Week Two: Reclaiming Our Narrative, Reclaiming Our Time

This week we will proclaim and define ourselves using our voices.

Week Two: Reclaiming Our Narrative, Reclaiming Our Time

“This statement will be short. There is much work to do-- and we in Black studies are here doing our work.

Black and Brown students have valiantly fought alongside a diverse coalition to hold the university accountable for its part in the genocide of the Palestinian people, and to draw inextricable global connections to the common instruments of displacement, occupation, and violence. For this, they have been, at turns, ignored, scorned, and now hunted and brutalized. As faculty, we have and continue to hold all of our students in this moment in which they, as June Jordan wrote in her Moving Towards Home, have “become Palestinian”-- displaced by draconian suspensions.

Hunted by police. Proud boys menacing outside their dorms. Their “idyllic” “elite” campus that provided a chimera of respite to prepare for a lifetime of resistance to anti-Blackness, now occupied by a police force well known for its brutality. Police in riot gear were invited to their campus by university trustees and leadership who have shattered the compact of care that holds any community together.

Visiting the encampment, I saw what the Jewish human rights activist Dorothy Zellner called “the world as it should be” as she toured the space. Students studied, played, ate, and planned for a new world together, across many differences. The encampment was never the problem.

I believe the students are right to hold themselves, their institution, and our community accountable through protest. Fifty-six years after Columbia ‘68, history has in fact absolved those intrepid, principled students who were called thugs and criminals. I support current students’ demand to stop displacement, from Harlem to Palestine. I join them in calling for financial disclosures, and financial divestment from Israel, including Israeli universities, so long as the state continues its brutal occupation, system of apartheid, and ongoing genocide in Gaza. My colleagues and I have already insisted that students suspended for nonviolent protest be reinstated– their suspensions revoked, and disciplinary records expunged. I believe that, eventually, the students will win. I look forward to the time when the university will accede to their demand to join people of conscience all over the world who have called for an immediate, permanent ceasefire in Gaza; and release of the hostages taken by Hamas and prisoners taken by Israel.

What do we do?

We care for one another and look toward the new world coming. As intellectuals and artists: we think and write and make-- we try to connect. We raise our voices and prepare to publish. These tools are not sufficient to this moment, and no one tool is the only tool, but these are some of ours. We reach toward allies.

“What we not gone do”– at least for me– is this: Unless our students require otherwise, I will not step one Black foot on that campus until the occupying force is uninvited. By handing the campus over to the NYPD through the rest of the school year, Columbia is increasing violence against Black faculty, students, and staff, who have already been harassed, lied on, and beat up by police on campus.

A number of my dear stalwart white and white-passing colleagues have shown solidarity, and will no doubt continue. I shall not see you at today’s noon rally. To them, and to all of those who were taught that police are our “helpers”: help those of us who will be working elsewhere today.

Many of my Black and Brown colleagues are still traumatized and in shock. (Personally, I feel clearer than ever.) They need time to give care and get care. We will carry on doing the work of the long Black intellectual tradition, which the founder of IRAAS, Manning Marable characterized as “descriptive”, “corrective,” and “prescriptive”. Yes, Audre Lorde: we are doing our work. We learn and teach and hold one another–close, and accountable. My own work needs a modicum–even a naive appearance of freedom.

Therefore, the current Director of IRAAS is now in exile.”

–Dr. Jafari S. Allen, Director of IRAAS

Summary:

This week we will proclaim and define ourselves using our voices. This means we need to know what are our values and what is our purpose, and the only way to do that is by examining our relationship to conflict and collaboration. When we embrace generative conflict as a natural part of art as a culture and a market–before long–we will differentiate our egos from our identities. This is key to being an artist, because you need to understand each and every work of art you make is subject to scrutiny. When we take on our art as a representation of our value, we objectify ourselves and skew the narrative so all criticism, no matter how constructive or collaborative, becomes negative–losing the lessons that we all work so hard for. This chapter will allow you to relinquish your work as its own being entirely, not an object assessment of your value based on the response it may evoke. The scrutiny, hardship, misinterpretation, and devaluing of your work is then transferred onto that object or performance itself, and it is no longer your business what anyone thinks of it. Most importantly, it will be because you have shifted your attention to some other project entirely–stretching the length and breadth of your work as a whole. The identity map exercise will unravel our desires, values, heritage, perspectives, interests, and inspirations that inform our relationship with our art. This is especially helpful if you find that you are the business, and–like me–your name is reflected on every single piece of work you create. It is also helpful if you are a performer and find it hard to delegate yourself and your emotions from certain works you create. This week identifies harmful thought patterns based on our experiences that prevent us from creating from our highest good as we establish boundaries for our path.

Questions to consider:

• What is my social location?

  • What do I have authority on, based on empirical evidence?

• What is within my control?

• What if conflict is a career maker instead of a career breaker?

• How are my works of art missing valuable edits that could be garnered by constructive criticism?

  • How much am I getting in the way and how much is the rest of the world getting in the way of my art’s growth?

Recommended tools:

• Art supplies of your choice (optional)

• Big sheets of paper (optional)

• Last week’s ‘To-Do’ lists

• Folder (for storage)

• Inner dialogue notebook or digital document/file

• Separate notebook/file for affirmations (optional)

• A planner or digital planner

Make sure you stay on top of developmental materials from exercises that recur every day such as the inner dialogue and ‘To-Do’ lists. My teaching method in this program relies on routine and scaffolding, which requires you to make use of all the tools you develop at every part of this process.

“It’s not your job to be understood. It’s your job to understand yourself.” -Cicely Belle Blain

Stop hurting yourself.

It’s easier said than done. Everyone abuses themselves in small portions. It starts as little microaggressions against ourselves: do better, we think, talk better, be better. It becomes subconscious. So what, we think, it’s a little bit of Taco Bell and Zeus TV, we can do better tomorrow.

That’s how it starts…

Suddenly it has been fast food and television for three days straight, and we are wondering why it is so damn hard to make anything creative happen. Whatever your vices are, whether it is boxed wine and movies, too many blunts all day, cuddling all day with your pet, or doing nothing productive whatsoever, consider this a sign from your ancestors that the bad habits have got to stop when they reach the point of addiction. There are no virtue arguments to this, even the squeaky cleanest of us have deep dirty indulgences, and that’s healthy! It makes us human–but one of the Yamas in our inventory for this program is Brahmacharya: moderation. When we ignore our ethical responsibility for moderation on our creative path we promote abuse towards ourselves.

On “self-abuse”:

Self-abuse, no matter how impactful to others, only serves to directly harm one thing–the ego. When we abuse ourselves we find that it is incredibly convincing to us, and incredibly unrealistic, unreasonable, and incomprehensible to the people around us who love us. That makes sense, they choose to be around us and love us every single day. On the other hand, you don’t get to choose to be a different person every single day. No matter how we shape, transform, and define ourselves, we are very much stuck with ourselves. If we are going to be stuck with this person (ourselves) that we are forced to get to know every single day, and if we–as I mentioned in earlier chapters– cannot express our full selves without being politicized, scrutinized, or judged every single day on things we can and also cannot control, we should at least be able to control the narrative. Once you unlock this, you will notice that your most powerful affirmations will be retaliations to your strongest moments of self-abuse. Once I indulged myself to go face-to-face with my deepest violence towards myself, I found that “I have no value.” would become “I am valuable.”

“If there’s a higher power, it cannot be rooting for me.” becomes “I am a child of God/blessed/favored by the spirit of my ancestors.”

“I am not capable of being loved.” becomes “I am loved.”

“My emotions can scare away people who truly love me.” becomes “My vulnerability is my strength.”

“My family didn’t see the racism I was experiencing from them and others growing up.” becomes “My perspectives can create positive change.”

“I’m not smart.” becomes “I am learning something new every day/I am intelligent.”

Most importantly: “I want to die.” becomes “I want to live/I have purpose.”

I’m not just writing this self-help book to influence people, I want people to use this book to prevent the suicide of young Black and brown creatives.

"There are no missed opportunities. Somebody can tell you that you have failed, but if you take an opportunity, it is a lesson, and nobody can take that from you."

• Carla Hall ([at] the Intersection Summit at the Apollo Theater in Harlem, October 2023)

One thing Camus did to contradict his work was to commit suicide. Imagine the minds he could have changed on suicide had he taken his own advice. Imagine the people he could have saved from themselves amidst his increasingly darker future. Frankly, I do not want to remind you of the horrendous amount of suicides that take place among young Black and brown men and women–I also do not want to remind you of the young Black and brown women who are framed for killing themselves every day when something much more evil and insidious has occurred, even unintentionally. I do not want to remind you, but unfortunately, it is my responsibility to.

The fact of the matter is that times seem darker now than they ever were. More and more Black and brown people are finding out that things don’t really get better or worse for us, they just change a whole lot. Racism, misogyny, and homophobia–even within our own communities– are not going anywhere, and although our rates of suicide are not higher than our white counterparts, new federal data is showing that the suicide rate among Black adolescents is increasing faster than other racial and ethnic groups. More and more we are finding there is no safe place to put this rage, especially as a young creative person. Black voices deserve to be heard, and I cannot stand by and watch as these disparities kill our people from within.

“Art is only important to the extent that it aids in the liberation of our people.” - Elizabeth Catlett

On a personal note, there is not a day that goes by that I do not struggle with depression, anxiety, rage, and constant imposter syndrome. The smarter someone becomes, the more likely they are to be upset with themselves and others. The more I know, the angrier I become, the more helpless I feel, the more responsibility I take on. This is the sad reality we have come to witness today–the suppression of emotions, identities, beliefs, hurt, and trauma, all succumbing to themselves and manifesting into violence. It does not matter how “strong” or “weak” we are or feel, some of these experiences manifest into self-violence, and others manifest into violence towards others. Abolition from within our work and our minds requires that we shift the narrative that we communicate with ourselves and others through radical honesty, dialogue, and ethical, carnal, passionate, expression.

We cannot let others control our narrative and fulfill what is expected on the path of Thee Artist. For true creative enrichment, we need to define ourselves. That means staying true to the honesty and the history of who we are and never letting anyone else define what race or ethnicity we identify as, how we get to speak, how we get to dress, what we are called, how to pronounce our name and definitely not how we get to create art.

Like I said before, it is easier said than done. To define ourselves we need to know our boundaries. To know our boundaries we need to know our personal needs. To know our personal needs, we need to know how to distinguish them from our desires. To know our desires, we must understand how to delineate them from our mere interests. An interest can be a hobby, a desire is a career. A desire is a preference, a need is mandatory. A need is a personal environmental requirement, a boundary is a code of conduct. All these variables are self-defined, no one else can or should do it for you. If you find yourself constantly pushing the responsibility of your needs, desires, interests, and boundaries on others, you may be engaging in self-sabotage.

Self-sabotage as self-abuse:

We hear about self-sabotage a lot, but what is it really? Self-sabotage can look like going back to a toxic ex-partner, or reaching out to a family member who you know for a fact would rather shame you for your mistakes than help you. It can be reading back your inner dialogue too early, or having someone else read it, or, God forbid, giving you feedback. Self-sabotage is praying for an opportunity to prove yourself and then rejecting the first one that comes around because you have not tried it before, or are intimidated by the audience/size/timeline of the project, or maybe because you did the same thing in the past and regret the job you did before. One example of self-sabotage I have experienced as an art lover was when an emerging, developing visual art vendor was selling art in a low visibility pay-to-play show in Detroit (we will talk about just how bad these are for your career later–one can argue this is also a form of self-sabotage). She stopped me when I tried to take a photo of her paper statue. “No photography, PLEASE!” she quipped at me. While I understand her sensitivity, this is no way to create opportunities for yourself as an artist. Not only was I curating a paid opportunity for artists that upcoming fall, but I wanted to connect with her to see if she could make something bigger. This quip was followed up by “--BUT YOU CAN FOLLOW ME ON INSTAGRAM.” I can’t appreciate her beautiful artwork, but I can be her follower. Yikes. No thanks. I was soured on the whole situation and didn’t follow her, didn’t follow up, and frankly was no longer interested, no matter how beautiful the statue was. If you are not comfortable with the photography of your work, do not vend. Do not make visual art that you allow others to see. Do not show in exhibits that allow photography. Also, don’t even think about showing in exhibits that do not either, as there are entire websites and forums dedicated to taking pictures in museums and galleries that do not allow photography. I say this as an artist whose work is constantly taken out of context, it is not my right to deprive others of their interpretation of any work of art. That is the beginning of tyranny. To this day, I do not understand how she thought that interaction would give her work a platform of any kind. In a market that relies on being seen, say ‘goodbye’ to ever being ‘discovered’. The ugly fact is, we all have to start somewhere.

However, as stated last week, it is not healthy to go into an art career reliant on attention alone. Another example of self-sabotage as self-abuse is letting snakes in on your creative processes, especially your private ones. The applause you are expecting from them will not happen. You may even know this going into the interaction with them. They do not applaud anyone, except maybe themselves (maybe not). They thrive on jealousy and that keeps them stagnant and often one-track-minded. Snake people may even find your creative immersion and enrichment disturbing, out of fear that it is “easy” to be creative (it is, it’s just not easy turning that into art). Perhaps it may make the snake look lazy or dispassionate. It is for this reason that snakes live to outright sabotage you, so naturally, being close to them is a form of self-sabotage. The snake will always guilt trip instead of attempting to be accountable. Too much of this becomes self-abuse. Heed my warning and save yourself from yourself. ESTABLISH AND REINFORCE YOUR BOUNDARIES.

"When satire is confused with reality, it becomes hard for satire to function.” - Flannery O'Connor

That being said, snakes, just as the beautiful and majestic animal itself, come in many shapes, sizes, colors, and creeds. In this book, we will cover a lot of their flavors. There are two VERY SPECIFIC types of snakes that you DO NOT, BY ANY MEANS need to engage, fraternize, or play nice with. These snakes are known as clout chasers and energy vampires.

On clout chasers and energy vampires:

Energy vampires:

While they may seem charismatic, powerful, wealthy, successful, charming, inventive, or persuasive, these absolute demons usually end up being destructive to people in their vicinity, loving drama, merely believing they are charismatic, powerful, charming, inventive, and persuasive, often with no real proof–and even further, can be narcissistic and have full-on God complexes upon actually getting to know them. Dubbed very accurately as a “crazymaker” in “The Artist’s Way” by Julia Cameron, I want to extend this definition to full-on energy vampires. It’s not just a funny joke from the series “What We Do In The Shadows”, these are real people to be avoided at all costs to ensure the safety of your life and career.

The energy vampire’s perceived, exuding, and misleading “confidence” is often reinforced and uplifted by others who prop them into a public figure or “example” without much proof, examples, or actions to follow up on their narratives. Everyone around them serves as a “supporting cast, picking up their cues, their entrances, and exits, from the crazymaker’s (crazy) whims.” Their enablers serve them as “flying monkeys”, an allusion to The Wizard of Oz and “The Wiz” often used in abuse situations to describe the abuser’s tactic of scrounging up supporters to believe in their feigned innocence. Energy vampires are convincing. They will punch you in the face and tell you that you started a fight. Creatively, the biggest signature of an energy vampire is their inability to let others in, compromise, or collaborate–determined to ruin an entire project for the sake of their ego.

“You don’t need to become anything to be worthy. You existing, breathing in and out, heart beating, is enough as it is.” - Desiree Kaye Norwood, LPCC

Other traits of energy vampires:

Energy vampires have impeccably bad timing:

Energy vampires almost always inconveniently need something immediately. Worse, they will not repay the favor or help at any time when it is inconvenient for them. In their eyes, you are a tool, not a person.

Gossip:

Beware, whatever the energy vampire would say to you about someone else, they will say to someone else about you. It is the way gossip works, and the energy vampire thrives on gossip. Misinformation is their best tool–it triangulates people, keeping them monitored by their flying monkeys, who keep tabs on, distract, and maneuver people into their nonsense spiderweb.

Doubts:

Whether it is themselves or others, energy vampires feast on doubt. It’s the first step to pushing their pawns into misinformation cycles. If an energy vampire can smell unhealthy skepticism, they pounce.

Overbearing, controlling, overprotective and manic:

The energy vampire is overbearing, manic, paranoid, and doubtful. No shade, but Virgo behavior if a Virgo is an unhealthy person. The energy vampire has an unattainable fantasy in their mind with unreasonable expectations that everyone around them will somehow comply with without any awareness that’s what they’re doing. Energy vampire people do not get awesome reputations over time, just lawsuits and cult followings.

Breaks deals and destroys schedules:

This one goes without saying. Did the energy vampire you’re no doubt thinking of ever pay you back? Did they ever collaborate on that project they told you they would work with you on? Did they ever send you the link to those creative programs? Did they ever vouch for you when you were under fire? Yet somehow, they need you on a whim constantly. They need you to cancel your recital to watch their kids. They want you to take your private time and pay it out to them.

Demanding, always expecting special treatment:

This can also mean hypochondriac behavior, or perhaps even Munchausens byproxy. No matter how severe, if there is a person in your life who is constantly impeding your personal creative development with the need for special things, they might be an energy vampire. For me, this one hits home. My mom would do exactly what Julia Cameron describes as the accouterment of the energy vampire in “An Artist’s Path” for the first few years after her divorce from my father:

“The Crazymaker cooks her own special meal in a house full of hungry children and does nothing to feed the kids.”

My mom would say “I’m trying to lose weight,” which might as well have meant, “So, we are all going vegan and we are only going to eat the same vegan curry every day for six months.” To this day, I cannot accept store-bought vegan curry of any kind as a regular meal unless I have no other feasible option.

[On the question: “What can you share with the younger generation of Black women writers and writers in general?”] “Not to be afraid of difference. To be real, tough, loving–and to recognize each other. I can tell them not to be afraid to feel and not to be afraid to write about it. Even if you are afraid, do it anyway because we learn to work when we are tired, so we can learn to work when we are afraid. Silence never brought us anything. Survive and teach; that’s what we’ve got to do and to do it with joy.” - Audre Lorde

Gaslights you, discounts your truth, perspective, or reality:

Energy vampires have very selective memories. Somehow, a lot of their abuse, harm, or impact gets immediately lost in the translation of their minds. One of their favorite phrases is “That never happened”. We will dive more into this later on in this chapter.

Violates boundaries:

One of the energy vampire’s favorite activities is an open violation of trust, your body, or your mind. In the eyes of an energy vampire, nothing is off limits–not your brain, not your physicality, not your spirit. Off-color humor and passive-aggressive behavior are common, and backhanded compliments are among the only ones they give. The energy vampire never gets the camera on their phone out for your best moments, only to document your worst ones, often without your consent.

“Being “liked” is why y’all remain friends with predators, abusers and racists. People are “anti-racist” until it comes to their personal relationships. People hate “abuse until they have to confront it when it shows up in proximity to them. White supremacy has taught us it’s “uncool” to care. White supremacy taught us that disrupting the status quo is worse than violence itself. White supremacy taught us those who disrupt oppression are the enemy. White supremacy has taught you to be an accomplice in oppression by teaching you how to become a bystander. Your inability to be authentic is holding you back.”

• Butter Effect (IG: @buttereffectunplugged)

Steals from you:

Remember how we use the Yama in this creative journey? The energy vampire, just like the clout chaser, can often be found doing the opposite of almost every Yama, often to their complete detriment or demise. There is a very specific type of Yama that defines non-stealing. This Yama, Asteya, has some powerful core intentions. The most straightforward form of Asteya is not taking anything that doesn’t belong to us, whether it be material possessions, resources, or intellectual property. The tenant of non-stealing extends to other more crucial aspects of everyday life, such as respect for others' time and energy. Practicing Asteya means being mindful not to waste others’ time or drain their emotional or physical energy. This is the exact purpose of the energy vampire. The energy vampire steals your money, steals your money via the time you waste on them, and their arrangements also always cost time and money. The energy vampire steals your freedom by creating obligations and obligational drama. They may even rope you into doing things you would never do or even want to do without their influence. The energy vampire steals your happiness because they are incredibly critical of themselves and others. You will be picking them off the floor and out of the depth of their pain, and, in return, they will be making you into a crying puddle on the floor. Anything that was working for their individual development became siphoned into stealing that very thing from others.

When Thee Artist practices the tenant of Asteya, it’s about respecting others’ boundaries and using time with intention and gratitude. Overcoming envy and greed is another crucial aspect of this. There is contentment and freedom from envy in this world. By cultivating gratitude for what we have, we’re less likely to feel the need to take from others or wish for what they possess.

The final important tenant to Asteya is mindfulness of resource use. This aspect can encourage us to use only what we need and avoid overconsumption which leads to the greed and privilege that develops a lot of energy vampires and clout chasers themselves. This can apply to both material resources, like food and water, and less tangible resources. In this instance, that less tangible resource is your creativity itself. In practicing Asteya, the goal is to pull out our inner abundance and recognize that real fulfillment isn’t something we can gain from taking more, but from cultivating what we already have inside of us. This principle guides practitioners toward a path of integrity, generosity, and respect for the interconnectedness of all beings.

In sum, energy vampires are individuals who feed off others' time, energy, and emotional resources, often hiding behind a façade or a reality of charm, confidence, and neediness. These individuals create chaos in their wake, spreading drama, physical and non-physical violence, manipulating those around them, and violating boundaries. Recognizing their patterns of gaslighting, breaking commitments, spreading gossip, and constantly demanding attention is essential for maintaining personal well-being and protecting one's creative boundaries. While they may initially seem captivating or sympathetic, energy vampires ultimately drain those who interact with them, leaving one with little but exhaustion and frustration at the end of their nonsense. They may have a lot of friends, but one particular friend you may recognize is the clout chaser.

“Do not love half lovers

Do not entertain half friends

Do not indulge in works of the half talented

Do not live half a life

and do not die a half death

If you choose silence, then be silent

When you speak, do so until you are finished

Do not silence yourself to say something

And do not speak to be silent

If you accept, then express it bluntly

Do not mask it

If you refuse then be clear about it

for an ambiguous refusal is but a weak acceptance

Do not accept half a solution

Do not believe half truths

Do not dream half a dream

Do not fantasize about half hopes

Half a drink will not quench your thirst

Half a meal will not satiate your hunger

Half the way will get you no where

Half an idea will bear you no results

Your other half is not the one you love

It is you in another time yet in the same space

It is you when you are not

Half a life is a life you didn't live,

A word you have not said

A smile you postponed

A love you have not had

A friendship you did not know

To reach and not arrive

Work and not work

Attend only to be absent

What makes you a stranger to them closest to you

and they strangers to you

The half is a mere moment of inability

but you are able for you are not half a being

You are a whole that exists to live a life

not half a life”

• Kahlil Gibran

Clout Chasers:

While the energy vampire is often a mess, running rampant and causing duststorms in their wake, you may truly think that the clout chaser is a model citizen. This is what makes them so insidious. The main characteristic of the clout chaser is that they need to run for the mayor of pretty much everything. Virtue signaling is often their “bat signal”, and it usually relies on their hoards of flying monkeys as well. Clout chasers run (and win) elections, clout chasers document literally everything, and clout chasers need to constantly look good and be liked. Here are some other examples of clout-chaser behavior:

Other traits of clout chasers:

A ton of virtue arguments:

The clout chaser benefits from the myth of virtue. In The Myth of Sisyphus and other existential essays, Camus explored the concept of virtue as part of his larger philosophical outlook on the absurd and human existence. To them, the only virtue is self-acceptance and the persistence of survival. From the clout chaser’s perspective, the more they look “good” and placate niceties with everyone around them, they are absolved from the evil we all take part in from time to time, and thus must have the “correct” and most “popular” opinions to uphold the perception they are of more virtue (value) than other people. The clout chaser is a sad result of a systemic capitalist hierarchy that commodifies people based on their actions punitively. This myth is colonial in nature and has been used to subjugate Black people worldwide using tactics such as organized religion, respectability politics, and unattainable standards of excellence.

Painfully altruistic:

This is one I have to be accountable for in myself all the time. To name another philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche argued that much of what is called "altruism" is a hidden form of egoism where individuals perform good deeds to elevate their status or satisfy their desires. The virtue arguments of the clout chaser are often followed by painful, self-sacrificing martyristic actions of altruism. There is a fatal flaw in John F. Kennedy’s Famous quote, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”, how are Black Americans supposed to pour from an empty cup? How many more generations of Black intellectuals must this nation sacrifice, forcing them to purge all their desires and needs for survival merely to uphold a democracy that never existed? Nietzsche critiqued moral systems that promote selflessness, suggesting that they often serve as a way for individuals to gain approval from others or to exert power indirectly. He saw this as a form of what he called "slave morality," where altruism is praised, not out of genuine concern for others, but as a way for weaker individuals to assert moral superiority over stronger, more self-directed individuals. What would you rather be?

This idea also surfaces in psychological theories, such as psychological egoism, which suggests that even seemingly selfless actions are ultimately done for self-benefit, whether it's for praise, personal satisfaction, or to avoid guilt. This mindset is increasing more and more as a type of collective insanity embedded in our institutions and imbued in our social interactions as an origin.

“To name your calling a hobby is blasphemy.”

- Joel Uili

Obsessed with taking photos:

Because the clout chaser is altruistic in nature, they cannot do a damn thing without a camera in their face. That is, they cannot do anything good without a camera in their face. The clout chaser takes photos of themselves painting a public community-centered mural and then leaves dirty paintbrushes and rollers around without cleaning up after themselves, leaving the clean-up to the people who really care. It was for this reason that I banned photography working on my largest mural project so far. Certain people were only there for a photo-op, and I wanted to give justice to those who were there every day doing the work and showing up for the project by giving everyone an equal plane. Be here if you want a community work of public art. Do not be here if you want a photo-op. Unfortunately, the people who wanted the most photo-ops were the people who left more work for those who actually invested in the project. This is not to say that you should not document your work or your process. It also doesn’t mean shitting on people who are getting media attention for the work they put in every day. Being put in front of a camera and constantly putting yourself in front of a camera are two different things. I have been accused of “putting myself in the front of everything” because of interviews where, beforehand, I felt uncomfortable being thrust to the front of the media. It didn’t mean I wasn’t centered anyway. While clout chasers can be celebrities, they are usually regular people who are convinced they are celebrities. It’s not their fault. Every day it is getting easier and easier to gain what one would perceive as a large “following” on social media, while the world around you has no clue who you actually are. That trait is definitive of a clout chaser–a thousand “followers” but not one real-life friend.

“Hope is a discipline.”

-Mariame Kaba

Everything in their life is about social media, and their “followers” are as miserable as they are:

Speaking of social media, a lot of the “content” a clout chaser develops is made with the intent to create “evidence” of their virtue arguments. This “evidence” is posted immediately and directly to all their social media outlets. Social media has created collective narcissism at an alarming rate. Studies increasingly show that social media use is associated with higher narcissistic traits, particularly among young people, where individuals not only become more self-focused but also seek admiration and attention from others online. For some reason, the people with the most self-captioned Instagram stories, all telling everyone they have to “move in silence”, are the loudest people on the internet. The clout chaser is absolutely addicted to perception, and their fix is best represented by the validation they get on the internet. This is dangerous for the well-being of all individuals because the selling point for social media to tech companies, apps, marketing specialists, and sometimes even your good ol’ American government is that most of the people who “follow” you online do not have your best interests at heart.

The opposite is true. Do yourself a favor and look through all of your “followers” online. I promise you, most of these people do not like you, and only “follow” in expectation of personalized documentation of your imminent downfall. If you feel pressure and anxiety around your social media, this is probably why. A Pew Research study found that a significant portion of social media users are exposed to misinformation, online harassment, and hate-filled content, which suggests that social media may be an environment of hostility rather than genuine support​. Additionally, surveys show that the more public a person's social media activity is (such as sharing content widely or having a large follower count), the more likely they are to experience negative outcomes like anxiety, depression, and feelings of frustration. Social media's design rewards provocative and negative engagement. Influencers, creatives, intellectuals, public figures, and everyday individuals just making a fun video can attract "hate-followers"—people follow with the outward or passive intent to criticize, mock, or find flaws in their hard work. This phenomenon is further backed by findings that social media can amplify negativity and conflict, with people often engaging in online interactions they wouldn't initiate in real life. It is unfortunate these outlets are the ones we often rely on for work as creatives.

“You think that your pain and your heartbreak are unprecedented in the history of the world, but then you read. It was Dostoevsky and Dickens who taught me that the things that tormented me most were the very things that connected me with all the people who were alive, or whoever had been alive.”

• James Baldwin

Kisses up to the people with the most money/resources:

The clout chaser has no ethics beyond power. They are a moth to the flame. For this reason, clout chasers often take pictures that do not age well. Take, for instance, all the creatives who stood proudly in photos next to Harvey Weinstein while knowing full well how he treated people. We often do not talk about the world before the exposure of abuse from public figures. Let’s go back: Weinstein, co-founder of Miramax and The Weinstein Company, was known for producing critically acclaimed films and fostering the careers of major Hollywood stars. It was because of this that Weinstein was sought out by many people, from celebrities to influencers to those seeking employment of some kind in Hollywood. These folx sought his company to boost their profiles and were honored to appear in photos with him at various high-scale events. However, when allegations against him surfaced in 2017, leading to his eventual conviction in 2020, these once-prized images became a source of discomfort or even shame for those associated with him. On the contrary, once something comes to the surface, it often sheds light on the reality of those photos. While many clout chasers became apologists for his conduct in hopes of a leg up in showbiz, several celebrities from those photos came forward with their own accounts of Weinstein’s abuse. After it became “popular” to denounce Weinstein, many of those “emerging” artists who had once courted his approval distanced themselves after his fall from grace. As all clout chasers do, they went on to the next person to siphon power from. If this is not the commodification of people, I do not know what is.

Cannot be authentic:

You may feel uncomfortable at this person’s house. Somehow everything is so nice that you feel like you should not touch anything. Their home is as porcelain pristine as their personality. Do not go beneath the surface, they seem as though they may shatter. The clout chaser cannot have deep or nuanced conversations. It’s small talk, a scheduled and practiced interview, or no talk. The social circle of the clout chaser is either enormous or non-existent. Somehow they know everyone, but no one really seems to hang out with them. The clout chaser has no relationships or friendships of substance. Don’t get me wrong, there’s some nuance to this–some folks have a small circle, some people have no circles, but this person has a large number of acquaintances but no real, genuine friendships, connections, or relationships. With a clout-chaser, you will realize pretty soon by asking around, that no one knows who they are. If you ask questions about where they came from–it’s pretty vague or superficial. It’s not their fault–after all, they’re never around long enough to show their true colors anyway!

“It takes a surprising amount of courage to be enthusiastic about your own life[,] to resist the urge to hedge and self-deprecate, to distance yourself from the fear of failure and miscalculation[,] to express your desires, declare your convictions.”

