Q: You have an idealistic site, aimed at showcasing the output of creative people. Do you get a lot of hits? Do the folks you showcase find an audience?

Q: How many other sites are there that are trying something broadly similar to what you’re doing? What kind of audiences do they pull?

Q: Why should anybody go to your site instead of one of the others – or vice versa?

Q: Ever been to one of the really large creative showcase sites like allpoetry.com? How easy or hard would it be for a good poet to get noticed there? How many people would be likely to notice them?

Q: So, some creative product “goes viral”. How would the audience of a successful viral product of today compare with the audience of guys like Kurt Cobain or Tupac Shakur? Is the difference due to quality of the work, or structure of the media?

Q: Do you think creative work that “goes viral” does so because it’s better than the stuff that doean’t? Or are there other reasons? If so, what would those be?

Here is an excerpt from my response:

To address your point about finite human attention, the core of my argument is that the FM radio and MTV model of music distribution is dead. My stance is more like, “Nobody has power, because power is an illusion.” I say the “center” isn’t worth fighting for, because music is an art form, and the center is based on manipulation and deceit. I think it’s safe to say that mass-produced garbage is usually the opposite of art. American Idol is crap, but it’s not intended for music lovers; it’s for pop culture addicts and those who like being indoctrinated. It’s our monetary system (capitalistic or otherwise) that turns music, books, and other artistic creations into trashy consumer products. I think it’s worthwhile to express yourself, search for truth, and work for progress — but not on the condition that you must be paid for it. Yes, I’d like my passion to be how I make a living, but it might be a long time until that happens.

I am also interested in the back and forth shift from underground to mainstream, especially with music. However, I have become convinced that musicians aiming for the center are looking for a music career, and that undoubtedly removes them from the realm of art. Talk about a paradox: indie music has taken over the public consciousness, turning many bands into the exact opposite of what they first stood for (e.g. — Modest Mouse, The Decemberists, Death Cab For Cutie). I’m not sure that I’d want another Nirvana, but I was never a huge fan. They probably did take advantage of that “psychic desolation” you mentioned. But I think we’re approaching a point when everyone turns their attention inward. We must work on the evolution of human consciousness if we are ever to move beyond the repetitive failures of the last 60 years (or 4000 years, depending on how you see it). And somehow, this always returns me to Fight Club.

I just watched Zeitgeist: Addendum, so I’m sure that is flavoring my lingo here. Essentially the Internet is the best modern example of how our world is constantly in an emergent state. There is no stationary point. It’s ever-changing, ever-growing, ever-improving (hopefully). What has happened in the past decade with music and the Internet does seem like anarchy, but that’s simply because methods of finding music are constantly emerging, and they’re being refined and improved.

The Internet provides many options for finding new music, none of which involve searching through thousands of albums. But then again, I feel that if a band is important enough or valid enough or determined enough, they will somehow find the route to their audience. I get a weekly release newsletter from AllMusic.com, which I can scan for band names and genres, then link to the page if more info is needed. Pandora and Last.fm are both tailoring playlists to the listener’s tastes. They work on slightly different systems, but are both pretty effective in introducing new music. There are also online publications and music blogs. (However, I wrote an essay about Pitchfork. You might be interested in reading that one as well.) Then there are the traditional, but always less used methods of talking with a record store employee or frequenting your local indie music venues. Personally I didn’t have that option before the Internet, because the area I grew up in had neither in close proximity.

I wasn’t familiar with AllPoetry.com or any creative showcase sites. It seems like a good idea. Initially, I’d say my site is different because of the various types of content published here. Secondly, I modeled my site after my favorite print and online publication design, so that people can self-publish their work in a professional, attractive setting. I admit that I needed a place to publish my work, and I was largely unsatisfied with journalism, book publishers, and literary journals. But my work is in no way showcased here, especially if more and more people start to submit (eventually I want them to be able to submit themselves, so that there only need be moderators to check that the creative work is legitimate and not an advertisement, etc).

