Mark Gantt Photography Exhibit Opens in Beverly Hills

You know him, of course, as the multi-award-winning (Streamys) co-screenwriter and lead actor from Crackle’s “The Bannen Way,” (and seriously, if you haven’t seen it yet, WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WATCH IT NOW!!!).

Watch “The Bannen Way”!

On his upcoming slate for the next year, he’s acting, he’s directing, he’s writing... just when you think, “Man! Is there anything Mark Gantt can’t do?” he shows you. (No, no, there isn’t.)

Photography. Sheesh.

Mind you, everyone and their brother these days fancies themselves a photographer. Photos litter the Internet.

But there is a difference, my friends, with the type of photography that deserves to hang in galleries. Photography that you want to take home and hang on your wall, because it so poetically speaks to your soul. And yes, THAT is the kind of photo that this man takes.

At his recent photo exhibit opening (where the packed crowd ranged from Beverly Hills glitterati to hot Internet web video sensations to up-and-coming actors), it was one superb photograph after another hanging on display.

I couldn’t even pick a favorite if you forced me to. There were stunning photos of Dennis Hopper (taken behind the scenes at a Vanity Fair cover shoot), joyous pastiches of life in Europe (the Barcelona train station image truly haunts me), or the breathtaking portrait of his acting mentor, breathing in the fragrance of a rose.

Moments captured that somehow also encompass the pure magic of those moments. That is what a real photographer does.

He is still selling limited edition prints on his website:  Purchase Gantt Photography
If you ask me, the prices are an absolute steal for the quality of this work. So do yourself a favor. Once you return that plaid shirt that Grandma so kindly meant for you at Christmas, and are pondering what you really want to get instead, that would make YOU happy, consider one (or several) of these photos.

Your soul will thank you.

A joyous photography exhibit opening in Beverly Hills, CA.

************************************

Sizzle or Steak?

I consider myself a journalist first and foremost. News beats in every fiber of my being. After that, maybe a designer, maybe a writer.

I want to comment on this article a friend sent me, based on several things that happened this week.

http://www.web-strategist.com/blog/2011/02/28/expand-your-social-media-mix-twitter-alone-is-not-enough/

First, the Associated Press, long our go-to news source (and yes, we newspapers paid heftily for the priviledge) chastized their reporters publicly for "Tweeting" while they were in the thick of the drama down at #OccupyWallStreet this week.

The traditional way, you see, would be for said reporter to get said news, go back to the newsroom with it (hopefully getting at least two sources for said news along the way). Give it to one's editors, and then the editors would do what they do, bending it, shaping it, making it ready for public consumption (in the case of AP, on all (paid) outlets that AP streams out on).

Twitter has changed that.

I also covered (as a journalist) the events of #OccupyWallStreet and #OccupyLA and other events in the Day of Action this week (Nov. 17). Using the social media at my disposal: mostly Twitter, also Facebook.

Twitter changed the way I process news.

I like and respect Jeremiah Owyang, and read him on Twitter and other outlets. However, in this instance, he's missing the point.

As a designer, they used to tell me: know your tools. Know which one to use for which purpose. So it is, too, with social media.

While all his comments about permanency and Twitter are valid (sure, I wish they had an archive function, or a timeline thingie like Facebook is about to have, but they don't). Permanence is not the importance of Twitter, nor is "time spent there wasted."

Twitter for me (sorry, AP) has become my primary news source. We have raised a generation of news junkies, and we want it now, and we want it fast. Twitter gives us that primacy.

Let me illustrate for you a story, of part of my week, how my "social media" life went.

I spent a good chunk of the early morning Day of Action online. I was multi-tasking between Twitter and Facebook. (I have a large contingent of friends on Facebook who still don't see the value or need for Twitter. Sadly.)

So, as the story of the day: Day of Action, mostly #OccupyWallStreet was breaking (a story, I might add, that MSM journalists were barred from covering, thanks to Bloomberg's "media blackout"), I was manning the controls. I had my news sources in action who were in the thick of things.

