A Response, More on Contests, and Something Bigger

Recently I received a thought provoking response from Vishnoo. I'd rattle off some of Vish's contributions to Libre software, but it is likely easier to provide you with a link or two to some of his information pages.

I believe Vish is located in India and, as such, he is one of those figures that I believe the Eurowesterner crowd might stand to learn plenty from. Perhaps if you prod Vish as I have been doing, we might be treated to some blogging regarding his thoughts and perspectives on Libre software, art, design, and other areas.

Having a good deal of respect for Vish, I thought answering his comment with a follow up comment wouldn't quite do it justice. Further, I believe some of his concerns are echoed in the minds of others.

To this end, I've chosen to escape the four megabyte boundary and answer his comment here. While I hope it serves to further flesh out my concerns with contests and requested speculative work in the Free Software / Libre design community, I also hope it hints at a much greater concern.

Reading through the post I was hoping,at the end, you would be offering some suggestions as to how to fix this problem. Throwing stones at a glass home to illustrate the bad design is good, but who is going to rebuild it? How?

I tend to think that far too many of the vocal folks in Libre software profess to have solutions. Upon examination, however, most of the solutions I have been privy to appear a little shallow in substance and grossly oversimplified for the scope of the problem.

For example, I find the obsession with collaborative art and design software the stuff of myth. Wikis, mailing lists, dreamy collaborative art sites, galleries, etc. are all avoiding the core issue in my mind.

If we can frame a problem, I do believe we can make some success. Indeed it seems that some don't even see a problem at all. My first desire is for those around this community to at least offer a concern for the practice of contests and speculative driven art / design requests.

Is there a team of artists/designers who support 'No Spec work' and boldly say that they would do the work?

If we speak of mainstream contracted graphic artists, designers, and such, then yes there is a core of people that express a negative feeling toward speculative contest driven work. Such is not the issue here however[1].

I would ask a question in place of an answer: How many people involved in Libre artwork are approached by projects to become involved? How many Libre software projects feel they even require an artist, designer, musician, experience engineer, etc.? I strongly suspect the issue is one that precedes your question. How can we educate projects of the benefits and gains of involving a particular class of creative?

How do you suggest people in FOSS get designers to do the work? Contact each and every designer they can imagine and ask them if they are available to do some pro-bono work?

Let's face it, the hopes of involving a mainstream commercial graphic artist, illustrator, designer, etc. are extremely slim to none. There are two issues dragging this down.

The first, is the simple fact that many of those individuals are supporting their families with their work. As such, hoping that they would take on a pro bono project is probably slight[2].

The second is far more menacing. The culture of Libre software has a negative stigma attached to it with regards to creative individuals. I'd hope you have already seen the derogatory stance in threads at Typophile or other such mainstream creative watering holes.

It is very real. It is very ugly.

So when you add the first issue to the second, the chances of a mainstream established individual being attracted to a project is... well you can speculate.

If we avoid the whole mainstream issue altogether, I'd return to the previous question: How many projects have actively sought out a creative? How many value their participation in a project? How many view the role of the creative as anything more than a passing need for a 22 pixel icon?

Challenging questions for certain, and likely tied into the mainstream creative perception of Libre software.

How many designers should they contact? Can this be feasible? If every designer they knew was busy at the moment, what do they do next?

This one is easy.

Treat the involvement of a creative as any human resources department would. Figure out who you would like to involve and why. Why do you want them? What about their work makes you believe they would be a good fit for the project?

If you create a short list of people, simply start at the top of your projects list and work down. A little mutual respect and a hint of passion goes a long, long way.

In short, yes I believe it is feasible.

Also, AFAIK, almost all the famous skyscrapers in the world first request design proposals and then they decide on the final design. [...] If not, how is it that 'Spec work' works for architecture but not in FOSS?

Well beyond my ability to comment with any degree of credibility outside of a loose understanding of the contracting process. Don't confuse speculative work with budgeting and bidding on a project.

