Common Creativity and Art
I once took a class where on the first day, the teacher asked the class to define art. There were a lot of responses regarding the eliciting of emotion, “high class”, lasting value, etc. The teacher then posed the problem of defining the difference between “art” and “entertainment”. Some thoughts regarding artist’s intent, audience reception, etc were brought up. The teacher then wrote a quote on the board that summarized the whole debate in such a perfect way that it was clear she was just building up to The Big Reveal (instead of letting us think about it ourselves too much, but whatever):
“Art and Entertainment are not different types, but different degrees of intensity. Entertainment becomes Art when it forces you to re-evaluate your own worldview in light of it”
You won’t find a lot of people who specifically disagree with the idea it presents. In fact, you may find (like the classroom I was in when I was first exposed to it) that people enthusiastically embrace this way of defining such an ambiguous concept as “art”.
Where I think a lot of people experience a disconnect is when people refer to certain mediums as “art”. Few people will argue that an exploration of how the death of a loved one affects someone isn’t some form of “art”; a painted picture, a carefully worded poem, a short story, and even a movie are generally “accepted” ways of exploring this artistically. What if this concept were done through, say, a video game? Would that be art? (Arguably, it’s been done; Shamus Young, a popular video game blogger, gives a great artistic interpretation of Silent Hill 2 for those who don’t want to play the game and interpret it themselves)
So where is that line? Roger Ebert has gone on the record saying “Video Games can never be art” (He later elaborated that Video Games can never be “high art”; they’re “art” in the way a can of Campbell’s Soup is art, but they’ll never be Shakespeare-level). I’m not going to specifically argue against that, but I am putting it out there for the sake of context.
Ok, so poetry, novels, even movies can be “high art”.
Yep.
Photography?
Sure.
Dance?
Of course.
Painting?
Absolutely.
A Song, or even an Album?
I can get behind that. Sure.
What about a Concert or Musical Performance, even if it’ not necessarily Classical or Orchestral music?
You know what? Yeah. That can be “art”. Some are obviously better than others and such.
Architectural Planning and Design?
Ok, yeah. That works. Roman and Greek architecture can surely fit there.
Graphic design?
Maybe a stretch, but ok.
Gardening?
That’s a stretch. I don’t know about that.
Web page design?
Um, I think that might depend on..
What about Software Development?
Now you’re just…
What about Furniture Design?
Are you kidding?
TPS Reports and Spreadsheets?
Stop talking to me.
What I find is that everyone tends to think the thing they’re interested in/can do really well is “art”. You’ll get few arguments from people on that, but when you start comparing your particular field as equal to that of “high art”, then you’ve successfully baited them into a discussion of concepts and ideas, likely not even using the same basis of definitions.
Because really, I think that’s what all these discussion about what “art” is boils down to: nobody actually knows how to define it in a way that excludes things they don’t consider “art” without specifically naming them (You also get this with what sorts of activities are considered “sports”; sure, nobody argues that Baseball and Football are sports, but what about Cheerleading? Or Dance in general? Chess? etc)
I recently attended an “Art Walk” in the city of Anaheim (apparently it’s held every year?) and there was definitely a lot of “artsy” things there: hand-made jewelry, blankets, portraits, framed painted scenescapes, some dance performances, a swing band playing, and (of course) some exhibits that gave free wine and cheese in exchange for looking at the paintings of “high art” that people (well, usually just one or two people) have created and put on display (I’m no art connoisseur, but the wine and cheese were pretty good). Here, “art” means something slightly different than the “high art” thing I’ve previously discussed: it’s anything creative enough to be sold. I seriously doubt that the people selling stuff here have to sell a certain amount to make rent, but I think a lot of them would like to be compensated for their time and talent. Is this stuff “art”? Sure. But it’s purpose isn’t to tell a story or challenge your worldview; it’s meant to be exchanged for money.
Let’s talk about “art”. What is it? Like, really? How would you define it if you were writing the dictionary definition? What would you include/exclude?
Bad Business (Or, “Why I Don’t Get Excited About Video Games Anymore”)
I’ve bought one brand new video game in the past 3 years. Certainly not for lack of wanting to. I love games. I want to make time for them. I’ve never pirated one (the people who make the game need encouragement to make another one, right? Best way to do that is with money). I literally grew up on my Dad’s lap when he was playing the original Legend of Zelda for the NES. I was raised on Nintendo the rest of my childhood, always having the latest and greatest from them. I got into PC Gaming later, starting with classics like Unreal, Warcraft, Starcraft, and Half-life, progressing to the newest Half-Life games and other FPS’s. I really should be the poster child for modern gaming.
