In case you haven’t heard me preach about the IAE, it’s simultaneously the missing ingredient that artists of all disciplines have been searching for, a part of a larger discussion of the future of American work, and a promising path to a thriving creative economy. The thing I was always missing in school was any business or entrepreneurial sensibilities. I trained in both the hard sciences and theater arts, and no one ever told me it was possible to do anything but rely on someone else for a paycheck.

That’s changed, and the goal is to become a successful, serial, arts entrepreneur as soon as is healthy.

Today, I had both an audition and interview to become a charter student of the IAE.

The audition was to show the Institute that we’re serious about our art, and the interview was to show that we’re serious about learning entrepreneurial business skills.

For my audition, I didn’t bring a portfolio, or pictures. I brought two pages for each of my interviewers from Orange Flower Water, by Craig Wright. When they asked me to tell them about what I do and why I’m passionate about it, I simply handed them the sides, and said, “Joyce, Reid, would you guys please read this?”

After a moment of shock, they read through the scene, and afterward, I worked with them like they were young actors. I had one technical piece of advice, and one artistic. I had some specific changes they could make to their breath to make the scene flow better. We spent the rest of the time discussing the actor’s objective. It was fun, because both of my interviewers had something different to do, and got to see real insight into what I do with actors.

The actual interview part was very different from what I expected. They paired two applicants up, sat us down, and said, “You two are going to go into business together.” Where do you start? We were then walked through a basic business plan, being thrown different curve balls to see if we could roll with the punches.

The idea wasn’t so much to test us to see if we could come up with a workable business model. The idea was to show us the kind of thought process we’re going to be asked to be able to engage when we’re in school. It was really nerve-wracking, and exciting at the same time.

I hope this is where the future is headed: the excitement and nervousness of not knowing, and a path that forces me from my usual comfort zone.

The cast of Wild Flowers during the reading

The cast and author of Wild Flowers discussing it with the audience

On Tuesday, the 15th, I had the good fortune to direct a reading of a new play, Wild Flowers, by John Enright. It was the first time the play’s had a reading in its entirety, and it sounded like John got a lot out of it.

At least one other actor remarked that the audience was very helpful. They didn’t just praise the play, they didn’t just rip it apart, and maybe best of all, I didn’t hear the phrase, “Well… [long, dramatic pause] for ME…” once in our discussion.

Guiding us on the journey (from left to right above):

• Amanda June Bracklein
• Linus Lee
• Rachel Martindale
• Bil Gaines

For hundreds of years, people have been debating stories about those in power versus stories about the working classes. Oedipus, Hamlet, and King George VI versus Everyman, Willie Loman, and Lionel Logue. The Kings Speech was really interesting because it displayed both types of story, and the interaction between the two distinct worlds of have’s and have-not’s.

There are reasons kings and queens still exist. As an American, it’s definitely an outsider’s perspective*, but royalty is comforting: they are a collective personification (“L’État, c’est moi”). We love the story of the common man, like Lionel Logue (a filthy, base actor, no less!) who subverts the established order of medical credentials (”I have no letters after my name”) and aristocratic titles (”My game, my rules”) who rises through sheer skill and gumption. George VI, though, became a symbol of defiance and national pride: a nation looked to him to find what they couldn’t find in themselves alone.

The Kings Speech was a neat interaction between establishment and subject. The King needed an actor to help him perform his duty, given him by Divine Right, and the actor needed the King’s help to make ends meet. The interaction between the two worlds was mutually beneficial: the King became an icon, an the actor became a knight.

Through it all, we got to see a great story. One man, damaged by his past and his family, goes through a process to find what he needs in the face of tremendous pressures and great evil. The other, having found a calling in life in the midst of great suffering and pain, is recognized for his skill and service, and becomes a hero.

*Did you know there’s an amendment to the Constitution (which could theoretically still be ratified!) which would revoke the citizenship of anyone who took a title or station from a foreign government?

2011 will forever be the year without a January: I fell ill… really ill… on January 4, and returned to life on January 31.

I feel great now, and am back on the job. Last night, I had a really wonderful evening attending the Chicago Independent Artists Network, and work on Launch Pad Casting Workshop is coming along.

So now that it’s Valentine’s Day (bah humbug), Happy New Year, everyone!

Occasionally, though, I feel the need to blurt something out. This is one of those times.