As for traffic and audience, Supraterranean was launched on June 23, 2008, only four months ago. The site currently gets about 300-400 unique visitors per month. I’m hoping that will continue to grow. I did create the website with an idealistic foundation — the most extreme goal being a revolution of the publishing industry. However, I won’t be disappointed if I don’t meet that goal. Even if this site becomes an incubator for writers, filmmakers, and artists to learn and grow, so they can then move into some aspect of traditional publishing, that wouldn’t disappoint me. I don’t expect Supraterranean to be the end point of progress. It’s just (in my eyes) vastly better than the current system. I think that the publishing industry is about to face what the music industry just went through. One example is Amazon BookSurge, which provides self-publishing opportunities for authors.

~~~~~~~

As you can see, some of these topics have already been addressed on this blog. But I’m hoping that interactions such as this will become more commonplace on Supraterranean.

I know what you’re thinking. “Abstain from voting?! But that would mean surrendering one of our great American rights. If we don’t practice our rights, we will lose them. And that would mean eventually losing our freedom.”

First of all, let me specify that this is not a personal recommendation — at least not for the current election. This endorsement is being made as the Administrator of Supraterranean.com, a website founded on principles that are new and confusing to many modern human beings. Take the Goals list on the About Us page, for example:

• To undermine the power of major content corporations who distribute most of the media to which people are exposed.
• To fight the disease of anti-intellectualism rampant in the U.S. and around the world.

I readily admit that this stance has been influenced by the films Zeitgeist (2007) and Zeitgeist: Addendum (2008). I saw the first back in March, and the sequel about two weeks ago. The first film drew connections between Christianity, the 9/11 attacks, and the Federal Reserve bank. The sequel picks up at the same place, going into further detail on our monetary system. They explain (in considerable detail, given the riddling topic) how the very core of our society is fraudulent and corrupt. Essentially, it’s impossible to have a fair, just, or sustainable world that is based on our kind of monetary system. It doesn’t matter if it’s democracy, dictatorship, socialism, or any known government. They are all part of the grand scheme of Globalization. We are all slaves, and we don’t even know it — but those in power are well aware. We have to undertake mindless, repetitive, and often useless jobs in order to survive, let alone “succeed.”

But the film explains this far better than I can in a ranting blog post, so let me progress to the point. Do you ever wonder why the Presidential Election appears to be a choice between only two candidates? In actuality, ANYONE CAN BECOME PRESIDENT. So why is it always one of two or three candidates offered to us by major political parties? The film argues that corporate approval and sponsorship are ultimately what determine who becomes president. To accept this requires a better understanding of what corporations can get away with in our society.

We don’t live in a democracy. America is a democratic republic. The popular vote does not determine the president. The president is chosen by an Electoral College, who supposedly act on our behalf. For proof of this, look back at the 2000 election. Al Gore received 48.4% of the votes, while Bush received 47.9% (See the Wikipedia page for more statistics). And yet Bush became president. Why? Because the American public doesn’t decide who becomes president — the corporations and banks do. Furthermore, it won’t make much difference who becomes president. It pains me to write that, because I feel that Obama is more than qualified for the position. But the problem is with the presidency, not the president.

Zeitgeist: Addendum also argues that this system is failing. We all witnessed the market crash recently. This is the only possible outcome in an imaginary monetary system where inflation is inherent. Bush’s $700 billion bailout will not help anything. All it does is privatize a whole lot of public wealth that should have gone towards making our country a better place.

So the biggest lesson to take from the two Zeitgeist films is that the solution lies at the core of the problem. If a tree has a disease, you don’t trim off the leaves or a branch; you cut the tree at the stump, or even remove the roots altogether. All of our symbols and theories and concepts, all of our governments and religions and ideologies, all of our companies and organizations and clubs, all of our friends and families and loved ones —-  these are all automatically infected by the monetary system.

Unfortunately the second film makes a concrete solution seem even further off than the first film. That might be because the human race still has some evolving to do before we can achieve a solution. However, they do propose five points for positive social action:

1. Boycott CitiBank, JP Morgan Chase, and Bank of America. They are the most powerful and have the deepest ties with the Federal Reserve.
2. Boycott TV News, and turn to independent sources on the Internet that cannot be controlled by the corporations.
3. Boycott the Military. It’s just an instrument for corporate action around the world. It takes advantage of the anger and confusion of young adults, and then abandons them — if they aren’t killed first — to drug addiction, mental illness, and homelessness.
4. Put pressure on the Energy Companies. Seek out sustainable methods of energy and transportation. If the companies don’t provide these, find other ways. (But keep in mind that an energy company might be in the same corner as the public. Their primary goal is to keep the world lit up and running, not to swim in profits). My recommendation: also pressure automobile companies.
5. Reject the Political System. Democracy is a sham. Therefore, voting is not only irrelevant, but also irresponsible.

Don’t delude yourself into thinking that voting is a sufficient way to participate in our world. Don’t underestimate your imagination, since that is the greatest tool bestowed upon humanity. Most importantly, don’t forget that any and all change begins with yourself, the individual. The film states that the revolution will first be one of consciousness. This theme has been constant in literature and philosophy throughout recorded history. The more people who devote themselves to an inward revolution, the better off the world will be.

For more info about the original Zeitgeist film, read my editorial hosted on SpartanEdge.com (published 3/19/08). Read more about The Zeitgeist Movement at their website. Read about the Venus Project (design pictured below) at their website, cuz I’m out of steam.

Design by Jacque Fresco

Other links:

IMDB – Zeitgeist

Wikipedia – Zeitgeist – Zeitgeist: Addendum