And yet I haven’t had much interest in anything recently made.
And really, I probably won’t every get anything new in this industry ever again (for myself, at least).
Why, you might ask?
The “Death of PC Gaming” is the short answer. You’ll notice that the PC became my “main” source of gaming later on in life. The reason being is that my family didn’t really get into anything gaming-console wise past the Gamecube (Nintendo’s first use of discs instead of cartridges). Since my Dad kind of made computers for a living, we always had the latest and greatest as far as graphics cards and such went, so we were always equipped to play computer games, which we went with instead of paying the up-front money for a console and then for games.
The PC had some good titles, but eventually this trend started occurring: instead of having exclusive titles, the PC was now seeing console games made as PC games, and vice versa. This wasn’t really a big deal at first, but nowadays this is becoming a big problem: Developers are making superior versions of the same game for consoles. It’s not just the same game, different platform, but developers are making games that are literally better in definable ways for the console versions.
And then there’s the DRM (Digital Rights Management), the concept of using certain methods of preventing people from pirating the game. This is the worst. Since consoles are all solely designed for playing games, they can have certain restrictions that don’t allow them to play copied games. Those same measures can’t be taken on PC’s since the PC is used for lots of other things. And yet, developers are trying anyway. PC Games are now forcing you to stay online while you play your game, even if the game isn’t a multiplayer game. If your Internet connection falters or lags, your single-player game will cut out, forcing you to start it up again once the connection’s secure. If the servers for the game are down (through no fault of your own, I imagine), then you can’t play your game. I mentioned Steam a few posts back; Steam allows you to play in “offline mode” (if your connection is down) and offers several social perks along with the evil of forcing you to connect to the internet or else. This system is nothing like that: it’s net connection or nothing. Then there’s the terrible anti-piracy DRM that will actually open up security holes in your computer and bog it down like nobody’s business. Oh, and by the way: you can’t uninstall it. Not without going deep into your computer and removing the files the hard way.
That’s just on the technical side. That’s really enough for me to never buy another PC game, but then there’s the terrible selection of games.
Much like how Hollywood is slowly becoming creatively bankrupt, the video game industry is becoming likewise. Games nowadays are pretty much solely based off of existing IP (Sequels and such), or are very, very heavily based on those IP’s. The top 10 games of each year are either sequels or first-person shooters based off of Call of Duty. Every first person shooter nowadays is based off of the Call of Duty (they did the highly-successful Modern Warfare series). Every “RPG” is slowly being replaced with shooter elements (Mass Effect or Fallout, for example). I like first-person shooters, but not that much. (as an aside, Portal is pretty much the only game with any relative creativity as far as gameplay and writing is concerned. I dare you to think of another one).
There are no great stories coming from anyone. There’s no innovative gameplay being introduced. Everything’s some hyped-up shooter with 5 hours of gameplay (but it’s got multiplayer!).
And now consoles are costing upwards of $300, along with crappy games that are $60 a pop. All requiring an internet connection and a monthly subscription to their multiplayer network. Even the reasonably-priced Wii is only fun for a few types of games. It’s most recent successes (Donkey Kong Country and Mario Wii, both based on existing IP’s, by the way) have made very little use of the motion sensor tech.
Yeah. I’ll probably never buy a game again. Portal 2 was fun, but I don’t think another one has the kind of potential that it did, and I don’t want to start paying $60 to be a beta tester and taken advantage of.
Attention, “The Video Game Industry”, you lost a customer. No, I’m not switching to another console or another game or whatever. You ALL lost in your attempts to get my business.
Facebook minus, Google+?
Don’t know if you’ve seen this thing called Google+, but it looks like it might just sorta kinda be a big deal?
Facebook has seriously dominated the Social Media world the past few years, enough so where I don’t actually know if even the almighty Google can give them some adequate competition.
Here’s how I see it:
People are on Social Media sites because other people are on them. Google+ is starting out at a disadvantage because it has no people on it (I mean, relatively. It’s invite-only at this point). Facebook has such a ridiculously large userbase that just attracts more and more people to it. So, I imagine Google either needs to:
1) Create a system that, in creating a profile on their site, links to your Facebook account so you can still do Facebook stuff, but on Google+
2) Convince enough people that their system and site is superior enough to Facebook that they start switching, and other Facebook users, seeing all their friends on Google+, start switching.