• Anonymous (IG: @choosy-mom)

Disappear when you’re unpopular, and pop up out of nowhere as soon as you’re relevant again:

Usually with a camera. Like Weinstein’s former apologists, politicians also make fantastic clout chasers. An unnamed old friend of mine was often running for office locally. In the beginning, they were always so supportive of my artistic career during the beginning of their campaigns– but as soon as they started garnering more support from deeper pockets, seeking more mainstream validation, and becoming more engulfed in capitalist colonial politicking (that often puts marginalized people in positions where they are causing just as much harm as their white cis-male counterparts) he started disappearing from my art events and my life. When a nasty unfounded rumor (lie) started spreading about me in the community, they publicly denounced me during one of the most difficult times in my life, without even a private conversation as to why they suddenly hated me so much. This really hurt me at first. Over time, and after meeting many many more politicians of a similar nature, I learned that the punitive social dynamic is just the way of the clout chaser. It’s not personal. It’s about power. They go where it is popular to go, no matter how toxic, harmful, exclusionary, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or hypocritical to their so-called “platform”.

The clout chaser and the energy vampire work together against Thee Artist. You may notice some very similar traits. The following are some key shared characteristics that can help you recognize this behavior that can be so detrimental to your creative process:

Shared traits of the clout chaser and the energy vampire:

Clout chasers and energy vampires never take accountability.

If these types took accountability, they could not believe in their own inherent “virtue” and the myth of virtue they rely upon. With accountability, there are no power dynamics, no hierarchy, nothing to fuel their God complex.

Clout chasers and energy vampires are very good at fake apologies.

These phony apologies usually start with:

• “I’m so sorry you are so disappointed in….”

• “I’m so sorry you feel that way….”

• “I’m so sorry that you are having a hard time, but–in fact–you have harmed me by [probably holding me accountable] and [advocating for your needs] and I think [establishing boundary] is abuse, and …..”
  
  

This is another way that the clout chaser and energy vampire can waste your time and money, operate around shame and punitive judgment, and make themselves victims using an argument of virtue. This is an abusive tactic often referred to as DARVO. The term, coined by psychologist Jennifer Freyd, stands for Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender. DARVO is particularly common in cases of interpersonal abuse, such as sexual or emotional abuse, where the accused often successfully avoids responsibility by undermining the credibility of the accuser. Research shows that DARVO can effectively intimidate victims and deter them from pursuing further action due to fear of backlash or disbelief. As creatives today, we must understand that this phenomenon extends to media and the public figures we choose to be famous. Fake apologies should not be enough for us to keep funding certain people.

“Stop trying to say the right thing and start expressing yourself.”

• Mia Schachter

Clout chasers and energy vampires never take accountability, so everything is everyone else’s fault:

Speaking of DARVO, nothing that goes wrong is their fault, in fact, it’s usually yours. Just kidding–but really, that is the innate mindset of this kind of a person–and before you misconstrue this for being an individual talking about or highlighting someone's circumstances, obstacles, or marginalized positions that might differentiate them from others, please note that I am really talking about social dynamics: the manager who refuses to admit when they’ve made a mistake and blames their employee instead, the ex-partner who constantly claims they can’t get a job because the world is holding them back, even though the opportunities for them do exist. I’m talking about the teacher who keeps docking points for minor clerical errors to punish you for reminding them of a time when they were happier and more motivated. I’m talking about the peers who can't collaborate or support you because they only see you as a threat, a competitor, or a target, buying into the lack of nuance that propaganda perpetuates.

Clout chasers and energy vampires create drama specifically while others around them are being creative:

This type of person cannot take inspiration and turn it into something new, they must always bastardize their inspiration into envy and jealousy. This envy and jealousy then manifests in the dramatic situations they create because they are threatened. Unfortunately, if this person is in your life, it usually ends up at your expense. If the clout-chaser could practice non-violence (ahimsa) and manifest this feeling into something positive, seeking to learn from their point of activation, they would not always have to impose their personal agenda on other people as a form of control.

Whatever matters to you is trivialized by the clout chaser and energy vampire into a “mere backdrop” for their own “personal plight”:

This specific verbiage was used by Julia Cameron in “The Artist’s Way”, but something it picks up on is a phenomenon a lot of Black women, Black women creatives in specific, experience with white women. White women are often clout chasers and energy vampires to Black creatives, and while, in my experience, they tend to platform the work of Black men more often, there is a particular dynamic concerning Black women. It needs to be said. From the threat of the weaponizing of their privileged tears to the possibility of enforcing the role of enslaver to their Black interpersonal partners, to the treatment of Black women as their “sidekicks” or sexless yet expendable ‘besties’, there is something to be said about this specific tactic of white women with the best of intentions from all backgrounds. These types of clout chasers expect Black women to behave like Jolene, the “diverse” character in “Queen’s Gambit” (2020), a completely unbelievable character who somehow was dying to be Beth Harmon’s (white main character’s) mother figure even though she was a child herself, turn estranged friend who Beth soon forgets to care about after moving on from the “system”, and somehow personal piggy bank when she wants to compete in a chess tournament after not speaking to her for years. Gross. In summary, when you are creative, the clout-chaser and energy vampire either need to co-opt you, your creativity, and your time, or they need to cause a problem with you. Either way, you end up too exhausted to finish your creative task.

“[Reading] is a very great liberation for the suffering, struggling person, who always thinks that he is alone. This is why art is important. Art would not be important if life were not important, and life is important.”

• James Baldwin

The energy vampire and the clout chaser drop stuff on people at the last minute always; and at the worst possible times.

Do you have a person in your life who shows up to cause issues and is always doing it at the worst possible time? This person is probably a clout chaser or an energy vampire. I won’t go too far into this, because you probably already know who I am talking about. The fact is, their timing is impeccable, and if it feels like it is on purpose, it probably is. This brings me to my next observation:

The energy vampire and clout chaser hate schedules, unless, of course, it is their own.

This type of person does not seem to understand consent, work-life balance, or the word “no”, and time is their primary tool of abuse. Somehow they forgot your birthday party but call you on the same day wanting a ride out of state. Somehow they ran out of gas while you’re at your graduation and they need you to pick them up now or they aren’t going to be your friend/family/lover anymore. They hate order, “chaos serves their purposes”. To create more chaos, there is usually an ultimatum for a temporary problem. They go for the jugular, your worst fear, the worst possible or probable outcome comes to the surface when things do not go their way. Usually, the most sensitive things will be dissected by them before your eyes. Communities, events, projects, beliefs, everything. As I said before, nothing is off-limits to them.

The energy vampires and clout chasers bombard you with their creations during your creative process.

Don’t get me wrong, it is great to enjoy other artists’ works of art when it is within your capacity and consensual, but it is harmful to bombard someone with an expectation of support or advice while they are working. Art is a job and art is work just like any other work. It requires focus, study, and attention. Black artists often create work in such detail, unpaid, and unrequited, that the interruption of this time is a violation. Anyone who sees your precious, planned-out, working time as a flimsy commitment needs to be corrected on that assumption promptly. When they come knocking, tell them: “See me during business hours”. More often than not, the clout chaser and energy vampire bombards you with all of the art they have ever made when they see you have been working or making time to work. You will notice based on their actions, that this is never to collaborate, or they would pitch a collaboration. It is not to get your opinion, even if they ask, because they usually get wounded if you offer it, no matter how positive it may be. The purpose of this is obstruction to the creativity of themselves and others. All this time is spent talking about their work to other people and blocking creative flows, only to notice that their own creative flow is diminished completely from doing so.

“I want AI to do my laundry and dishes so that I can do art and writing, not for AI to do my art and writing so that I can do my laundry and dishes.”

• Joanna Maciejewska, Author and Video Game enthusiast, @authorjmac on Instagram

Most importantly, energy vampires and clout chasers vehemently deny being such, especially on social media and IG stories.

Last but not least, this type of person is constantly posting. They make posts about greatness, success, and being a “professional”. This person uses spirituality, bible excerpts, or quotes from people who actually take action in their lives, but this person takes little to no action outside of the internet. Again–for a person always posting about how they “move in silence”, they are the loudest person you know; constantly making posts about “being on the come up” and “f*** the haters” when they don’t actually have any haters to begin with, since they’re so obsessed with being on the ‘popular’ side of history. Oftentimes they are not even on the ‘come up’. On the contrary, their lives are bottoming out, leaving their posts a mere part of some paranoid fantasy.

Dishonesty is the foundational aspect of this kind of individual.

If you think you are absolved from being a snake, clout chaser, or energy vampire, I regret to inform you that this is something we all do at one point or another in our lives. This project and this path are not imbued with virtue statements or arguments. Think of these categories as verbs, not nouns. Everyone does this. If you would like to avoid doing it more than you are being creative, consider the following:

Serve the art, not the ego.

It is not the fault of Thee Artist that we can tend to have snake behavior or even be drawn to or enable others to act like clout chasers or energy vampires. The creative industry as it exists today manufactures people who behave this way. It is a mental virus, it is contagious, and once they suck you in, you’re hooked onto someone else. As the author of this project, I’m very aware that I am not immune to it either. It’s a cycle of power.

Humans should know by now that power is addictive. Once you get a little, any source will do. It’s a competitive landscape and a mindset of scarcity. A huge pie is right in front of everyone with enough to sustain all of us, but everyone is fighting over who gets a piece first– or at all. When your ego starts acting up, get centered. Learn to communicate with your intuition over your ego and your anxiety. We need to let our intuition alone guide us and be willing to follow that guidance directly and fearlessly.

"No movie is worth dying for. I think people are standing up much more now than ever before to producers and directors who ask too much. If something isn't safe, it's the right and responsibility of every actor or crew member to yell 'Cut!'"

• Steven Spielberg

Case Study: Creative ego gone wrong

The following are real-life cases of creative egoism that led to actual death. A smaller repercussion of this phenomenon is a completely obliterated career and legacy. Trigger warning, some of these are just unpleasant to hear, especially knowing that 100% of these accidents were preventable with a little humility, integrity, patience, and creative collaboration.

“Rust” (2024)

Despite the tragic death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins during the filming of Rust in October 2021, the production continued and the film will be released to the public. The accident occurred when a prop firearm discharged, leading to intense industry scrutiny and calls for stricter regulations on movie sets. The producers decided to continue shooting, though the decision was met with mixed reactions. A commenter on Reddit says:

“Accidents do happen. It's pretty rare that a lead actor (and a previous A-list name at that) is involved in a firearm accident that kills an instrumental part of the crew. This movie, from an insurance perspective, needed to be dropped and placed in turnaround, never to see the light of day. Rust is not a deep pocket studio movie. It's a little risky, dinky, independent project that cut corners and caused a needless death of a talented crew member. That's not the same thing as a stunt person signed up to do a dangerous thing and died in spite of safety precautions.”

“Twilight Zone: The Movie” (1983)

This is another film that went on to the box office despite a tragic on-set accident that led to one adult and two child actors' deaths during filming. The stunt—a costly and unnecessary war scene filled with pyrotechnics featuring an on-set helicopter—was highly volatile and poorly planned. Several staff members had warned against using pyrotechnics and a low-flying helicopter simultaneously. Making matters worse, two Asian-American children were brought in on short notice for the scene without full consent from their families, who were unaware of dangerous elements on set.

“We are the archive. Our ancestors did a hell of a job documenting and preserving as much as they could. They understood what was at stake if they didn’t. Preserving our history is a command, a verb; an action.”

• Nubia Lateefa

“Resident Evil: The Final Chapter” (2016)

Olivia Jackson, a stunt performer for Resident Evil: The Final Chapter (2016), sustained multiple critical injuries, including a crushed spine, broken ribs, severe facial trauma, and eventually the amputation of her left arm, during a motorcycle scene for the film. Although the shot had been captured correctly and even artistically many, many times, they called for one more stunt that placed the camera in her blind spot while performing. Jackson then collided with a camera crane, which malfunctioned and did not lift in time. Her injuries led to questions about set safety protocols and oversight, as it has been argued proper planning and equipment checks could have prevented the accident.

“Narcos” (2015)

Carlos Muñoz Portal, a location manager for Netflix's series Narcos, was tragically found dead in September 2017 while scouting filming locations for the show’s fourth season in Mexico. His bullet-riddled body and car were discovered in a rural area near Hidalgo, a state with one of the highest murder rates in the country. In July, 182 homicides were reported in the densely populated state, which translates to a homicide rate of 12.2 per 100,000 inhabitants. Muñoz was an experienced scout, known for his work on high-profile films like Spectre, Sicario, and Apocalypto. At the time of his death, Narcos was shifting its storyline from Colombia to Mexico, specifically focusing on the Juárez cartel. The remote area where Muñoz was found had no known witnesses, complicating the investigation. Friends and colleagues speculated that his presence, especially with a camera in such a high-risk area, may have raised suspicions among locals who could have mistaken him for law enforcement or another form of surveillance.

Netflix expressed condolences for Muñoz's passing but did not disclose further details, as the case remained under investigation by Mexican authorities. Scouting in high-risk areas such as remote regions near the Hidalgo border—known for its violence and high murder rate—should require specialized protocol, including advance assessments of security risks, stronger on-ground support, and coordination with local authorities or community authority figures. Muñoz was alone, reportedly without significant safety oversight, in a crime-heavy region that was unfamiliar with the presence of a film crew.

“I look to the past to understand today and to anchor my ethics for the future.”

• Imani Perry

Was this to cut costs? The production of Training Day (2001), set in gang-affected areas of Los Angeles, involved extensive risk assessments and a cautious approach to safety, which could serve as a model for other high-risk film productions. Director Antoine Fuqua sought to make deliberate choices to ensure cast and crew safety. His grassroots generative approach fosters relationships with the local community, hiring locals as extras, and even working with community leaders and local gang members to maintain a secure environment on set. This collaborative approach was crucial in building trust with a marginalized community and reduced the likelihood of misunderstandings or threats to the production team. It could be argued that the degrees of separation from the community Muñoz sought to scout could have been alleviated or avoided by implementing these holistic measures. I am in no way trying to say it is Muñoz’s fault that he died, I am imploring Netflix and all other production companies to seek out new methods of connecting with volatile and vulnerable communities to protect their production staff. It should be obvious that you never send out a location scout to a dangerous territory alone. Especially this one, as one commenter on Reddit points out about the murder statistic stated earlier:

“... that's only what is found and reported. Imagine the real rate..”

“Deadpool 2” (2018)

Sequana Joi Harris was a pioneering American road racer and stuntwoman. She made history in 2014 as the first African American woman to be licensed as a professional motorcycle road racer, even though she had only started motorcycling in 2009. By 2012, Harris was racing professionally, and she went on to establish her racing team, Threader Racing, competing under the infamous number #24, a number that has been sported by another great gone too soon–Kobe Bryant of the Los Angeles Lakers. Harris was dedicated to promoting the sport of road racing to Black women as a mode of liberation. Tragically, on August 14, 2017, during her first stunt shoot for Deadpool 2, Harris lost control of her motorcycle while riding without a helmet in downtown Vancouver for a stunt, even though she had no experience in stunt performance–she was just a racer. Striking a curb, she was thrown into the Rogers Tower, leading to her death at the scene on site while shooting the film. Harris had been doubling for actress Zazie Beetz, who portrayed Domino in the film. Stunt performers typically undergo rigorous training, often involving controlled practice in various scenarios, safety protocols, and coordination with stunt coordinators and directors to minimize risk. Harris did not receive this training. Stunt performance is an art form that requires more than just skill in the activity being performed—it involves safety training, communication with the production team, and understanding how to navigate the demands around you. My question is, who thought that she was qualified to do a stunt just because she was a racer?

“One person plus one typewriter constitutes a movement.”

• Pauli Murray

We will come back to this later on in this chapter. Still, one notable detail about the credits of these films, especially those with accidents or controversies surrounding them, is the frequent appearance of the name "Alan Smithee." This name is a pseudonym that exists for directors who wish to disassociate themselves from a project. The Alan Smithee moniker was originally adopted by the Directors Guild of America (DGA) in the 1960s as a way for filmmakers to remove their names from projects they felt had been altered beyond their control, often due to interpersonal conflict, accidents, or creative interference. Directors or key production staff sometimes turn to this pseudonym when they no longer want to be publicly associated with the film due to ethical concerns or the outcomes of those incidents. The pseudonym "Alan Smithee" was coined in 1968 by the Directors Guild of America (DGA) and was used until its formal discontinuation in 2000. It was specifically created for directors who were dissatisfied with the final product of a film and were able to prove to a guild panel that they had not been allowed to exercise creative control over the project, but it ended up having many, many uses. Under the DGA's rules, the director was prohibited from discussing the circumstances surrounding the film's creation or even acknowledging their involvement in the project if they used this name. This measure supported their “auteur” theory, which posits that the director is the primary creative force behind a film and asserts the director’s reputation must be protected over everything else when their creative vision has been compromised. The trend of using this pseudonym highlights how the film industry tends to prioritize the final product over the safety and well-being of those involved in its creation. The fact is, a lot of these key players do not feel the need to implement ethical practices and instead insist on playing the pissing contest of who is the fanciest, most expensive, least derivative artist. In the end, the film loses, the company loses, the artist loses and their dignity is lost in translation. For more on this, please see the fun read-through museum at the end of this chapter entitled “The Alan Smithee Project”. If you have any Alan Smithee project stories, please send them to me and I will continue to amend this as I write and rewrite this book.

The problem with the concept of “crazymakers”:

Ok, Maya, you’re probably thinking, but I read the Artist’s Way. You even quoted her. You’re describing crazymakers. What's the difference?

Your feelings are valid. Let me explain.

I’m going to be honest–when I read about “Crazymakers” in “The Artist’s Way” by Julia Cameron, it seems pretty obvious she was writing about Martin Scorsese. Julia Cameron and Martin Scorsese met in the early 1970s in New York City, during a time when both were involved in the bustling creative scene. Scorsese, already gaining recognition as a director with films like Mean Streets (1973), could have been drawn to Cameron’s intelligence, creativity, and energy. Cameron was a writer, journalist, and filmmaker herself, and one could assume the two connected through their shared passion for storytelling. Don’t forget that Cameron started as a writer, not a creative, spiritual, or lifestyle influencer.

“Fuck where your hoes at

Or where your Rolls at

Where your backbone, nigga, where your code at?

Where your down since day one real bros at?

Where them stories that you tellin' unfold at?

Where your heart nigga, where your soul at?

We got old school ways, we expose that

Ain't no guarantees, but you know that

Niggas die every day, can't control that.”

• Nipsey Hussle

They married in 1976, a time when both were heavily involved in the film industry. Cameron played an influential role in Scorsese's life and career during this short period, helping him navigate creative blocks and contributing ideas to his work. However, their marriage was plagued by difficulties almost from the beginning and had a lifespan of one year. During their marriage both Cameron and Scorsese struggled with heavy drug and alcohol abuse, creating a volatile environment that their loved ones, friends, and acquaintances became increasingly apprehensive of. The intense demands of the film industrial complex coupled with their personal demons, led to a chaotic relationship.

Cameron relays in her memoir Floor Sample: A Creative Memoir, that addiction consumed much of their marriage and negatively affected her ability to focus on creative projects. She often found herself jealous of or neglected by Scorsese’s projects. His solo masterpiece Taxi Driver (1976) had been released to critical acclaim, but New York, New York (1977), which Cameron co-wrote, was a nightmare. This could have reflected on her self-esteem, a form of perceived rejection. The film itself was difficult to produce in the first place and to add insult to injury, its commercial failure further strained their relationship.

I tried to watch New York, New York (1977). It is impossible. I LOVE Liza Minelli. I cannot watch this film past thirty minutes. I tried. I put it away, and then I tried again. The misogyny, the extended and unnecessary lavish wide shots, and the completely boring and unbelievable male characters make the viewer want their time back–if possible. Don’t just take it from me, you may already think I’m biased against Cameron, after all. Take it from the authority. Take it from the reviews:

Steve Warren, a film critic from the Barb in Atlanta, said: “The picture itself is more bad than good” on May 5, 2023.

On the 17th of March 2008, a reviewer on IMDb took the time out of their day to give this anonymous review that is rated second highest by users on their website:

“‘Start Spreading the News, This Movie Is Crap"

2/10 stars

Martin Scorsese's deconstruction of the golden Hollywood musical is a meandering disaster.

"New York, New York" is damn near unwatchable. It tells the VERY slight story of a jackass saxophone player (Robert De Niro) who falls in love with a nightclub singer (Liza Minelli) and proceeds to emotionally abuse her until her life is miserable. De Niro is consistently one note in his performance, creating a character without a single redeeming feature. In his early scenes, I think we're supposed to be charmed by him, and by extension understand why Minelli's character would fall for him in the first place -- unfortunately, he comes across more as a creepy sociopath than anything, Travis Bickle with some musical talent. Minelli's role is utterly thankless, but she's absolutely the only thing that kept me watching. The last 40 minutes of the film is practically a Liza Minelli concert. Her character has vaulted to film stardom and left her loser husband in the dust; Scorsese devotes what feels like half an hour to a movie within a movie featuring Minelli in one of those epic ballet scenes that always derailed Gene Kelly musicals. It does the same to this film, but the diversion was welcome, since it meant we could enjoy a nice break from De Niro.

The movie grinds on for 163(!) minutes. At the 120 minute mark I wanted to cry. At the 150 minute mark I was beaten into submission by indifference. By that point, the film had been going on for far too long, yet at the same time I couldn't believe it would be ending in 10 minutes because it didn't seem to be moving toward any kind of resolution.

Scorsese seemed to be unaware that this story had already been told -- maybe he'd never heard of "A Star Is Born." More likely, he was paying homage to that film, but he created something that on its own terms has no reason for existence.

Grade: D”

Finally, in 1977 the New York Times referred to the movie as a “... more painful movie …”

Julia Cameron's ‘collaboration’ with Martin Scorsese in New York, New York (1977) was a significant and notable failure both critically and commercially. Someone had to take the fall for this, and since Martin Scorsese was a man of power in Hollywood, the person to bite the bullet and become blacklisted was Cameron–the new variable in his failing movie. The legacy of New York, New York (1977) is now relegated to a troubled production and an underwhelming box-office return.

“If you can't love yourself, how in the hell are you gonna love somebody else? Now, can I get an amen?”

• Rupaul

What really went wrong with New York, New York (1977) and why Martin Scorsese is the OG “crazymaker”:

Failed projects are just as important to the careers of successful artists as fruitful, critically acclaimed, and triumphant ones. There is much to be learned from the failure of Cameron and Scorsese’s bad movie. Personally, it feels bad that one crappy project allowed a woman to be iced out of Hollywood, especially in that era where there was much progress to be gained for women in that field. It takes two to tango, and when collaborators make a critical flop, it is the responsibility of all parties involved. So, let’s get real.

What actually went wrong?

New York, New York was conceived in an attempt at an ambitious homage to classic Hollywood musicals and jazz with a gritty, realistic edge—a blend of glamour and the harshness of real-life relationships. One could argue the issues in the critical reception of It Ends With Us (2024) were very similar to this late 70’s flop. The behind-the-scenes turmoil of New York, New York is marked by addiction, creative disagreements, and personal conflict and is reflected as dramatic as the troubled love story portrayed in the film itself. Cameron and Scorsese wanted to combine the visual and emotional grandeur of classic films like A Star is Born (1954) and Singin' in the Rain (1952) with the improvisational, raw approach that had made his earlier films like Mean Streets (1973) and Taxi Driver (1976), which, in execution, seem to be a combination akin to oil and water. The film was meant to showcase Scorsese's talents outside the world of crime dramas. Did Cameron influence this? I do not know, but it feels like something she might influence in one of her creative pep talks to him since she was operating as his enabler, therapist, and cheerleader at the time. The chaotic energy surrounding their relationship inevitably spilled over into the making of New York, New York. Cameron's relationship with Scorsese was, again, volatile, and their personal lives directly impacted the production process, creating tension on the set, and making it difficult to maintain a clear vision for the film. The personal struggles of Scorsese and Cameron, along with those of several cast and crew members, were compounded by drug use on set. Scorsese, in particular, was reportedly spiraling deeper into addiction during the making of the film. His erratic behavior and perfectionism made the production disorganized and exhausting for everyone involved.

Scorsese, famous for encouraging improvisation, spent hours coercing De Niro and Minnelli to ad-lib many of their scenes, sidelining, pushing back, or completely erasing Julia Cameron’s co-written screenplay (kind of like, the only thing she could contribute to the project since she is–after all–a writer), which added to the film’s disjointed feel. Scorsese had already established a favor of this improvisational style over her writing, leading to a lack of cohesion in the storytelling. This is an ego decision, not a collaborative or creative one.

“I am so tired of waiting,

Aren’t you,

For the world to become good

And beautiful and kind?

Let us take a knife

And cut the world in two–

And see what worms are eating

At the rind.”

• Langston Hughes, “Tired”

Cameron deserves her flowers for trying to make the script coherent. Her contributions were pushed aside as the movie became more about Scorsese and De Niro's ‘vision’. The tension was real. The collaboration no longer involved or engaged her, it succumbed to the patriarchal standards on set, which brings me to the conclusion: one could assume the “expensive” nature of the “crazymaker” that Julia Cameron describes in ‘Week 2’ of Artist’s Way is attributed to the fact that Scorsese was intent on recreating elaborate, stylized sets that mimicked the lavishness of old Hollywood musicals in “New York, New York”, which caused costs to balloon exorbitantly. These budget overruns placed considerable pressure on the production and made it difficult for the film to recoup its costs. Again, an ego decision, not a collaborative or a creative one.

The gag is: because of their inability to collaborate creatively, the movie's original cut ran over four hours.

Neither Cameron nor Scorsese would compromise on absolutely anything to cut at all in this project. The original cut had worse reviews than the final, deemed aptly as unmarketable. In the final release, the film's pacing and structure felt uneven, with many critics pointing out that it dragged, particularly in its second half. When New York, New York was released, it was met with largely negative reviews. Many critics were confused by the film's shifting tone, with some praising Minnelli's musical performances–which always make the mark–and then criticizing the overall direction of just about everything else. At the end of the day, the proof was in the pudding–the mix of high-glamor musical numbers and the toxic, often abusive relationship between De Niro and Minnelli's characters was unsettling for audiences.

By the time the film was released, their marriage was on the rocks, and they divorced soon after. By the end of the 1970s, the relationship had deteriorated. Cameron filed for divorce in 1977, and their split was reportedly acrimonious. Scorsese’s drug use became more severe around this time, reaching a low point in the late 1970s when he was hospitalized after a near-fatal drug overdose. Cameron, meanwhile, embarked on her own path to sobriety. Scorsese, also, eventually, cleaned up his life and went on to direct some of his most iconic films in the 1980s and beyond, such as Raging Bull (1980) and Goodfellas (1990).

"If any of you, in any way, hate homosexuals, people of a different color, or women, please do this one favor for us — leave us the fuck alone. Don’t come to our shows and don’t buy our records."

• Kurt Cobain [to his audience]

If this movie had not defined Cameron’s future in a market like Hollywood, with such an unforgiving nature, Cameron would probably be more active in mainstream movies today. There’s no doubt that after her tumultuous marriage to Scorsese and the failure of New York, New York, Cameron’s career as a screenwriter and producer in Hollywood didn’t exactly take off. Hollywood can be unforgiving, especially after a high-profile flop, and especially without the same opportunities post-divorce. Scorsese could take the hit. For Cameron, a brand-new woman in a male-dominated field who was still early in her screenwriting career, the failure cast a shadow on her involvement in future major Hollywood projects, so she decided to pivot into the self-help Market with her book “The Artist’s Way”.

It’s important to bring this up because, in no way do I want to use this platform to try and invalidate, discredit, or detract from any bit of “The Artist’s Way”. It works for a lot of people! The Artist’s Way wasn’t just a cash grab after a failed movie—it was Cameron drawing on her own experiences of trying to survive creatively in a harsh, male-dominated, often toxic industry like Hollywood. The book spoke to a lot of artists like her, Christian middle-aged white women who were trying to find their way back to creativity after facing serious life challenges. It still speaks to them today. The Artist’s Way did get her a new platform, and she probably wouldn’t have reached that level of influence if Hollywood had kept its doors wide open for her. It can be true that this book was a survival strategy and it happened to help people like her. If it also happened to bring her some major success and coins, more power to her! This book is about making sure that women like me can do the same. We are all trying to do similar things for our people, no matter where we come from.

The stars are just like us! Powerful and successful creatives can, indeed, make mistakes. As for this particular collaboration, there is a bit of clout chasing and energy vampirism on both sides of this failure. The movie, the marriage, all of it. Julia Cameron and Martin Scorsese struggled to collaborate without making it about their own egos, they were punitive and bombarded each other with their creativity instead of complimenting each other with it, and, often, they did not want to hear each other unless it served their own interests, financial and otherwise. Despite the turmoil of their marriage, both Cameron and Scorsese went on to achieve remarkable success in their respective careers by themselves. They did not collaborate again, and neither has spoken publicly about the other with bitterness by name, but, there is a lot to the “crazymaker” chapter “Week 2” of the Artist’s Way that might make one feel as though she is talking about Scorsese. It’s fair to make assumptions that your ex was not beneficial to your creative well-being, but it is a whole other thing to publicly denounce him using an archetype for a program dedicated to helping people be more creative. The difference between “the crazymaker” and the archetypes I described earlier is the lack of punitivity. We all behave in this way. We all have been indoctrinated to cause harm–this is the way systems exist today–and propaganda feeds violence, physical and interpersonal, to us daily in a steady stream.

The failure of a collaboration does not mean you have failed as an artist. One could argue Cameron and Scorsese’s brands went where they both operate the best. Julia Cameron told people they were creatively “blocked” and only she (and a benevolent God) could save them from their lack of creativity–and Scorsese’s work continued without a hitch after he hit rock bottom and sought help—perhaps informed in part by his own struggles during the years of their marriage.

“Creativity helps us realize that we don't have to understand everything. We can enjoy something–feel it and use it–without ever fully comprehending it.”

• Faith Ringgold

When I’m talking about Clout Chasers and Energy Vampires, I’m talking about the power-hungry, colonially reinforcing, and abusive, bosses, producers, higher-ups, and gatekeepers who make a living off stealing your shot when you deserve it, when you work for it, when you excel and specialize in it. To them, it’s not about who you are, but who you know. Thee Artist looks their ideology in the face and rejects their rejection myth, rejects their expression of one-dimensional archetype and the commodification of people.

Thee Artist says: “You can know all the people you want, but in the end that doesn’t ensure your work will stand the test of time”. Over commodity, capitalism, and colonization are the ultimate value: LEGACY. That is why people destroy historical documents, ban and burn books, and suppress artists and works of art. No matter how dark the age, legacy rules all. This is why so many Clout Chasers and energy vampires often position themselves–or are positioned by others–as gatekeepers to uphold the hierarchy.

How do we fight gatekeepers?

Do not give them energy:

Energy is their source of food. It is in no way helpful for you to give them your hard-earned spoons.