To the best of my knowledge, most contract work in this area is pitched with a proposal and budget laid out before the work is commenced. Who gets hired? The lowest bid? Or does track record and previous development play into the decision? Is there prestige associated with hiring a given architect?

Remember, the focus here is speculative or contest driven work as a process. This means that speculative work is solicited from a group. Offer up the work and then someone will judge it. One individual "wins" and the entire community loses.

The weakness, again, comes on a few fronts.

First, the decision makers. All of the top work is moot if the person in charge of the creative decision is shy on ability. The art director is effectively the person making the judgement calls. With most of what I have seen, the people choosing work are so poorly equipped to be doing so that it is almost shameful. A brilliant kernel hacker or space traveler does not a wise art director make.

Second, the work skips out on process. There is no iteration. There is no brainstorming. There is no questions with answers. There is just some often ridiculous design brief filled up with cliches and horrible simplifications.

Third, the minds attracted are of questionable merit. Most folks involved in the creative world tend to have a valued view of their craft. They may have studied their field for four or more years. They may continue to practice and educate themselves. They are unlikely to be attracted to the blatant trivializing of their trade or craft. When those people exclude themselves from such efforts, who is left in your talent pool? What long term benefits to the project are they likely to contribute?

I would probably first expect the 'No Spec Work' evangelizing designers/artists to join together and form a community. And only then can someone get the ball rolling. Otherwise, everyone will keep talking in their own private blogs and nothing will ever change anything.

If the sole issue here was banding together as a community, I doubt there would be much issue.

How many among us are so delusional as to believe there is a wealth of skilled creatives in our culture? Would such joining together amount to anything? Is that the issue?

And returning to an earlier point, ask ourselves what projects appear to be actively attempting to develop a creative core mindset within them? Is that even remotely in view?

If this who or how ground-work is not done by the knowledgeable? How do you expect the powers that be,who as you mention clearly don't understand, to fix it?

I suppose this leads to my own personal and subjective opinions on this matter. I make no assurances or assertions to their validity.

1. I believe there is in fact a problem with our creative culture. I don't believe we have one. I don't believe we are passionate about cultivating one. I believe this creative culture neglect to be core issue number one.
2. I believe, as a result of historical origins, the realm of the creative was even in view until it was so flagrantly exploited by the mainstream world recently. Design thinking, artists, industrial designers, and other creatives are all words that skulked about in the shadows until a large gorilla put them centre stage. I believe the origins of Libre software set forth a trajectory that will require aggressive counter-energy to alter. I believe this problem of origin to be core issue two.
3. As a result of a long track record of poorly executed visual and experience design, I believe we are struggling uphill against our own momentum. That is, core issue one and core issue two have managed to create not only apathy toward compelling creative work but also conspire against it. We in Libre culture have established and cultivated an anti-aesthetic and creative mindset that, in our unfortunate cycle, reciprocally reinforces it. Solid artistically relevant work stands very little chance of support in this culture. I believe the stigma and conspiring anti-creative-culture that has resulted is core issue three.

It's not an easy task to make the change, but a few people need to walk the talk, get their feet bruised, to let it be known that there is an alternate path.

I agree 100% that the task is not easy.

So what are some things we can do to make some progress?

Core Issue One: Cultivate a Culture

If one accepts that core issue one has some validity, we need to focus on watering and growing a creative culture. At the very least, this should start with avoiding the inadvertent creation of an atmosphere of creative repulsion.

Speculative group sourcing and contests are beacons to a creative audience. Speculative group sourcing and contests offer no long-term upsides to projects nor enrich a community. Speculative group sourcing and contests deliver underwhelming results that stand long after the contest has ended as a blinking neon sign of poor craftsmanship.

Core Issue Two: The Problem of Origin

Scratching one's own itch has evolved. We have migrated into a new realm where we are beginning to desire greater breadth and scope. This means evolving past the shallow self indulgence into the scratching of other's itches[3]. Emotions, visual design, art, and the rest of it is all resting in the subjective world.