Point 1 is unrealistic; I don’t think Google would benefit much from just making a Social Network that linked to other social networks. Point 2 is a good business model, but overall bad for consumers.
Thing is, I don’t think the idea of “competing social media sites” works out in the consumers favor. Sure, we get better features and services when companies are competing for our attention, but Facebook has reached a point where it controls so much of the market share that the average user is going to be forced to choose between contact with their 500+ Facebook friends, or go with a better site.
It takes effort to start up a social media profile. You have to fill out fields of interests and whatnot, confirm that, yes, you are in fact a real person to the site, send friend requests to people, get guilt-tripped by that one random insecure friend for not being friends with them right away, upload an appropriate profile picture, upload other pictures you want people to see, and so on and so forth. I think enough people are not going to want to make the switch that it will actually make it a tough decision for people. Whereas before you had to make the ever-so-difficult decision of a tween-and-glitter-infested Myspace to Facebook, you now have to choose between something that works really well (albeit with some major privacy concerns) and something that also works really well.
Another thing that will be interesting to see pan out is if Google does anything about the “exclusivity” idea that Facebook started off with (you used to need a .edu email address, signifying you were actually a college student). Facebook built a solid reputation and image by just having those types of users. They presented a clean look that wasn’t cluttered with people who wanted different background images or embedded MIDI files. Basically, if Google+ turns out to be Myspace, but all Facebooked-out, it will lose some appeal.
I love Google. Gmail, Android, Chrome, all of it. I want to see them succeed. I want to see Facebook suffer for it’s lack of attention to user privacy. I want to see Mark Zuckerberg squirm a little bit.
I don’t want to start from scratch.
The PC vs Mac debate from my POV
I’ve been using a white Macbook since…early 2006? It was sometime in 2006 I got it. I remember because my parents gave me a Dell Inspiron Laptop as a graduation present and I wanted a Mac, so naturally I repaid their thoughtfullness by returning the Dell and fronting some extra cash that I was just rolling in and came home with a Mac (much to the chagrin and disapproving of my PC-based family; “So, what’re you gonna do when you need more RAM, huh? HUH?!?” was a common phrase)
It’s been about 5 years since I got my Macbook. I’ve never had to replace anything on it; the only problems it has now are due to my own negligence and products just wearing down over time (the cord needed to be replaced, the battery is practically useless due to using way too much, and the casing is chipped due to my usage; everything else works as great as it did on Day 1). I’ve had no complaints about it’s functionality or anything OSX-related (I was bummed it wouldn’t play most of the games I wanted to play, but I knew that from the outset. Luckily, Blizzard kept me company with some quality titles).
I’m considering buying a PC for a new computer.
Why? Certainly not from a lack of quality. My Mac’s been great. Stellar, even. I still dislike Windows when compared to OSX.
What changed?
Lifestyle is the short answer.
I’m more responsible and independent than I was when I bought my Macbook; I’m paying for rent, insurance, groceries (which includes the eating out at In-n-out and such), etc. I’m planning and saving for the future.
I was looking at getting the bottom-of-the-line iMac (Desktop Mac). I found a comparably specced PC (In fact, this PC was better in a few ways: included MS Office, had 2g more RAM, and a larger Hard Drive) for $899, compared to the iMac’s $1199 price tag. I was willing to overlook the price difference since Apple usually gives a free iPod with new Mac purchases for anyone who qualifies for an education discount (Wife = teacher, so “yay” and all that).
Thing is, Apple isn’t doing that deal this year. It’s being replaced by a much-less-valued-by-me $100 gift card to the App store. Now, instead of paying $1199 and getting a free iPod, I’m paying $1199 and getting some free programs (most of which I already have; the Office apps are really the only ones I’d be willing to pay for, and I have those). So now I find myself less justified in spending the extra $300 just for an operating system. This is further beat out by Microsoft offering a free 4G Xbox 360 with any PC Purchase of $699 or more.
I should also mention I was planning on running Windows on my new Mac anyway (via Bootcamp) so I could play various video games. This whole thing has made me re-evaluate what I’m really willing to pay extra for. I can get a comparably specced PC for $899 and get a free Xbox, buy an iPod at retail, sell the Xbox for maybe $180, and still come out ahead financially of where I would be if I bought a Mac.