Do not give them your time:

Sometimes this is part of your energy. As stated earlier, their timing is usually very bad intentionally, to exercise control over your life. If you give them an inch, they will take a mile. Do not be surprised that they pay handsomely. Do not engage with them when they pop up with random crises or needs for favors, especially if you feel uncomfortable making those calls to them.

Do not give them your respect:

These types of people like to make accusations and demands based on “respect”. For example: if you refuse to drop everything and skip out on your relative’s funeral to go to their show, they will accuse you of “disrespect”. Don’t worry about it. Looking good and wanting to look good is not the precipice of artistic success. It will deter you from your inherent creative value.

Writing is what moves the unconscious into consciousness.”

–Anonymous

Doing any of these unadvised actions is destructive, to yourselves and others. Over time, people who truly invest in you as much as you invest in them will feel disrespected. They will start to fall by the wayside when this person, group of people, or toxic community shows up in your life. Suddenly, instead of prioritizing those who want the best for you, you have fallen into the habit of prioritizing those who, in all reality, hate you. The depression of isolation will follow. It’s also disrespectful to yourself. Suddenly there is an accepted inner narrative that disrespecting your loved ones is acceptable so long as you can garner some made-up form of creative success by sucking up to this gatekeeper. At a certain point, we need to understand that some things are unacceptable, regardless of how much we can profit from them. If this is fine by you, and your ethics, morals, and values are less important than financial gain–just stop reading here.

“But Maya–I feel like you are describing my boss/benefactor/sponsor. I rely on them for survival!”

I completely understand. I also understand that this person has probably threatened you at some point or another, whether it was your job, your livelihood, or blacklisting you from the only market you seem to work well in. Again, power dynamics is how these types of snakes thrive. I do not doubt the challenge of leaving unhealthy relationships with this person, but I want to challenge your perception just a little. Do you really think because one person is invested in you, there is only one shot to be a successful creative in your life? If anything, one shot is proof that you will be reinvested in. If your snake has threatened your job, this situation has two realities. Yes, they will talk shit about you as soon as you leave. That does not mean they aren’t talking just as bad shit about you right now, knowing you have a better option than to have your creativity abused. The second reality is, the possibility that you’re already being shortchanged, and that person is getting a steal compared to what you’re actually worth. The work you create will speak for itself and competitors will not care what the person is saying if you continue to create prolific work. This also wards off the wrong kind of target audience.

Just like a social media page, who you cater to and interact with defines what kind of artist you are. This is not to be conflated with the mindset of things being more about “who you know” than the quality of your art that the colonial supremacist and elitist art market would have you believe. It means that whoever is meant to find you will, and whoever is not meant to find you will pass you by or reject you. Ask yourself–do you truly want to work with someone who would believe a rumor, stereotype, or an unfair opinion about you? Do you truly believe they won’t operate this way when working with you? See, clout chasers and energy vampires have a critical role in the betterment of your art career if you let them cook—often unintentionally weeding out the worst possible people to work with. Clinging to codependency with this kind of creative abuser tends to work out badly. Think of all of the women who went back to work with Bill Cosby even though he continued to victimize them. Is that the goal of Black creatives in today’s society? Going back in time? Live in the spirit of your authentic truth, for words cannot cause harm to innate legacy, only actions.

Giving your time to energy vampires is akin to being your prison, prisoner, and prison guard. It’s the same way we are convinced to agree with ideas and ideologies that are toxic just because they are popular. In The German Ideology (written in 1845-46), Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels describe how ruling ideas operate to dominate society:

"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e., the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, consequently also controls the means of mental production, so that the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are on the whole subject to it."

Without active labor and intense critical thinking, we fall victim to our oppression by internalizing it and using it against ourselves. This results in collective Tall Poppy Syndrome.

Tall Poppy Syndrome (TPS) is a social phenomenon in which individuals who excel or stand out—referred to as "tall poppies"—are the first target of criticism, resentment, or even hostility, above even those who blatantly seek to cause harm in society. This tendency to "cut down" high achievers is prominent in collectivist societies that rely on supremacy and hierarchal colonial values. It is a collective manifestation that is a byproduct of individualistic societies as a form of social envy or competitiveness. Research suggests that people with low self-esteem or those who feel threatened by others' achievements may display TPS, and are more likely to demean high achievers as a way to restore their self-image in an attempt to reduce perceived status gaps. Studies show that individuals who rate themselves lower in self-esteem or competence derive satisfaction when a "tall poppy" experiences failure. This behavior can impact how people interact with others in various social settings, often making it popular to “be humble” and to dim one’s creative capabilities and talents. Additionally, clout-chasers, energy vampires, and other "snakey" people often seek association with high achievers, only to diminish or exploit them, contributing to a cycle of superficial admiration followed by negative targeting​. In summation: don’t be humble, it makes you a shitty artist and it reinforces the fear, hatred, and violence in this world.

“Don’t mistake my meekness for weakness.”

• Wayne Brady

The phenomenon of Tall Poppy Syndrome has become a worldwide social system alongside the rise of social media. It is fueled by hoards of misinformation that social platforms rely on to profit, and it showcases the intersection of success, social expectations, and the scrutiny first and foremost directed at high achievers, especially when they come from marginalized groups.

In the past three decades as the internet gave way to a new socio-cultural conditioning, both sides of the political spectrum have complained about one phenomenon as accessibility to the annals of the world has become possible in one measly click: cancel culture. We will explore this more later as we explore emergent strategy and pleasure activism. In this chapter, let’s explore how “cancel culture” has been misused to reinforce rumors, misinformation, and other collective snake-like behavior to cut down the stalks of tall poppies who have been able to defy the odds and make it to mainstream success.

“INHALE: I won’t bow to a lie. EXHALE: I move forward toward truth.”

Tall Poppies: A Case Study

Megan Thee Stallion

Megan is that bitch that you love to hate. As a Black woman in hip-hop who started at the strip club or anywhere else she could perform, Megan Thee Stallion has faced intense public scrutiny whilst continuing to do everything she can to get her life together. We will talk about her more in the next week of this program, as she has had a vast influence on the lives and careers of many.

What people love to hate about Thee Stallion is her unabashed capacity for authenticity. In 2023 it was my pleasure to see her at the Forbes “30 Under 30” summit as the key speaker of the evening. In her conversation, she spoke about going to school, dropping out of school, and going back to school again to graduate with her undergraduate degree amid an unexpected and skyrocketing career. While many people in her inner circle were cheering her on, the hate she received for just succeeding and being a black woman is absolutely unacceptable and incredibly shocking. One of my creative heroes, I often used her story to galvanize me forward amidst suicidal depression. To this day when I receive hate and harassment online I often look up the hate and harassment Megan receives in the pursuit of the catharsis of comparison, only to be appalled by the abuse she endures.

You would think when a black woman is victimized by a man publicly that there would be some sort of collective understanding that what happened to her is violence. This is not the case in the United States. Black women, especially public figures, are often made to believe, whether it is judicially, socially, politically, or a combination of the three, that violence against them is the law of the land. The very economic industrialization of this land is predicated on violence against Black and Indigenous women. Nothing has changed. Sandra Bland was murdered in cold blood, Breonna Taylor was killed by police in her sleep, and Megan Thee Stallion still endures a tsunami of victim-blaming and public doubt on social media and in the music industry even after a court of law proved it was, in fact, a crime for someone to shoot her.

A famous white woman would never have this issue. The rise of Taylor Swift’s career relies on white supremacist ideals that skyrocket Taylor to fame and punish Megan for daring to exist in the same realm. Tall Poppy Syndrome is not an issue for Swift in the same ways, although they have similar beginnings. Taylor Swift and Megan Thee Stallion began their careers from pretty obscure beginnings as “regular” people with a passion for music. Both discovered their love for music early, with Taylor writing songs and performing locally before moving to Nashville to pursue country music, and Megan honing her rap skills as a teenager, influenced by her mother, who created the prototype for the star we love and enjoy today. Both Swift and Thee Stallion built their fanbases through personal engagement and social media, performing at local venues and connecting directly with fans.

On the other hand, Megan was posting freestyle raps online and creating viral movements that started not on the stage per se, but in the club. Their breakthroughs came with singles that captured mainstream attention—Taylor’s Tim McGraw and Megan’s Big Ole Freak—each showcasing their authenticity and talent. Both faced challenges in male-dominated industries, proving their worth with resilience and confidence. Despite their different genres, both artists rose to stardom by staying true to themselves and building loyal audiences. It can be argued that while Taylor Swift is a more celebrated and beloved artist, she does not take her future as seriously as Megan Thee Stallion, opting for homeschooling and skipping out on college altogether while Megan balanced her rising career with her education, earning a degree from Texas Southern University, knowing there is an example one must set to their fanbase instead of just “get famous”. Megan Thee Stallion has gone to great lengths to be more than just a pop star, all to prove as we have been proven time and again in this nation, it means nothing to the racist and misogynistic institutions that mainstream media relies upon. One might think this is why she seems to thrive so much on trips outside of her home country to places like Japan, where her career is accepted for the effort, detail, and time she puts into every single thing she does. Nonetheless, her rising success, skin color, and social location make her a target for both public critique and dismissal, even within her own community (i.e.: Black people and lovers of hip-hop). The scrutiny surrounding her was never really about who shot her or why, it reflects a constant resistance to the success and autonomy of Black women in the creative industry​. More on this in the next chapter.

“‘Finding yourself” is not really how it works. You aren’t a ten-dollar bill in last winter’s coat pocket. You are also not lost. Your true self is right there, buried under cultural conditioning, other people’s opinions, and inaccurate conclusions you drew as a kid that became your beliefs about who you are. “Finding yourself” is actually returning to yourself. An unlearning, an excavation, a remembering who you were before the world got its hands on you.”

• Emily McDowell

Barack and Michelle Obama

Barack and Michelle Obama have faced similar Tall Poppy treatment due to their success and status as a happily married Black couple. As the first Black president and first lady, they were subjected to heightened scrutiny and racially motivated criticisms. Frequently called “apes” and “terrorists” both in the media and within political discourse, their vast achievements for their community and this nation were undermined and minimized both socially and politically–subjected to unfounded rumors about their background and loyalty to America, particularly during and after Obama’s presidency. Sometimes by people who would become president later on. Even within segments of the Black community and from Chicagoans at large of all colors and creeds, the Obamas are constantly bashed, told they are not “real” Black people, and critiqued without research for not doing "enough" to address certain issues.

I will still argue the heaviest and harshest criticism goes to Michelle Obama. In her memoir Becoming, Michelle Obama reflects on a moment during her 2008 speech at the Democratic National Convention when her words, spoken with the best intentions, were misinterpreted and sparked controversy. She had said, “For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country,” intending to convey her deep appreciation for the progress being made in engaging citizens in democracy. However, the statement was purposefully misconstrued and taken out of context to serve a GOP agenda, with mostly conservative critics suggesting it implied a lack of patriotism. Michelle recounts how this taught her the importance of being deliberate and measured with her words, especially under the scrutiny of a national stage that hyper-fixates on the actions of marginalized people with the privilege to be there. For her, the experience revealed the challenges of maintaining authenticity while navigating public life and underscored the reality that even well-meant statements could be misconstrued in ways that detract from their intended message. For me, it means this nation is dedicated to misunderstanding and misperceiving women of color.

“Please distinguish the difference between where you’re being loved and where your love is being loved. Please distinguish the difference between where you’re being valued and where your value is being valued. Please distinguish the difference between liking them and liking to like them.”

• IG: @crystaltheoracle

Kamala Harris

The woman who proved that America hates Black women, Vice President Kamala Harris, the first Black and South Asian woman to hold the office, has also experienced similar challenges. Her career and policies have been scrutinized, not often due to their policy but again, due to her identity, through a lens that combines racist and sexist expectations. From conservatives, she has faced significant skepticism and harsh criticism for just being alive, even though she often served as a counter to their candidate’s obscene and inappropriate nature. Even though they want to vote for a reality star who is not a politician but a minstrel show, Harris’s success has been met with doubts about her qualifications. Black people sided with white supremacy and colonial expectations of Black women by demanding change that was not within her capability and setting highly untenable expectations while exploiting her record on social issues. Some liberals chose to either actionably or passively support Donald Trump because of her stance on Gaza, even though a Trump presidency would lead to Palestinian doom and a militaristic state. America has spoken. We prefer white people or men.

There is something similar in each of these case studies: each of these figures faced Tall Poppy Syndrome. Most of it was due to their social location, and their social location had a direct effect on their success or perceived success in fields where their identities were and are already challenged. Another thing in common is their ability to persist amidst criticism. The added pressure from within their own communities, along with unreasonable and unattainable expectations placed upon them, coupled with criticism from the broader public frequently reveals discomfort with the success and visibility of nuanced Black people from a collective that operates around shame and low self-esteem. This collective will pass, just like the generation before it. Collective ideals will change, and it is up to us to embody the unpopular opinions that will allow humanity and creativity to survive.

If you want to be a successful artist, this is the price. The first sign of your success will not be a reward, but a consequence. Another role and responsibility of Thee Artist is to be hated, unequivocally, regardless of what they do or who they appease.

The first trial of Thee Artist is breaking the generational curse.

“If they call your work a little hobby, ask them to show you a seed that starts as a tree.”

• Joel Uili

On breaking generational curses:

Case Study: Wayne Brady on Self-Discovery and Authenticity: Baby, This is Keke Palmer Episode

One example of breaking generational curses is Keke Palmer and Wayne Brady. Both artists resist archetypes and narratives that define them outside the realm of who they know they are. In the Baby, This is Keke Palmer podcast episode featuring Wayne Brady, the discussion touches on personal growth, vulnerability, and the courage to confront generational patterns. Brady reflects on his journey of self-discovery and mental health, including his decision to publicly share his identity as pansexual as a means of living authentically and breaking free from societal expectations. This conversation serves as a guide on how to break generational curses, as both Brady and Palmer explore personal healing and dismantling cycles of suppression, internalization, inherited trauma, and intergenerational conversation that needs to be had. Generative conflict is the foundation of this episode, embracing emotionality, authenticity, and challenging outdated norms while highlighting the power of confronting ingrained wounds of all descendants–creating a legacy of openness and empowerment for the next generation. Their dialogue emphasizes that breaking these "curses" isn’t just about individual freedom, canceling, or othering, but about reshaping familial and cultural narratives for lasting change.

On August 9th, Keke Palmer dropped an episode of her podcast featuring Wayne Brady. Working on the Literacy Lane project in Kalamazoo for the first time after intense public harassment and scrutiny of my work, a community-based project that was intended to bring people together and resulted in two vandalisms and a Reddit thread on how much the community hates me and doesn’t need my work, I was feeling really low. Still ricocheting off of the intense wave of depression and hopelessness I felt due to the public perception of this project, I turned on a podcast as I worked in the heatwave with the few dedicated and hardworking organizers of this project. Feeling that I was letting down everyone I knew, being told by the public–my neighbors–that I had no purpose, feeling like poison to the biggest project of my career, I continued to work as I listened to three generations of incredibly nuanced people who I did not know and who did not know me, relate with exactly what I was going through–just in a different way.

“The silver lining in this disaster of an election just may be that it will be a catalyst for a real open dialog about the reality of racism in America. Eyes may be opened to see that it is indeed, still a real thing. We have to work together to change it.”

• K. Wesley Weaver

The podcast begins, as usual, with a conversation between Keke and her mother, Sharon Palmer. In this particular episode, the conversation sparks a dialogue about the misconceptions and conflicts that are passed down intergenerationally, particularly about identity, that will continue unless we break cycles as they exist in our lifetime. The theme of the podcast seems to orbit around the word “pansexual”, particularly in this conversation–but goes on to extend to other attributes of mixed and nuanced identities and experiences, collective and personal.

Keke begins the conversation by relaying her own early experiences with identity. She thinks “...it’s interesting because (...) when I was younger (...) and I think all of us [her and her two siblings], not only is, you know, our thoughts or how we feel about things impacted [by] our age and our lack of experience but also our culture at the time, right? Like, when I think about when I was a kid, aside from whatever was specific to my life, you know, and me actually working as a kid, which is why I was very serious, I know culturally whether it pertained to like, my sexuality or feeling like the openness of having a unique sexuality that wasn’t so binary wasn’t really an option, especially also growing up religious. It was kind of like, “Oh, no”, you know, everything was so like, “This is good, this is bad, this is–this is–this is that.” And I remember at a certain time in my life when those conversations started happening, you know, the millennial generation, as we started to mature, we started to look at a lot of things, sexuality, our idea of spirituality, all of those things started to expand, which helped me to evolve as a person, like society at large, and the culture surrounding some of these subjects informed me that maybe I wasn’t or didn’t think about things the way that I always thought I did based off my actual opinion, but really society’s impact on how I should feel about things.”

The most incredible thing to me about Keke Palmer is her capacity for empathy. She calls people in instead of using conversations to build a generational wall. Keke then uses this time in her podcast to relay a key question that can open up understanding more about Sharon’s identity to learn from her history, asking her mother, “...how would you describe yourself in your, I don’t know, late teens, early twenties?” This pulls a really honest answer that many “Gen-Xers” could probably relate to. Sharon responds, “Well, first of all, I want to address, like, all the different labels and stuff. Like, I was in high school in like, 1985, So we had Prince, you know, we had Prince dressing, you know, very feminine. We had Michael who was also, you know, kind of feminine as well–and we just didn’t have all those labels, you know, it was very much “don’t ask, don’t tell”, you know.” (...) So you guys have all these labels and all these things and boxes that you have, and you know, I just, sometimes I get confused by all it because, you know, everybody wants to attack. You know, being a Black woman, being an overweight Black woman, I have a lot of strikes against me, and so a lot of times, I get the whole attitude thing, you know, you’re mad about something that happened years ago, or whatever like that–but sometimes I get so confused with all the titles and all the labels and I don’t want to offend anybody, you know, like I really don’t know the difference between pansexual and bisexual.”

‘If you wait for a man to give you a seat, you’ll never have one! If they don’t give you a seat at the table, bring in a folding chair.

• Shirley Chisholm

This might be something a lot of middle-aged folx are afraid to say, and I want to extend my deepest gratitude to Keke Palmer for setting the example of how to cultivate this powerful dialogue. Instead of focusing on the slightly offensive format in which Sharon shares how she feels, she shows grace, love, and kindness in generative conflict in action. Keke acknowledges and validates how Sharon feels and then gives her the education that she has been yearning for outside of the context of shame: “That’s a really good question, Mom. Well, first of all, I want to say for you to be a Gen-Xer and you being honest and saying sometimes you don’t understand the labels and stuff (...), I think that’s so honest and real, but I do think you do a really good job at, you do an amazing job at trying to evolve with the times and find the right language and ask questions, but also show respect and like to be genuinely invested and engaged.”

This allows Sharon to open up even more:

SHARON: “I’m glad you say that because I actually had an incident on a Zoom call. …Like, [they] wasn’t attacking me, but [they] was going at it, like, really aggressively towards this woman and I could see her being uncomfortable on the zoom and I said, “Wait, hold on a minute, sir.” And when I said that, [they] was like, “You're disrespectful! You’re homophobic! I am not sir!” I mean, I was just like, I didn’t even know how to handle that because first of all, you were attacking this woman for no reason. You were going all crazy. I didn’t know what to do to get your attention and I called you a ‘sir’, but I didn’t call you a ‘sir’ to disrespect you. I didn’t call you a ‘sir’ because I wanted to offend your sexuality. It just came out.”

KEKE:”--or your gender.”

SHARON: “Yeah, yeah, yeah, and that stuff, that scares me because everybody wants to attack.”

At this point, Keke knows that this conversation could go in a direction that could offend many of her LGBTQIAP+ viewers and fans, and that’s the beauty of it. She continues the conversation that could be so detrimental and harmful to her viewers and extends it to them and allows them to be seen and heard in this conversation. Instead of enabling and outright agreeing with her mother’s confusion, she takes this time to educate her:

KEKE: “...I think there is a reality. (...) [Y]eah, sometimes people really don’t know, but I do think there’s also this world that exists and when we’re talking about the queer community and everything that exists within that, whether it pertains to sexuality or whether it pertains to identity, there’s this reality where, okay, I’ve been antagonized, gaslit, and there’s been tons of microaggressions that I’ve experienced, so I’m hot, on fire, where it’s like: are you trying to offend me right now? You know what I mean? (...) It would be like if somebody was rapping a lyric and said the N-word and you don’t know if they just accidentally slipped up and said it or if they’re low-key trying to offend you. So I do think people have a high reactivity to anything that can seem like a slur, but also that high reactivity does sometimes not create a space for a moment of education or somebody saying, “wait a minute, wait a minute, I did not mean that,” and things can get hot and that’s how it is when we’re trying to bring new language and spread knowledge and get people to understand what’s going on–but I wanted to say that I appreciated you in that because we have a lot of people from the Gen-X generation, and I’ll bring up somebody like Dave Chapelle, who I think that Dave Chapelle, obviously, I think he’s a brilliant comedian, (...) but there is room for constructive criticism when it comes to his style of comedy, which I think is very representative of his age even more than his actual feelings, where there’s this pushback with a lot of Gen-Xer’s and generations before that, [where they] just wanted, “I’m thinking about it like this and that it is what it is and it’s got to be this, and that’s what it is and I’m not going to change.”

“You better work.”

• RuPaul

Following this comment, Sharon reverts to a narrative we are all used to hearing from older generations who don’t understand:

SHARON: “I do think that Dave is a part of the comics that just feel like everything is open game for comedy. You know what I mean? They just feel like, “I’m a damn comic, stop taking this shit so seriously.”’

What Sharon, like a lot of older Black people, does not understand about this narrative is that it is inherently violent to trans people, no matter what “intentions” one has. Again, Dave Chapelle will not age well. Unfortunately, his inability to do the work and spark generative conversations that do not enable his transphobic opinions has resulted in the death of a trans person. Dave Chappelle’s friendship with Daphne Dorman, a transgender woman, became a focal point in the criticism surrounding his recent comedy specials. Dorman tragically took her own life not long after taking the nuanced perspective of supporting Chappelle after his transphobic stand-up by validating his harmful jokes about the trans community. Chapelle used this experience in his next comedy special to continue to punch down on the trans community with his public comments on her suicide in an attempt to “honor her”. There was nothing honorable about what he said. If he had learned his lesson and made a comedy special that could exist outside of attacking a community he does not understand and does not belong to, she would not have taken a stance, she would not have received hatred, a door would not have opened where she was unprotected and taking a stance to defend her friend from comments he knowingly made.

“...never taught you how to drink, I just led you to the lake.”

• Nipsey Hussle

The reality of the work of Dave Chapelle is that it went from constructing generative dialogue about Black people, a community he has claim to, to tearing down a community he does not belong to, even amidst real, honest, and increasingly patient criticism about his increasingly transphobic works. “Equanimity” in 2017, “Sticks and Stones” in 2019, and “The Closer” in 2021 were all dedicated to and constructed around transphobia and contributed indirectly and directly to harm rather than the solidarity feigned in the same way that some “well-intentioned” white folx feign ‘solidarity’ with his earlier works while still using his show to perpetuate stereotypes about Black people. Unfortunately, Chapelle’s audience no longer has the intellectual bandwidth to ascertain satire from reality. In a world indoctrinated by propaganda, his jokes perpetuate dangerous stereotypes. It is unavoidable, regardless of artistic intention.

To be honest–I wish things were different. I wish we had a collective that was intelligent enough to cease the harm that obscures satire and reality. In the words of writer and satirist Flannery O'Connor, "When satire is confused with reality, it becomes hard for satire to function.” His exclusion of himself heeds another warning from Jonathan Swift, author of the classic satirical novel–another work that is often misconstrued in this generation–A Modest Proposal, which states, “Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own.”

There was one thing each of Chapelle’s specials lacked in content that infuriated queer and trans viewers: accountability. With condemnation from various advocacy groups, fans, and critics who agree his humor "punches down" on vulnerable communities instead of laughing with them, as per his usual brand. His reliance on these jokes risks his career if he cannot evolve his material. GLAAD and members of the trans community have been urging him toward accountability to no avail.

Chapelle’s inability to make a comedy special without making fun of people is the reason that Chappelle’s comedic approach, as Keke and Sharon mentioned, worked in the late 90s and early 2000s, a time when hate was just more popular in general. Every high school was “Mean Girls”, with a different but identical white blonde ‘Regina George’ figure. Queer bashing and hate crimes ran rampant, fueled by an apathetic media. This, again, resulted in actual death, such as the murder of Matthew Shepard, a 21-year-old gay college student from Wyoming the year I was born, 1998, only five years before Dave Chapelle would get a show of his own, probably while he was just finishing up the movie Half Baked (1998). In October, Shepard was brutally attacked by two men, Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson, in a hate crime because of his sexual orientation. Shepard was lured from a bar, beaten severely, tied to a fence, and left for hours in near-freezing temperatures. He was discovered the next day and suffered on life support in emergency care, succumbing to his injuries six days later in Poudre Valley Hospital. His death became a battle cry for LGBTQ+ rights, leading to widespread calls for hate crime legislation that also protects Black Americans in the U.S., such as The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which took a decade after his death to be signed into law in 2009.

“Invest in the human soul. Who knows, it might be a diamond in the rough.”

• Mary McLeod Bethune

Many former fans assert they won’t continue supporting Chapelle’s work until he reassesses his comedic choices, unfortunately resulting in a new legacy regardless of how many Mark Twain prizes he wins. In Keke’s words, transphobia will now be construed as his “style of comedy” for generations to come.

Again, I wish this was different. This is the danger of succumbing to the ego when creating and distributing your work and your voice. This is why, after Keke hears Sharon out, she reminds her mother, “... in this situation and the criticism of comedy as it pertains to this is very much directly connected to the evolution of time and society moving forward, and you have to simultaneously change your views and adapt to what’s happening, and explore different ideologies and figure out which part of history as it’s moving forward that you want to be a part of. You know, we’re seeing a lot with generations as we change because time changed. Things that were once okay are not okay [today].”

She follows up by kindly answering Sharon’s initial question, “Pansexual is kind of, there is a similarity in bisexuality in terms of bisexuals are “I’m going to date both men and women”. (...) Pansexual actually opens up that door [that] says: “I’m open to dating transgender, I’m open to dating non-binary, I’m open to dating”, you know? It’s not even just within the binary of male and female. It’s in the totality of who you could be. (...)”, then, as usual, shows some love to her mom:

KEKE: “I got to actually get in my conversation with Wayne Brady. So, thank you so much, Mom.”

SHARON: “You’re amazing. Love you, girl. All right.”

Listening to the conversation, I thought of all that people miss out on when they don’t have examples like this of generative conflict, myself included. If I participated in open dialogue, if I had stuck to my beliefs in an action-based way, would people have been more supportive when I was at such a low point and instead ran away? Suddenly a wave of guilt washes over me. In the hot sun, stencil brush in hand, I wonder what could have been different if I had the skills to have true honest dialogue the way Keke Palmer does–where her conversation with Sharon evoked an intergenerational analysis on identity and communication. The conversation with Wayne Brady later on in the episode shifts to the type of dialogue that younger generations of adults are starting to have with their children and partners, and the cycles we are beginning to break.

Wayne Brady is a key figure in this case study because he stands as a living breathing example of the legacy of gig workers in the United States, and their importance to Black identity and culture here. In his way, he reminds us of Black creative gig workers from each of our communities whom we adorn with well-earned respect locally. According to the Pew Research Center, overall and within age groups, Black and “Hispanic” Americans are more likely than white Americans to have ever earned money doing gig platform works. Brady embodies the Black American creative gig worker as he introduces himself in the show and talks about his career as a performer while physically at the location in Universal Music during the interview. He said right after the interview that he had to go directly to the listening party for the cast recording for “The Wiz”, coming soon. Brady is stepping into the iconic character the Cowardly Lion. “So I’ve got three more shows left on Broadway,” says Brady, “‘The Wiz’, ‘The Wiz’, then I head back to L.A. to start “Let’s Make a Deal”.

“To bring about change, you must not be afraid to take the first step. We will fail when we fail to try.”

• Rosa Parks

“Back in Orlando,” Brady reflects on his early career, “I was with a group called S.A.K theater, and then later seven of us moved out to L.A. and formed a group called “Houseful of Honkeys” and we used to perform all over L.A and at the comedy clubs. (...) …this is how, you know, when it says “you can tell God your plan, but he’ll tell you your plan isn’t the plan that’s going to happen. (...) I didn’t see myself as being funny. I didn’t see myself as any of those things until “Whose Line…” where they kept throwing these challenges. All of a sudden, I was like “Oh, I really do have the skillset to do this”. So it was self-discovery, and that’s the thing that changed my life. I’d worked for ten years before “Whose Line…”, but it wasn’t until I accepted those gifts.”

A multi-talented entertainer whose career spans various domains, including television, theater, music, and comedy, Brady first gained prominence as a versatile performer on the improvisational comedy show Whose Line Is It Anyway? where his quick wit and musical affinity made him a standout star. His ability to improvise and adapt delivered laugh-out-loud moments that showcased his genius and earned him many awards, including his Emmys. What many people still fail to recognize is that he is one of the most versatile artists in the game today, as Wayne Brady's talents extend beyond improv. He is a skilled singer, dancer, and physical comedian, he has released several albums, demonstrating a musical range from jazz to pop. The Wiz is not his first Broadway show, either, his Broadway credits include roles in classics like Rent and Kinky Boots, and Chicago, where he has shown remarkable acting chops and vocal ability, further solidifying his status as a multifaceted performer since as early as 2004.

“Don't sit down and wait for the opportunities to come. Get up and make them.”

• Madame CJ Walker

This is business as usual. Wayne Brady is always behind the scenes.

Despite his stage and screen fame, Brady often plays a behind-the-scenes role in his projects as well and thrives while serving as a producer, writer, and director. This aspect of his career reflects his deep understanding of the entertainment industry and his commitment to creating quality over quantity. He has been involved in the production of shows that highlight diverse and nuanced voices and stories, emphasizing his desire to uplift others in the industry who may follow in his footsteps. Brady's genius lies not only in his talent but also in his ability to use his nuance as a superpower, to adapt and evolve within an ever-changing entertainment landscape. He transcends genres and mediums in such a way that makes him a beloved figure in pop culture while often working behind the curtain to ensure projects resonate with audiences. His contributions to entertainment, both in front of the camera and behind it, showcase his remarkable breadth of creativity and influence that few can match.

Here are some tips from Wayne Brady on how to embody success as an artist of nuance:

1. Set your intention.

Understand who you are by identifying your needs, wants, desires, and dreams. Once you identify what you want in life, set the intention to find it. “...I’ll read everything and take it and internalize it,” Brady reflects on his early life and career, “and then that kid is the kid who can take all of that stuff and jump on stage and let it all out. Nobody knew that I could sing or act until I was sixteen and already onstage, because I was in my bedroom marinating, putting on shows, writing, doing all the cartoon voices for those stories that I’d written, making all these worlds happen… (...) Sometimes you have to internalize things in order to then bring it out.”

