Artists: Its not just about the money!

Share |

The last thing we need is the government picking winners....even those people who profess or appear to be worth the effort. Successful recording artists are highly lucrative. Why does government need to finance them? If you want to sanction the support of artists et al, then I suggest you invest your own money in these artists. My suggestion is - request a share of the royalties - say $5 for every dollar invested in their first album, $3 from their 2nd album, $1 from every sale from their 3rd. That seems fair! Just in case they are a one-race horse.

Is it plausible that Pip would write better music if she struggled with the need to pay her own way? No one writes lyrics about how they lived off the government. Is it possible that she did not write the lyrics she professes to 'feel'. Feel it girl...feel it! Feel the pain of taxpayers paying your way. My guess is - living overseas is part of the process of forgetting that others paid for her 'success'. That goes for all those artists who look to government for support, or sanction governments who support them and others. Its not about giving. Its about the 'taking' that makes this giving possible.

Spare a thought for those struggling to survive on the money they actually earned during this recession who cannot afford Pip's album. Even if they attended one of her free concerts, if she offers them to investors, I wonder if the message of her lyrics is...how do I got money from the government. Nope....no one sings about that. You might wonder. I reckon I could string together a swanky tune. Are you the type of cynics to request a verse?

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Racial prejudice in NZ

Share |

NZ does have a problem with racial prejudice. This must rank as a significant problem for a country which is countenancing the benefits of foreign immigration and tourism. There are several problems:

1. Superficial contact by NZ citizens with foreigners

2. A significant disempowerment by New Zealanders

3. National stagnation and the associated poor government policy

NZ people don't really understand foreigners because they don't engage with them. They snub their noses at them, all the while preserving some public precept of 'political correctness'.

New Zealanders might well celebrate the democracy which gives them a pretense of empowerment or 'participation'. The reality is that democracy gives them no effective opportunity to engage on public policy, and if given the opportunity, a great many of them would lack the self-assuredness to do so anyway. Does that mean it should be denied them? No. Does it mean their opinions should carry some weight? No. It means democracy is a flawed concept. Nothing is right by 'virtue' of the majority believing it to be right. Facts are more important than perceptions, and it is merely protection of the facts by other members of society which protects people from realising so. It might be self-evident to people of science, or people held 'ultimately' accountable like doctors, engineers, and the like, but the reality is that our political system gives primacy to perceptions. So NZ's racists can preserve their values along with their anonymity.

NZ is the farm. It might have a high number of foreigners living here, but that is just the 'appearance' because most of them are born in 'compatible' countries like the UK, America, Australia, and the Pacific Islands.

Perhaps the best opportunity for dispelling racist beliefs is to allow people to comprehend the value of others. One of the problems getting work for foreigners is the prejudice in the community. It is very hard. A foreigner needs the validation of a Westerner in order to get recognition. It is easier where a NZ'er has lived overseas. It is easier in the cities and those areas with significant tourism or Asian communities. I was out for dinner last night, and the waitress did not even acknowledge my Asian guests. They are fluent English speakers...and yet there was perhaps an unwillingness to deal with them. They might not have noticed unless I pointed it out.

Racism is a form of ignorance to be sure...but we can say that about anything. More significantly it is a failure to think...a failure to judiciously gather evidence, make differentiations when necessary, and to recognise that whilst generalisation is part of the knowledge formation, so it understanding the context (i.e. Pertinent factors). The problem is these people are not thinking because they have been protected. NZ is a protected socialist state, and so long as it lives behind the coveted protection of farm exports and regulated property prices, it is not going to succeed.

It is always my way to blame government because in most cases the folly extends back to government policy, or the culture which is embedded in the same values which preserves our democratic tradition. Mindless democracy. Until people are challenged intellectually, this country is no going to prosper, and if we step outside moral relativism, the entire world will be held back in absolute terms.

The historical legacy needs to change or NZ will be left behind. You might think 'all well and good', but the reality is that NZ needs foreign population because of the brain drain of the 'more astute' New Zealanders to Australia...if not further afield. Australia steals NZ minds right out of university. NZ needs to change its model or its just going to drift backwards until the day it makes a huge oil discovery. You live in hope!

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

NZ's Next Top Model....and the winner is Covergirl

Share |

It is easy to get caught up in these reality TV shows. I tend to watch the talent shows, and lately it is NZ's Next Top Model and Australia's X Factor.

It is easy to forget that these shows are legitimate competitions. The reality however is that they are 'managed affairs', in as much as the entrants are selected on the basis of their marketability. It is not about finding the best model, i.e. The one who has the best skills for modelling, or the 'X factor' in terms of best commercial performance. Its about finding the person who best engenders the commercial interests of the production house.

With respect to NZ's Top Model, it is a very good production. But it has to be remembered that these shows are financed by sponsors, and in this case, Covergirl is going to be looking for magazine sales, or engendering makeup sales. How does it do that? Well....a good way would be to create the pretense that the 'competition' is a real competition. Its not. The production house, which is sympathetic to the values of the sponsor, is going to ensure that its interests are primary. Covergirl is looking for new sales, new markets. The best market is ugly girls with low self-esteem who want to think for a moment that they are beautiful in their looks. You could argue that being a Best Top Model is not about looks, but the reality is that such magazines are trying to subjectivise beauty such that anyone can aspire to it. Why? Because if beauty is subjective, the market is open to anyone...which makes everyone vulnerable, and in need of external validation.

By promoting Danielle, an awkward, self-doubting Hobo to the top ranks of the show, she becomes a 'cover girl' for a new market which never thought they had a chance. But also it has the slip-side of making pretentious 'stunners' feel a little vulnerable.

The reason why I think this show is a commercial stunt is:

1. Sponsors need to be appeased - their influence is greatest in the early stages of a show because basically they underwrite its production. This gives sponsors a lot of power.

2. Producers are doing their own casting - so they can pick winners from the start

3. Producers can influence the outcomes of the contestants merely with a few 'judgemental' words, knowing that they are insecure, vulnerable 16-19yo girls with elevated pretensions of being a 'top model'. For example on the last show, Colin says to some of the girls that 'the other girls did not think you would be in the top 3'. It sounds a bit crabby given that she was the most likely to win against Danielle ('the hobo') and Elsa.

Of course the show highlights the importance of presentation, beauty in the physical form, and it also highlights some of the physiological and psychological factors of human nature. These shows are interesting to watch...a display of culture, but one cannot take the results too literally. It is amazing what a bit of make-up and theatrical improvisation can do for a person...but then I guess that is the role of the show....to sell make up and home beauty. Our goal is to sell books...if you are reading..my job is done.

You can see the last episode of NZ's Next Top Model here for the next 14 days only.

The same factors can be seen in X Factor. The commercial variables are the same. There is no particular sponsor advanced, however there is a tendency to have a few 'unknowns' as well as a few proven artists like Altien Childs to keep viewers watching. The trick is to keep us entertained, and both programs do a good job of it, but it helps to retain a sense of reality. Let's now become a victim of crass commercialism.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com