All this aside, I can see the beneficial side of this “gift card” thing for Apple; they want to promote their online store and generate sales there and so they give free “Apple” money to new and returning Mac users. The gift card is worth $100. That’s how much you would pay for it if you bought it by itself (but that doesn’t mean you can sell it for $100. You’ll probably only get $90 tops). With Microsoft’s Xbox deal, they’re giving away something valued at $200 that can easily be sold for really close to $200 because it’s not a gift card redeemable for programs and songs. It’s hardware that (in my case) hasn’t even come out of it’s box. Microsoft’s deal has beat Apple’s by giving users almost double the value of what Apple’s “treat” is worth.
But then I haven’t even tried Windows 7 yet, which I’ve heard is a much better OS than even XP with service pack 3. Even a few Mac users have had good things to say about W7. If it turns out to be a work-able OS, then it may make the decision even easier.
My secret hope is that sales and such will be low enough over the next few weeks to convince Apple that their back-to-school promo wasn’t really a good idea, and they’ll change their game mid-summer and offer iPods, maybe even a discount on iPads (crosses fingers and such).
Cloud Servers: Confused
Ok, so in case you haven’t noticed this trendy new thing called the Cloud Server recently, let me summarize it:
Everything stored on your hard drive? You know, your music, pictures, applications, documents, and basically everything along with them that take up so much space? Cloud servers hold all of that stuff on their hard drives and servers that are (conveniently) not in your house, which means that since you’re able to access the server over the internet, any of your mobile devices or other computers can sync to it (less importantly, it means you have more desk space for things like paperweights, bills, cords, and other things desks get cluttered with when you have space on it).
All of the sudden, you have every bit of data that you take on-the-go on every device you take on-the-go. Your phone? Got all your music. Your tablet PC? Got all your documents and spreadsheets. No more worrying about hooking it up to your computer and syncing it that way. Amazon, Dropbox, and Microsoft’s Azure are a few of the prominent ones, but the reason this is at the forefront is because of Apple’s new iCloud they’re launching soon. This is being marketed as a new stage in the technology revolution and in convenience as well.
Really, I don’t have a problem with this so much as an annoyance; it’s something a lot of people are going to tell me I need, and that they don’t know how they got by without it. The reality is, this isn’t a new thing: remote servers have been around a while, and people have been using them to access their stuff from other devices. The only thing “new” about this is that it’s trendy.
Though, I suppose there’s this new factor to consider: Apple’s products all work seamlessly with other Apple products; this has long been an advantage to switching completely Mac and i(Insert device) for everything. But now Apple has a cloud server for all of your data so that you don’t even have to bother with hooking your devices up to sync their data.
Video Gamers out there who use Steam have been actually been using remote similar “remote server” systems since Half-Life 2 came out in 2004; the games, for the most part, are stored on the user’s computer, but your Steam Account phones into the main Steam servers to authenticate it. This meant a few things:
1) All of your games, in the event of a system crash, were backed up on the Steam Servers; it could keep track of games you had purchased through Steam and would let you download them again.
2) Since you need an always-on Internet connection, Steam could automatically and quietly update the game with patches as they were released, even if you don’t want them (Conversely, you cannot un-install patches if they end up causing a bug that crashes your game on your computer)
3) You had an easy-to-use interface for every single game you played.
4) You could not play your game if the Steam Servers were offline, regardless of how good your own connection was. (Steam occasionally works in Offline Mode, but not for all games)
5) You cannot play your game if you happened to not have an internet connection.
6) You cannot let anyone else use your copy of the game. You cannot “lend” it out. You cannot give it away. (unless you buy another copy of the game specifically as a “gift”)
Basically, you don’t really own the games you buy with your money. What you’re now paying for is the ability to ask Steam to play it. Steam’s offline? Can’t play it. Steam thinks you may have pirated it? Can’t play it. Your internet connections down? Can’t play it. For the advantages you gain, you basically lose the ability to play the games when you want to.
I see something similar happening with Cloud Systems later on; they’re touting it as a convenience thing now, but how long until they start “forcing” you to use it? Sure, they’ll never actually “force” you to do anything, but what if you could only play songs purchased through iTunes through Cloud Streaming? What if any pictures imported through iPhoto are automatically (without option to change) loaded onto a Cloud Server? Of course, all of this will be done in the name of “convenience”, and people will buy into it and gush over how amazing Apple is.