Ask yourself:

• What “gifts” do I have?

• Do I accept those gifts? Why or why not?

• In what direction is my path being redirected right now?

• What can I study to make my craft stronger?

• How can I internalize what I learn from other artists to make the world a better place?

• What can I create that I have always dreamed of creating? What is stopping me? Is it a real obstacle or a perceived obstacle? Why?

“I’m no longer accepting the things I cannot change… I’m changing the things I cannot accept.”

• Angela Davis

2. Take control of the narrative.

No one can tell you what or who you are. The words of others have no real impact on our daily lives, it’s actions that matter. For Wayne Brady, discovering his gifts for comedy was like the world was discovering it with him. This gave him the upper hand on how to control his narrative. Personally, I remember those beginning moments of “Whose Line is it Anyways?” where Wayne Brady was unaware he would pave the way for other Black men of nuance like Diallo Riddle, Roy Wood Jr., Hannibal Burress, and Trevor Noah to be hilarious in their own special ways on mainstream television and in stand-up comedy. Brady took his ability to control his narrative as an opportunity to offer an alternative narrative, which was off-putting to a lot of viewers at the time who expected all Black comedians to be like Monique, Dave Chapelle, Mike Epps, or Katt Williams. Brady compares his relationship with media to a romantic relationship:

“It’s just like in a relationship, right? You’re going to treat me the way I want to be treated. (...) I set out to God: I just want to work. So when they said “Oh, you’re the improv comedy guy” and “you’re the variety guy”, it’s like “Okay, I guess so, sure. I left the business because it’s easier, it’s easier to put somebody in a box than it is to truly quantify, especially when I came aboard in ‘99 and 2000 being the only Black man on that show–and I wasn’t a def jam comedian. I kind of came out of nowhere. It was easier for the collective brains of the network to go “Oh, Black guy that does that? You’re this, boom.”

Keke was another eyewitness to the dynamic between Brady in his early career and how the media liked to define and constrain his image: “... I remember how gagged everybody was when they had you do that amazing sketch on the Dave Chapelle show because everybody did think “Okay, he just does that– you know what I mean? (...) The one when it’s like: “You don’t know the real Wayne Brady”. I mean, that was insane. How did that impact your story at the time?” (...) They’re always critical of us as Black creatives, you know, you can’t go too left, you can’t go too right, there’s always little space for nuance, but I think you brought that to it.”

Brady responds, “That was the opportunity that I (...) woke up and I took control of my narrative because, to me, it’s still isn’t about the “real” me or the “real” you but because you’re on camera, it is what you share, but I think what people saw of the real is they saw the depth of what I do. It’s like, don’t get it twisted, (...) for people that were checking for it, to see that it just wasn’t a comedy sketch, you saw that I could really act and that I helped to write that joint. (...) …and I meant that not just for show business, but I think also for us because I needed to speak to my people as well and go, “don’t get it twisted”.’

Ask yourself:

• In what ways do I feel other people sum or size me up? Do I think people mistake your “meakness for weakness” in any way? Why or why not?

• In what ways do I internalize this?

• In what ways can I use my art to reappropriate this dynamic?

• What is the depth of the work I create?

• In what ways am I being understood?

• In what ways am I being misperceived?

“When I liberate myself, I liberate others. If you don’t speak out ain’t nobody going to speak out for you.”

• Fannie Lou Hamer

3. Explore your options and reinvent yourself.

“I’m still, each day when I wake up, I’m breaking myself out of the box because there’s always another network executive, there’s always another director, there’s always another person on the street who–their perception of you is “oh, you host a game show”. I’m like, yes, I do, but I also do the forty other things that maybe you haven't seen, so let me get into those things, so you can know–that’s the job. That’s my job, is to constantly reinvent myself, and as long as I’m happy with what I’m doing, then I’m happy with what I’m creating and presenting to you.” says Brady.

Keke relates, “I think that’s such an important mindset that you just displayed, to anyone in any field, because it’s always like that. (...)...in order for us to stay engaged, excited, inspired, and also to be able to quiet the noise around us and make sure that our validation is coming from inwards we gotta have that kind of mindset. That’s the mindset of, to me, a winner and somebody that is staying curious and passionate about life. You talked about some dark times in your personal career, it does in some ways reflect what either is or isn’t happening in my personal life. How is that for you? Is it the same? Like, do you feel those two things being related in your personal life affecting your creativity?”

Brady gives some very important advice for creatives, “...if you go to somebody’s house and if your house is a mess, if your life is a mess, how can you work, even if your work looks good on the surface? You can’t possibly be that far out of balance. So, during the times that I went through clinical depression, and I wasn’t doing anything to fix that, I was so naive thinking, “My spirit and my mind are not in the right place, but surely when I get on camera, I’m gonna be amazing!” No, not when you are the business. (...) That’s why I knew that therapy was a big part of what I needed. I needed therapy. I needed trauma work. I needed to be able to have conversations that were difficult. I needed to be able to face things because if I wanted my work to be stellar, then I needed my personal life and my mind to be just as good.” Keke and Brady agreed that at the surface of that healing journey, is the yearning to stop judging ourselves so that it is easier not to judge others. This also makes it easier not to care when others judge themselves or someone else.

Ask yourself:

• How am I breaking out of the box others put me in?

• What things can I do that people may not know about?

• How can I reinvent myself during each project I’m working on right now?

• How have my dark times influenced my career as an artist?

• How can I heal for the sake of my art?

“Do not desire to fit in. Desire to oblige yourselves to lead.”

• Gwendolyn Brooks

4. Love your craft with all your heart (i.e.: PRACTICING).

“That’s what prompts me,” says Keke to Brady, “is my love for the craft. It, sometimes, is what prompts me to say, “Well, let me check in and figure out what’s going on, because if I’m not being creative and I’m not expressing that means I’m not living, I’m not experiencing. I’m holding something back. There’s a story that needs to be told. There’s something that needs to be opened up. So, I’m grateful for that relationship that I have with something that I love in that way because it does help me and push me to challenge myself out in ways that sometimes I don’t even know I need to.”

Brady follows up with a warning for all artists:

BRADY: “–and if you don’t do that, (...) and something my therapist and a couple of men’s groups that I was a part of at one time, if you–especially as a creative–you love this thing so much; (...) if you’re not willing to begin the mental journey of cleaning those pipes and cleaning out the vessel, guess what? You’re going to lose it.”

KEKE: “–and that’s horrifying.”

BRADY: “You’re going to lose the thing that you love the most–you will lose that, and that’s scary. So if nothing else prompts you to get off your behind, that should.”

Ask yourself:

• What does my life look like when I am being creative? What are my habits? What does an average day look like?

• What is my human design “not-self” theme? In what ways is this theme activated when you are not being creative?

• What is a skill you have lost over the years because you no longer practice it anymore?

• What would a life without your creativity feel like?

Brady is correct. If you do not practice your skill, even if it is your very favorite one, you will lose it. This means our inner dialogue, our creator moment, and practicing this program are all integral steps not only in the enrichment of your creativity but its retention as well.

“Those that don’t get it, can’t show it. Those that got it, can’t hide it.”

• Zora Neale Hurston

5. Know thyself.

Returning to the “labels” Sharon struggles to understand, Keke used her interview with Wayne Brady to highlight the importance of naming the traits and identities we carry. She asked, “What do you think the importance is in defining that by a word or deciding to say, ‘this is who I am’ or ‘this is what I am,’ as opposed to just living in that?”

Being a celebrity in the queer community comes with unique challenges. Brady explains, “...Sometimes, as you know, we don’t have the luxury—if you are well-known in certain circles or if people know your face—and that’s great in theory, to just live with who you want to live with and just be you and walk in that path.” However, he acknowledged that this “path” often exists in a closeted space. He admitted to “...hiding and ducking and diving” when dating someone who was “trans or non-binary.”

Brady ultimately rejected this way of living. To honor himself and the people he loves, he chose to live openly and unapologetically:

“…I’m saying it for me, first off, so I can just go “Okay, and I’m gonna say it to you because once I’ve said it, I can be anywhere at any time and you cannot shame me for it”, and all of this could still be a moot point because it’s whomever. (...) …I think you have to say it out loud just so you get rid of the shame because shame will kill you. People kill themselves behind shame–they ruin their lives behind shame and I’m not gonna do that.”

Whether it is Jean-Michel Basquiat, Kurt Cobain, Sylvia Plath, or Amy Winehouse, most of us know the weight that fame can carry. Add shame, and it can be a fatal combination. Another choice is to educate one another Keke Palmer then points out that the abandonment of shame and the use of tools to define ourselves can help us educate one another:

“Yeah, and I do think it's very unrepresentative of a time in our era and a desire to also educate, right? (...) So it becomes this kind of double-edged sword where it’s like– “I need to define and help you understand so you could be educated,” but now you don’t understand and there’s nuance and there’s gray spaces here.”

Ask yourself:

• Where/what are my grey areas?

• In what ways do I shame myself in my creative process?

• In what ways do I shame others around their creativity? Why? Try not to judge yourself.

• What are my different identities? Make some labels, or just see the identity map exercise you completed in Week One as a refresher.

“Anytime you get more than a couple of Black women together, you’re creating this powerful mechanism for change.”

• Kimberly Bryant

6. Improvise!

“There’s improv comedy and there’s improvisation, just the actual art of it,” says Brady, “...I can’t cheat my way into making you laugh. Laughing is such a, it is the hardest thing to evoke because it’s not, laughter isn’t an emotion, laughter is a critical response.” Improvisation is yet another reason that people of color historically have not considered themselves “blocked” creatively as a collective. Improvisation has been the survival technique for marginalized peoples since the colonization of our world. We have created a beautiful strategy of existence by thinking on our feet and using our obstacles as creative boundaries or prompts. We live with the faith, as Brady believes, “...that everything happens for a reason and it’s never too late for a second, third, fourth or fifth act.” A failure is not a failure to Thee Artist. There is no such thing as rejection, just a new direction. No matter what happens, if an artist can evoke a critical response in their audience, their work is a success. Here are some types of critical responses to consider when creating your next work of art:

1. Scream

2. Laughter

3. Tears (Crying)

4. Goosebumps (Piloerection)

5. Tension

6. Disgust

7. Chills

8. Excitement/Thrill

9. Lust

10. Nausea

11. Relaxation

12. Increased Heart Rate

13. Shock

14. Empathy

15. Contemplation

16. Vibration

17. Tingling or Prickling Sensation

18. Ennui

“I didn’t learn to be quiet when I had an opinion. The reason they knew who I was is because I told them.”

• Ursula Burns

If your work can move anyone in any of these ways, congratulations, you are a successful and emerging artist. Critical response is the point of our work. In a mere moment, somehow we can capture the many ways art can interact with the viewer, pushing them anywhere from excitement and awe, to discomfort or apathy. To me, this is the meaning of life.

Ask yourself:

• What critical responses do I want to evoke in my work?

• What critical responses have I already evoked in my work?

• Is creativity the meaning of life? Why or why not?

7) Embrace nuance.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again–nuance is the opposite of propaganda. If your work depicts a nuanced experience it is more likely to be successful among an audience that loves art. Note that I did not say it will become popular, as this isn’t the point of this program. If you want to be liked or popular you can follow the typical frivolous path of the marketing firms that spit out redundant pieces of work to back a system that exploits millions of vulnerable people. If you want to explore the path of an artist who seeks liberation for themself and their people, embrace a situation where not everything is as it seems. This is a great prompt if you are a storyteller like Wayne Brady and Keke Palmer:

KEKE: “For me, it’s always been about digging into the deeper moments and the way that my parents raised me to look at things. It’s about how we can use that to create nuance and shape different ideas of representation and also just the craft, you know, satire versus literal, you know, all this type of stuff. So 100% your craftsmanship is very apparent, but there’s always this conversation when you do have that depth, and the industry really annoys me with this, where they don’t always respect comedy in that way. You see it in the award shows and, you know, for whatever reason, it’s like drama is real acting, but comedy–even though it’s so difficult to make people laugh, sometimes it’s shortchanged and not seen as difficult or it’s not acknowledged as something that you have just as much skill to do. (...) How important do you think it is to take what the universe gives us versus making a conscious effort to kind of push it in a certain direction, right?”

BRADY: “I think you can do both. I think intention is something that I would have discovered; now–intention versus whatever someone’s faith belief is, you know, that if you set out to go, this is my goal–and that’s that old platitude about, you know–if you shoot for the stars you’ll still hit something–I do believe that’s it. If your intention is to say that there is somebody that says “My intention is to star on Broadway,” it’s not going to just happen sitting in your house–you can train in class, acting classes, sing, dance, do everything that you can and maybe you’ll make it to Broadway, maybe you'll make it to a regional theater. We don’t know, but at least you’ve put in that work. So, if your intention is set, then maybe the universe can do its job.”

KEKE: “...I’m like, dang, that was all for me to do this and be able to stand up there and do that monologue, it’s all a stepping stone and I think it’s important because a lot of times, you know, we do think, (...) you only get one act or two acts but it’s like I’m not dead yet! Do you know what I mean?”

“The success of every woman should be an inspiration to another. We should raise each other up.”

• Serena Williams

Ask yourself:

• How am I cultivating creative tools to be able to accomplish my creative dreams?

• How important is it to take what the universe gives us, as opposed to a conscious effort to kind of push it in a certain direction?

• What time limits am I giving my artistic career? Why? What purpose does it serve my body or my body of work? Are they goals or limitations?

• How important is my intention as compared to my outcome in a work of art?

8) Rate thyself.

I loved Wayne Brady’s response to being called “underrated”. Frankly, his work is merely underappreciated. Others’ definitions of Brady’s body of work have very little impact on his overall career or creative process. “So first off, I can’t be underrated.” says Brady, “The rating is based off your own personal metric. So I know what I rate. (...) So, I rate me.”

When one gains the ability to set their personal standard lovingly, the perception of others becomes inconsequential to the overall creative process. No longer does Thee Artist have to compensate using unnecessary props, luxurious set-ups, and never-ending budgets. The work speaks for itself. Finally, its creator can take a long, cleansing breath followed by a pleasurable sigh of relief.

KEKE: “Apparently I rate high to me and you, so bingo–so…”

BRADY: “So I win.”

“When you take care of yourself, you’re a better person for others. When you feel good about yourself, you treat others better.”

• Solange Knowles

Halftime exercises:

Congratulations, Artist! You are now halfway through this chapter. It’s a long one, so I thought I would take this time to double-check, reflect, and grasp our comprehension. Here are some exercises based on Keke Palmer and Wayne Brady’s conversation to help you define your path as Thee Artist. Hopefully, in the process, we will ward off any unnecessary self-inflicted suffering on this path.

Exercise One: Taking Control of the Narrative

KEKE: “Now, discovering that you are pansexual, that seems like a huge moment of self-discovery. (...) What is being ‘pansexual’?”

BRADY: “Well, there’s a definition that I read and there’s the definition that I feel in reading, and this is to paraphrase; to be pansexual is your attraction is not limited to just male or female. It is male, female, non-binary. So really it’s a very fancy way of saying that the vessel doesn’t matter, and that’s how I look at it, is that, if I fall in love with you, I’m in a place to fall in love with the soul of the person, no matter what the vessel is– and not to get hung up on that piece of it, and that was such a huge thing to be able for me to accept because I think, like a lot of young men at the time, and like a lot of people–especially being raised around the cats that I was raised around–to even have that as a concept in my mind was at odds with it; and then you bring religion into it. You’re like “Well, what if I were attracted to a man, then I’m going to hell and it’s bad, “but, [then again] I love a woman.” (...) Let’s just see what it is, and to an ignorant person, like I read online, sometimes when they read that, there’s this like “just come out and say that you gay or you bisexual”. No, I’m not going to do that; but if I were, then I’d say so. Trust me, I’d be the first person to say so, but that would be a disservice to somebody who is walking that path and living that life.”

• Do you have a soul, mind, and body connection to your art? In what way? Set a timer for five minutes and speed write, draw, or speak out about this relationship.

Exercise Two: Improvise!

Part I

According to Wayne Brady, “Every kid is an improviser because we all make up stories as kids, but it’s later when I stumbled into the actual art that you need, as an actor, to be able to think on your seat and build out a character. That’s when I fell in love with it, and I knew that it’s something that I would strive to be able to work in and incorporate it into everything else that I can do, to just use it as a tool in the tool belt.” Examining the “gifts” we took inventory of earlier in this segment of the chapter, assess the tools in your creative “tool belt”. This can be talents, skills, training, resources, books, degrees, or anything that may further your career in the arts. Take ten minutes to write it down or document your “toolbox” in some way. We will use this in the future, so keep it in your folder of resources.

“Give light and people will find the way.”

• Ella Baker

Part II

In the podcast, Keke Palmer says to Wayne Brady “...I think a lot of times when people think about improv they just solely think about comedy, but really it’s just creating a world.”

• Take thirty minutes minimum for each worldbuilding prompt. You can dig as deep as you want here. I do not care what medium you use, what you create, or how you create it, but make something. Use 1 and 2 (Part I) to inform your final worldbuilding exercise.

1. Create a utopia.

2. Create a dystopia.

3. Create an alternative reality in between of some kind.

Exercise Three: Correcting the Course

Wayne Brady makes young artists aware, “It doesn’t all move at once. I needed to do course correcting. So, even as of this point, I may not be where I see myself in my mind and heart, but I am years further past where I was. My aim is to, at one point, (...) be able to do some of the roles that I see, but I’ve gotten a chance to do more roles than most people–so I can never look at it as what’s the moment that I fixed it because I’m still in process. I’m still in process.”

Write or speak aloud three sentences to answer each question:

1. What is your status as a creative?

2. In what ways are you still in process, as an artist and a person?

3. What have you been able to do that many others have not or do not often get to do?

4. What is your end goal?

5. How do you think you need to correct your course to get there?

6. Where do you realistically think you will end up?

We will reflect on this in the future. Put it in your folder and check back on it until we answer the questions again.

Exercise Four: Self-Reflect

Keke Palmer praises Wayne Brady in the podcast, “...I do applaud you, especially as a Black man, for stepping out in that space because I think more importantly than all of the annoyances and the age that we are in now, it’s better to just represent and just be, “hey this is the deal,” because we need that. Otherwise, people don’t know and people don’t understand and people don’t realize there’s a space created for them and then hopefully years and years and years to come it's not a “thing” anymore, it’s just expected, understood.”

“Even if it makes others uncomfortable, I will love who I am.”

• Janelle Monae

Brady accredits a large part of his inspiration to his daughter and his fans, “...As I look, as a father, (...) my little girl is a woman, you know, she’s 21, and I look at her and this generation and I’m so inspired by people that give themselves the latitude to be who they want to, and I’m so inspired to want to live the way I want to live, so then I can inspire somebody else– because the DMs that I get from people that are in their 40’s, 50’s and that go: “Wayne if you can do it– I’m going to speak my truth now, too.” Or I might get a DM from a college student or a young Black kid in a neighborhood in ‘Anywhere, USA’, who says, “Wow, one of the people that makes me laugh can share his journey, makes me feel like there’s somebody who heard me.” That’s worth it. That’s worth any negative comment that I ever get because that means I use this job for good. (...) It’s just so cool because that is truly the sacrifice of an artist. Whether I’m on stage or off stage, it’s to allow you to see yourself in me and to not be afraid to show all the different colors in every aspect of what I represent.”

• In a half hour, please create a collage, digital, sound or visual, or some other sort of collage, that responds to this prompt:

We cannot all be Wayne Brady and Keke Palmer. It is great to be recognized, understood, and rewarded, but that is never a certainty as a creator. None of us will ever get the recognition we deserve, especially not in our lifetime. You’re not crazy if you feel like you’re just treading water sometimes. Currently, the nature of the creative trade is incredibly brutal and laborious with little appreciation from anyone. Each day we do hard, unpaid, physical, technical, intellectual, and emotional labor and instead must turn to ways of seeking validation outside of accolades, compensation, and appreciation. Knowing this, highlight three achievements you have made creatively this year. What are the natural “rewards” of this effort? Do not mention awards, recognition, or any type of exterior appreciation or compensation. Instead, focus on the result of a work of art and its impact on your life.

For example: While working on the mural project I was working on while listening to Keke Palmer’s podcast, I faced relentless challenges—enduring an overwhelming amount of online hatred and violation. To add to the frustration and disappointment, the piece was entirely overlooked in that year’s community arts awards. Despite this, I know this work of art is significant because the mural's impact speaks for itself: dumping and pollution in the community came to an almost complete halt at the mural site, providing a safer and cleaner environment. It has become a welcoming space for houseless individuals and other community members, offering refuge away from violence and the nearby PCB contamination. Pollinators are now drawn to the mural, which enhances the local ecosystem. As the largest ground mural in Michigan, its significance is undeniable—these are my measurable accomplishments, rooted in fact.

Our accomplishments must begin in our mind and not outside of our body, or we will always be yearning for something that may or not be there to affirm our existence as an artist.

That’s it! Halftime exercises are over! Great work! Let’s move on.

“It’s not the load that breaks you down; it’s the way you carry it.”

• Lena Horne

There are three very important other tools that we can add to our proverbial creative “toolbox”. These tools are skepticism, attention, and conflict.

On skepticism:

The scientific method begins with a hypothesis–so should your work. When we create, regardless of the intention we are creating from, we always have some sort of line of inquiry in mind. It could be as simple as the color red or as complex as the insidiousness of abuse culture in media, like the work of Shareece Williams in her series “Abuse in the Culture” on Substack. Often, as artists, we forget that aesthetics, the subjective study of beauty, and taste and artistic creation, is an act of philosophy. Philosophy requires healthy skepticism. No matter where your line of inquiry lies, you must approach your aesthetic journey with an open mind. This skepticism becomes unhealthy only when it manifests as a lack of faith or confidence in ourselves and others as creatives. As artists, we must begin to think of rumors as just that, rumors. Rumors are social tumors, people usually say things to take down those who are doing more than them from a place of their own low self-esteem. They spread rapidly and destroy anyone and anything in their path. We may not even mean to spread half of the rumors we do. Do yourself a favor, when confronted with a rumor (i.e. any unconfirmed secondary information), go directly to the primary source of said rumor and ask the hard questions. Become a creative scientist. You may be surprised at the healing and/or truth you may find. When we abandon rumors we stop believing the rumors that we internalize in our creative process. Suddenly we stop shutting doors of opportunity because we know the world will do that for us. In the case that door closes on us, we will know it is time to bust out a window.

“You don’t make progress by standing on the sidelines, whimpering and complaining. You make progress by implementing ideas.”

• Shirley Chisholm

On Attention:

In Julia Cameron’s “The Artist’s Way”, she describes attention as “...a way to connect and survive.” “The capacity for delight is paying attention,” says Cameron, and “[t]he reward for attention is always healing.” I interpret the relationship with attention to the artist as the dynamic in the Niyama Ishvara Pranidhana, which forces us to confront the “myth of separateness”. As artists, we fear losing attention because we fear death. We fear death because we have a survivalist fear of a world without us. This is reflected in our work, whether it is creating pieces with the intention of sale or content creation, or whether it is examining your own existentialist ponderings in your medium of choice. The myth of separateness is found in a plethora of spiritual practices and philosophies, the interconnected nature of all living things. Fearing the loss of ourselves is also fearing the loss of humanity as a whole. To get to a level of comfortability, however, we must accept that things will go on after our lives, the life of humanity, the life of our solar system, and the possible life of our universe. It’s like the Byrds say, “To everything, (turn turn turn), there is a season, (turn turn turn)…”

Ishvara Pranidhana is a Niyama that asks us to surrender forces greater than ourselves. The ego's need for control is the scaffolding to interpret ourselves no longer as separate from our fellow beings. Suddenly we are all collaborators. By fostering a sense of trust in a larger unity, Ishvara Pranidhana is an invitation to overcome the fear of isolation and mortality. You may notice this opposes the concept of individualism that colonial white supremacist institutions rely on. In our journey to find Thee Artist, we must embrace collaboration as essential to our growth and healing. Intellectuals and theologists such as Martin Luther King Jr. and social and environmental systems theorists argue that humanity’s success depends on whether or not we require seeing ourselves as parts of something larger than ourselves. Presence and awareness allow uninterrupted, fully valued creativity. As artists, we must use attention as only a recognition of interconnectedness, not an assessment of our value or the value of our work. Overcoming the illusion of separateness is the goal of Thee Artist, who strives for individual healing and collective liberation.

The cure to egoism in your artwork is conflict.

All in all, collaboration is just a dialogue. It does not have to be deemed anything, not positive or negative, not good or bad. No matter what the outcome is, every collaboration will make you a better artist. We will cover this more later. That being said, if collaboration in your art is constructive, consider egoism destructive. Someone with a huge ego does not know how to accept or give critique. While some people think of an egoist as someone overtly confrontational, I would argue the opposite based on a lifetime with artists of all kinds. In a critique, a key signifier of an egoist artist may be how much they go out of their way to praise everyone only to be deeply offended when they are offered constructive criticism instead of praise. Everything is an attack on the artist with a porcelain ego. They have nothing to improve on and neither do you. Their ego often reflects in their frivolous subjects that have little to no commentary on anything at all, lacking all exposition, all conflict, all the things that draw people in.

“I have standards I don’t plan on lowering for anybody … including myself.”

• Zendaya

Great art makes great conflict, and vice versa. The bastardization and stigmatization of conflict are used to subdue artists in exploitative systems, which is not coincidental. If people were not divided there would be nothing to buy from corporations, people would just be buying everything from each other. Often people of all racial backgrounds like to attribute blame as to why the Black dollar doesn’t stay in our community. The bastardization of conflict is a concept that can hopefully allow us to stop putting up arms with one another and start redirecting to the actual problem. The Black dollar's quick departure from Black communities is rooted in many factors that have compounded over generations. Systemic racism, segregation, redlining, and limited access to the same resources and licensing to start businesses as white people still make it challenging for Black-owned businesses to thrive and for wealth to accumulate in Black communities today. We kept more money in our community during the Jim Crow era. At this time, Black communities were forced to support each other economically, white people would not accept our money for everyday services like dining (and we know most of their hair salons still do not serve people of color), so we had to collaborate to create quality businesses and systems that serve us. Exemplified by the historical Greenwood district in Tulsa, Oklahoma, dollars circulated within the community for extended periods, fostering wealth. Unfortunately, in many communities like Greenwood, the insurance policies were only available through white vendors in these areas. These insurance policies often contained predatory “riot clauses”, which meant that if and when the white citizens deputized themselves through the state to destroy communities in events like the 1921 Tulsa Massacre leaving once wealthy Black communities destroyed, white folx could shape their stolen economy so that most of everyone’s money goes right back to them. The whitewashing of the integration process sealed the deal, and suddenly we no longer strike the dialogue and generate the conflict needed in our communities to produce cultural wealth. It makes sense, our nation has warned us that success for the Black community means death, destruction, and fear. This is how our country has gone from having wealthy Black communities across the board to only keeping the Black dollar in the Black community for six hours on average.

Contrary to racist predispositions, “self-sufficiency” isn’t the answer for communities who were at one point self-sufficient only to be hate crimed every time that it is accomplished. The only way we can progress financially and independently is by striking generative conflict to solve these issues.

Creative entrepreneurship does not discriminate. If you are a felon, you may not be able to vote, but you can still sell art in this nation. There are no prerequisites for being an artist, so we have been discouraged, shamed, or stigmatized whenever we choose this field. Creative action is equivalent to Black power. Creative action can only be generated from conflict. Again, the bastardization and stigmatization of conflict are used to subdue artists in exploitative systems. If people in the Diaspora could practice generative conflict in the creative market, the dialogue would strike resolutions and new ideas, unlock new modes of liberation, and establish collective values and subjugated knowledge that have become lost to us over time. Contrary to popular belief, conflict does not limit us, it unlocks what is possible. Conflict, when done in a generative way, is liberation.

“I am a strong woman with or without this other person, with or without this job, and with or without these tight pants.”

• Queen Latifah

How to create freedom from conflict:

Care (they/them) is a self-proclaimed “...light skinned Black trans non binary abolitionist somatic practitioner, artist, writer and doula who works on remembering embodies experiences of awe, connectedness, miracles and care” who runs a publication and program called “the erotics of liberation”. I encourage you to buy their zine entitled “We Cannot Be Abolitionist and Conflict Avoidant”. This publication breaks down the somatics of conflict in the individual and appropriates conflict as a mode of finding liberation. This is pivotal to Thee Artist. Care begins the piece by describing the current state of conflict in modern culture and our habits surrounding conflict:

“You’ve likely felt before, on a visceral level, the inherent link between our collective liberation and our willingness to confront conflict. Despite this understanding, many of us struggle to navigate conflicts, particularly within our closest relationships. (...) Avoidance, deeply ingrained through billions of years of evolutionary wisdom, serves as a survival strategy enabling us to preemptively steer clear of potentially harmful or unpleasant situations. (...) To move away from reliance on oppressive institutions like the police and courts, we must first prioritize open communication and dialogue. This necessitates a willingness to engage in uncomfortable conversations and confrontations, even–and especially–with those we care about the most.”

You’re probably reading this right now thinking: I want you to go head-first into some heated confrontation, but that’s not it–I’m opening the door for you to speak your mind knowing that words do not kill, people do. Albeit, some words are warnings of violence and the apprehension behind conflict has gone from being propagated in media to being engrained physically.

“I have chosen to no longer be apologetic for my femaleness and my femininity. And I want to be respected in all my femaleness because I deserve to be.”

• Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie

Stacy Haines, Stacy Haines, author of “The Politics Of Trauma: Somatics, Healing, and Social Justice” may argue that a fear of conflict is engrained in the collective soma–“...the living organism in its wholeness. It is really the best word we have in English to describe mind, body, spirit.” Our soma consists of sensations, emotions, relations, actions, and inactions, our internal narratives, our ancestral lineages, and our individual and collective stories. It is another word for the result of our epigenetics. According to Care, “[s]cientists have observed epigenetic memories being passed down fourteen generations, which means that we hold in our tissues 14 generations of trauma, gifts, stories, joy and care.” “One of the best technologies we hold in our soma,” says Care “is to be able to predict (...). If we come from histories and lineages of trauma (and we all do) we will potentially guess negative outcomes to situations that do not necessarily call for that. That cognitive bias, called confirmation bias, speaks to a tendency to seek out, favor or interpret information in a way that supports our existing beliefs.” Many Black and brown companies and nonprofits have been making the shift to a “generational model” that takes this into account, planning and strategizing for seven generations before us and seven generations after, proclaiming, like Care, “I come as one, but I stand as ten thousand.” It is also important to consider this when creating art, as “[i]magination plays a huge role in liberation. While abolition is our foundation, we cannot stop at destruction. We need to imagine better ways to relate to ourselves, each other and the Land. Most importantly, we need to practice those liberating pathways NOW.” These soma are related to our survival response. “Survival strategies are our blueprint to survive life threatening situations. We have developed those strategies over billions of years. Those are: fight, flight, freeze, dissociate and appease survival strategies” says Care. When conflict is manipulated, so are our instincts. In Care’s words, “[w]e do what we believe (based on our assessment of our environment as well as past experiences) would most likely save our precious life.” Not only have our survival instincts been manipulated, but it is becoming a collective strategy to seek comfort through avoiding conflict through a coping mechanism that, “...is an adaptation that aims to decrease tension and anxiety and allow us to work through uncomfortable situations.”

