Gapingvoid

Here's the problem as I see it: most natural interactions you have with other people almost always involve a "social object" (Here's a good introduction on the concept: http://gapingvoid.com/2007/12/31/social-objects-for-beginners/ ).

Online dating sites really don't provide any useful social objects other than photos and "interests". Even socially intelligent people are going to generally fumble around a bit if they're forced to try to create a conversation with no real context. "So.. uh.. you're interested in skiing. I also like skiing too!"

The other problem is that expressions of interest are incredibly overt. I think the sites tend to ignore the power of flirting. The whole point of flirting is that there has to be a sense of uncertainty. That you MIGHT be interested, if they're cool... Without a sense of flirting, you end up with the uncomfortable "shopping" sort of metaphor. I mean, think about something like facebook -- I can comment on a girls link and say something clever, without being incredibly obvious about being interested, but if she's also interested there's at least a little bit of play that can go on there, right?

I don't think the solution to the dating problem is social networks per se, but there has to be some way of signalling some interest without the incredibly overt mechanisms dating sites currently offer, and there has to be a way of interacting that is a bit more indirect.

Incidentally, while I don't think World of Warcraft is a great dating…

You're not the only one. I wouldn't categorize my current place of employment as "enterprise", but it sucks not being able to design to your full potential. It's an agency, so you can't give the client the best you can do unless they're willing & able to pay for that (and many aren't).

I'd recommend doing as many side projects as you can. I know it can be hard to find the time (I have a one year old son so I'm familiar with the struggle) but if you can put something together over a few nights/weekends, and really design the hell out of it, it'll make stomaching your day-job constraints much easier. Just remember the Sex and Cash theory: http://gapingvoid.com/?s=sex+and+cash+theory What you do at work is strictly to pay the bills. If you happen to enjoy it sometimes, great; but remember that what really matters is what happens outside of that.

Another example: I used to flip burgers, but I enjoy cooking at home. I wasn't ashamed of the nasty food I pumped out of that fast-food kitchen, because I knew it wasn't a representation of my cooking abilities, it was just what I did to pay the bills. Apply the same thinking to your situation.

I'm both an artist and a programmer and not great at either, but this is a common issue. I'd also recommend this essay: http://gapingvoid.com/2004/07/25/how-to-be-creative

All my attempts are terrible compared to what I imagined, even if I'm trying to be practical. Some of my attempts work themselves out to be better or different than what I imagined. Its a crapshoot.

There are a lot of creative things I've quit on that I probably shouldn't have. I think in the end we need to embrace and be compassionate with inner noob. Sure, he's not good and he gets odd stares from non-creative people, but in the end he's the guy who blossoms into the guy who everyone dismisses as an "overnight success" or "natural talent." Everyone forgets how incredibly difficult and demoralizing it is to waste time producing sub-par work just for the off-chance that you might get good at something.

I only have a minute but.. in McLeod's case, he took it from being a mere hobby of scribbling on the back of business cards, through to refining the concept of the "social object" and, more recently, the "cube grenade." Going into what this is all about is a bit much here but this might help: http://gapingvoid.com/2007/10/24/more-thoughts-on-social-objects/ - Crucially, though, his art is specifically focused on business and is primarily sold within a business context - no galleries, often used for offices, etc.

Hirst.. you could talk about for hours and go round in circles, but if you follow him for a bit you'll see a very savvy business mind at work. Not many artists have a couple hundred million dollars in their bank accounts. It's not a cynical money grab though; he's got some great ideas going on.

IMHO, both sides of the argument are valid. Both Money and Passion are important.

Hugh MacLeod has a great perspective on this:

THE SEX & CASH THEORY: "The creative person basically has two kinds of jobs: One is the sexy, creative kind. Second is the kind that pays the bills. Sometimes the task in hand covers both bases, but not often. This tense duality will always play center stage. It will never be transcended."

A good example is Phil, a NY photographer friend of mine. He does really wild stuff for the indie magazines- it pays nothing, but it allows him to build his portfolio. Then he’ll go off and shoot some catalogues for a while. Nothing too exciting, but it pays the bills.

Source: http://gapingvoid.com/ie

I'm sorry, but it's really difficult to take that "seminal work" seriously when that work is an in-depth analysis of the "MacLeod Model of organizational sociology".

Do you know what the "MacLeod Model" is? A cartoon on the back of a business card, posted to the web without comment nine years ago: http://gapingvoid.com/2004/06/27/company-hierarchy/

Michael O'Church might have some interesting things to say, but when he extrapolates pages of meaning from a cartoon that's just trying to be humorous, it says more about Michael O'Church than anything else.