By recognizing that our circumstances have changed, so too might our processes. We should be far more proactive in team work and, as such, realize that we require different positions to be played. If the old process is indeed failing, we would be truly foolish to expect a different outcome by adhering to it.

Core Issue Three: The Problem of Anti-Culture

If we can consider that there is at least a glimmer of a negative stigma that creatives view our culture with, we need to shift that[4].

We could go a long way to helping this by letting the proper minds make appropriate decisions. David Revoy is an established artist that already is using Libre software tools. His unique vision would almost overnight benefit a project regarding visual design far more than allowing a customer support person with very little passion about art and design that decided to self label himself as an artist[5].

Slowly, if we begin to applaud and endorse solid creative work through proper appointment of art and creative directors, our landscape will change. With patience, the bleak and empty creative landscape generated from carelessness and neglect may begin to sprout a new direction.

In Closing

How to 'fix' this? In short, the problem of not perceiving a problem at all likely makes it extremely difficult to 'fix' anything. Any such 'fix', in the true nature of Libre software, must be desired and created from within the greater community itself.

That community is the "powers that be" and always will be. That community exceeds any singular company or tribe. That community, while currently potentially weak in the soul, is also a fount of absolute strength should we exert the effort. That community forms the core of the issue and holds the key to the solution.

Objects in motion attempt to carry on in that motion. Our culture is no different. As a result of momentum set forth long ago, our culture has spiraled away from the creative culture we so desperately need.

As with objects in motion, additional energy must be applied to overcome a given trajectory. If we fail, we risk ending up further along the trajectory and further isolating ourselves from the creative culture.

If we succeed however, we become a culture that creative minds desperately desire to be a part of. A world where other passionate and dedicated creatives thrive.

And from there, the rewards might just lead onto bigger and better things.

Thank you all for reading.

Back at you Vish...

[1] See The Gap debacle as a case in point. It was a near unanimous vocal outcry. A few articles make some valuable points on it.
[2] But it would never hurt to attempt and make a passionate case for your project. You never know. Remember, pro-bono work is in an entirely different class to contest and speculative driven attempts.
[3] While some may believe that we cannot escape the need to scratch one's own itch, Michael Terry at the University of Waterloo has suggested that positive feedback creates intrinsic motivation.
[4] Search Typophile for a sadly poignant thread. It shames me too much to read it. Whether true in fact is irrelevant, as the almost unanimous voice clearly illustrates there is ill will there.
[5] I treat terms such as artist with a great respect. I equate the usage of those terms with others such as intelligent, beautiful, or the like. I question the people that self label themselves accordingly. Struggle like mad to do good work and let others do the labeling.

Why?

There exists a mighty candle of a great divide that we keep burning. We feed a steady stream of fuel to support a division between the Computing Life and Real Life. As the debate between Mind and Body passes, we forge a new polemic between Real Life and Computing Life.

In the case of the former, many have accepted that the division between Mind and Body is purely a model created by humans. Practically, we know that the mind and body are inexplicably linked. There is no duality. There is no division. The byproduct of the brain organ is no more isolated than the byproduct of the heart organ.

In the case of the latter, there seems a reoccurring thematic to keep a division between Real Life and Computing Life. There is the Real World and then there is the Computing World. We, as a culture, introduced this technology and damned be us if we will accept Computing has merged into Real Life. We need those divisions.

Computing is no different than an automobile. It is no different than a desk. It is no different than a tool in your work shed.

It is separate. It is isolated. It can always be turned off.

Correct?

Ubiquity

Computing is clearly ubiquitous. What seemed inevitable in the 80s has become reality for Eurowesterners living in 2010 and beyond. If fifteen years ago someone had told you that you would be connected to the internet 24/7, you may have balked in disbelief.

Now take a look around you.

The nature of the ubiquity of computing devices has, in turn, created long term impacts on our daily living. A few companies have forever altered the course of our futures, and few are paying attention to that drastic change it seems.

A Musical Example

CDs supplanted Cassette Tapes and Cassette Tapes supplanted Vinyl and Eight Tracks. So goes technology. No different than what is happening now, right?