Care points out the importance of knowing the different states of reaction inside of us. “Using “triggered” and “Activated” interchangeably can inadvertently minimize the unique challenges each state presents”, they say. “Being triggered typically points to a state where our emotional responses have been hijacked, and our ability to rationalize our experiences is temporarily impaired” Care explains, “On the other hand, being “activated” denoted a state where we retain some capacity to witness and engage with our emotional landscapes. (...) Under trauma, our survival strategies (fight, flight, freeze, dissociation or appease) become automated to stay alive. Often, people who have gone through traumatic situations do not recall their reactions, and “leave their body” in the name of their survival. That is because trauma hijacks our conscious control. We do not respond, but react the best way we know how just to stay alive.” From their perspective “... it is essential to come to terms with the fact that being activated during a conflict is part of the human experience, and therefore is to be expected. Conflicts’ inherent function is to activate our nervous system. Conflicts—including the ones that are generative– are indeed a direct threat to our survival.” Our trauma does not know where we are or how dangerous a situation is, “Indeed,” Care echoes, “trauma is also unresponsive to time. Trauma is time travel.” What is important here is that coping mechanisms do not respond to life threatening situations, but our emotional state.” Concerning our creative capacities, coping mechanisms are intended to allow the individual to work under distress. If the purpose of a coping mechanism is labor, are our systems manufacturing them to encourage the global majority of people to work for others (corporations, firms, non-profits) instead of themselves?

“Your willingness to look at your darkness is what empowers you to change.”

• Iyanla Vanzant

If survival strategies intend to keep the body alive and coping mechanisms intend to keep the body working, what is the purpose of conflict? “If you have never witnessed or experienced generative conflict, wherein disappointment, frustration, and hurt are honored instead of leveraged for harm,” says Care, “wherein connection is centered instead of control, you might fear (and avoid) conflict.” This comes back to the mass perpetuation of the myth of separateness we talked about earlier, “[t]rauma,” according to Care, “and specifically the trauma of separation that colonialism enforced, shapes the world in binaries. Black or white.” These binaries perpetuate fear of conflict. It is one or the other, good or bad. These two sides do not touch. This leaves, again, little room for nuance, which is definitive of, as described in the last chapter, a political tactic. It is a well-perpetuated myth that propaganda just comes out of nowhere. All creativity is intentional, and this political device creates fear of conflict to successfully eliminate and erase intersectional experiences and voices from any platform.

“The opposite of trauma is also choice.” says Care, “And choice is a privilege.” Our choices and privileges then determine our shape. “A shape refers to responses/reactions, practiced over time, that have become embodied, automated,” according to Care and the erotics of liberation, sharing the fact that “[i]f you have the privilege to be able to choose, I urge you to choose this privilege now and choose yourself and your relationships, choose liberation over separation.”

Take a brief moment to pause from reading. Perhaps you put on a small five-minute meditation to reset your mind, and then consider the following questions to reflect on our formative experiences with conflict based on Care’s questions in her zine:

• How was conflict treated in your household growing up?

• How did adults disagree when I was a child? What usually follows a disagreement?

• Were conflicts welcome, feared, or inescapable?

• How does this affect the way I am engaging in conflict?

• “When I think back to my childhood and [remember] conflicts in my household, what feeling states do I notice coming up to the surface of my skin? What is happening in my body now? Think sensations, breath, movement, temperature.”

• Do these feelings arise in creative critique that mirrors my formative experience with conflict?

“No matter where life takes me there will always be someone who's threatened by it.”

• Franchesca Ramsey

Now that we know our survival strategies can cause confirmation bias and impact our capacity for true artistic dialogue, we must accept our humanity in all of this. “All mammals were born with survival skills,” even humans, they say, and unlike a lot of other mammals, “[w]e are born quite defenseless. As newborn babies, we can certainly not walk right out of the womb, and we can barely see (only 20 to 30 centimeters away from our face, perfect distance for the face of a caregiver). All we can do is scream. Scream, hoping we will be witnessed and our needs will be met by a caregiver.” This is why you can breathe if someone calls you crazy, a lunatic, or a deadbeat artist. We are all, in fact, crazy, from birth. Contrary to what it seems many industrialists, media and even peers may believe, humans are defenseless and mortal from birth. I would argue that it does not get easier over time. As mentioned before, we gain coping mechanisms and often create things– but what separates artists from the crowd is that we create from the place of that first carnal scream. Instead of taking things as they are in the present, we attempt to embody the soma and predict what could be. That is why artists tend to get a very stigmatizing reputation for being somehow defective, not working the way others want them to, and not fitting in. It is also a luxury and a privilege to be given the gift, time, and talent to be able to participate in the artistic process, which contributes to the collective “Tall Poppy” effect. All humans yearn to express themselves honestly from that primal place of authenticity, and some get the bravery, gumption, self-esteem, confidence, faith, and privilege to follow through. This is also the responsibility of Thee Artist. Care points out that even if one feels isolated from the group, we should not self-banish because of that pain:

“For a long time, safety, for us, meant staying close to the group. Social death meant physical death. We are social beings who cannot live alone. It is only recently that we’ve started equating safety to being alone.” The urge to hide away when you are shamed for being an artist, the inclination to delete all your profiles, rip up all your beautiful work, and shut everyone out–while cathartic at times–is ultimately self-destructive. As I said earlier, rejection is a myth. One person’s trash is another person’s treasure, and in a system of commodification there is a small respite knowing that as far as art is concerned, there are enough people in enough places with the internet to provide a supportive audience for everyone–no matter where they come from. In your journey as a creative, you must continue on the path towards this audience to foster relationships that will make everyone a better person. In Care’s words, “[t]he quality of these relationships ultimately determines our fate, shaping our ability to thrive or perish as a species. Relationship is our survival skill.”

“Success is, liking yourself, liking what you do, and liking how you do it.”

• Maya Angelou

This is very uncomfortable, and if that’s unsettling for you–maybe this isn’t the program for you. All art has conflict. In storytelling, the conflict is the precipice for the whole foundation of a tale. It is important to embrace discomfort along this creative path we tread because it gets us to the core of the ethos we carry as artists. It also makes our art better, catalyzing an inner conflict to be solved in our viewers. Discomfort is a sign of growth as an artist, and while Care says “[a]voiding harm is indeed a natural instinct for survival, ingrained within our very makeup,” if we do not have uncomfortable conversations rooted in generative conflict, we will be doomed to repeat history. This is best exemplified in our political climate. Instead of having a healthy and productive debate, facing our fear of being disagreed with, politicians, leaders, activists, and yes, artists, on all sides of the political spectrum have been pulling away from one another, even amongst their respective political affiliations– and having conversations with themselves instead of one another. Year after year agreeing to disagree is less popular. We prefer what is comfortable–hearing our own opinions echoed by other people in new methods of media. This is not art. Art reaches an individual where they are and offers a nuanced and informative perspective. It does not simply repeat what is said, as that would be propaganda. It also doesn’t avoid conflict altogether, because that would be frivolous. To embody Thee Artist within, we must create a revolution by making art that lies within these two categories to create original ideas informed by what we already know–it is a philosophical study and practice. Our art is a relationship with our viewers now and after we are long dead, and “[i]n relationships, the echoes of harmful structures and the treatment of trauma it has inscribed in our tissues endure.” Conflict is inescapable in art. We cannot go up, around, or back from the problems in our society as artists. The only way is through.

On accountability:

How we get through is accountability. Accountability is the foundation of healthy, generative, artistic conflict. Accountability is also a word that is flung around very liberally these days, which may be intentional, as flinging words around is often a tool of propaganda that serves to invalidate or obfuscate a term until it is meaningless and unrecognizable. This tactic is also used prominently during fascist occupations to obscure anything that serves to liberate those who are undervalued and underserved, so it seems clear as day as to why terms like accountability are under fire as much as intellectuals and artists themselves. To help clarify this frustrating phenomenon, I’ll use the term derived from the erotics of liberation:

“Accountability is an act of (self-) love, a commitment to choose relationship over righteousness, courage over comfort. Accountability is a framework that allows to turn conflict into avenues for healing, connection and care.”

When we hold ourselves accountable we simultaneously hold the capacity of love to tell ourselves that we deserve the truth. How unfortunate that so many creators, as listed earlier in the section entitled “Creative Ego Gone Wrong” made decisions from a place of commodification and objectification of individuals that cost lives, body parts, and dignity instead of just simply coming to terms with themselves and saying “this is wrong. I deserve better, so I deserve to do better.” Contrary to popular belief on every end of the political spectrum, accountability is not something that others inflict as a weapon–it is a self-reflective process. “Accountability,” says Care, “means we are capable of reflecting on the impacts of our actions, non-actions, words, silence, behaviors etc, instead of centering our intentions, as we understand that intention differs from impact. We are able to make amends and engage in changing our behavior to repair/restore the relationships we’ve harmed.”

“The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don’t have any.”

• Alice Walker

Grasping the difference between impact and action seems nearly impossible for most people. It’s true what they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Our good intentions do not affect the harm we cause others. Many political parties like to prompt social justice action in the direction of “holding” people accountable. No one can be held accountable by others, this is something we must do for ourselves, “it is important to know that there is no such thing as holding someone accountable for the harm they’ve caused.” Care reminds us, “Accountability is self-reflective work.” This is why many people are triggered by what has been called “cancel culture”. While the symbolic acts of cathartic justice have been televised and streamlined on countless subjects beginning from the #MeToo movement brainchild of Tarana Burke, to the platforming of the victims of NXVIM, a cult that mutilated and psychologically scarred women, to the platform of public denunciations of Bill Cosby for raping what could be hundreds of women but we know for sure to be at least sixty women, there has been little to no actual justice done for victims in terms of healing or reparation.

Something happened around 2021. Not only was there a massive shockwave of performative allyship after public demonstrations during the outrage at the murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor and countless others by the police, but there was a massive shift to put a ton of emerging Black women in high-exposure positions. Suddenly people started to pretend to listen to us, and they were forming wings of executive leadership for a new catch-all term: BIPOC. Art was the first plan of attack. Black women artists were being featured in Walmart campaigns, Megan Thee Stallion had a meteoric rise to fame, and Patrisse Cullors was thriving as the founder of the #BlackLivesMatter movement. I experienced it firsthand. With no college degree, just beginning my artistic career, suddenly I was being hired to the area’s most prominent public media affiliate and told to create an entire wing for people of color–so at 22 years old, with no degree, I got to work.

“The way we think of ourselves has everything to do with how the world sees us and how we see ourselves successfully acknowledged by the world.”

• Arlene Rankin

Older Black women knew this was always going to be temporary. Unfortunately, as a youth who had lived under an Obama administration most of her natural-born life, like many early Gen-Z Black girls, my optimism was the epitome of my downfall. My dreams got squashed. Personally, in the program I had created at my workplace, there was no talk from my boss (dictator) of hiring someone to “manage” me, and after many attempts and lots of overturn to be my “manager” in a program, again, I created, I quickly prepared my exit. All around, as soon as we felt we got what was referred to as “justice”, it was quickly reversed. Bill Cosby's 2018 sexual assault conviction was overturned in 2021 due to a procedural issue. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that an agreement with a previous prosecutor, which promised Cosby would not be charged if he testified in a civil case, was violated when this testimony was later used to convict him criminally. The court found this breach of agreement undermined his due process rights which led to his release after serving two years of a three- to ten-year sentence. His victims decried the decision as a miscarriage of justice, which it was. Also, well–we all know what happened on January 6. If there’s anything tried and true to the red, white, and blue–it’s that, as soon as things get a little bit better, they have to get much, much worse, and vice versa. Joseph P. Overton's window theory describes how the spectrum of acceptable public policy ideas shifts over time. Categorizes ideas from "unthinkable" to "popular" based on public perception over time, he was the first political scientist to prove against empirical evidence how advocacy and discourse make radical ideas acceptable in society. The January 6 Capitol attack by domestic terrorists in the United States by conspiracy theorists, and white supremacists, demonstrates how persistent narratives and rhetoric can shift public norms, but it can also be proven by simply considering how LGBTQIAP+ marriage became legal in the United States. Accomplishing the hardcore political victory that was legalizing marriage for queer people in this nation was done so by making radical statements. Our stickers, coffee mugs, t-shirts, and parade signs did not say “PLEASE! GIVE US REGIONAL CIVIL UNIONS AND PARTNERSHIPS!” No honey, they said “LEGALIZE GAY MARRIAGE!” It is through demanding change through radical concepts, statements, and works of art that creatives have the upper hand in making tangible change in this nation–supporting Overton’s theory through observable societal changes in reaction to radical creations.

I hope by now what I am going to say will get through to you crystal clear:

As an artist, you have more power than your preacher, your mayor, your congressperson, your senator, all the lobbyists, and your president.

Something happened in 2021 on every end of the spectrum. People concluded that politicians, I don’t know, might be, like, power-hungry–or something. Suddenly people started to gain a reasonable amount of skepticism in their so-called representatives and then turned to the only people they knew who to turn to–the artists. Suddenly misinformation and propaganda created by artists were replacing actual information. Suddenly memes were being generated and mass merchandised for the highest bidder among phone farms known as comment farms hosted by offshore attendants. Suddenly the dream of CIA Director Bill Casey in 1981, quoted by Barbara Honegger stated at a February 1981 meeting in the Roosevelt Room in the West Wing of the White House came true. He said, and I quote:

“We’ll know our disinformation campaign is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

Did you get that? No–seriously. Read it again.

“We’ll know our disinformation campaign is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

YOU HAVE BEEN LIED TO.

ALL OF US have been lied to. Mostly by each other.

How does this work, Maya? You’re probably wondering, How can I know you’re not lying to me?

You can’t. I can’t either. All I can do is try to follow this path, try my best to follow Satya, the Yama of truthfulness, be accountable to myself, study my ass off, and take constructive feedback from the people who participate in this program. If you are reading this–I am a writer, a journalist, and a philosopher– not God, not an encyclopedia. I can make mistakes and I probably will–looking for perfection in me will disappoint both of us. The thing I can tell you is that certain strategies, like under-accountability, have been allowing those who go against the truth to prevail in society.

“I have learned over the years that when one’s mind is made up, this diminishes fear; knowing what must be done does away with fear.”

• Rosa Parks

What is “under-accountability”?

Well, according to Care, strategies of under-accountability can be described as “behaviors that fail to honor accountability in denying, refusing, or minimizing the harm we’ve caused.” Under-accountability strategies can look like, in Care’s words:

• Minimizing: “That wasn’t that bad! Come on!”

• Ignoring/denying: “I have no idea what you’re talking about” or “I do not recall this at all!”

• Excusing: “I was having a really bad day, everyone makes mistakes.”

• Shaming: “You’re way too sensitive”, “you’re overreacting”.

• Oppression Olympics: “Well, I had it worse, do you want to hear about it?”

• Virtue arguments: “I could never do that”, “I’m a good person”, and “That doesn’t sound like me.”

“Conflict arises when internal or interpersonal disagreements come to the surface of our skin and do not find resolution. Exacerbated by underlying power dynamics, conflict can easily escalate, and lead to harm. Harm hinders our relationship to safety, dignity, and belonging. Repeated over time, harm develops into abuse.” Some people have been rendered so stupid by propaganda that they take a stance just because it is popular or because someone else who seems smart says it. This is how a lot of cults start, including but not limited to:

• NXVIM

• Love Has Won

• Scientology

• People’s Temple

• The Libertarian Party

• Manson Family

• 3H0 and RA MA

• United Universalist Church

These high-control groups tend to start with a charismatic leader saying things that sound smart and strive to look like virtuous people. “The concept of inherent goodness, often used as a defense mechanism to evade accountability,” according to the erotics of liberation, “reveals underlying power dynamics of historical portrayals of certain groups as inherently virtuous. This tactic relies on innocence becoming a shield against responsibility. Such tactics are only accessible to those historically depicted as “inherently good”, highlighting disparities in power and privilege. Christian[ity] has played a pivotal role in cultivating this concept, contributing to the pervasive good/bad binary and the myth of intrinsic value. The binary framework, rooted in moral absolutism, has historically justified the subjugation of marginalized groups, including indigenous peoples. Conflating actions and behaviors allows labeling those who err as inherently sinful or immoral while deeming virtuous choices as indicative virtuous choices as indicative of inherent goodness. Consequently, accorded respect, dignity, and care, justifying and perpetuating unequal power dynamics, while those deemed “bad” are punished for their inherent badness. To challenge these entrenched narratives, it is imperative to critically examine and dismantle these binaries, fostering a more nuanced understanding of human behavior and what “humanity” truly means.” It remains intentional that so many Black artists who identify with the church suppress and repress their creative expression that does not serve a Christian God. It is a tactic that began during the enslavement of our people to subjugate the mind that continues to this day.

"The time is always right to do what is right." — Martin Luther King, Jr.

Please do yourself a favor and do not end up a victim of any cult of hierarchy. Victims of high-control groups often come out the other end feeling they wasted a bunch of time out of their lives doing completely unimportant stuff. It’s like wasting a bunch of time on a video game. You may feel you have achieved something, but when you look at it, it ends up being a set of milestones created and valued by someone else completely with nothing to show for it outside of the game. Anything that prompts us to waste a bunch of our lives merely identifying with something takes us out of our creative potential. These groups use strategies of under-accountability to fuel their absurdity, and worse yet–they function to traumatize victims of actual crime further. Avoid strategies of under-accountability knowing someone’s life does depend on it. Using Svadhyaya, the Yama of self-reflection, we hold only ourselves accountable for a better world as a revolutionary collective of artists of color.

On “Over-Accountability”

Another strategy used is over-accountability. Remember how I said the road to hell is paved with good intentions? “When we overcompensate and victimize ourselves, we tend to shift the focus onto our identity rather than our actions, words, or behaviors. In doing so, we make ourselves (rather than our conduct) the problem. This tendency often arises from a desire to avoid vulnerability and genuine self-reflection, substituting performative displays for authentic engagement. Instead of practicing active listening and openness, we may resort to performativity, prioritizing the appearance of accountability over its substance. In instances of over-accountability, we may feel compelled to offer apologies hastily and without genuine consent. These apologies can come across as performative rather than sincere, lacking the depth and thoughtfulness required for meaningful repair. It’s important to recognize the differences between genuine accountability, which involves acknowledging and addressing the impact of our actions, and performative displays of remorse that merely serve to maintain appearance without fostering genuine growth or connection.”

Strategies of under-accountability look and sound like:

• Self-shaming: “I’m a horrible person, I don’t deserve you.” This is not really because they feel like a horrible person, it’s because they feel rejected and are now attempting to manipulate you out of their responsibility to self-reflect.

• Asking for free emotional labor to the person harmed: “What can I do? I’ll do anything!”

• Performativity: “I am sorry! I am soooo sorry! Oh my god! (before the person who was harmed can finish their sentence).” Altruism is a type of performativity as well, especially when we are overcompensating when someone corrects us on their name pronunciation, identity, or pronouns.

“Shame,” Care observes, “contrary to popular opinion, is a profound barrier to holding ourselves accountable. Unlike guilt, which allows us to acknowledge our mistakes and strive for improvement (“I have done something wrong”), shame can trap us in a cycle of self-condemnation (“I am wrong”). It operates as a physiological response to external stimuli, compelling us to hide or conceal the source of our shame (ourselves). (...) But for us to be accountable, we need to be seen. Similarly, on a personal level, separation resulting from shame in the form of self-denial, abandonment, or self-effacement doesn’t address the underlying wound; instead, it consoles it, hindering the healing process.” While writing this program I had an incident with a reader on Substack. I had already felt like they were taking my words far too seriously, almost deifying not only what I said, but what everyone said in their written work. I made an off-the-cuff criticism of Frank Herbert and his very popular and colonial series “Dune”. Something was activated in this person, who instead of writing about it (or anything) felt a need to send me a bunch of pictures of their “guru” and proselytizing Hinduist-leaning new religious rhetoric at me. This was starting to get scary. Kindly, I told them that while this seems to be working for them, I’m not seeking religion or a new religion and I wish them the best of luck. They proceeded to send me more and more rapid rhetoric and messages about their low self-esteem. “I guess I don’t fit in anywhere.” They messaged. Finally, I had to block this person. I felt bad because they were one of my most attentive readers–but suddenly that began to scare me. Someone had taken my words so strongly that they have now identified with them, and the author not living up to their fantasy seemed to be a source of shame for them. This is not my cross to bear, so to speak. The true nature of this person came out when I blocked them. Their first instinct was to see it as rejection (even though rejection is a myth), and in turn, “reject” me, finding writers I had connected with and “telling” on me for the “hate” I had inflicted on them. There have been relationships that I have engaged in that were very similar, being called a plethora of labels for not wanting to bear a burden I did not sign up for, which usually has nothing to do with the person and everything to do with their actions. If we cannot talk about the nuance between living and speaking our actions then we cannot call ourselves abolitionists, activists for liberation, or anti-racist people. The misattribution of certain language to manipulate people instead of serving a collective does harm to the people who are actually doing the work. This is what happens when people who engage in progressive political concepts operate out of a place of shame.

"It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men."

–Frederick Douglass

Healing is not linear. Healing does not mean attempting to be perfect. “This is not about avoiding mistakes or preventing relationship rupture,” Care suggests, “as these are unavoidable. Rather, this is about actively engaging in repairing those ruptures, choosing relationships over the need to be right or comfortable, even, especially when it’s hard.”

We are going to mess up some of the time. I’m not asking you to throw out this book if you find yourself minimizing others or shaming yourself. Again, it’s something everyone does, that’s why we have names for it. The best any of us can do is to spend our time and intentions toward accomplishing the feat of centered accountability. If the directors of Twilight Zone: The Movie (1983) had taken centered accountability, they would have accepted their time incarcerated and may not suffer from the guilt of doubling down on their actions in court. According to the erotics of liberation, “Centered accountability is when “...we demonstrate the ability to prioritize listening to those we care about over our own sense of comfort. We can acknowledge our mistakes while maintaining our sense of dignity and asserting our right to safety and belonging.” Recently a friend of mine inquired what the new ‘Stand with Black Women’ special on BET was about if there were going to be known abusers on stage. “Who are they protecting?” She asked me. “Themselves.” I replied.

Our actions matter. Care writes diligently in their zine: “Demonstrating accountability is intricately tied to our ability to fully stand in our dignity.” People who cause harm harm themselves by having to live with the natural consequences of their actions. It’s like covering up black mold with a fresh coat of paint. The mold still exists underneath.

There is power and healing in three special words:

“I was wrong.”

I use these words constantly. When I am working with children and make a mistake or may not have given the right information, I tell my student I was wrong. It is important for everyone, especially youth, to know that a person they respect can be wrong and still garner credibility because they hold themselves accountable. Saying you are wrong and making a diligent choice to change your actions is a dignified act of integrity. It is a huge victory in and of itself to make this choice, according to the erotics of liberation it transforms our relationship with the world– “[g]rowth, courage, and responsibility become more important than our comfort, and that speaks to great levels of emotional and relational maturity.”

Your capacity to do this may be beholden to a lot of factors that are simply out of your control. I understand. So does Care, who says that “[a]ccountability presents significant challenges, and it is negatively impacted by a lack of access to steady income, safe and stable housing, as well as essential care and services, including mental health support. Research indicated that these three fundamental factors are crucial in reducing violence and enhancing overall safety.” Ultimately, “...accountability is intertwined with abolition just as abolition is intertwined with accountability.” It is through accountability that we emancipate the mind, that we set ourselves free.

"Truth is powerful and it prevails."

–Sojourner Truth

On the other hand, control is very enticing. Care says “[i]ndividuals resort to violence not only because they have power, but primarily because they feel powerless.” There is a reason our system is set up the way it is. Controlling others “...promises seats at the table for us to fit in, in exchange for our authentic self.” Our systems are set up punitively, reinforced by shame. “On the individual and societal levels,” according to the erotics of liberation, “shame perpetuates cycles of violence and isolation. (...) …punitive responses that fail to address the root causes of this harmful behavior.” It is fighting fire with more fire until the entire world is burning. What is the point? It is the phenomenon Camus so often describes as the absurd. It is mutually assured destruction. It is important to point out that the world has never seen a system existing outside of punitive structures in a state of global capitalism. “The punitive approach, rooted in colonial domination and exploitation,” says Care, “only perpetuates shame and further alienates individuals from themselves and their communities.” Punitivity relies on isolating people. Once everyone is isolated, no one asks for help when they need it. Things start to decay, then things start to collapse. As Care so succinctly puts it:

“Policing human beings does not stop them from making mistakes or passing down violence, it simply creates shame for being one.”

May I instead offer you connection? Connection has all the benefits of control sans oppressive structures. In Care’s words, “[c]onnection creates worlds for us to belong. Isolation and separation, in the form of prisons, but also in the form of blocking, canceling, casting members out of our communities, do not disappear violence or the social and structural reasons that make this violence possible, they disappear the bodies that reenact and carry them. When we put people away we want to believe that we are different, that “it could never be us”.’ Like I’ve repeated many times in this chapter, it could always be us. Artists get carried away with their egos—all of them. We work with the ego and the identity as a subject, it’s ok that we get lost in it occasionally. What becomes oppressive and counter-productive is when the ego consumes us and prevents connection to other artists, which often yields valuable collaborations that stimulate our creative market. If we are creating on a somatic level and considering the ramifications of the generations before us and after us on life on this planet, “expanding our capacity to be accountable to ourselves and our communities means getting away from [carceral] politics and mindset.” Care explains the importance of embodying this process as artists:

“The “I think therefore I am” paradigm, emblematic of western consciousness, has shaped a worldview where life is perceived primarily through the lens of the mind. Consequently, life is often viewed as a series of problems requiring constant intellectual solutions. When we live life through the lens of the mind, everything becomes a problem that needs constant fixing, including ourselves. We become reliant on our thoughts to attain freedom. However, when we recognize life as an expression of divine energy awaiting to be fully engaged with, we shift from thinking to embracing feeling. Emotions cease to be sources of fear and instead become wellsprings of wisdom. This transition allows us to embody our experiences more fully. If trauma happens to our body, this is also where liberation lies.”

“We declare our right on this earth...to be a human being, to be respected as a human being, to be given the rights of a human being in this society, on this earth, in this day, which we intend to bring into existence by any means necessary.” –Malcolm X

Care expresses a deep need to “...stretch our understanding of what it means to be ‘human’.” Artistry is where that starts, but it is daunting to take that first step. If we are using our creativity to liberate people, spark dialogue, start a new creative revolution, and create a system we have never seen before there are a few things required of us during our artistic process:

1. Choose to believe all people–yourself included–are doing their best.

As Care puts it, “[c]hoosing to believe, consciously and intentionally, that people, including ourselves, are doing their best, even when their actions are unacceptable or harmful, is a fundamental step towards transformation. Our decisions and actions are influenced by a myriad of factors, including the conditions we find ourselves in and the limited choices available to us. In other words, decisions are not solely indicative of our poor judgment, they also speak to the bad options we are given to begin with.” Consider the options in which different people with different backgrounds are given and why when you create–especially in worldbuilding and storytelling. Always assert that all people are usually doing their best unless they make a specific declaration that they are determined to do their worst, and if that’s the case, analyze why that may be. Spark this dialogue amongst yourself during any hypothesis at the beginning stages of a creative work.

2. Believe in radical transformation.

If it seems tough or impossible, that’s because it is supposed to be. “It’s a radical act to choose to believe in the possibility of transformation,” Care states, “even when it seems daunting or improbable. Transformation is not instantaneous; it requires time, effort, and dedication. By committing to the process of personal and collective transformation, we pave the way for a future rooted in compassion, empathy and healing.” Healing is not linear. I will repeat that many times in this book. It is a natural sign of healing to backtrack. The first signifier of any healing from any abuse situation is a backtrack–and I hate to break it to you, but most of our creativity is being abused, mistreated, and exploited as we speak. Studies show survivors of domestic abuse tend to return to their abusers multiple times before permanently leaving. Research has found that victims leave and return an average of 7 to 12 times due to various factors. While many may take this as a symbol of weakness, I take it as a symbol of healing. An abusive situation can be like a drug. The pheromones we release in a state of comfort, no matter how harmful they can be to us, can be addicting. Any former addict can make it very clear that it is normal to relapse. The key is consistency. If we create a routine of self-reflection and generative conflict it becomes second nature to us. Suddenly we stop relying on shitty art, snakes, and propaganda to give us our fix. Suddenly the comfort inside is our creative capabilities and how we nurture them. As Care expresses in their zine, “[t]his means advocating for systemic change, challenging oppressive structures, and centering the voices and experiences of marginalized communities.”

"We shall overcome, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” –Martin Luther King

3. Be aware that you are being conditioned.

“Western societies often struggle to effectively address conflict for several reasons.” the erotics of liberation argues. “Conflict inherently disrupts productivity, as it challenges the status quo. In a culture deeply entrenched in capitalism, where performance and efficiency reign supreme, any deviation from the status quo poses a direct threat. Consequently, Western societies have developed a culture of avoidance and denial, where conflict IS often portrayed as something people of a lower class succumb to.” If you lack integrity in your life and creative process, that’s fine, just be aware you are giving your fiscal value away to someone else. “Over time, successive generations of disembodied avoidants gaslight themselves, suppressing their own emotions and barricading themselves behind walls of apathy, fear of change, and comfort in silence. This shields the status quo from challenge, perpetuating the societal marginalization of minorities and impeding their liberation in favor of comfort for the privileged few.” If this is the case the mass inequality in the distribution of wealth should not be shocking. People who are not wealthy have been lauded into inaction for having bad collaboration skills. If connection was an option to them, wealth would also be an option–and for folx who have garnered a vast percentage of what should be collective resources for millennia would suddenly have a more even playing field and lack of control. Passivity and passive violence are how the system operates:

“Avoiding and/or denying conflict is part of what is called the white dominant culture. Spring Up co-founders Stas Schmiedt and Lea Roth from Spring Up collective defined white dominant culture as a “system of biases toward the way that white people tend to do things. Often these norms are seen as being “professional” or “respectful”. Here are a few characteristics of white dominant culture: perfectionism, defensiveness, preference for writing over speaking, fear of open conflict, a belief in either/or (what is often called the binary), and paternalism (thinking you know what's best for others).”