GOP-led House votes to repeal health care law

I think the Republicans are making a huge mistake by trying to repeal health care reform. This is my (understated) opinion. I don’t know the hard numbers involved, I don’t know the entire scope of the changes involved, but I do know that part of it involves requiring everyone to have health insurance and part of it involves requiring businesses to provide health insurance coverage for their employees. Furthermore, insurance companies may no longer deny service or coverage based on “pre-existing conditions.”

I’ve heard plenty of arguments against all these things, none of which are convincing in the slightest that this reform is a bad idea. I find them somewhat entertaining, and I’ve had some mighty fine debates on this matter whilst drinking beer…lots of beer.

There’s the argument that it hurts the insurance companies and prevents them from effectively providing help where needed. This is bullshit and we all know it. That’s like saying that by making BP clean up the oil spill they caused, their resources are crippled and they can no longer profitably operate, and they would then collapse and be completely unable to clean up the oil spill. Boo, hoo. If cleaning up your own mess destroys your global conglomerate, then perhaps the conglomerate is run by idiots. Same with insurance companies. If having more customers hurts your business because you’d then have to use more resources to help more customers, then your business is doomed anyway. And let’s face it: if one insurance company fails, another will rise up to take its place, and that new one will know how to deal with the new rules.

The same principle applies to small businesses – businesses of all sizes, in fact. By claiming small business owners can’t adjust to new laws, you are essentially claiming you have no faith in the business owners of America. Things change all the time, whether mandated by the government or not. The advent of the Internet has changed the entire landscape of most industries, and businesses have not only adapted but, on the whole, are doing better than ever before. Some of the older guys are getting shoved out by younger, more tech-savvy competitors, but that’s hardly a new phenomenon. If a politician stood up before a crowd and shouted that we must enact laws to take away the Internet, that politician would be laughed right off the stage.

Sure. It’ll make things awkward and difficult for a little while, until the change is complete. Change is hard, no one is arguing there. But at the end of it all, Americans will be healthier, stronger, and better suited to improve their communities. Quality of life in this country will improve. People suffer and families go broke from medical costs under the current system. To allow this to continue to your countrymen (and women) while you sit on your own pile of money is the very definition of unpatriotic.

It is my opinion that we have a moral obligation to help our country out. If that means I pay higher taxes so everyone can get to a doctor when they need to, I am okay with that.

And you know what? I actually have health insurance. I have really, really good health insurance. The pocket change we’re handing out as co-pays for all our recent trips to the doctor is a drop in the bucket of to what the full invoices actually are. I have great health coverage, and so does Devon. So when I say I don’t mind paying higher taxes so other people can have what I have, you better believe I mean it.

Big deal, I know this is probably a familiar rant to both sides of the issue, so why blog about it here? On this, of all blogs?

Because of my plan to rid myself of a day job this decade. I want to be my own boss, and I want to write fictitious words for a living. I currently work in an office - an engaging, friendly, interesting and fun office with really good health benefits for me and my wife - but nevertheless an office and a profession not for which I attended a damn fine university. And if I leave this office, we are on our own for health coverage.

And we have a baby on the way. That makes at least three individuals who will not have health care handed down from the Holy Private Sector.

So yes, I may one day find myself in the same boat. But I will adapt. I will plan for the worst. I will figure things out. By the time that happens, I certainly hope the health care system is fixed…and it won’t get fixed if Republicans in Congress ruin it for me. So my attitude is, in fact, both philanthropic and self-serving. I will happily pay higher taxes now if it means I am able to one day be self-employed in a creative and artistic capacity. I will continue to happily pay higher taxes then if other people are also able to be creative and still go see the doctor when they’re sick.

Richard Branson Launches Project, an iPad-Only Magazine: Project is “the first global magazine app for creative people about creative people.” Do you think this is the future of publishing?

PROJECT magazine demo - issue 1 from PROJECT on Vimeo.

I kind of just wanted to throw in my two cents: it’s not THE future of publishing, it’s just A future of publishing. Actually, let me correct myself: it’s A present state of publishing.

There are already digital reader-only books. There are web-only TV shows. There are digital subscriptions to newspapers and magazines. It seems only natural that someone should come up with an iPad-only magazine. It’s actually a little surprising to me that no one’s done it before. (Or maybe someone has, just not someone as high-profile as Virgin CEO Richard Branson.)