I was monitoring my Twitter feed. When items came across, I would cross post them (RTing them to my stream (2000 people) and posting them on my FB wall (1300+ people). Who then reposted to their streams and walls. I posted pictures, I posted video, I posted commentary. I heard when the first people got arrested, I heard when the police captain offered himself up. I was, as much as I could be, right there in the thick of it.

That's how news works today. (Several people sent me emails that day, thanking me for my coverage.)

The AP journalist KNEW that, yet was chastized for it. (It's against company policy.) If you are right there, on Wall Street, you have the news as close as your Twitter feed. That's as much as you have control of it today, because everyone around you also has a camera and access to the world.

So for me, monitoring my Twitter feed (which I do at least daily) takes the place of reading my daily newspaper. It is certainly "steak" for me on great news days, though when people are just talking about nonsense, it isn't.

I don't consider one iota of time that I spend on Twitter "wasted." I wish I could spend MORE time there. I wish I could've spent all of the Day of Action on Twitter, for example.

Owyang says: "if you Tweet more than 20 times a day, you should have just blogged."

Everyone uses these tools differently. For me, I use Facebook as a platform to get information to my friends and family. (Especially those who, for whatever reason, aren't even ON Twitter yet.) I use Twitter as a short-term news source, but also for whatever bursts of items I may want to discourse about: whatever's happening on Survivor or Dancing with the Stars, some movie or song I just experienced, etc. If it's a longer thing that warrants a blog, I'll write one. I have two blogs, in fact.

But while many people use Twitter to post links to people (I primarily use FB for that), I most frequently now ReTweet others. I follow 2000 people. I ReTweet the interesting bits for others in my stream. As far as my own posts, I probably don't do 20 in a day, but on some news-heavy days, I can be RTing 100+ times.

I also "live blog" frequently on Twitter: the Oscars, the Emmys, Survivor and its finale; or sometimes conferences that I'm at. The first few is to share a communal experience with people, the conference stuff is for people who can't get there.

It has never been (for me) about "what did I have for breakfast?" It is very much about "what am I seeing/hearing/feeling/experiencing right now?"

Owyang wants to get people over to things that make money for him. I am about documenting our social journey. For me, Twitter IS the steak. If I had to only live with ONE choice for social media, it would be Twitter, in a heartbeat.

If people want to know more deeply how I feel about an issue, they can friend me on Facebook, or read my blogs. Or listen to my podcasts. There are vehicles for everything. I think anyone who forcefully weans themselves from any social medium is an idiot. (As is anyone who still isn't anywhere on this value chain.) We are all still learning and growing with these new tools, and learning how they best work for us.

I have a friend that I had to drag, kicking and screaming, to get onto Facebook this week. He's an actor, wondering why his agent isn't calling him so much. "Are you on Twitter? Facebook?" I innocently asked him one day. Turned out, he hadn't ever even SEEN a Facebook page. (This was about a month ago.) I'm sorry, but that's inexcusable.

I mean, I suppose, if you really have a spiritual vow to be a hermit, it would be ok. But if you are living, breathing and alive in the world, it's inexcusable. Especially if your work is as an actor!!! When you are depending on casting directors to cast you. "Did you know about all the casting directors who are on Twitter?" I asked him. His face paled, he looked incredulous. "Well, no." "Huh. And have you been working a lot lately?" I continued. "Well, no."

EXACTLY.

Twitter is a news source, a job source, a living breathing hive of activity. To cut oneself off from it... you might as well be typing on an electric typewriter and watching a black/white TV.

I understand Owyang's point. There are lots more types of new software coming at us that we have to learn. But we have to put a stake in the ground with the ones we have, and realize why they are important. If you choose two social media to be on: Facebook and Twitter would be the ones right now. And you should be checking both every day.

And, if you also want to visit my blog or listen to my podcasts and give me money: hey, that's OK too! ;-)

Open Letter to Craig Ferguson

Dear Mr. Ferguson:

I'm just now settling into your landmark episode with Stephen Fry. The one with no audience, and no other guests. I've listened to your monologue and I want to comment a bit.