Technology will become extinct as it is replaced by newer technology. We accept that.

Have you tried to go out and purchase a CD in North America? Have you noticed how only a select few shops are left selling them, and even then, their selections have dwindled?

This is the natural progression of technology supplanting itself, correct?

Now think back to the CD. When CDs came to market, all of the traditional outlets sold them. There wasn't some strange government mandate that only store X could sell them. There wasn't a technological twist that prevented manufacturers from creating CD players to play the disks or preventing certain disks from playing in certain players.

The first generation digital music players prior to the iPod allowed you to take your music and play it on any device. Then came the iPod with its studio sanctioned digital rights management system known as Fairplay, and the system changed forever.

Now the music sold could only play on one system. But that is acceptable in a free market. To each their own. Don't support them if you don't want to. Entirely logical.

Cut to now. What had begun as music software has rolled its tendrils out as a near ubiquitous iDistribution system. Through well executed design and marketing, iDistribution is all around us.

I, as a Canadian, have trouble finding CDs anywhere, let alone the titles I'd want to purchase. Digital downloads are always an option, correct? Alas...

Amazon, the only other provider with a large library offering non DRM music, isn't available in Canada. The remaining digital music distribution system? iTunes. So why not buy there then? It is what the free market has dictated, is it not?

iTunes isn't just a music sales site. It requires signing onto the iDistribution system in full. I cannot just purchase music. Nay, instead, I must sign onto an entire "approved" computing platform in order to run the iDistribution software.

That sounds like Fair Play doesn't it?

So through a system of ulterior motive DRM at first, iTunes forced the hand of every digital downloader. In turn, thanks to successful industrial, software, and marketing design, that ubiquity has impacted many others that want nothing to do with the iDistribution system.

Much like second hand smoke, the activities of some impact the lives of others.

A full circle that this mythical "free market" endorsed.

Then and Now

Now we have a new world. Steve Jobs stripped DRM from newer music in iTunes, but it remained a fee driven removal for existing songs one may own. So if one has a sizable library bought from that early era, they still must use an iDevice to play the music.

Now think about iBooks and the Kindle. The Kindle's and iBooks' digital downloads are laced with DRM just as the early era of the digital music offerings in precisely the same technique that the early iPod harnessed DRM.

What happens if one system becomes as ubiquitous as iTunes was for music? What happens when a particular version of DRM reaches monopolistic proportions? Would removal of said DRM suddenly shift the balance of power back to a more neutral state?

I'd ask you to let your mind wander and draw a perfect parallel to the music store analogy taking place in North America. What happens when our book stores begin to disappear? Is that possible?

Could the brick and mortar book store disappear in much the same way that the mega book store displaced the smaller shops? Could the mega book stores dissolve to the digital book store?

The Great Huge Worry

When we start talking about these things, we aren't talking about individual things anymore. We are talking about systems.

One cannot get digital music downloads in Canada unless you sign onto an entire iDistribution system. That means choosing an "approved" operating system and being forced to run a particular piece of software.

We see this identical trend forming around books. Kindle and iBooks both force you to again subscribe to an "approved" operating system and again are forced to run particular breeds of software.

What happens when you have mega companies deciding what books they are going to stock? What happens when a Canadian and New York Times bestseller can't put their books in a distribution system as a result of the artist's chosen license?

What happens when there are even more radical and politically charged pieces? Does the law of the land govern their dissemination or does the power of ubiquity via the mythical free market dictate how loudly the voices will be heard?

Clearly, if we look to what is happening to the brick and mortar CD stores and how difficult it is to purchase digital music in Canada, we can see that the "let the free market decide" is unfolding as a myth. It certainly does not appear to be ensuring that a culture's content is unfettered.

The free market is only as as strong as the culture's government is willing to enforce the core freedoms. In many instances, the various governments appear to be woefully inadequate both in education and perhaps in motivation.

