I find that it's a lot easier to relate to people once you understand what kind of animal they are.
This may sound like pigeonholing or labelling, but really I prefer to think of it as "Archetyping." And as far as that goes, it's only a guideline. People change and deviate from their starting points over time; but if you can find one overall set of behaviours that seems to help explain that person to you, an archetype of their personality, then you're closer to understanding that person and your relationship with them.
Jamie Sams has written many books on Native American wisdom, including animal totem medicine. While her books are more spiritual in nature, the idea behind animal totemism is that the "medicine" your animal spirit provides is a pure sort of general archetypical set of wisdom associated with that animal.
This theory also comes into play when trying to understand someone else's psychological makeup.
We categorize animals by their species. Each species has perceived traits that we apply to the entire lot of them-- something we wouldn't do to humans. We're all complex and difficult. But if we can perceive parallels between a particular human being and an animal "totem"-- well, I've found that it helps sort out a whole bunch of difficulties in understanding.
I had a hard time communicating with my father-in-law or understanding his motivations until I understood that he was, basically, a Badger. A quiet digger who lives in a quiet place and basically wants to be left alone; whose anger is slow but, as he is a member of the bear family, should really not be roused. Cuz those digging claws are sharp.
It put things into perspective for me. Of course there's more to the man than these simple Badger traits, but now I had a context for understanding his other sides. I had something to go on.
My mother-in-law is always flitting about, weighs like two pounds, dresses in bright colors and can't sit still. She's a Cardinal-- a tiny red bird. She hops and flits from branch to branch, feeding her children and gathering for her nest and eats sparingly and twitters away. No, my mother-in-law is not an airhead-- but for the longest time I couldn't relax around her because she'd flit off this way and that until I wanted to shout at her to stand still. Now that I see that bright red Cardinal, though, I get the whole bird-energy and I can figure out how to empathize with it.
My own mother is a wolf. Her family is her pack. Once she gets her teeth into something she won't let go, and when she's on the hunt for something she will not be satisfied until she has run her prey to ground. She's a provider. She's single-minded in her duty to her pack. Folks who know my mother will know exactly what I mean when I say "wolf." She also has that "predator" aura around her-- some call her "intimidating" though she's only 5'4".
I inherited her wolfyness. I like to travel with a pack, but I also enjoy my den, my space. I can be territorial. I sometimes fight for dominance in a new pack surrounding. I growl and show my teeth a lot. If the pack I'm with isn't a good place for me I move on to find a new pack. Now that I have a family I am getting more in touch with my inner wolf, actually. It helps me understand myself, my relation to people around me, and my temper.
I'll interject here: Not everyone perceives animals the same way. The Native teachings might only have room for one or two archetypes per animal, but you have to decide what the animal means to you. You might not see Wolf the same way I see Wolf. Badgers to you might be vicious and foul-tempered as opposed to the more laconic example above. However you see an animal totem, that's how you see them; you can still apply this theory in your own life-- you don't have to agree with my definitions.
Since I know some of you are curious, I'll define my friends as I see them:
Mike R. is a cat. He's fastidious, tidy, likes things just so. He's a male cat, rolling around and getting into stuff and having fun-- doing the "feline short circuit" and tearing around the room, and then just as suddenly serene. The Zen of Being, as espoused by the feline. Slightly gay. Catty, even.
Tony W. is a lion. His thing is watching over his domain. In this case, his electronics and their management are his Pride. Although he can hunt for himself, he prefers his Lioness to do it. Who's had a harder day? Who will get up first to go into the kitchen? He's a contented Lion, too-- comfortable, reclined on his couch up there on Pride Rock, like any feline when they find a good patch of sun. Can actually eat an entire wildebeest.
Joel P is a bear. It's a no-brainer, we ALL know it. He even has the physical form of one. Introspective, omnivorous-- he forages for new things and generally will avoid raucous noise or disturbances-- or middle management. Will rear up and show dominance if smaller things start to piss him off. Will actually charge the fence if provoked. You'd think Don't Poke The Bear would be something people would just instinctively know. Happy to be in his cave, appreciates nature and how things work.