I remember in the glory days of talk shows, the excitement of watching The Mike Douglas Show, with his round panel of guests. Or how my parents used to make Johnny Carson their Must See TV. And Tom Snyder, whom you mentioned, always seemed to be very interesting, with interesting guests.

Somehow the art of the talk show, the late night variety anyway, has devolved into some kind of bizarre game show schtick. Funny bits that used to be on the "variety" shows seem to dominate. The "talking" is mostly pre-rehearsed and for someone selling something. It's a bit too formulaic and predictable.

For the record, I hated Craig Kilbourn, and his sophomoric take on the talk show. I never ever watched his show.

But I started watching yours almost immediately. I was, and have continued to be, enchanted by the cheeky monkeys and the puppets and the brazen honesty that you bring to this late-night landscape. I was well into the pace of watching you with pleasure every night when that upstart Fallon came on the scene. And, I have to admit, I was swayed at first into watching him. He seemed to be very astute with the Mac and iPhone and the tech-savvy crowd, of which I am a part.

Then, he branched off into comedy set pieces and too many lame audience games and REALLY bad musical guests, so I've fallen off watching him. Never really liked Leno much. It feels like his time is past (a long time ago), and after the shabby way that NBC treated Conan (another flavor that I only perused occasionally), I can't watch Leno ever again.

But, to me, it always seems like you're struggling. The struggle seems to be what you know in your heart to be a good show, versus what the standard format of a late night show is, or what CBS censors tell you, or whatever. The times when you've hit the show out of the park is when you follow your heart and do what you want to do with it.

I, for one, am glad that you got away from the lame comedy skits and "remotes" from somewhere they are not. The new reality (at least the one I know on the Web) is about honesty and authenticity, and that seems like somewhere you could really excel.

What you have over Fallon, well aside from your dashing good looks and big one, is the art of the urbane and literate. I was (and continue to be) thrilled when you put in the surrealist Dali as a regular bit. It was such a wonderful innovative bit of television, and one area that no one else really covers.

The best interviews you do are with guests who interest you. But with all the hoo-ha that is also going on, you have time to ask about three questions before you have to get to the next guest or next musical act or next signoff. I personally would much rather you have a guest for an entire show, and do whatever you want with them.

Mind you, not every guest is as interesting as Stephen Fry. But there have been many, many times in the past where I've really wished you could talk to someone longer.

Even the people who do have "talking" shows: Larry King, or Joy Behar (as you mentioned), or Charlie Rose, still seem like they are constrained to a format, all official and strained. You and your guests have always felt like you are sitting in your living room, chatting. That's awesome.

In fact, in my dream world of the Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson, I would LOVE to have no warm-up comedian, no audience even. Just you and the guest. You, released from that crazy constraint of suit and tie, dressed in shirt and jeans, or whatever you're comfortable in, kicking back in a big leather armchair.

Maybe you could have one day a week with the boring guests and the musical acts and the audience.

But what a treasure a regular show with no audience, no schtick, no nothing but talking would be.

Most of all though, I am a loyal audience member of yours. I know others who feel the same way. I think everyone would say: Follow your dreams for your own show. Do it before you get bored. Break new ground. Let Tom Snyder live again. Or, even better, let YOU live with your passion.

Be honest and real and unscripted. (Don't even waste the damn cards.) People know the difference between pre-arranged schtick and actual talking.

It is a new world. Late night television needs to keep up. NBC is a mess. Letterman is happy with his format. Be happy with yours, and it will make us happy. Even if that means changing it completely.

Whatever that means to you, we'll keep up and we'll enjoy it. (Love the Spanish word of the day, btw.) Engage our minds with literacy. Delve into scientists and inventors and whoever it is that makes you interested, not just the latest actor or actress to plug their movies. More authors! Whoever. Whatever nobodies you want to interview. Be honest, be real, we'll follow. Trust your instincts. Trust your audience. We are there for you.

Oh, and I am glad that you finally got on Twitter. Love ya!

*********************************************************************