Politically Charged Context

Looking around us now, we can see a perfect example as to why maintaining an unfettered system is of critical importance. The world's first information war is upon us.

Wherever you stand on the issue, it should be clear that there is a culture war going on as well. Some cultures want to deal with the issue in one fashion. Others another way. It is a cultural discourse. It is a debate amongst countries.

The stakes are extremely high.

As part of the WikiLeaks turmoil is an "insurance file" that is encrypted with 256 bit AES encryption. By today's standards, it is uncrackable.

Already, the closed distribution system clearly prevents certain software from landing in the hands of an end audience member. The GNU Public License agreement is in direct opposition to the Apple App Store policy. As such, Libre software cannot be published in the App Store, as the VLC media player application appears to be illustrating.

Of course, this means that you cannot install GPL software from within the convenience of the App Store. It also means that as a result of the closed distribution system and its set of licenses, GPL software can never be installed on iOS because it is prohibited to install software via any method other than the App Store.

Imagine that: Software that ensures and protects the end audience's rights and freedoms is in direct opposition to the end user license agreement terms of the platform.

This too, is still completely acceptable in this mythical free market.

What happens when it comes to encryption though? What happens when certain forms of encryption, either via license or via government agreements with companies, that high grade encryption is prohibited on devices?

What about new software technology that we can't quite see just yet?

Does it seem the stuff of science fiction and tin foil hats? Remember that the OpenBSD project located itself in Canada because of the exportation of cryptography laws in the United States. Encryption is a very hot topic, and certainly after the WikiLeaks scenario it will not be going away soon.

If anything, WikiLeaks has brought the issue of publicly available encryption to the forefront of our North American culture again.

Back to Libre Software

As a result of ignorant or lobbied government legislation, we may soon be unable to alter our computing devices. In fact, there are digital lock provisions being debated today that would prevent you from manipulating the digital locks on not only content but the systems themselves.

What many didn't likely know is that in the United States it was illegal to apply the happy euphemism of jailbreaking to their iDevices. Recently, the courts overruled that decision, but the era is far from over.

What happens when a system prevents you from installing certain content? What happens when the closed distribution systems land on your desktops?

What happens when a system prevents you from applying certain technology such as encryption? Is this the stuff of fiction or might a software licence be in direct opposition to a distribution platform?

What happens when a culture cedes all of its constitutional freedom of speech into the hands of companies that appear to hold censorship as acceptable?

When is it a culture's right to demand that products such as automobile computing brake systems be compelled to open up the source code to examine for negligence?

What happens when a culture's government sits on its hands long enough to let monopolies drive an entire future generation of content and culture? What happens to marginalized countries? Is there agency to participate in culture or is it being subversively silenced? Who gets to decide? The mythical free market?

Within the limits of freedom and democracy that free and democratic systems provide, there is only one computing system that appears to reflect those core values. At the same time, it appears that the ability to participate in the culture and maintain relevance is being quietly and slowly snuffed out for those that stand behind such systems.

In Closing

It is common to hear that no one cares about the human readable computer code behind their systems. So few can understand it. So few can write new code. So few can participate in that aspect of the system that it is irrelevant to be able to read it.

In the Eurowestern system, we have laws. Those laws are visible to the public at all times. The democratic systems that are built on those laws mandate that the laws shall always remain open.

Those laws are complex. Very few can understand much of them. Very few can participate in law creation or modification. Those that live under those laws however, would likely be willing to shed blood to keep the laws open and available.

There is no better time than now to take a look around you and examine your computing world. When a free market creates a $290 billion dollar "success", you can be certain that more will follow their patterns and process.

In our shallow consumerism we have traded convenience for liberty. We accept, without grounds and examination of our contemporary world, that computing is a privilege as opposed to a right.

Real Life and Computing Life is a convenient fictional model as is suggesting a divide between Mind and Body.

Here's to the hope that we, within our own cultures, begin to start treating computing less as a commodity and more as a critical aspect of human living, subject to the same laws and governance that so many have died for.

Thank you for spending your valuable time reading...