Mrs. M is a badger like her father. She's methodical, just-so, and gets ornery when her routine is disrupted. Has the patience of a slow-fused animal but when roused is just like a mama-member of the bear family. Her "set"-- badger tunnel-- is orderly and immaculate. Spends much of her time keeping it that way. Routine is everything; will retreat underground when too many strangers get near the "set."
If you're having trouble coping with an annoying someone, or are completely lost as to how to relate to them, try the Animal Totem method. If nothing else, it will probably give you a chuckle when that annoying boss of yours suddenly becomes a mouse to your eye.
As a producer of small-press comics for a niche market, I often run into the problem of the Community Itself.
In my particular case, the problem of the no-money-having, living-at-home parasites of the teenage AND adult persuasion pirating copies of my comic from scans made from friends and then PUTTING IT UP FOR GRABS on their servers.
That in itself isn't even the annoying part. The craziness is that when I ask them to please remove my copyrighted work from their sites, I get the HUGEST bitching and attacking because-- now get this-- THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO IT. After all, the community MADE me, don'tcha know, and without them I'd be nothing, so I should be thankful for the PRIVILEGE of being ripped off by them because, as they know, I make enough money as it is on my overpriced shit.
The same shit they pirate because they love it. Because they made me who I am today.
Welcome to Crazyworld, to pirate a phrase.
Another chapter of crazy: According to copyright law, I have to do my due diligence in pursuing these transgressors.
But here's the thing. That can be interpreted to mean I should take legal action if they refuse to cooperate-- and that gets expensive. And for the most part, these are either MINORS or McJob-having nobodies. So I would, in fact, be spending more money prosecuting just ONE of them than I would be making from the sales of the whole comic (niche market, remember?)
Master Mah has this sage advice: "Shrug it off. Because at the end of the day, you can always create more. If it's costing you more than it's worth, just move on to something new."
And he's right. But that doesn't mean that these smartass little pirate BOILS on my ass don't still BURN.
I apologize in advance to all the male artists who don't fit the description of the species that I am about to give.
What is it with male artists as compared to the female ones? I'm specifically referring to the drawing kind of artists.
I run an art-based website. I write and publish comics. I hang out in that "artsy" crowd. And statistically, I've got to point out that male artists are some of the most difficult human beings to deal with in the world.
I don't make this generalization lightly. When I'm working with or commissioning female artists, it's straightforward-- what/when/where.
But the men. Oh GOD, the men. "Your Angst For Today is..."
Seriously. 9 out of 10 male artists that I've ever interacted with on an artistic project are procrastinators, excuse-makers, or life-drama-angst creators. And this is all directly in proportion to how sought after their art is. There's a name for the other 1 out of 10: Successful.
So much talent, so little focus. Or so many excuses NOT to produce the very thing they say they want to do with their lives.
A clarification: This is not about those men with artistic talent who are putting there energies elsewhere, or who have said plainly that they're not creating art for others at the moment. This is for those art-teases who say quite plainly that they are wanting to do a comic or a project or some other thing, who engage you, the art buyer, and string you along with promises broken one after the other.
I have yet to meet a girl artist who does that. If they can't do the project, they say so. If they're going to be late with it, they tell you WHY and when you can expect it. I never have to worry that a female artist will get back to me with "I'm just unmotivated this week."
I don't mind if people have reasons for not being able to do art. But don't string me along! Guys-- string-alongers. Almost all the time! But not girls. Guys-- angsters over why they "just can't create" today. Girls--if they are, they never TELL me, they just stick to their schedule. Guys-- puffed-up egomaniacs about how cool all the OTHER PROJECTS they're working on are, while ignoring the fact that they're supposed to also be working on something they previously agreed to do for me. Girls-- if they accept your commission, they keep you up-to-date on all the other work they're doing on TOP of yours, which just makes them look that much more fabulous.
