Dictation from the Universe
Is it right to talk about the decisions we're going to make?
Hardwired
From an interview with writer Julian Gough:
We’re hardwired to be storytellers, and when we look back on our lives we build them into stories. And the more we find out about the nature of human consciousness, the clearer it is that we are making up stories after the facts a lot of the time, to make sense of decisions that we’ve made at a totally unconscious level: we have to make them into a story in order to navigate our own personal universe.
In that same interview Gough talks about working to a totally open brief to write the Minecraft (hint: a video game phenomenon) ending, and the unusual way his work resonates with the audience - it leaves them thinking. Ignore the slightly sarcastic tone of the suggestion for a moment, I think one of the best currencies we have at the moment is the extended length of a thought.
Intent
Many a time I am asked to provide an advance "write-up" of how I see a project and the kind of work I am going to do on it. I see this as summarising the work beforehand, talking about the work, before I have actually done the work.
There are two things wrong with this:
- Talking about the work instead of doing the work.
- Describing the result before it actually exists.
Creativity is about exploring ideas, a high number of which fail, says important man Seth Godin. And it's risky. So by providing an early roadmap we lock the exploration process, taking a huge chunk of the creative magic away, by not allowing things outside of that roadmap to occur.
Risk
Embracing risk is not easy. That's not how companies run and that's not how I usually get paid for my work, especially the music side of it. But let's entertain the thought for a minute.
Three times in 2011, due to time constraints, I was trusted blindly. I did not have to explain anything in advance, and subsequently the work did not need to be corrected by someone. The clients were happy and I will hold these projects very close to my heart for a long time. On three other occasions, the explanations came first, then the work, then the clients kept asking for revisions. Awkward. Expensive.
That's a lot of coincidence.
With both types of people I get my projects from, I have either a) worked with them already, or b) been recommended by someone. That's the beauty of word-of-mouth.
Film directors are happy with just sound. They never ask me to fill three roles at once, or I just turn down everything that's not "sound post". They give me their script and leave me alone without asking for a roadmap. I get trust from them more often.
Creative directors will usually want music+sound. (Under pressure from corporate types) they want the roadmap first thing, a quote to go with it, and the assurance that the work will be fresh and original, usually without having much completed work to serve as an anchor.
Sure, we can do that, no problem. But the combined risk includes an uncertain roadmap, an incorrect schedule, and work of questionable originality (decisions under pressure are usually risk-free). In simple words one can't be sure what will be done, when it will be done, and whether it would be special. Add to that the risk of reversing the natural flow of things Gough talks about above - by asking for explanation of actions not yet committed.
Surely that amount of risk is just the same as any open brief. Definitely higher than that of a brief on the back of some work already completed. And let's not forget word of mouth. The reason we met in the first place was most likely work done to a more liberal rule.