It bears noting, however, that while the concept seems less revolutionary than evolutionary, Project does look like one of the coolest magazines the world has ever seen.

That should stomp out any hope of debate on whether the “future” of publishing is this or that. It’s all of it. Now stop worrying about the future of publishing and just publish. That, apparently, is what Project aims to do.

It makes me wish I had an iPad. It’s the first thing that has really made me wish I had an iPad.

Except, of course, for Angry Birds.

Somehow, I didn’t know about Xtranormal until just this weekend. I mean, I’d seen a few clever videos that made their way around the internet, but I didn’t realize that you could create an account and make your own. So I did.

I made a series called “SadBots” which is about (you guessed it) emo robots. So put on your thrift-store sweater, put your Morrissey LPs aside, and get ready to relate to emotionless (yet poetic) talking robots.

Print is, however, more specialized than it used to be. There aren’t quite as many books or magazines as there were ten or fifteen years ago, and there are definitely fewer news publications. In my time here in Chicago, I’ve seen at least three highly popular weekly print papers cease paper production altogether.

What this means – among other meanings – is that people who print things are much more discerning about what to print and what not to print. The e-mail revolution is a win for trees, but for writers, it narrows your chances of getting your work into print, and it drastically reduces your odds of getting paid to write.

Luckily for someone who, like me, is actively planning to make a living by writing, this also means that once you’ve gotten published, chances are your relationships with publishing houses and editors and agents are way more solid than they might have been had you started in the early 90’s. (Remember zines? Yeah. Point made.)

And here we are in a day and age when finding a solid career is as hard as it has ever been - not only is it harder to find any kind of paying work at all than it’s been in a century, it’s more and more difficult these days to describe all the things you do on one business card. So, while I am open to other sources of income, I want to be able to answer “writer” when asked at parties what I do. And I’ve got the ambition now. Personally, I was not particularly driven in my early twenties; I was very content to ride whatever wave came my way. Now that I know what I want, I’m eager for action.

So what will I do? What am I doing right now? Well, I’m working on a novel. I’ve also got a book of poetry that I’ve submitted to a publisher; if they decline, I’ll submit elsewhere. Constantly. I won’t give up until somebody picks it up. And I’ll do the same with the novel once it’s ready. And I’ll work to get plays I’ve written picked up and performed. I’ll work my ass off and network everywhere I can. I’m gonna grab a piece of the print pie. (Print pie? Really?)

I believe in this plan – I will get published, I will get enough money from it to pay the bills, and I will continue to expand my body of work as a creative and entertaining storyteller. I can do it. No offense, day job, but your days are numbered.

***

I just re-read this article before publishing on the blog. It’s actually kind of boring. Sorry about that. I won’t be trying to sell this blog post to anyone any time soon. Here’s a music video to make it worth your time:

Two versions of the same piece, one of them illegal. Imagine having to commission a text with the same meter, rhyme scheme, and key words as Robert Frost’s “Stopping By Woods on a Snowy Evening” while at the same time being a coherent, emotionally resonant text befitting the music. Or, I guess I should say, imagine having to write it, especially after the original version had already enjoyed numerous successful performances nationwide. This is what is necessary when one is sued for copyright infringement by the estate of a long-dead, universally respected poet.

The poem becomes public domain in 2038 and Eric Whitacre, the composer, has stated that he would not revert to the original in that instance. Which do you prefer? Why? Is it the subject matter or the actual constants and vowels of the text itself?

The TED talk Mandelbrot gave earlier this year is a little over 17 minutes long, and worth every second of it, so if you’ve got the time, do yourself the favor.

The main point Mandelbrot made in his talk was about the infinite complexity stemming from simple rules, which succinctly sums up his entire contribution to mathematics. The reason I feel obligated to repost it all here on Tip Your Waiter is twofold: it’s a statement that can be applied to both art and life. Art is obvious and needs no particular discussion, but life…life is infinitely complex but can be handled by starting from simple rules.

As Mandelbrot describes, new things can be discovered by looking at something you’ve seen a thousand times before, so you should always take a fresh eye to it. So if I can’t figure out a decent plan to rid my life of this day job, I’ll simply take a step back, look at it again, and seek out the simplicity. I’ll find the formulae needed sooner or later. I’ve got a feeling it’s something to do with getting money to come to me, and then recycling it back smartly into the world around me.