I’d like to see their faces the first time the server crashes and they can’t access anything they “own” and they realize what a terrible trap they’ve fallen into. Even Amazon isn’t immune to that happening (their servers crashed just recently, taking down several websites and denying access to tons of files that customers had put on the servers)
Another problem is the incentive for hackers: One computer isn’t that much of a target for a high-profile hacker. Phishers love them, for sure, but master programmers who can maneuver security systems with ease don’t care about the data on one computer. But take hundreds of computers and put them on one server, and attach a credit card to each one (for purchasing songs/apps/etc), and suddenly you have an incredibly appetizing target for a team of hackers to try and take it down and steal the information. Sony’s PSN (the online gaming network for Playstation, where you buy games and play them) was hacked in recent months and was down because of it for 6 weeks. Hundreds of customers had their information stolen, which included usernames, passwords, and credit card numbers, not to mention that none of the PSN’s player base could actually play any of the games they paid money for. Sony spent tons of money trying to recuperate their losses, most of which are customers that won’t want to come back because they don’t feel safe anymore.
Basically, Cloud Servers are nice, but only in theory. They’re great for the companies that run them because now they have near-complete control over the product they sell. It’s terrible for the customers because, in the end, they don’t own anything.
Day 16 (And just Day 16)
Since I’m going into “ridiculous” territory with how behind I am on this, I’ve decided to opt the more conservative/nonexistent route with regards to “catching up”. Today is just one, but since Day 17 and 18 are closely related and go well together, I’ll do both of them tomorrow, and then just one or two a day until I “catch up” or finish it.
For the record, I’m marking this as “failure to complete Blog Challenge” since I left it for more than a day (even though the first time I missed a day should have been a failure). No biggie, but I still want to finish it.
Day 16: A Magical Genie Grants Me 3 Wishes
1. A Working Iron Man Suit that only works for me and has an unlimited energy supply.
The Awesomeness
One of the coolest Superheroes who doesn’t actually need super powers. All you need to be like him is the suit (and a slight case of alcoholism, I suppose). It would have to be solar powered, able to be recharged by plugging it in to a standard slot, or just last for the next 50 years off of the initial battery. With regards to it’s use, I suppose I could take the Superhero route with it, but I’m more interested in the flight capabilities.
2. Take one dollar from every single person in the United States and give it to me.
I’m not sure about the “Give me a million bajillion dollars!” wish realistically. I can’t help but shake the notion that it would seriously screw with the economy to have a sudden and large injection of cash into a single individual, who would make some donations, but mostly use it to live well and allow his friends and family to live well for their lifetimes. So instead of some outrageous sum of money, I’d rather just socialistically take a microscopic amount from those who have. There’s about 300 million people here, so I’d still have a lot of money, and it would theoretically not screw anything up (like the value of a dollar). I can just buy a house, and invest the rest (hopefully) wisely, and live off that for the rest of my life with a wife and some kids.
3. I actually don’t know what my third wish would be, which seems kind of lame. Those are really the only material things I would ask for. I don’t want to be immortally bound to live as a human. I don’t want to not feel pain. I don’t want to have some amazing skill (I’d rather learn it myself if I really want it). I guess turning invisible would be kind of handy, though socially awkward if people ever found out I could do that.
This isn’t a “day”. Just an excuse.
I’ve been a terrible blogger these past two days. I didn’t post Saturday. I didn’t post today and have no intentions of it. I have work until 3 pm tomorrow. I’m going to be two days behind already. But I don’t want to cram those two days and tomorrow all into one entry; they’re really good and I want to dedicate a good amount of time (somewhere between “rushing” and “releasing the Tron sequel” lies the answer).
Sorry. It’s been a busy weekend.
Day 15: What Did I Want to Grow up to be
Such a weird question. I’m sure most people my age and older have realized that it gets harder and harder to answer. Those AARP commercials even have people older than 50 who are stating what they would like to do when they grow up. It’s really a never-ending process. I’ll start with my first desired profession, I suppose, and go on from there.
The first thing I can remember wanting to be was an Inventor. I basically wanted to be a “mad scientist” creating things in his house and selling them to companies. My first idea was to forget the “adapter” solution that companies have come up with for powering things in people’s cars and just put a three-pronged outlet in there. Somewhere along the way, I gave up on thinking about this too much. If I had kept up with it, I likely would’ve either decided to become a mechanical engineer, or be doomed to obscurity advertising my products on cheesy infomercials with Billy Mays.
I wanted to be a video game designer and programmer at some point, but after designing levels for Starcraft and Half-life, decided that I liked playing video games a lot more than creating them.
Around age 16, I then transitioned into a phase of wanting to be a police officer, specifically wanting to be a S.W.A.T officer. The idea of keeping the peace and simultaneously being the best tactical force for the most extreme situations really appealed to me. This would have necessitated moving to LA, though, since the LAPD has the most active police force and S.W.A.T team, and I’ve never really been too excited about that prospect. The idea fell out of my interest, and I stopped pursuing that.