"Revolution is a serious thing, the most serious thing about a revolutionary's life. When one commits oneself to the struggle, it must be for a lifetime." –Angela Davis

4. Practice generative conflict.

What does generative conflict look like? According to Care, “[g]enerative conflict does not always equate to staying in relationship. Generative conflict sometimes means arguing to disagree and still, choosing separation.” It is engaging in conflict with the people you love because it “...allows us to hone important skills such as communication, empathy and compromise.” Simply put, it is giving dialogue a try for the sake of your love for humanity. When we reimagine conflict “...in a generative way, all parties would prioritize active listening and empathy, creating a safe space for open dialogue despite differing opinions. Boundaries would be respected, allowing each individual to express their needs and concerns without fear of judgment or retaliation.” If you are an artist and your goal is global communication, generative conflict should be a weapon of choice.

5. Establish and reinforce your boundaries.

It’s true what a lot of matriarchs tell their young, you have to teach people how to treat you. “Living in an environment where boundaries are respected can diminish our inclination toward avoidance.” establishes Care, “It’s important to recognize that being avoidant does not equate to establishing a boundary. Avoidance of problems, individuals, or conversations does not offer sustainable resolutions. Boundaries are intentional and assertive, not passive or reactive.” The difference between “avoidance” and boundary is the form it takes. Boundaries are enforced by expressing discontent with an action–not a person. Avoidance is simply ignoring someone, gaslighting them, minimizing their experience, or any of the control strategies listed above. The avoidant person ghosts or blocks the person they are discontent with, avoiding any opportunity for mutual understanding without warning. That being said, if someone says they are uncomfortable with something you are doing, and you continue to violate that boundary, there may be a natural consequence established, like a blocking or a hung-up phone call. Boundaries establish safety in our bodies and spaces. If you want to establish time for your creativity with integrity and respect, it might be time to start creating some form of boundaries.

"Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced." –James Baldwin

6. Avoid participating in systems of control.

According to Care and the erotics of liberation, systems of “...punishment, domination and control” may look like:

“Passive aggressive behavior: Indirectly expressing hostility or aggression while maintaining a facade of civility.

Stonewalling/avoiding: Refusing to engage or communicate with the other party as a means of exerting control or avoiding confrontation.

Guilt tripping: Using emotional manipulation to make someone feel guilty or responsible for the conflict.

Triangulation: Involving a third party to manipulate or control the conflict dynamics, often by creating alliances or spreading misinformation.

Silent treatment: Intentionally ignoring or withholding communication as a form of punishment or control.

Sabotage: Undermining the other party’s efforts or interests to repair (“it’s too late” attitude).

Power plays: Leveraging authority, status, or resources to gain an unfair advantage or suppress the other party’s interests.”

These systems allow corruptive behavior like gatekeeping and whitewashing to prevail in our collective institutions. There is no outcome where one can participate in these behaviors without causing violence. It may feel cathartic in the moment–but ask yourself–is this really worth it? How does this fulfill my purpose as a human?

"The way to right wrongs is to turn the light of truth upon them." –Ida B. Wells

7. Address your needs.

“For many of us,” Care indicates, “our needs have been a source of active anxiety and profound vulnerability. Asking ourselves “what is it that I truly need?” might trace us back to the ways in which our needs were consistently unmet, even, especially, when we did gather the courage to express them. We don’t ask, so we don’t risk being disappointed, rejected, abandoned.” Asking for what you need often provokes punitive responses. Everyone seems burdened by the needs of others, yet everyone has needs. Once our needs are fulfilled, however, everyone tends to feel better. You must fulfill your personal needs in this process. As laid out in your Creative Constitution, rest, hydration, food, and sleep are non-negotiable. If something is too much, I do not expect you to duke it out. Just sleep on it, take a step back, or keep on rolling–we can figure it out later. What will not produce a generation of revolutionary Black creators is a bunch of talented and dedicated Black artists making martyrs out of themselves. No matter how much anyone tries to manipulate you, please do not ignore what you need. You will be a better artist for it. Everyone makes better work on a full stomach. That being said, if you are not in a place where you can secure your needs–maybe a creative intensive isn’t what you need right now. Maybe you need to take a step back from this program to be a better creative by taking steps to survive–as that should always be your priority. Don’t worry, I will be here for you when you are done. There’s no rush.

8. Abandon hope for revenge.

If there’s anything to clarify right now it is that, just as you cannot avoid being politicized simply for breathing as a Black artist, you will also never be able to set the story straight to people who are dedicated to misperceiving you. Unfortunately, that will be most of your audience. If you are creating your work because you had a shitty art teacher who was rude to you and stomped on your creative dreams as a youth, you should know that they will interpret you that same way no matter how much you surpass them. If you are creating because you did not feel seen by an ex-partner and you want to make them regret the choice of leaving you because all that potential is going to finally be somebody, so to speak, you are not creating from a place that is genuine to who you are in the first place. “For years, a line from the movie “The Interpreter” has remained with me.” says Care, “In it, Nicole Kidman’s character, Silvia Broome, states, “vengeance is a lazy form of grief.” We resort to revenge for the same reasons we resort to violence, because we feel powerless. Revenge is a desperate attempt to alter power dynamics that have not been recognized, and injustice left unaddressed. Power dynamics are inherent in human relationships, whether acknowledged or not.” To abandon this motivation to somehow avenge your creative dreams, try practicing your art from a place of consent. Create in the ways that you are moved emotionally, physically, and passionately. Create from the glimmers that arise from your inspiration, not your envy of the person who had the bravery to create before you. “Indeed,” Care explains, “consent empowers us to address power dynamics and differences rather than avoiding or ignoring them, ultimately preventing further harm and injustice.”

"The cost of liberty is less than the price of repression.”

–W.E.B. Du Bois

9. Nurture the relationships you already have instead of always seeking the new.

When was the last time you called your favorite relative or friend just because you wanted to check in on them? When was the last time you went somewhere with a friend just to spend time with each other? When was the last time you and your long-term partner went on a date? So often as artists, we forget that our most productive relationships with our audience are from our immediate connections. That teacher who taught you the method might love to see how things progress over time. They might also continue to give you amazing feedback over time if you show them a commitment to your craft. “So much of the path to liberation is the coming home to the full potential of our humanity.” conveys Care, “And the essence of humanity lies within the realm of the relationship. We long for belonging, safety and dignity, we want to return to each other. We are all born in each other’s hands: that means we are made to hold and be held.”

On the Creative Ego:

By now you have realized that when you choose the ego over your relationships and networks as creatives it is a form of self-abuse. Self-abuse is tied to this ego, which will do anything to preserve itself–for good reasons.

TW: In The Myth of Sisyphus, Albert Camus addresses suicide as deeply tied to the human ego and its confrontation with the absurdity of life. Camus suggests that the impulse toward suicide arises when one’s expectations of life, driven by the ego, clash with the reality of a potentially indifferent and meaningless universe. “There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide,” he writes as a response to this profound dissonance. The ego craves significance and rational order, but–as I said– the world offers no such validation, which will prompt feelings of futility. Many artists, even Camus himself, succumbed to this futile feeling–although he still argued in his lifetime that to succumb to this impulse instead of choosing a "rebellion" against despair would achieve a form of liberation. In our art, we find defiance in what often proves to be a quite purposeless world. The only reason people fear death is because they fear a world that continues without them. The only true reason that people intend to commit suicide is so that the world continues without them. At the end of the day, the only one who is affected by the fear of death is the person who is choosing to be afraid and how tied they are to their ego.

This dynamic is mirrored in the relationship between Thee Artist and their art. The only reason people fear other people making art is because they fear a creative market that will exist after they make their mark on it. Energy vampires and clout chasers don’t just want to obstruct the creativity of others because they are evil people with evil intentions. Remember, most people are doing their very best. There was once an artist there, and at the core, there still is. Also, try to remember that it’s probably not very fun to be so miserable that you feel a need to impose yourself on other people and their boundaries. People don’t usually like that, so that person is usually already feeling sort of isolated. Artists commit suicide at incredibly high rates. Studies show that artists face a significantly higher risk of suicide, with one review finding that artists are 18 times more likely to die by suicide than the general population. Knowing this, it might be easier to comprehend why an artist who avoids their needs and boundaries can become depressed. This depressed artist will go from an artist to a snake to an energy vampire, or worse.

"It is our duty to fight for our freedom. It is our duty to win. We must love each other and support each other. We have nothing to lose but our chains."

–Assata Shakur

The fact is, we are all far more alike than we may think. We all have an “ego” whether we like it or not. It is our innate purpose, identity, and personality. It is neither good nor bad to have an ego. On the other hand, it is not productive to be egotistical, and it can manifest into violence.

What really is the ego concerning our creative capacities?

The ego plays a powerful role in creative growth and resilience. At its best, a healthy ego serves as a source of confidence, encouraging Thee Artist to be productive, helping them set boundaries, take pride in their accomplishments, and pursue their goals with conviction. This positive form of ego embodies self-respect and enables Thee Artist to advocate for themselves and others, resist undue criticism, and persevere through challenges. The ego can provide the courage needed to take risks, try new ideas, and push boundaries. Similarly, in leadership, a balanced ego allows someone to inspire others, take responsibility, and make difficult decisions with conviction. When engulfed in compassion, healthy self-esteem, and empathy, the ego becomes a tool for building inner strength, fueling ambition, and inspiring us to seek out the qualities essential for personal fulfillment and meaningful contributions to humanity through our work.

"The revolution has always been in the hands of the young. The young always inherit the revolution."

–Huey P. Newton

Our relationship to our ego is directly tied to our success. Our success is tied to our dopamine levels, and I’ll tell you–dopamine is a hell of a drug. Dopamine is released in response to rewards we receive and helps us to reinforce behaviors that lead to those rewards. Essentially, it creates a feedback loop that encourages us to pursue success and feel fulfilled and purposeful. Without dopamine, people would struggle even further existentially. When we experience success or even anticipate a positive outcome, dopamine levels rise, and our motivation is increased to reinforce the behavior associated with achieving whatever success it was that released the dopamine.

Being egotistical, on the other hand, only holds you back, and, as we read earlier–it can manifest into violence. In our relationships, if we are egotistical most of the time, sooner or later people get sick of dealing with us. Even if others engage with us, they do not undertake any sort of disagreement or conflict–even if it’s there–because they no longer care enough to share their honest opinion. Being open to dialogue and generative conflict will directly affect your success in your friendships, relationships, and creative networks. In our art, letting our anxieties get the best of us, avoiding critique and collaboration, and engaging in under-accountability and control strategies, directly affect our capacity to create and to be paid to create, the safety of our collaborators, and our legacy at large. Before you let your ego get the best of you–again–ask yourself: is it worth it? Egotism often leads to a mindset of “everyone is mad at me,” “everyone is watching me,” or “everyone is waiting to see what I create next.” This focus on the self can cause us to overlook important aspects like promotion, networking, collaboration, inspiration, and kindness—qualities essential to a fulfilling creative career. Egotism fuels that inner voice that says not to create something because maybe I’m the only one who wants to hear this story. Why can’t that be enough to start a work of art? Creating solely for others’ approval can have a detrimental effect on mental health, disconnecting Thee Artist from authentic self-expression and satisfaction in their work.

"You must never be fearful about what you are doing when it is right."

–Rosa Parks

Case study (continued): Creative Ego Gone Wrong

Welcome back to the case study. As stated earlier many, many times–ignoring conflict or collaboration in the name of pride is costly. Let this part of the chapter heed the warning on how and why creative ego can go wrong. The following are explanations of why creative stubbornness, ego, and lack of collaborative skill have led to injury, death, or just plain stinky projects:

Revisiting The Rust Shooting Incident of 2021:

How, in the 21st century, with plenty of stage technology and advanced security measures could a cinematographer be killed on set by her actor?

On October 21, 2021, director Joel Souza was injured on the set of the film Rust at Bonanza Creek Ranch in New Mexico, and the cinematographer, Halyna Hutchins, was tragically killed. The incident occurred when a live round was discharged from a prop revolver that actor Alec Baldwin handled. The presence of a live round in the gun–rather than a blank or dummy round typically used in film production–raised serious concerns about the on-set safety protocols and the handling of firearms for this particular film. An investigation later revealed failures in gun handling and oversight procedures, including lapses in checks by the film’s (unlicensed) armorer and assistant director, which allowed the live round to be loaded unknowingly, leading to the fatal accident. Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, the unlicensed armorer on Rust was sentenced to 18 months in prison. She is the daughter of veteran Hollywood armorer Thell Reed, working under his guidance before making moves to enter the industry on her own. Gutierrez-Reed had only a few credited projects as a lead armorer, including the film The Old Way, starring Nicolas Cage, where she received her first solo job after apprenticing for her father. Concerns were raised about her level of experience and her handling of safety protocols on set, which are pretty visible from the flagrant way she handles her firearms in selfies she took during production. Reports indicated crew members had voiced safety concerns on the Rust set prior to the incident, citing lapses in firearm handling procedures, like the two accidental discharges that occurred days before the fatal shooting. Further scrutiny revealed that Gutierrez-Reed and other crew members may not have followed established safety protocols for handling prop firearms. Investigators found that a live round was mistakenly loaded into the prop revolver, and it remained unclear how live ammunition had been introduced onto the set in the first place. Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was then subsequently charged with tampering with evidence for allegedly attempting to conceal or alter items connected to the Rust shooting investigation. Reports suggest that she allegedly transferred a bag of suspected live ammunition off-set following the incident, which raised suspicions that she might have been trying to hide evidence related to the presence of live rounds on set. This action became a point of focus for investigators, as it appeared to interfere with efforts to understand how live ammunition was mixed with dummy rounds on set and how the fatal shot ultimately occurred. This charge added to the legal scrutiny around her handling of firearms and adherence to safety protocols during production led to her arrests and charges.

After the Rust shooting incident, while Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was under investigation, messages exchanged from jail allegedly showed a concerning attitude toward the tragic event. Some of these communications were interpreted by investigators as showing a lack of remorse or an attempt to deflect blame. In these texts, Gutierrez-Reed appeared to focus on justifying her actions or expressing frustration over being scrutinized, rather than reflecting on the loss of Halyna Hutchins. Does this sound familiar to any of the strategies of under-accountability we referenced earlier in this chapter?

The negligence seen in the Rust incident can be tied to creative ego in several ways. In high-pressure environments like film sets, individuals often value the effort to achieve as grandiose and expensive an artistic vision as possible over apt management of safety protocols. This also seems to overshadow the need to hire professionals instead of industry inheritors, gatekeeping and excluding qualified individuals who both deeply desire and deserve to be in those spaces. When we operate from a colonial capitalist mindset in our creative systems, the pursuit of expense and glamour overshadows the critical need for safety.

"You may not control all the events that happen to you, but you can decide not to be reduced by them."

–Maya Angelou

Revisiting the Resident Evil Franchise:

According to the Hollywood Reporter:

“It was raining on the day of the shoot. That morning, Sept. 5, 2015, Olivia Jackson mucked around on the lonely stretch of road outside Pretoria, South Africa, where Resident Evil: The Final Chapter was filming. None of the other crewmembers, decked in gum boots and rain jackets, seemed to think they would be shooting that day. Jackson, a 34-year-old veteran stunt performer, had been scheduled to film a fight scene. Instead, at the last minute, she learned that she’d be doing a tricky stunt on a motorcycle.”

No one should assume a stunt is safe if it is assigned at the last minute. Even the professionals need time to practice and prepare for a difficult performance. Treating them like a Pez dispenser for cool stunts is the commodification of a human being. Humans are not machines. We do not produce exact output upon instantaneous command. That said, when the time came to get paid, Olivia Jackson got on the motorcycle.

“The two practice runs went well enough. Jackson raced at 43 mph toward a van mounted with a camera on a crane. Just before reaching Jackson, the crane operator was to raise the camera so that it would sweep up and over her head. On the first live take, Jackson remembers everything up until the impact that would leave her with severe nerve damage and result in the amputation of her left arm. She even recalls a few fragments of the immediate aftermath: lying on a gurney, being rolled into an ambulance, staring at the roof. And then her world went dark.”

This whole situation is unethical. It subjects a human being to unnecessary risk, particularly when the stunt is altered at the last minute, further compromising safety. The decision to change the setup without proper adjustments or additional safeguards demonstrates negligence in ensuring that adequate precautions were in place, especially after changing the direction from the previous practice runs. The resulting nerve damage and amputation of her left arm is a living consequence of the recklessness of this production, again, prioritizing spectacle over the well-being of the individuals who keep the whole project alive.

Revisiting Deadpool 2:

As stated earlier, Sequana Joi Harris was a trailblazing figure for Black people in the world of motorcycle road racing and stunts. Celebrated for her groundbreaking achievements as the first African American woman licensed as a motorcycle road racer, she took up motorcycling late and quickly progressed, earning her racing license within four years. By 2014, she made history as a professional racer and founded Threader Racing, competing under the number #24.

An accomplished racer and advocate for participation in the sport among women of color, she tragically lost her life on August 14, 2017, during a stunt shoot for Deadpool 2 in Vancouver. While doubling for actress Zazie Beetz with no prior experience in stunts, she lost control of her motorcycle, leading to a fatal accident.

"The future belongs to those who prepare for it today.”

–Malcolm X

Like the injury of Olivia Jackson in the filming of “Resident Evil: The Final Chapter”, the tragic death of Sequana Joi Harris during a stunt for Deadpool 2 was, in my opinion, preventable. At the time of her accident, Harris was riding without a helmet, which is a critical oversight. Helmets are essential for protecting against serious head injuries in motorcycle accidents. In the context of stunt work, every team member has a responsibility to prioritize the safety of performers. The decision to allow Harris to perform a stunt with no training in stunt performance and without a helmet raises serious questions about the judgment and biases of those involved in the production. Although Harris was an experienced rider, stunt performance involves specific types of motorcycle training that prepare an individual to handle high-pressure situations and unexpected hazards on a film set for the safety of everyone on set. Regular motorcycle riding often emphasizes balance, control, and navigating various road conditions. Riders typically focus on skills such as cornering, braking, and awareness of their surroundings, which are crucial for safe commuting or recreational riding. However, stunt riding takes these skills to an entirely different level. It involves executing complex maneuvers that often push the limits of a motorcycle's capabilities, such as jumps, high-speed turns, wheelies, and other tricks that require precise control and an understanding of the bike's physics. Stunt riders must be trained to anticipate and react to high-pressure situations, including the potential for mechanical failure or unexpected obstacles. This training often includes learning to read the environment quickly, calculating the trajectory of jumps, and knowing how to safely land or recover from a stunt gone wrong. Moreover, stunt riding requires a deep understanding of the motorcycle's dynamics under extreme conditions, which varies significantly from standard riding. Rigorous training programs are tailored to stunt performance to not only cover the technical aspects of performing stunts but also emphasize safety protocols, risk management, and emergency response techniques. Stunt riders are then taught how to minimize injury through body positioning, how to use protective gear effectively, and how to work with coordinators to ensure a controlled and safe environment for each stunt. Stunt performances frequently occur in controlled settings, where rehearsals allow riders to practice and refine their techniques before the actual shoot. The absence of such preparation can lead to critical and potentially fatal errors, particularly in high-stress situations.

For Harris, being part of a film production may have introduced additional pressures to perform without training, underscoring the importance of specialization in navigating both the technical and psychological demands of stunt work effectively. While experience as a rider is valuable, the additional layers of training and preparation required for stunt riding are crucial to safety. Stunt coordinators and directors are expected to enforce strict safety guidelines and ensure that all performers are equipped with the necessary protective gear. In this instance, the fact that Harris was permitted to ride without a helmet not only contravenes standard safety practices but also reflects a failure in the crew’s responsibility to prioritize a Black woman’s well-being.

“Either America will destroy ignorance or ignorance will destroy the United States."

—W.E.B. Du Bois

This accountability should extend to all crew members involved in the stunt, including producers, safety personnel, and other key staff who should have been vigilant in upholding safety standards. The film industry has established protocols to minimize risk during stunts, and it is the duty of the entire crew to adhere to these protocols. By allowing Harris to perform without a helmet, the crew compromised her safety and disregarded the very measures designed to protect stunt performers. This lack of oversight raises broader questions about the culture of safety within any production, but especially the production of a franchise. If crew members do not feel empowered to speak up or intervene when safety guidelines are not being followed, it creates a workplace and therefore a culture where unnecessary creative risk-taking becomes normalized, ultimately costing lives.

Accountability involves not only recognizing failures after an incident but also proactively fostering a culture of safety that encourages all crew members to advocate for the well-being of everyone on set. In this case, its absence may have contributed to the decision-making process that led to Harris performing without adequate protection. Ensuring that everyone involved understands the importance of safety and is prepared to act on it is essential for preventing similar tragedies in the future.

Despite her untimely death, Harris's legacy continues to inspire aspiring Black racers, particularly within the Black community of motorcyclists.

Narcos Location Scout Murder Revisited:

As I said earlier, the tragic death of Carlos Muñoz, a location scout for Narcos, highlights the impact of exploitative practices in media mixed with artistic egoism can be a fatal combination. One Reddit commenter noted that Muñoz’s bullet-riddled body and car were discovered in a remote area near Hidalgo state, which reportedly has the highest murder rate in the country, with 182 homicides reported in July alone—a staggering ratio of 12.2 per 100,000 inhabitants. Another commenter grimly added, "And that's only what is found and reported. Imagine the real rate," underscoring the pervasive nature of the violence in that area. According to the BBC, “The bullet-riddled body of Carlos Muñoz Portal, 37, was found in his car in a rural area in the town of Temascalapa, in Mexico state, one of the country's most violent.” Muñoz Portal had been scouting locations for the series in an area succinctly known for its history of violence linked to drug cartels. His death should draw a microscope to the risks professionals face in the film industry when operating in dangerous regions. It should prompt discussions about the responsibility of production companies to ensure the safety of their staff when doing any job including scouting.

"I, too, am America."

–Langston Hughes

There is something else we should note about this untimely death. Narcos has a slew of producers who are all white men. The narratives influenced by predominantly white producers often lack authenticity and fail to represent the true experiences of the communities they depict. This can lead to a situation where the voices of those directly affected by violence and crime—often marginalized communities—are sidelined, creating a power imbalance. White producers profit from stories that may not authentically represent the experiences or perspectives of the people they are portraying. Such portrayals can reduce complex social issues into simplistic narratives that dehumanize and villainize communities. This one-dimensional view reinforces negative perceptions and biases about people of color, particularly in contexts of crime and violence. Financial benefits derived from such productions often do not trickle down to the communities depicted. Instead, profits primarily enrich predominantly white executives and companies, perpetuating a cycle of exploitation. This raises ethical concerns about whose stories are told, how we are protecting the people who tell them, and to truly ask, who benefits from those stories being told? Predominantly white audiences consume these overdramatized struggle narratives not because they care about the obstacles we have faced as a people, but to reinforce existing biases and misconceptions about communities of color, particularly that we lack power. The sensationalization of violence and crime can lead to desensitization and a lack of empathy for the real-life implications of such portrayals, fostering an environment where racial prejudices are normalized.

We can choose the path to further marginalize the very communities that are central to the narrative to produce a cycle of never-ending struggle stories that produce financial gain from predominantly white audiences who eat it up and throw money at it, thriving off of their own collective guilt, or we could free ourselves and choose an authentic path that financially benefits the communities whose images are being exploited. Hope exists for people who have nothing, and we can also have very happy lives amidst the obstacles around us. This is another grey area truth that not a lot of people are comfortable facing.

Do we really need more stories about certain people from the viewpoint of people who know nothing about their perspectives? Why is there an attack on authentic storytelling in this world? Who truly benefits besides the people already in power? This is where your path lies. This is your responsibility. This is the sign you were looking for–it is your time. It is your story. It is your path the world has been looking for. Don’t let me or anyone else get in your way.

The Murder of Brandon Lee in The Crow (1994) and how it relates to the Rust Tragedy:

Michael McAlister, the armorer involved in the The Crow production, just like Hannah Gutierrez Reed in Rust, was not a licensed armorer. His lack of formal licensing and experience in handling firearms for film productions has been a significant point of discussion in the cult following of Brandon Lee's tragic death on set. Typically, an armorer is expected to have specialized training and certification to ensure the safe handling, preparation, and use of firearms on set. In McAlister's case, similar to the case with Gutierrez Reed, while he had some experience–he was not a certified armorer, a major oversight that led to the accident. It has been said since this incident that the film industry has taken a closer look at the requirements for armorers, emphasizing the need for proper licensing and training to enhance safety on film sets to prevent similar tragedies, but Hannah Gutierrez Reed, the armorer involved in the Rust film set killing in 2021, was also not a fully licensed armorer either. While she had some experience handling props and had her father’s training during a couple of jobs that had to do with firearms on set, her certification and experience as the primary armorer should have been called into question. It’s been a short lifetime since 1994, how can we say that things are changing for the better for artists in any industry when, according to pretty real evidence, they aren’t? Why do we wait for others to agree with us that something is unsafe or unethical until something tragic happens? Just like The Crow, after the Rust incident, there was considerable scrutiny regarding Gutierrez Reed’s qualifications and the training she received. She should have been under a microscope. Any Black artist with the same job would have been, especially if was their first time taking on the role of head armorer for the first time during that production. It’s the typical feeling we all feel when we see white people get away with crimes of negligence knowing we have to work twice as hard under constant surveillance to get a fifth of what they get–if that had been one of us, they would have put her in prison for the rest of her natural-born life.

“A people without the knowledge of their past history, origin, and culture is like a tree without roots."

–Marcus Garvey

Twilight Zone: The Movie (1983) Killings Revisited:

TW: There is a lot that the creative industry should feel accountable for in terms of the tragic so-called accident that occurred on July 23, 1982, due to pure negligence and egoism by the creative higher-ups during the filming of a segment of Twilight Zone: The Movie (1983), a movie production of the classic television series.

What is referred to often by sources as “the incident” was an unnecessary and preventable helicopter crash that resulted in the deaths of actor Vic Morrow and two child actors brought on set at the last minute, Renee Shin-Yi Chen and Micah Downing. Although there are many Alan Smithee Credits, the accident happened during the filming of a sequence directed by John Landis. The scene depicted Morrow as a character trying to escape from pursuing forces in a Vietnam War setting, and it was extra. To create a dramatic effect, the filmmakers insisted on using a helicopter equipped with explosives.

What could go wrong, right?

During the shoot, the helicopter was flying incredibly low to the ground when it lost control, likely due to the nearby explosions set off for the scene. The helicopter fell and exploded on Morrow and the two child actors, killing them instantly. The use of child actors in dangerous scenes raised serious ethical concerns, particularly since the children were never originally intended to be part of the hazardous environment of the scene. This is where the creative ego went horribly and unforgivably wrong.

"The artist must take sides. He must elect to fight for freedom or slavery. I have made my choice. I had no alternative." –Paul Robeson

The fact of the matter is–the tragedy on the set of Twilight Zone: The Movie is compounded by the lack of awareness among the parents of the Asian-american child actors regarding the dangers involved in the filming. Renee Shin-Yi Chen and Micah Downing were only 6 and 7 years old, and their parents had permitted them that day only for what they believed would be a safe acting opportunity. They were unaware that the scene was unlicensed and uncertified, and would involve intense special effects, including a helicopter and explosive pyrotechnics. One of the most poignant aspects of the Twilight Zone: The Movie tragedy is the experience of the father of Renee Shin-Yi Chen (six years old at the time of her death). Her father, who had lived through the Vietnam War became horrified at the conditions his daughter was subjected to at the time of her death, as he had worked his entire life to get her away from such horrors. He had firsthand knowledge of the dangers associated with warfare and the toll it takes on individuals, making the circumstances surrounding the movie's production all the more distressing for him. The use of his child as an actor in such a perilous environment raised serious ethical concerns, particularly given that he was not given informed consent to the risks involved. When he learned that his daughter was involved in a scene that included a helicopter flying low and explosives detonating, he was in shock. His concerns were not only for his daughter’s safety but also for the ethical implications of putting Asian child actors in dangerous situations reminiscent of the horrors he witnessed in Vietnam. He had trusted the production team to ensure a safe environment for the children. The fact that the scene involved dangerous stunts and special effects without proper precautions or communication about the risks added to his distress while grieving his daughter. After her tragedy, he expressed outrage at the filmmakers, who disregarded safety protocols and the well-being of the children there. His experience serves as a powerful reminder of the real-life consequences of negligence on film sets, particularly when it comes to the safety of vulnerable individuals. The tragedy not only took the lives of three individuals but also left a lasting impact on their families and demarcates the urgent need for stricter safety measures and ethical considerations when we are creating art. There is a moral responsibility creators have to protect their collaborators, particularly in high-risk situations.

The production did not follow industry guidelines that dictate how child actors should be treated at that time, particularly in hazardous circumstances. The parents of the child actors did not give informed consent to the specific risks their children would face during the filming of this scene, which involved a helicopter flying just above the ground while explosives were detonated. The parents then, correctly, felt blindsided by the nature of the production, which failed to include them in discussions that directly affected their children's safety.

The Twilight Zone: The Movie tragedy happened because of several instances of ignored collaboration, strategies of control, and communication breakdowns that directly contributed to the fatal accident. There were multiple warnings issued to director John Landis regarding the safety of the planned shot. Several individuals, including special effects technicians and crew members experienced in stunts, raised concerns about the dangers of using a helicopter at such a low altitude, especially in conjunction with explosives. These concerns were not actionably addressed by John Landis, who was reportedly determined to achieve the dramatic effect of the scene by any means, to achieve the highest dramatism to Morrow’s character being pursued through a war-torn setting. The insistence on pushing forward despite these warnings exemplifies a failure to collaborate effectively and take into account the expertise and natural authority of those who understood the risks involved. During filming, Landis decided to film the scene without waiting for the safety team to complete their preparations. This unilateral decision-making ignored any collaborative input that could have saved lives and should have been sought from the crew responsible for safety on set–if, for nothing else–to simply avoid liability. Landis’ urgency to capture the scene led to cutting corners, further endangering the lives of the actors involved. From an artistic standpoint, it was an incredibly decorative, again–unnecessary, and performative scene. He did not have to do the scene, the scene was not pivotal to the plot, and yet, he did it anyway. It was his choice. Several crew members, including some who were responsible for overseeing safety protocols, expressed their concerns about the dangers posed by the low-flying helicopter and the explosive effects. Despite these warnings, Landis proceeded with the filming as planned.

"Never, ever be afraid to make some noise and get in good trouble, necessary trouble."