Yes, I HAVE worked with brilliant male artists who always deliver. They're rare, but not unheard of. Once again, they're successful. But the rest of them--! Arrrgh.
I just want to know if there's any particular REASON, or if we just have to chalk this up to "artistic temperament" tempered with the male genome.
M
I was reading Neil Gaiman's weblog today. It contained a letter from Daniel "Lemony Snicket" Handler about the events surrounding the San Francisco-based Academy of Arts University and their decision to expel a student because he wrote a story with disturbing, violent and horrific imagery.
I was aghast. Disbelieving. And, ultimately, furious. I could go off on a huge rant here about the American way of life and how it seems ENTIRELY based on fear and distrust of The Other Guy, who in these latter days is not Russian or German or Japanese, but The Guy Next Door, but it would be pointless. The idea that America is an amorphous mass of ill-educated, violent, physically-degenerate and prejudiced louts is self-evident in their media.
But that one of their own ART institutions should begin to slide down that artistic evolutionary ladder to ignoble hypocrisy terrifies me. Read the article published in the San Francisco Chronicle, and then read the letter I have sent to Ms. Elisa Stephens, president of the Academy.
Dear Elisa Stephens:
My name is Michael McAdam. I am a Canadian actor and writer. I am not published, I'm merely one of the thousands who are plying their craft in the hopes of one day being so. But after reading the article in the San Francisco Chronicle I felt that I must write to you immediately.
America is obviously a land in turmoil.
Each time I am exposed to the latest media circus over what Americans are offended by NOW, I am alternately shocked and disgusted. The very nation whose genesis lay in throwing off oppression of religious freedom as well as the freedom of expression is now, it seems, the First Nation of Censure, the World Leader in Fear.
I recently was made aware of the expulsion of one of your students over his written assignment; apparently he had written something so disturbing and violent that it struck post-Columbine fear into the school's administrative hierarchy and sent common sense packing.
Jan Richman, his teacher, was also fired. Or, as I'm sure you would put it, "not re-hired."
Ms. Stephens, the Academy of Art University is an ART SCHOOL. The very first sentence on your website's home page states: "I invite you to develop your art and design skills at the Academy of Art University." And try as I might, I can't seem to find the follow-up sentence that reads "...unless you offend someone."
Someone is always offended by some form of expression or another; and granted, your former student had chosen volatile imagery to express his imagination. But I ask you: Are you now, as an educator, in the position to censor a student who is in an adult learning setting because he has created something disturbing?
I myself am not a fan of violence and horror imagery in art. But to rescind the right of others to create it? No one should do that. Especially at an institute of higher learning whose very mandate is to foster that creative spark.
I will quote part of your own mission statement to you: "The Academy operates at the intersection of life and art in preparing working artists and designers within a creative environment that is at once supportive and challenging. The curriculum integrates the talents of students with their personal visions and aspirations with the overarching goal of preparing them for professional employment in art and design careers."
Apparently in the case of this expulsion and firing of a teacher you are preparing this former student for professional unemployment in an art and design career, by denying him the very education you purport to be "supportive."
How DARE you, Ms. Stephens. How DARE you allow fear and baseless prejudice to not only negatively impact this young student's life, but to set a dangerous precedent for your country. Your Academy is hailed as the largest institution of artistic learning in the United States; will you now also be the leader in censorship, fearmongering and ignorance?
I also have heard that you barred Daniel "Lemony Snicket" Handler from entering your campus buildings. To what end? He's an author that writes delightfully clever children's books. What possible threat could he comprise to your institution?
Ms. Stephens, I urge you to stop this hypocrisy, this artistic heresy. To deny this issue is to deny the very tenets of your institution. Please re-instate this student you have expelled. Please re-hire his teacher, Jan Richman. Please be a leader, and show your country that fear, ignorance and censorship have no place at the Academy of Art University.
Sincerely,
Michael McAdam