I then decided that I wanted to be a teacher, specifically in the field of English (Literature and writing, not the actual language, though I imagine Grammar would be an inevitable topic). This stuck with me until relatively recently; I went to school and graduated with an AA in English and did extensive research as to where I would get my Bachelor’s and credentials. I got engaged, and married shortly after that, and haven’t decided if I want to continue that or not, which brings me to present day.
I’m not 100% convinced what I want to be when I grow up. But the time for that decision is coming up fast. The idea of teaching English is still appealing, but I’ve also looked into getting a BA in Business so that I can open my own Coffee House. I’ve thought about going into programming or computer science, too. All I know is that working a coffee house, even as the the semi-manager I am right now, is not really what I want to do to raise a family.
So yeah. “Growing up” is a relative term. As in, it’s always relevant.
Day 14: Things I Enjoy Reading
I don’t read nearly as much as I want to. It’s such a trap when I find myself in a great book; all things related to “time management” go out the window. I can have these great plans for productivity, but if a great piece of reading comes my way, be it fiction, nonfiction, comic book, or blog, all those plans will fall apart as I become lost in the world I’m engaging myself in.
What it really all comes down to is that I love a good story; I love characters developing and maturing, I love plot concepts unraveling and twisting, and I love action building to a necessary climax.
I’ve mistakenly already mentioned my love of the Harry Potter series, but they’re hardly the only books I like.
The Lord of the Rings is an excellent series, though I will admit that it’s harder to get into once I start re-reading them; it can get rather dull with the kinds of things Tolkien decides to go off and describe.
Douglas Adams is one of my favorites, with The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy being a very fun read for me. (The movie adaptation less so, but still good in a way)
CS Lewis also grabs my attention with his fiction and non-fiction material alike. I love the things he chooses to discuss and how he addresses them. The Great Divorce is easily in my top 10 (if I cared to make such a list).
I’m also a fan of old British Literature, such as:
- Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein
- The Portrait of Dorian Grey
- I’ve been starting to read The Legends of King Arthur and His Knights, which is very interesting and fun to read (I’d also love to get my hands on a copy of T.H. White’s Once and Future King, though).
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes series
- Most anything by Charles Dickens
I tend to be very skeptical and cautious when it comes to modern literature; I don’t like to venture out too often since books are such a time commitment, and the idea of spending time on a terrible book just seems…terrible. So I don’t really go out and hunt for new fiction too often.
Which is where you come in, readership! I’m on the lookout for new pieces of fiction, so if you have something to recommend, I give you permission to do so!
Day 13: My Idea of a “Good” Outing
In retrospect, this was (IMO) kind of a lame question to dedicate an entire day of blogging to. I will nonetheless put whatever I can to communicate this answer. Actually, screw that. I’m going to answer it more like “What’s your ideal day?”. Yeah, that’s better.
First, a bit about myself and my social tendencies:
I’m an introvert. Sometimes, it may be hard to believe, but really. Being around people drains me like no other. I need regular interruptions of solo flying in between flocking. I don’t have a reason for this, it’s just the way I’m wired. I can work and hang out with friends in the same day for about three consecutive days before I just need an afternoon or evening in, by myself (sometimes this means no Megan; it’s never been a problem, though. My work schedule is different enough to just be home while she’s out).
Regardless of my status as a robot who can only interact with people when his battery’s full, I still like being around people. I like having fun, especially when there’s other people to share in it. I like playing group games. I like discussing things with people. Ergo, my ideal day/outing may be some awkward combination of being alone and then suddenly surrounded by friends.
Getting up early to get to work is, surprisingly, one of the best ways for me to get motivated to go out for the rest of day (though even assuming adequate sleep, it’s not always my favorite). I get up early, WAKE UP, and work for a few hours, and I’m home by 10:00 am. Megan is still at work for a few hours, and so I can veg out with my computer or video games for an hour, then get some journaling and writing in. When Megan comes home, I’ll spend some time with her, listening to whatever work woes she has, or just skipping to the chatting about what’s up with each other (Megan likes talking about this more than me; I usually just complain about work). We can then go out to dinner, and then hang out with some friends at a place that’s not my own (at this point, having large groups of friends over to our place doesn’t produce the best results; close apartments and quiet neighbors who hate noise past 8:00 pm).
There’s not much else to add to this. With few variances, this is a realistic expectation of how a day can go that would be absolutely be ideal.
Life and Everything in Between 