–John Lewis

Eyewitness accounts revealed a palpable sense of danger on set, but the urgency to capture the dramatic shot appeared to take precedence over the safety of the cast and crew—once again placing the commodification of people over safety in a workplace for financial gain. When safety concerns were voiced, Landis would typically respond with comments that conveyed his determination to proceed with the scene as planned. He might have said things like, “We need this shot to sell the scene; it has to look real,” or “We’ve got to make this dramatic—cutting the scene will ruin the impact.” His focus on achieving a particular cinematic vision driven by his ego led him to think that his artistic perception overshadowed valid fears of personal safety expressed by those around him. Stephen Lydecker, another camera operator on board, testified that Landis had earlier "shrugged off" warnings about the stunt with the comment, "We may lose the helicopter.”Lydecker purported that Landis could meant it blithely when he made that remark, and then added, "I learned not to take anything the man said as a joke. It was his attitude. He didn't have time for suggestions from anybody.” In instances where crew members suggested cutting the scene or altering plans to enhance safety, Landis brushed off the suggestions, emphasizing the importance of capturing the moment without modifications. His refusal to engage in meaningful dialogue about the potential risks created an unsafe work environment where crew members felt their concerns were not taken seriously. The insistence on pushing forward with filming, despite multiple warnings about the helicopter's low altitude and the use of explosives, demonstrates a troublingly large creative ego that shows disregard for both collaborative decision-making and safety protocols.

There were also miscommunications regarding the helicopter's operation itself. The pilot and special effects team were not fully aligned on the safety measures needed to accomplish this grandiose shot. While the helicopter needed to fly in a controlled manner to get things to a safe place, the chaos of the explosions and lack of clear communication on when the scene was going to start led to a situation where the helicopter pilot lost control, and resulted in the crash that killed Morrow and the two child actors. The crew's apprehensions were valid; they understood the inherent dangers of the situation. Landis's strong convictions about the scene's necessity and visual impact stifled collaborative connection and led to a critical failure to prioritize safety over spectacle. There are dangers of neglecting the voices of our creative team members in favor of the ego.

"Love is an act of will—namely, both an intention and an action."

–bell hooks

The killings led to significant scrutiny regarding safety practices on film sets, especially in the 1980s, a time when it could be argued safety was not fully a priority yet. It was revealed that the production had failed to follow several safety protocols, including not obtaining proper permits for the use of child actors in dangerous stunts and not adhering to safety regulations for helicopter operations. The ensuing investigation highlighted the negligence on the part of John Landis and other crew members who were allowed involvement in the decision-making process. This prompted a major legal fallout. Landis, along with several other crew members, faced charges related to involuntary manslaughter, and were ultimately acquitted–even though two children died violently on their watch from something completely unnecessary.

It’s not surprising that John Landis walks today a free man who can snicker in photos knowing he is responsible for the deaths of three people. Instead of accountability after the incident, he played under-accountability by the book. At the trial, the defense pointed out that the explosions were detonated at the wrong time. Remember how he went along with the shot even though it was not yet communicated to the safety crew? Randall Robinson, an assistant cameraman who was actually on board the helicopter testified that production manager Dan Allingham told Dwayne Wingo, Vic Morrow’s stunt double, "That's too much. Let's get out of here," attempting to prevent the accident when explosions were detonated, but Landis shouted over the radio: "Get lower... lower! Get over [lower]!" Robinson said that Wingo tried to leave the area, but that "we lost our control and regained it and then I could feel something let go and we began spinning around in circles."

Landis even had people buying into his strategies of under-accountability. Flying monkeys, if you will. In the course of cross-examination, Dwayne Wingo expressed his regret that Morrow had not looked "up at the helicopter" as he claimed he had instructed him to do, stating when questioned that Morrow "had over five seconds between the time the sound of the helicopter changed and that impact" but later doubling back on his statement and saying he was not attempting to place blame. Wingo's comments were deeply derided by the prosecutor, Deputy District Attorney Lea Purwin D'Agostino, who responded to Wingo's suggestion that Morrow could have evaded the helicopter by asking how exactly Wingo expected him to have done so while "...was carrying the two youngsters in his arms while standing almost knee-deep in water as the helicopter, which had been hovering at 24 feet, spun toward him."

The Twilight Zone: The Movie tragedy serves as a poignant reminder of the importance of prioritizing the safety and the ethical responsibilities of creators to particularly vulnerable individuals, starting with our children. Blatant disregard for safety protocols and the ethical implications of using child actors in dangerous situations can lead to catastrophe. The production of this film not only resulted in the loss of three lives but also highlighted the need for stricter regulations regarding safety on film sets, particularly when it comes to protecting the welfare of minors. The events surrounding Twilight Zone: The Movie serve as a poignant reminder of the importance of prioritizing safety and the ethical responsibilities we hold as creatives.

"We need, in every community, a group of angelic troublemakers."

–Bayard Rustin

The culprit: Creative egotism.

Creative egotism can foster overconfidence in one’s abilities, underestimate risks associated with handling firearms, or neglect established safety protocols in pursuit of an artistic vision. One could argue in the Rust incident, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed’s privilege prevented her from being able to do a job that requires attention to detail and caution, but the pressures of cementing her into the business from the colonial and hierarchical perspective of her father put her in a position where she killed someone. Not wanting to “rock the boat” or risk their job by confronting a second-generation Hollywood legacy may have caused armors and crew members to prioritize production goals over ensuring a safe working environment. The creative ego can drive individuals to suppress concerns or dissenting opinions, even about personal safety, for fear of being labeled as difficult or obstructive. In a competitive and oftentimes puritanical industry, the desire to fit in or maintain harmony can lead to overlooking safety measures in favor of progressing with the shoot, compromising the well-being of everyone involved.

Let me help you get past your ego. I don’t want you to break your ego, harm your ego, or kill it–I just don’t want it to be your primary place of decision-making. So many creative programs and workbooks are built around shaming the ego. When I went to the Arts Academy I had my first experience with it in a workshop with a teacher who was known among us students as the “slave-driver”. I am not kidding. It felt puritanical. No one could stand up straight enough. No one was working hard enough. We were all ungrateful. This was for acting?

At fifteen years old I thought, if this is acting, I don’t want any part of it.

This program says, to your ego: “Welcome! Please don’t take over the conversation but please feel free to take part in it, and we can help with your different needs and to make sure it’s safe and powerful for everyone.” That said, here are a few signs that your ego may be taking over in this program and probably in other parts of your life (probably, not certainly).

Signs of Chaotic Ego in Art:

• Props: As referenced in The Twilight Zone: The Movie (1983) hellscape and the box office flop of “New York, New York!” (1977), reliance on props and external elements to convey artistic and creative meaning, or to evoke emotion, rather than trusting the inherent strength of the artwork itself is often chaotic and ineffective. Effective art will always resonate through its core themes, techniques, and emotional depth, standing on its own without the need for gimmicks or superficial embellishments. We can learn from the cinematic flop of “New York, New York” and the gusto and subsequent nightmare in the Twilight Zone movie that when artists depend heavily on props, it is a testament to the amount of confidence the artist holds in their creative expression or an inability to engage the audience through more profound, intrinsic qualities. Such dependence dilutes the message and transforms the work into a frivolous spectacle that lacks all meaning. True artistry lies in the ability to connect with viewers through authenticity and depth, rather than the crutch of extraneous elements that can detract from the work's overall impact. At that same time, our major teacher once told our class this as advice during a class collaboration and we did not listen. We made truly the worst performance art I have ever seen.

• Blame: This is the opposite of accountability. While accountability tells others, “I did wrong, I am going to self-reflect and correct my error to make the least amount of harm (Ahimsa)”, blame goes in a direction engulfed in virtue arguments–pointing the finger at everyone but ourselves. In the Twilight Zone murders, this looked like John D'Augustino, the helicopter pilot involved in the incident telling Dwayne Wingo it was “quite amazing” how he could "possibly have thought Vic Morrow could have done anything to escape that helicopter under those circumstances and conditions?” He called it “a classic example of a defense. They're blaming the parents, they're blaming the fire safety officers, they're out here blaming everyone. Now they're blaming the dead man. It's incredible." Vic Morrow's family settled within a year; the children's families collected millions of dollars from several civil lawsuits.
  
  In Deadpool 2, a similar pattern of blaming the deceased followed the death of Sequana Joi Harris. Following her fatal accident, some comments suggested Harris, an experienced rider, could have made better choices to avoid the accident and was therefore responsible for her own death. For instance, some individuals pointed out that Harris was riding without a helmet, which led to suggestions that if she had been wearing one, the outcome might have been different. Such remarks echo the sentiment expressed in the Twilight Zone: The Movie incident, where blame was shifted onto the individuals who were directly involved in the tragedy, rather than addressing broader issues like safety protocols, pressure, and oversight on film sets.
  
  In Resident Evil, despite Olivia Jackson’s prior success, the final scene was notably more dangerous. During this particular stunt, the camera truck was positioned in a way that created a blind spot. The setup had not been communicated effectively to Jackson, which contributed to the collision when she approached at high speed. This unfortunate turn of events serves to emphasize how even a single lapse in safety protocols or communication can have catastrophic consequences, regardless of a performer’s prior experience or the success of earlier stunts. This did not prevent comments from some crew members and industry observers that suggested Jackson could have avoided the collision if she had been more aware or cautious while riding. This line of thinking deflects blame onto the victim rather than addressing the systemic failures that lead to an incident.

“Freedom is never really won. You earn it and win it in every generation."

–Coretta Scott King

• Dozens and dozens of disavowed/abdicated projects: Whether it be for ethical reasons, religious reasons, liability reasons, or otherwise–at the end of the day, no one wants to own a project where someone gets hurt, killed, or harmed during its making. There are so many productions and institutions created or sponsored by predators who used to be feared gatekeepers in the arts and cultural fields. Jeffery Epstein owned a cabin on Interlochen’s campus during my time going to boarding school there. That’s probably not good. Each Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show between 1995 and 2018 Epstein got involved in draws more and more backlash on the company for its troubling culture surrounding the modeling industry. The Other Side of the Wind (2018) was marred by allegations of exploitation and inappropriate behavior during filming, reflecting the toxic environment Weinstein fostered. Weinstein’s Project Runway, a fashion competition series spanning from 2004 to the present–a show that has often thrown aside some fashion designers from marginalized backgrounds, has faced criticism for its treatment of female contestants, raising concerns about the pressures placed to conform to industry standards. The film The Hateful Eight (2015), produced by Weinstein, has been scrutinized for its violent and misogynistic themes, reflective of the broader issues in Weinstein’s productions. Lastly, Scream (1996), which Weinstein produced, has faced re-evaluation regarding its treatment of female characters and the exploitation inherent in the horror genre. You can tell how many disavowed projects a director has from how many Alan Smithee credits they accrue. This phenomenon now spreads outside of the film industry and into all creative media productions. For more info on my buddy Alan, see the end of the chapter for a full list of creative productions abandoned by their creators and collaborators entitled “The Alan Smithee Project”. This part, I have to admit, is just for fun–and if you have more you’d like me to mention in this book, please reach out and I’ll continue to add to the list.

So let’s say you’re an artist who needs redemption. You’re finding that you’re out of control so you’re using tons of control strategies, you’re engulfed in white supremacy so you’re trying to accrue more and more “boons of success”, money, props, lavish projects, to prove yourself–you’re placing blame and you’re disavowing projects left and right. There is no shame in the Black Artist’s Path. There are ancestors here. In this mistake there is a parable–there are valuable lessons here. Our path has an emergent strategy–a low point of entry and high standards for conduct. Not unattainable, just high, standards. You are welcome to join us, judgment-free. Let’s change your actions.

“You don't know who swimmin' naked 'til the tide come in.”

–Nipsey Hussle

Try to avoid exorbitantly funded terrible projects.

Here’s a big secret–you can make a world-changing work of art on a zero-dollar budget. Like an alchemist, you have now turned something with no value into value. If you’re a true artist, you’ll know the feeling I am describing. The truth is, only people of privilege have to rely on props and excessive budgets to make their art–and sooner or later those people cannot keep up the facade any longer. If your art has a smaller or non-existent budget, think of it as a creative obstacle that will give you a lesson you will be better for in the long run. Usually large-budget projects–as we read in this chapter–create hazardous environments and produce terrible projects at large. The artist ends up relying on the excessive budget to create the art for them, because–let’s be honest–most people who are in the film industry are hierarchically appointed there by their relatives, parents, or friends. Getting into the film industry on merit alone is an arguably completely nonexistent concept, even as more independent film contests develop and the internet connects us to lower-level film artists, it’s still a huge factor that usually the people “chosen” are sure to know someone, too. More on that later. Some of the best cinematic projects in history have had relatively low budgets. Take, for instance:

Moonlight (2016)

• Budget: $1.5 million

• Box Office: $65 million worldwide

• Moonlight broke new ground by exploring themes of race, sexuality, and identity with a depth rarely seen in mainstream cinema. Directed by Barry Jenkins, it won the Academy Award for Best Picture, making it the first LGBTQ-focused film and the first with an all-Black cast to win this honor. Its intimate, poetic storytelling set a new standard for indie filmmaking and demonstrated that powerful stories can be told modestly.

The Blair Witch Project (1999)

• Budget: $60,000

• Box Office: $248 million worldwide

• Pioneering the found-footage genre, The Blair Witch Project leveraged viral marketing to build an intense mystery around the film. It grossed over $248 million worldwide and influenced horror films and indie cinema for years, proving the effectiveness of unique storytelling on a shoestring budget.

“Don’t fuck it up.”

–RuPaul

Paranormal Activity (2007)

• Budget: $15,000

• Box Office: $193 million worldwide

• This horror phenomenon, made with just a handheld camera and minimal effects, became one of the most profitable movies ever, grossing over $193 million. Its success sparked a renewed interest in found-footage horror, leading to a franchise and showing that creativity could replace high production costs for maximum suspense.

"An artist’s duty is to reflect the times in which we live."

–Nina Simone

Clerks (1994)

• Budget: $27,000

• Box Office: $3.2 million worldwide

• Kevin Smith's debut film, shot in black-and-white to save costs, became a cult classic. Clerks spoke directly to Gen X audiences with its sharp dialogue and relatable themes. It launched Smith’s career and inspired other filmmakers to create personal stories with limited resources.

Get Out (2017)

• Budget: $4.5 million

• Box Office: $255 million worldwide

• Jordan Peele’s debut film was a social thriller addressing race relations, becoming a critical and commercial success with a $255 million box-office haul. It showed that genre films could explore complex societal issues and win major awards, ultimately reshaping how horror is viewed within the industry.

Once (2007)

• Budget: $150,000

• Box Office: $23 million worldwide

• This Irish romantic musical film tells the story of a street musician and a flower seller. Its simple, heartfelt narrative and raw music captured audiences worldwide, earning an Oscar for Best Original Song and highlighting the power of authenticity in filmmaking.

Fruitvale Station (2013)

• Budget: $900,000

• Box Office: $17.4 million

• Directed by Ryan Coogler, this biographical drama tells the true story of Oscar Grant, a young Black man killed by police in Oakland, California. The film resonated with audiences and critics alike for its portrayal of police violence and systemic racism. It also launched Coogler's career, leading to his future work on Black Panther.

She’s Gotta Have It (1986)

• Budget: $175,000

• Box Office: $7.1 million

• Spike Lee’s debut feature is a pioneering independent film about a Black woman exploring her sexuality. Shot in black and white with a tiny budget, the film’s success helped launch Lee’s career and is credited with sparking the Black independent film movement and later went on to become a Netflix series undoing his former misogynistic overtones, showing that unique, culturally rich stories can find mainstream success.

"The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house."

–Audre Lorde

Daughters of the Dust (1991)

• Budget: $800,000

• Box Office: Limited release, $14 million worldwide

• Julie Dash’s film about Gullah women on a South Carolina island at the turn of the 20th century was the first feature film by an African American woman to get a theatrical release in the U.S. Though it had a modest box-office impact, its critical success and cultural influence were immense, with Beyoncé citing it as an inspiration for Lemonade.

Love Jones (1997)

• Budget: $10 million (low for a romantic drama)

• Box Office: $12.5 million

• While its box-office return was modest, Love Jones has since become a classic in Black cinema, celebrated for its realistic, poetic portrayal of Black love and relationships. Its impact on Black romantic comedies and dramas is still felt, inspiring other films to explore nuanced depictions of love in Black communities.

Impactful storytelling, innovative production techniques, and timely themes can elevate a low-budget film to worldwide acclaim. The best movies that stand the test of time and tend to make money, often–not always–but often, have low budgets. Take a walk with me, and imagine a world in which we can use the funds wasted on disavowed “Alan Smithee” projects on the artists, the bills, and keeping lights on at the production companies themselves–the stuff that should cost money. That in itself could lead to more productive and innovative ways of filmmaking that set the standard for its brilliant minds, challenging them by the constraints of oftentimes smaller budgets that Black artists historically have had to create with.

Make fewer movie franchises, please.

I think the new show on HBO Max “The Franchise” pretty much drives this point across, but if that doesn’t do the trick, this should. Franchises are some of the most wasteful and frivolous artistic projects on the planet. Not only do they have intense ramifications on lives, the environment, and the economy, but they are often sanctioned, approved, and propagated by the military-industrial complex. Blockbuster franchises in the United States collaborate with the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), exchanging favorable depictions for access to military resources. This arrangement shapes both the films’ narratives and the public’s perception of the military, subtly promoting their objectives and ideals. Franchises like Transformers, Iron Man, and Top Gun have openly collaborated with the military, glamorizing high-tech weaponry and military intervention in ways that make them appear both heroic and essential. These alliances effectively turn films into recruitment and public relations (propaganda) tools, increasing enlistment and support for military ventures, particularly among young audiences. While these films entertain and sometimes seriously deliver, they are also vehicles for promoting specific government-aligned narratives to cast police, institutions, and the military in a heroic light, ultimately reinforcing the view that the armed forces are the ultimate protectors of freedom and make no mistakes, subtly validating real-world military actions to truly sell the supposed “values” of American “democracy”.

"If there’s a book that you want to read, but it hasn’t been written yet, then you must write it." –Toni Morrison

Our favorite franchises have vast global audiences, like Star Wars, Mission Impossible, the Marvel Cinematic Universe, The DC Cinematic Universe, Fast and Furious, Resident Evil, and many others. These movies communicate the values of U.S. military interventionism worldwide that the government wants people to know. All this is the usage of art as a tool to make the military-industrial complex an influential cultural force on a planetary scale. Woof. In this way, franchises aren't just costly and environmentally damaging due to their intensive production demands; they also propagate ideologies that align with colonial military objectives. By linking storytelling without nuance (good vs. evil), global peacekeeping, and patriotism to military ideals, these films shape not only entertainment but also influence political and social landscapes. With a deadly combination of frivolous excess and calculated militarism, franchises epitomize how “art for art’s sake” lives to serve larger, violent, troubling institutional agendas.

Also, can we please do less rich white women at the forefront of creative representation movements?

Sometimes we are even the ones to appoint them. Why?

The presence of Jennifer Newsom, wife of Gavin Newson, governor of California, and well-intentioned white woman, at the helm of the Representation Project, highlights a complex dynamic in discussions around representation and diversity. While the initiative aims to address gender stereotypes and promote inclusivity, it also raises critical questions about the authenticity and depth of representation when led by individuals who may not share the lived experiences of the communities they seek to uplift. It goes back to the essay by Linda Martin Alcoff on how and when to speak for others, there is a tendency for white people to occupy spaces who should instead be using their privilege to center the voices and experiences of marginalized groups. This can lead to a disconnect between the intentions of initiatives like the Representation Project and the realities of the communities they aim to represent. For many, the leadership of a white woman in a project focused on diversity may feel performative or superficial, potentially sidelining the authentic voices of people of color who have historically been the most affected by the issues being addressed. Many initiatives like this have been started by women of color, why not use her resources to support and platform those instead en masse? As the project garners significant financial backing and media attention, there is a risk that it could overshadow smaller grassroots organizations more rooted in the generational history of their communities. These organizations often operate on limited budgets but provide vital, nuanced, and informed perspectives that provide solutions to reflect the specific needs within the cultural contexts of the populations they serve. When larger, well-funded initiatives led by white figures dominate the conversation, it can unintentionally or intentionally perpetuate a cycle where the authentic voices of people of color are drowned out, which leads to further marginalization and isolation.

"You don’t fight racism with racism, the best way to fight racism is with solidarity."

–Bobby Seale

The question arises again: Who gets to tell the stories of marginalized communities? It depends on our actions, and whether or not initiatives are not merely allies, but accomplices, on this journey with us–not only in terms of their goals but also in their leadership and where we direct the narrative.

I know this is bad writing etiquette, but we are now at the end of the chapter. This is the fun part. If you were at all curious about this elusive “Alan Smithee” reject project I have been mentioning that showcases a hideous display of work that has been abandoned by the people who created it, or if you’re interested in a Mystery Science Theater 3000-type movie marathon, welcome to this glorious end to this chapter of A Black Artist’s Path, affectionately known as the “Alan Smithee Project”.

"Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything."

–Colin Kaepernick

Alan Smithee + The High Cost of Creative Ego:

Alan Smithee’s story is a dastardly parable about unchecked creative egos that hinder collaboration and waste resources. While directors deserve creative control, excessive inflexibility can lead to financial losses and missed opportunities, or worse. 👀

Here's a breakdown of the Alan Smithee phenomenon:

• Who is Alan Smithee?

Alan Smithee (or Allen Smithee) is a pseudonym used by film directors who want to disassociate themselves from a project due to creative differences with producers or studios.

• Why is this a problem?

Directors disowning films leads to a decline in creative quality. Studios lose faith in the project and there’s less investment in promotion and distribution. Also, the first rule of business applies: the customer always knows best. Audiences are sometimes hesitant to watch a film with a director who doesn't stand behind it–unless you’re like me and like watching and documenting the dumpster fires.

• What's the financial cost?

Budgets can range from millions to hundreds of millions, and like I said earlier, the bigger the budget–the bigger the flop. Losses can be significant. Imagine the wasted resources that could have been used for funding smaller, more creative films with diverse voices, or even investing in innovative technology to create truly immersive experiences. The surplus could support the work of other creative staff who usually work on shortages, such as makeup artists, costume designers, and set builders. It could also ensure the safety and fair worker’s compensation and reputations of stunt performers who risk their lives for our entertainment.

List of "Creative Differences" that are Interpersonal Conflicts leading to Alan Smithee Titles:

• Disagreements over editing and final cut.

• Studio interference and re-shoots.

• Dissatisfaction with the overall quality of the film.

"Turn your wounds into wisdom."

–Oprah Winfrey

Timeline of Alan Smithee projects

1. Death of a Gunfighter: The Smithee pseudonym was created for use in the film Death of a Gunfighter released in 1969. On set, lead actor Richard Widmark clashed consistently with director Robert Totten, arranging to have him replaced by Don Siegel. Siegel later estimated that he had spent 9 to 10 days filming, while Totten had spent 25 days. Each had roughly an equal amount of footage in the final edit, but Siegel made clear that Widmark had effectively been in charge the entire time. When the film was finished, Siegel did not want to take credit for it and Totten refused to take credit as well. While everyone was being weird, the DGA panel hearing the dispute agreed to disagree and established that the film did not represent either director's creative vision.

Despite the dispute, critics still praised the film. The New York Times commented that the film was "sharply directed by Allen Smithee who has an adroit facility for scanning faces and extracting sharp background detail," Roger Ebert said the film was "an extraordinary western …” and “director Allen Smithee, a name I'm not familiar with, allows his story to unfold naturally.”

Fade In (1973)

Burt Reynolds said, "It should have been called Fade Out.” In a 1973 interview with writer Emory Lewis, playwright Mart Crowley said of the film, "I did write one film, Fade-In, with Barbara Loden and Burt Reynolds in starring roles. However, it was butchered by other writers. It was never released. I paid Paramount $1700 to take my name off the project." The movie was shot at the same time as the Western Blue on the same location in Moab, Utah, actually using some footage from that movie although it had a separate story, cast, and crew. According to Judd Bernard, who produced both films, "Both pictures are either going to be great or be disaster areas. There will be no middle ground with either one." Although the movie was really bad, It was the first Hollywood-made film to show someone taking a contraception pill. "It was screened for Bob Evans at Paramount and I think he locked it up in chains", Reynolds says years later. "It's never been heard from since."

City in Fear (1980)

City in Fear is a 1980 American television drama directed by Jud Taylor under the pseudonym Alan Smithee. Written by Peter Masterson, based on a story by Albert Ruben, the film stars David Janssen (in one of his final performances), Robert Vaughn, Mickey Rourke, Susan Sullivan, and Perry King. It depicts a newspaper's effort to sensationalize a psychopath's killing spree. Filmed in mid-1979, City in Fear debuted on ABC on March 30, 1980, just a month after David Janssen’s sudden death from a heart attack on February 13, 1980, at the age of 48. Janssen, a heavy smoker and drinker, passed away at his Malibu home. The film’s concept originated from a conversation between writer William Goldman and Pete Masterson. Goldman was inspired after his young daughter dyed her hair out of fear during the Son of Sam killings, which highlighted the media's impact on public fear. This interplay between a serial killer and sensationalized press coverage became the central theme of the film. Director Jud Taylor used the pseudonym "Alan Smithee" to distance himself from the project due to significant creative disagreements. After Taylor completed his work, producers added scenes, including explicit murders, without his consent, altering the movie's tone. Feeling the final version no longer represented his vision, Taylor requested his name be removed.

"When a cause comes along and you know in your bones that it is just, yet refuse to defend it—at that moment, you begin to die."

–Mumia Abu-Jamal

Student Bodies (1981)

Student Bodies is a 1981 American parody film that satirizes slasher horror movies like Halloween, Friday the 13th, and Prom Night. Directed and written by Mickey Rose, with Michael Ritchie uncredited as co-director, the first to parody the slasher genre. It features serial killer "The Breather," stalking high school students, with a comedic body count displayed on screen during deaths. The plot culminates in a twist, revealing most of the events as a dream of a hospital patient, whose boyfriend later mirrors the killer’s behavior. Debate surrounds Ritchie's role; some claim he used the pseudonym "Alan Smithee" to comply with the Writers Guild of America strike, while others believe he distanced himself due to dissatisfaction with the project. Mickey Rose, a credited WGA member, reportedly debunks strike-related rumors, as he retained full credit.

Twilight Zone: The Movie (1983)

Twilight Zone: The Movie (1983) gained notoriety due to a tragic accident during the production of its first segment, which resulted in the deaths of actor Vic Morrow and two child actors in a helicopter crash. Assistant Director Anderson House used the pseudonym "Alan Smithee" for this segment, marking one of the few instances where this pseudonym was employed by an assistant director. The use of "Alan Smithee" allowed House to disassociate himself from the project due to its controversies from the tragedy surrounding it.

"I’m not saying I’m gonna change the world, but I guarantee that I will spark the brain that will change the world."

–Tupac Shakur

Stitches (1985)

For Stitches (1985), the use of the Alan Smithee pseudonym was reportedly due to the film’s poor quality and director Rod Holcomb's desire to distance himself from it. The movie is a comedic take on the antics of medical students, and the final result was seen as so subpar that Holcomb did not want his name associated with it. He opted to use the Alan Smithee credit. In this case, it seems the overall execution of the film was the primary reason for Holcomb's decision​.

"When we're talking about diversity, it's not a box to check. It is a reality that should be deeply felt and held and valued by all of us."

–Ava Duvernay

Gunhed (1989)

In Gunhed (1989), Masato Harada used the Alan Smithee pseudonym for the U.S. release of the film due to dissatisfaction with the final cut. The English version of the film was poorly dubbed and heavily altered during post-production, making it deviate significantly from Harada’s original vision.

Shrimp on the Barbie (1990)

The 1990 comedy Shrimp on the Barbie is one such film, where Alan Smithee stepped in for director Michael Gottlieb, who had already delivered the cult classic Mannequin. A goofy fish-out-of-water story, it starred Cheech Marin as an American hired by a wealthy Australian to pose as her awful fiancé. The film’s final product didn't land with critics, and Alan Smithee’s name was added, capturing the dissatisfaction.

The Nutt House (1992)

A slapstick comedy directed by Adam Rifkin, involving an amnesiac man who escapes from a mental institution and finds himself entangled in various outrageous scenarios. Though it had an impressive team of writers, including Scott Spiegel, Bruce Campbell, Ivan Raimi, and Sam Raimi, they were all so dissatisfied with the final film that they opted for pseudonyms. In a clever twist on the traditional Alan Smithee credit, the writers chose quirky aliases, with Ivan Raimi credited as Alan Smithee Sr. and Sam Raimi as Alan Smithee Jr., alongside Spiegel as Peter Perkinson and Campbell as R.O.C. Sandstorm. The writers' dissatisfaction likely stemmed from production or studio decisions that veered the movie away from its intended tone.

"The classroom was a jail of other people’s interests. The library was open, unending, free." –Ta-Nehisi Coates

The Birds II: Land's End (1994)

A made-for-TV sequel to Alfred Hitchcock's classic The Birds, directed by Rick Rosenthal, who was so dissatisfied with the final product that he chose to be credited as Alan Smithee. The sequel follows a new storyline with a family moving to a coastal town where they encounter increasingly violent bird attacks, echoing the original but lacking any tension, the signifier of the originator Hitchcock's artistry. Rosenthal's decision to use Alan Smithee suggests that creative differences or production limitations led to a version that didn’t align with his standards. Critics panned The Birds II: Land's End, with many feeling it fell short of its iconic predecessor. Rosenthal’s choice to distance himself highlights how difficult it is to try to recapture the feeling of a classic, especially with a limited budget and television constraints.

The Journey Inside (1994)

Directed by Barnaby Jackson, is a film produced by Intel corporation as an educational piece to teach viewers about the inner workings of computers and microprocessors. Designed to give audiences, particularly students, a visual tour of the complex processes happening inside a computer, The Journey Inside uses a mix of live-action and computer-generated imagery to bring technology concepts to life. Although Intel created this educational film to introduce viewers to the complexities of microprocessors, director Barnaby Jackson ultimately chose to disown the project. There is no way to know exactly why Jackson abandoned the project, except for the fact that the movie sounds really boring. The Journey Inside was essentially a corporate educational video created to explain microprocessors—a topic that, while foundational to tech, isn't exactly thrilling for mainstream audiences. Directors who sign on to these kinds of projects are coming for the mindset of–well, I’ve got to start somewhere—or they may envision making complex topics accessible and engaging, but usually, the final product can often end up feeling more like a technical lecture, especially with corporate colonial oversight focusing on accuracy and branding over creativity.

National Lampoon's Senior Trip (1995)

A movie about a trip to the U.S. capitol filmed entirely in Canada, a segment of “Senior Trip” is credited to "Alan Smithee," used by director Kelly Makin for a portion of Senior Trip suggests that the director felt the studio’s edits or constraints compromised her creative vision. One can only assume that the misogynistic undertones in a movie reviewed on IMDb as “Good with Beer and Friends” did not “vibe” with the “Queer as Folk” director’s brand or aesthetic of humor. Again, hey, everyone has to start somewhere.

"Success isn’t about how much money you make. It’s about the difference you make in people’s lives."

–Michelle Obama

Raging Angels (1995)

The 1995 film Raging Angels, is credited to Alan Smithee in its entirety without any claim from its creative parent. Intended as a supernatural thriller about a young musician trying to save his girlfriend from a cult-like New World Order group involving demonic apparitions and battles between good and evil forces, the film struggled critically. The low-budget production featured a mix of CGI demons and angels, with effects that were criticized for looking outdated and unconvincing, even for the time. Sean Patrick Flanery, Monet Mazur, and Diane Ladd starred in the film, which received negative reviews for its plot execution, character development, and technical quality, especially regarding its visual effects.

"Like what you do, and then you will do your best."

–Katherine Johnson

Hellraiser: Bloodline (1996)

The fourth installment in the Hellraiser franchise was directed by Kevin Yagher, who is primarily known as a special effects coordinator and makeup artist. This may have contributed to the challenges he faced as a director with no prior experience on Hellraiser: Bloodline. His expertise in effects made him a valuable asset to the franchise, but directing a feature film involves more than just effects. The film is notable for its complex narrative that spans multiple time periods, exploring the origins of the ‘Cenobites’ and the infamous puzzle box known as the Lament Configuration. Yagher ultimately disowned the film, which is why Alan Smithee was credited for certain aspects. The final cut underwent extensive re-editing, which altered the film's tone and pacing, diluting Yagher's intended narrative. This situation highlights the broader challenges faced when navigating studio demands, especially in established franchises where commercial interests can override artistic vision​.

Sub Down (1997)

According to a review on IMDb: “The external underwater shots look pretty cool, but otherwise the sets are super-cheesy, they look like they were made in someone's backyard. Bad script, bad acting, bad sets, bad bad bad. But when the director bails from his own movie what do you expect.” The film's premise and execution may not have resonated well with audiences or critics, leading to this disavowal by its director. While the budget for "Sub Down" was reportedly around $17 million, it received a relatively low rating.

"When Black people get free, everybody gets free."

–Patrisse Cullors

An Alan Smithee Film: Burn Hollywood Burn (1997)

Directed by Arthur Hiller, one of the first meta-takes on the film industry, this film explores the absurdities and frustrations that filmmakers often face. The film follows a fictional director, played by Eric Idle, who becomes disillusioned with the Hollywood system and ultimately uses the pseudonym Alan Smithee to disown his project, which is a recurring theme in the movie itself.

Wadd: The Life & Times of John C. Holmes (1998)

Directed by Cass Paley, features the Alan Smithee credit, likely indicating the director's discontent with the final cut of the film. This documentary focuses on the life of adult film star John Holmes, delving into his controversial career, personal struggles, and the infamous "Wonderland murders" associated with him. One of his reviews states, “Disarmingly intelligent if scattered documentary. A fairly tough-minded film until the end, when several commentators who have been critical suddenly turn misty-eyed and suggest that underneath it all, Holmes was really a sweetie.”

Some “Alan Smithee” credits are used merely because there was interpersonal conflict among the cast and crew in a production. In Let’s Get Harry (1986), director Stuart Rosenberg disowned the film after significant changes were made that diverged from his vision, prompting his use of the pseudonym. Similarly, Morgan Stewart’s Coming Home (1987) saw a tumultuous production where neither of the two directors—Terry Winsor, who was fired early on, and Paul Aaron—felt that their work reflected their original intentions. Director Lee Madden chose to disassociate from Ghost Fever (1987) after mandated re-shoots and edits altered the film significantly. In I Love N.Y. (1987), Gianni Bozzacchi faced production challenges that led him to request his name be removed from the credits. Dennis Hopper, disillusioned by studio interference during Catchfire (1990), also resorted to the Alan Smithee credit, which later prompted him to release a director’s cut. Richard C. Sarafian used the pseudonym for Solar Crisis (1990) following clashes with producers over the final cut. The lesser-known Smoke n Lightnin' (1995) and the action thriller Dilemma (1997) both featured the pseudonym, indicating significant changes during production that left the original directors dissatisfied. Lastly, Le Zombi de Cap-Rouge (1997) and The Insider (1999) showcase how creative control disputes, often arising from personal conflicts, can lead filmmakers to abandon their work entirely.

"All that you touch, you change. All that you change, changes you."

–Octavia E. Butler

Other Alan Smithee credits are due to disavowing and disowning only the TV versions of a film, which may reflect more of what we hate about TV than what we hate about the film. In Dune (1984), the Alan Smithee credit was associated with the television version of the film, not the original theatrical release. David Lynch, the original director, disowned the extended TV cut of Dune due to creative differences. The film was heavily edited for television, with added scenes and reorganization that Lynch did not approve of. He felt that the changes in the made-for-TV version significantly altered his vision. As a result, he requested his name be removed from that particular version, leading to the use of the Alan Smithee credit. The Guardian (1990) was directed by William Friedkin, known for The Exorcist. Surprisingly, the Alan Smithee name does not appear for the theatrical release despite creative tensions behind the scenes. This horror film centers on a young couple's nanny who turns out to be a druid sacrificing babies to an ancient tree. Friedkin faced criticism for the film, which lacked his trademark touch. While he retained credit for the theatrical release, he opted for the pseudonym when a heavily edited, sanitized cut was prepared for cable television. These edits aimed to make the film suitable for TV audiences, involving substantial cuts and alterations to the horror and supernatural elements, compromising Friedkin’s vision. Instead of the standard "Alan Smithee," the variation "Alan Von Smithee" was used, likely adding irony or formality to signal discontent with the modified version while adhering to Hollywood's tradition of pseudonymous credits for creatively unsatisfying works. In Rudy (1993), directed by David Anspaugh, the Alan Smithee pseudonym was employed due to significant edits made for the re-edited version. This beloved sports drama, based on the true story of Rudy Ruettiger, chronicles the journey of an underdog dreaming of playing football for Notre Dame. However, for the TV broadcast, the film was altered to fit runtime constraints and meet television standards, which involved removing certain scenes and changing the film’s pacing and emotional beats. Anspaugh felt these modifications impacted the integrity of the story he had carefully crafted, prompting him to distance himself from this version. By using Alan Smithee, he signaled his discontent with the re-edit, preserving his reputation for the theatrical cut that had won acclaim for its heartfelt storytelling. In Heat (1995), Michael Mann’s film reportedly saw the Alan Smithee pseudonym used for its edited-for-television version. TV adaptations often undergo significant cuts, edits, and censorship to meet broadcasting standards, which may include trimming scenes for time constraints, adjusting language, and modifying violent or intense sequences. Given Heat's length (originally around three hours) and Mann's gritty realism, these edits likely altered the pacing and overall intensity of the film, potentially compromising his vision. Such alterations may have prompted the director or involved parties to use Alan Smithee to disassociate from the modified version, a common practice for films with intricate plots where the television edit could impact the story's integrity or the director's stylistic imprint.

"I knew then and I know now, when it comes to justice, there is no easy way to get it."

–Claudette Colvin

Alan Smithee's credits also appear because of discontent with the in-flight versions of movies, and like TV, compromises made for airline audiences can reflect broader frustrations with the airline system rather than the films themselves. In Scent of a Woman (1992), directed by Martin Brest, the Alan Smithee pseudonym was used to signify Brest’s disapproval of the heavily edited version shown on airlines. To make the film suitable for in-flight viewing, significant cuts were made to reduce runtime and tone down mature language and scenes. These edits disrupted Brest’s intended pacing and emotional depth—especially regarding Al Pacino's Academy Award-winning performance as the blind, outspoken Lt. Colonel Frank Slade. Consequently, Brest chose to distance himself from this altered version by using the Alan Smithee credit, indicating his dissatisfaction with how the film's tone and impact had been compromised. Similarly, Meet Joe Black (1998), also directed by Martin Brest, features an Alan Smithee credit for the edited versions prepared for in-flight viewing and cable television. In this case, the edits cut significant content to fit runtime constraints and make the film more suitable for family audiences. Brest’s use of the Alan Smithee pseudonym reflects his discontent with the compromises made for the sake of airline standards, echoing a sentiment shared by many filmmakers regarding the limitations imposed by the distribution systems. These instances underscore the disconnect between artistic intent and the commercial pressures exerted by airlines and broadcasting standards, making directors resort to Alan Smithee.

Alan Smithee doesn’t just apply to film and television, it can apply to other forms of art as well.

"The role of the artist is to make the revolution irresistible."

–Toni Cade Bambara

In comics, Alan Smithee looks like Daredevil #338–342, a comics series published by Marvel Comics: Writer D. G. Chichester learned during a brief break from the series that he was to be replaced; for the five issues he was obligated to write he demanded an Alan Smithee credit. Team X 2000, a one-shot comic published by Marvel Comics, is credited to two writers. One being Sean Ruffner, the other being credited as "A. Smithee," is also believed to be D.G. Chichester. In 1996, writer Peter Hogan was dropped from the series Strontium Dog, a 2000AD comic strip, and his episodes were rewritten, so naturally he demanded that his name be removed from the credits.

In gaming, a comical teaser for the video game Metal Gear Solid 4 shown at E3 2005 has a director's chair labeled "Alan Smithee" as the director of the name before falls off, being replaced by co-writer Shuyo Murata's name as Murata sits on the chair. The chair was ultimately changed again to display Hideo Kojima's name as Solid Snake sits on it, however. This is a reference to Kojima's negative attitude towards directing the series and how he felt he had to keep directing it despite this.

Music video directors have occasionally used the pseudonym "Alan Smithee" in various high-profile projects. For example, the music video for Whitney Houston's "I Will Always Love You" (1992), from the soundtrack of The Bodyguard, was directed by Nick Brandt. Other notable videos directed under this pseudonym include "Heaven 'n Hell" by Salt-N-Pepa (1994), and "Let's Get Down" by Tony! Toni! Toné! Featuring DJ Quik (1996), directed by Joseph Kahn (often credited as "J. Whiskey"), and "Reunited" by Wu-Tang Clan (1998). The pseudonym was also used for Jennifer Lopez's "Waiting for Tonight" (1999), which was directed by Francis Lawrence.

"The artist's struggle for his integrity is a kind of metaphor… for the struggle that is universal and daily of all human beings to get to become human beings."

–James Baldwin

To conclude this chapter, to prevent your could-be temporary personal growth lessons from turning into legacy make-or-breakers, remember the fundamentals, the action items we enact each day to keep us on the path, and their self-evident truths, the code of ethics we use while on Thee Black Artist’s Path:

Thee Fundamentals:

1. Steal from the best and make it your own.

2. Trust yourself.

3. Trust the process.

4. The revolution will not be televised.

5. Use your inner dialogue.

6. Believe your dreams matter.

7. Protect yourself.

8. Believe in and amend your creative constitution.

9. Use Thee self-evident truths.

10. Plan your creator moment.

11. There’s no such thing as “I can’t”.

Thee Self-Evident Truths:

1. Creativity is the human way.

2. There is a creative force that can unite all people.

3. Routine is a prime tool of creative enrichment.

4. Creativity is how people tap into the Divine.

5. Refusal to be creative is self-imposed and works in opposition to creative healing and enrichment.

6. Thee Artist (The Black Artist) carries an ancestral perspective which, when used in tandem with our unique cultures, gifts, and talents, can lift a veil, exposing our inherent and inextricable wealth and value which is rooted and founded in the creative. The pain of this process is inevitable, but suffering is optional.

7. Practice the Yama and Niyama:

Yama– the embodiment of ethics that promotes harmony within the self and therefore the greater world by teacher and philosopher Patanjali somewhere between the 2nd and 5th century BCE.

1. Ahimsa: non-violence.

2. Satya: Truthfulness, not omitting the truth.

3. Asteya: Not taking what isn’t freely given.

4. Brahmacharya: Moderation.

5. Aparigraha: Non-possessiveness, avoiding greed.

Niyama– disciplines that nurture growth and creativity. Disciplines that nurture growth and creativity by teacher and philosopher Patanjali somewhere between the 2nd and 5th century BCE.

1. Sauca: Clear mind, speech, body, and a healthy lifestyle.

2. Santosa: Contentment/acceptance of yourself and others/optimism

3. Tapas: Discipline, patience and perseverance.

4. Svadhyaya: Self-awareness.

5. Isvara Pranidhana: Authenticity.

"Hold fast to dreams, for if dreams die, life is a broken-winged bird that cannot fly."

–Langston Hughes

8. Every person is a creation, so every person has the capacity for creation.

9. It is dangerous to be creative and take on the responsibility of Thee Artist.

10. Committing to art is committing to one’s deepest yearnings and most foundational desires.

If you ever feel like you’re starting to stray on your path, feel nervous, need a refresher, or cannot quite remember how to interpret a certain lesson, always feel free to go back in the process and examine the How to Use This Book portion of this text. This precursor to Week One is filled to the brim with tips, tricks, and valuable tools that can be used at any point in this process. When in doubt, don’t overcomplicate things, it’s always helpful to go back to the basics.

"If you want to fly, you have to give up the things that weigh you down."

–Toni Morrison

Exercise #1:

The Identity Map

Purpose: This exercise will help you examine how different aspects of your identity relate to privileges, disadvantages, and opportunities you may encounter on your creative path. It can provide insight into how societal structures impact your work and the work of others in unique ways.

---

Step 1: Draw your identity map.

1. Start with your name in the center of a blank page.

2. Branch out from your name with different aspects representative of your social location. Social location refers to an individual's position within society. Be sure to list things like race, ethnicity, gender, religion, language, abilities, family structure, nationality, and others that feel relevant to you and your creative process.

---

Step 2: Identify privileges, disadvantages, and opportunities.

For each branch, consider how this aspect of your identity affects your experiences in three areas: privileges, disadvantages, and opportunities. Write your reflections next to each branch or in a separate list.

1. Privilege:

Ask yourself (honestly):

• Does this part of my identity grant me any advantages or protections?

• Does it provide me with access to resources, comfort, or ease in social situations?

• Does it allow me to move through spaces with less scrutiny or difficulty?

• How is this reflected in my work?

2. Disadvantage:

Ask yourself (honestly):

• Does this part of my identity lead to challenges or obstacles?

• Does it limit my access to certain spaces or resources?

• Has it made me a target for discrimination, exclusion, or stereotypes?

• How is this reflected in my work?
  
  

3. Opportunity:
   
   Ask yourself (honestly):
   
   

• How does this part of my identity influence the opportunities I have or don’t have?

• Have I gained any unique skills, insights, or experiences due to this aspect of my identity?

• How has it shaped the pathways open to me (for example, scholarship opportunities, social circles, or mentorship)?

"We may encounter many defeats but we must not be defeated."

–Maya Angelou

---

Step 3: Reflect on your intersections.

Look at how different aspects of your identity interact. Consider:

• How do certain privileges and disadvantages combine or counterbalance each other? Draw the connections, color code, and label them.

• Are there intersections where one part of your identity increases your access while another might limit it? Draw the connections as well as double binds, things that may contradict one another. Color code and label them.

• How do these intersections and double binds shape your understanding of others’ identities and experiences? Examine this and write down your answers for each drawn dynamic.

---

Step 4: Takeaways

Write a few sentences summarizing anything new you’ve learned or something that is personally poignant to you while answering the following questions:

• Which aspects of your identity hold the most privilege, and how does that influence your daily life?

• What are your most difficult or stand-out double binds and why?

• Which aspects create the most barriers? How have you adapted or found resilience in facing them?

• What new insights or actions could this self-awareness inspire in your approach to community, work, and relationships?

---

Step 5: Examine Actions, Inactions, and Impact

Consider each aspect of your identity and report back on how it influences:

• The art you create.

• The stories you tell.

• The audience you reach.

Afterward, reflect on the actions you take (or don’t take) as an artist, and how these contribute to or challenge white supremacy and colonialism:

1. Actions:

• What choices have you made in your art that relate to your identity? For example, if you hold a certain privilege, do you use your platform to highlight underrepresented voices, or do you primarily share your own perspective?

• How do these choices shape your art’s message, audience, and purpose? Reflect on themes, subjects, or techniques that stem from your own lived experiences.

• Are you using your art to address social issues, empower communities, or challenge stereotypes? How and in what ways?

"I don't think about art when I'm working. I try to think about life."

–Jean-Michel Basquiat

2. Inactions:
   
   

• What issues, themes, or audiences have you avoided in your work? Think about whether any aspect of your identity has kept you from addressing certain topics or engaging certain communities. Write a list of why or why not to approach these topics or to avoid certain audiences. Is there a good reason?

• Where are there opportunities for growth or expansion in your art’s reach or impact? Consider whether there are gaps where your voice or resources could support others but haven’t yet.
  
  

3. Collective Impact:
   
   

• How do your actions or inactions from the lists above affect the broader community? If you’re making art from a generational model that takes into account past and future generations, how can you use this information about yourself and your work to make a tangible difference in your community?

• If you’ve chosen not to engage with certain topics, why is it important to let others speak on those topics instead? Reminder: there is no shame on this path. There is nothing wrong with taking a step back and telling a different story.

• Knowing what you know now, what role does your art play in shaping, challenging, or reinforcing societal narratives? Reflect on whether your work affirms certain perspectives or brings new ones to light.

• Are you creating from what you believe is an authentic and revolutionary place, or are you finding that you tend to reinforce dominant narratives? Here’s another reminder that there is no shame here. Be as honest as possible.

• Consider what your target audience is, and how your art influences perceptions, conversations, and attitudes in your audience.

---

Step 6: Examine Your Relationship to Conflict

In this step, consider how your identity influences your approach to conflict—both in your art and in your interactions within your community. Going back to the questions from earlier in the chapter on generative conflict, reflect on how you respond to conflicts that arise from your work or your position in society, and how these responses may challenge or reinforce hierarchies. Please reference your answers to the halftime exercises to inform some of your answers as well.

1. Understanding Conflict:
   
   

• What kinds of conflicts do you encounter in your artistic practice or community engagement? Consider conflicts related to themes in your art, the feedback you receive, or disagreements within collaborative projects. Are these conflicts based on the work itself, identity, values, or differing perspectives?

• How do these conflicts relate to the different factors in your identity map?

• Are these conflicts generative? What lessons have you learned from them about the state of the world? What would you like to see change?
  
  

"Artists are here to disturb the peace." –James Baldwin

2. Responses to Conflict:
   
   

• How do you typically respond to conflict? Think about your answers to the halftime exercise. Assess whether you tend to avoid conflict, confront it directly, seek out conflict, or seek mediation.

• Can you use your art as a means of closure on unfinished conflicts? Do you draw on cultural practices, community support, or personal experiences to navigate these situations? Why or why not?
  
  

3. Impact of Conflict on Art:
   
   

• How does your relationship with conflict inform your art and creative process?

• Do they push you to explore deeper social issues, or do they create barriers to your creativity?

• What dialogue does your work strike to your viewers? What is the typical feedback?

• Using generative conflict as a strategy, how could you create more dangerously? How does your identity map influence your choices in this regard?

• What are some action steps you can take this month to create more dangerously? Create a five-step plan (that can be broken down further into more achievable chunks if you need to) to get closer to it.

---

Close-out Reflection

Make a final summary of your most impactful insights from this exercise:

• How can your artistic practice evolve to address conflict?

• What strategies can you implement to foster more constructive dialogue through your art?

• How might you use your new personalized understanding of conflict to challenge systemic issues?

"The function of freedom is to free someone else." –Toni Morrison

---

Exercise #2: Cause Conflict

This is the hard one. With your newfound understanding, start a conflict with someone you trust, and speak on something with love that you know could not be considered a popular opinion. Talk to an old friend about how they rubbed you the wrong way years ago. Find one small and inconsequential burden on your shoulders and release it by confronting it without holding back. Be prepared to agree to disagree. Kindly, not nicely. This is a small practice of your autonomy. Use the liberating pathways we practiced in this chapter and review your identity map before you get started.

When you are done, please answer the questions below:

1) “How was conflict treated in my household as a child?”

2) “How did the adults around me deal with disagreement?”

3) “Were conflicts welcomed, avoided (feared), or omnipresent?”

4) “How is this impacting how I engage in conflict?”

5) “When I think back to my childhood and re-remember conflicts in my household, what feeling states do I notice coming up to the surface of my skin? What is happening in my body now? Think sensations, breath, movement, temperature.”

6) What values do I want to embody when facing a conflict with a loved one?

7) What feeling states are associated with this new imagined response to conflict? Where in my life do I already feel this way?

8) How can I cultivate more of those feeling states, and sensations in my life right now?

9) “What is justice to you? What is healing to you?”

These questions shape a deeper understanding of navigating conflict with loved ones. They can reveal patterns, uncover needs, and guide healthier interactions. Most importantly, they can inform where you want to create from.

"Art is how we decorate space; music is how we decorate time." –Jean-Michel Basquiat

---

Exercise #3: When all else fails, SCREAM.

If you have the privilege to do so, go somewhere safe from other people (i.e., police, and concerned neighbors) and scream as loud as you can. After the overturn of Roe V. Wade, I went to the demonstration in the amphitheater in Kalamazoo and led many angry people to a collective, cathartic, scream. Afterward, one of the demonstrators reached out to me and told me how healing it felt.

I scream a lot. I will admit it. People judge this vehemently and constantly. I feel like the more I know the angrier I get, and we cannot have a healthy collective until that rage can go somewhere. The more I know, the more it hurts, and knowing that alone I cannot change any laws or even minds, and being aware Nyhan and Reifler (2010) examined how people respond to corrections of political misinformation, finding that factual corrections often fail to reduce misperceptions among individuals with strong ideological commitments, that the more people know in terms of evidence that supports opposition to their beliefs, the more they dig in deeper–I cannot do anything to soothe myself but scream. We cannot always be screaming, but we should be able to when we need it. Take a luxurious, carnal, no-holds-barred scream. It can be into a pillow, in the forest, at the edge of a cliff, or in a soundproof studio or room. Like Nike, just do it, and write a small poem about how it felt afterward. Include the answer to the following questions: If you cannot find a safe place to do so, imagine doing so and follow the same exercise.

1. What feelings and sensations arose?

2. Who did you think of?

3. Did you feel any connection to your inner child or infant?

4. How does this connect to your attachment style?

5. How can anger be a helpful emotion? When does it turn destructive?

---

Exercise #4: Back to the Basics

Part one:

Rewrite Thee Fundamentals and the self-evident truths in your own handwriting. Find a safe space where you can read them aloud or silently to yourself. As a reminder they are:

Thee Fundamentals:

1. Steal from the best and make it your own.

2. Trust yourself.

3. Trust the process.

4. The revolution will not be televised.

5. Use your inner dialogue.

6. Believe your dreams matter.

7. Protect yourself.

8. Believe in and amend your creative constitution.

9. Use Thee self-evident truths.

10. Plan your creator moment.

11. There’s no such thing as “I can’t”.

"You can’t sit around waiting for somebody else to say who you are. You need to write it and paint it and do it."

–Faith Ringgold

Thee Self-Evident Truths:

1. Creativity is the human way.

2. There is a creative force that can unite all people.

3. Routine is a prime tool of creative enrichment.

4. Creativity is how people tap into the Divine.

5. Refusal to be creative is self-imposed and works in opposition to creative healing.

6. Thee Artist (The Black Artist) carries an ancestral perspective which, when used in tandem with our unique cultures, gifts, and talents, can lift a veil, exposing our inherent and inextricable wealth and value which is rooted and founded in the creative. The pain of this process is inevitable, but suffering is optional.

7. Practice the Yama and Niyama:

Yama– the embodiment of ethics that promotes harmony within the self and therefore the greater world by teacher and philosopher Patanjali somewhere between the 2nd and 5th century BCE.

Ahimsa: non-violence.

Satya: Truthfulness, not omitting the truth.

Asteya: Not taking what isn’t freely given.

Brahmacharya: Moderation.

Aparigraha: Non-possessiveness, avoiding greed.

Niyama– disciplines that nurture growth and creativity. Disciplines that nurture growth and creativity by teacher and philosopher Patanjali somewhere between the 2nd and 5th century BCE.

Sauca: Clear mind, speech, body, and a healthy lifestyle.

Santosa: Contentment/acceptance of yourself and others/optimism

Tapas: Discipline, patience and perseverance.

Svadhyaya: Self-awareness.

Isvara Pranidhana: Authenticity.

8. Every person is a creation, so every person has the capacity for creation.

9. It is dangerous to be creative and take on the responsibility of Thee Artist.

10. Committing to art is committing to one’s deepest yearnings and most foundational desires.

Part Two:

How do you feel? Repeat this three times during this week at a time when you find yourself needing it.

"I chose my camera as a weapon against all the things I dislike about America—poverty, racism, discrimination.”

–Gordon Parks

---

Exercise #5: Work, Play, Culture, Nature

Part One:

List the activities that make up most of your time this week. List where it goes categorically from the following options:

• Play: The Internet does not count.

• Culture: Family, friends, identity work, therapy, reading, learning, etc.

• Nature: Outside time sans technology

• Media: Internet and T.V.

• Capitalism: Purchasing anything or doing any type of paid labor.

Part Two:

Make a pie chart consisting of how much time you spend in each of these categories

Part Three:

Informed by the truth of what your chart looks like today, make a pie chart of how you would ideally like to spend your time. What looks different? What’s achievable for next week? Write it down.

---

Exercise #6: Energy Audit

Create an honest list of snakes, energy vampires, and clout chasers in your life. Feel free to re-read that part of the chapter to get a more objective take and create a checklist to check off for each potential “suspect”. For each name, write out a strategic plan to set boundaries and be accountable around them. Do not avoid generative conflict. Do not bend on these boundaries later and re-read them when you need to remind yourself of what they are. This is why we write it all out.

---

Exercise #7: Prioritizing Joy

Create a list of things you love doing that are the most important to you. Be creative, be descriptive. Think of things you already do or have done more than things you would like to do. Pick two doable and attainable things from the list and make them goals for the week. For each goal, create a strategic plan to protect it. Affirm your love for that thing by holding yourself accountable to the plan.

"Color is life, and light is the mother of color." –Alma Thomas

---

Exercise #8: Small Steps, Big Change

Make a list of ten small healthy changes that you can make to course correct into Thee Artist you want to be and know you can be or to do something you usually do a little bit better.

Monday through Friday, make two of these (attainable) small changes a reality for you.

---

Exercise #9: Home is Where The Heart Is

It is said that the places in which we eat are full of ancestors. Create a work of art of any medium in your kitchen or dining room, timed, for an hour. After the hour is over, the work of art is done. No takebacks, no once-overs, no edits, it’s done. Keep it or post it online to sell for whatever is one hour's worth of time for you.

---

Exercise #10: Self-Portrait

Using the energy type, the profile, and the “not-self” theme in your human design chart document from last week, create three portrait-style works of art using these parts of yourself as an archetype.

---

Exercise #11: Alchemizing

Take your to-do lists from last week and break the activities you want or need to do into five categories of your determination. Where are you spending most of your time? Why do you think this is? Where would you like to spend more time? Less time? Make a dream version of how you spend your time. What three actions can you take to get closer to it? How will this help your relationship with your art? Continue your to-do lists this week to keep taking inventory.

---

Exercise #12:Transforming

Pick a stereotype that someone has boxed you into at any point in your life. What does it look like when this stereotype is reappropriated positively? Create a work of art meditating on this in your preferred medium. This can be anything, writing, bullet journaling, visual art, fashion design, dance, music, acting, or any other cool creative thing you do. If it’s not listed, make sure to share it with me on “A Black Artist’s Path” Substack page:

---

Exercise #13: Imagine

Write or create a new folktale in some way.

OR

Write or make a work of art based on a folktale that you were once told orally that you remember word for word in some way. Bonus points if it has been passed down to you from family or someone who has done something similar to you in your life, or some other kind of ancestral oral history. Make sure it’s something you really know.

---

Exercise #14: Improvise!

Combine your folktale from exercise #13 with your work of art from exercise #9 in some way.

---

Exercise #15: Reminisce

Describe yourself as a young adult in your early 20s or teens.

---

“Everyones got to be different. You can't copy anybody and end up with anything. If you copy, it means you're working without any real feeling.”

–Billie Holiday

Affirmation prompts:

Monday:

Using your name in the third person, write your list of ten affirmations from the voice of someone who loves you. Have a particular person in mind when you write it out. Think of specific things you may have told you about yourself that gave you a glimmer.

Tuesday:

In the first person, write your list of ten affirmations from the voice of the child you once were. Think about things you were proud of when you were little.

Wednesday

Using your name in the third person, write a list of ten affirmations from the perspective of someone who has studied you and looks up to you far in the future. Create a backstory behind this person if you must.

Thursday:

Think of your favorite parent. If you do not have a favorite, think of both of your parents. If you do not like your parents, think of the parental figures you have or aspired to have at one point. This could be TV characters or even fictional book parents. Write ten affirmations about yourself using your name in the third person from their perspective. If you are a parent, do the same thing with your children. If you need help, call them. Ancestrally or physically.

Friday:

Think of a recent conflict. Think of ten lessons you learned from it. Write these as affirmations in the first person.

Saturday:

Moving yourself through all of the life lessons you have learned thus far, write out ten affirmations in the following format:

“I used to be _____, but now I am ________.”

For example:

1. “I used to be afraid of failure, but now I am confident in my ability to learn from challenges.”

2. “I used to feel unworthy of love, but now I am open to receiving and giving love freely.”

3. “I used to let others define my worth, but now I am grounded in my self-acceptance and inner strength.”

4. “I used to shy away from conflict, but now I am courageous in addressing issues and advocating for myself.”

5. “I used to prioritize others’ needs above my own, but now I am committed to setting healthy boundaries.”

6. “I used to believe my dreams were unattainable, but now I am actively pursuing my passions with determination.”

7. “I used to dwell on my past mistakes, but now I am focused on my present opportunities and growth.”

8. “I used to compare myself to others, but now I am proud of my unique journey and accomplishments.”

9. “I used to avoid taking risks, but now I am excited to embrace new experiences and possibilities.”

10. “I used to struggle with self-doubt, but now I am empowered by my resilience and abilities.”

Reflect on what you have learned today and throughout this process.

Sunday:

Honor thyself. Make ten affirmations in the following format:

“I honor my ______ because I ______.”

For example:

1. “I honor my journey because I embrace the lessons that have shaped who I am today.”

2. “I honor my emotions because I acknowledge their role in guiding me toward self-understanding.”

3. “I honor my boundaries because I recognize their importance in protecting my well-being.”

4. “I honor my uniqueness because I celebrate the qualities that make me different and valuable.”

5. “I honor my strengths because I use them to navigate challenges and support others.”

6. “I honor my needs because I understand that taking care of myself is essential for my growth.”

7. “I honor my creativity because I allow it to flow freely, enriching my life and the lives of those around me.”

8. “I honor my heritage because I recognize the rich history and culture that informs my identity.”

9. “I honor my health because I commit to nurturing my body and mind through positive choices.”

10. “I honor my dreams because I believe in their power to inspire and motivate my journey forward.”

Finish the exercises and the affirmation prompts and then move on to Week 3.

If you liked this and enjoy Black Artist’s Path, consider buying me a coffee! Gentle reminder, after Reunions, the last set of content becomes paid only. <3