7.9.06

Eric Cuddles For Fun?

Hi Eric -

Thank you for your interest in Thinktopia!

I think there are some things you can do to enhance how your skills are presented to potential employers. We want them to see your technical and creative ability and not get sidetracked by email address, web address, and the more grim images on your website. Right now, the presentation could give the reader the idea that you have an over-eager interest in death which could turn off employers regardless of your talent.

Employers might even be thinking about liability - if someone accuses you of an inappropriate or violent interaction in the future, the employer could be held liable because you told them, in effect, that you kill for fun. I know that sounds like a long shot, but the point is that you are giving employers reasons to not consider hiring you.

I would get a new email address to use for professional communications and change the name of your site. I would remove the image of the bloody Saddam and of the dear carcass. Am employer might also struggle with you using an image that you don't have rights to. They are constantly working to protect their own copyrights and might have an adverse reaction to see someone using someone else's image.

The two images you sent in attachments are great! Depending on the message you want to convey I might replace the bleeding 'Love' image and the Anarchy image with the two you sent. Again, you might have a few different web sites - one for your fun stuff and one tailored to finding the types of jobs you want.

Let me know what you think.

Thanks -
xxxxxxxx

3 comments:

ETC said...

Christine Daves,

I thoroughly understand your concerns and suggestions...

Personally, I'd love to give my site its needed make over. It hasn't been updated for months, and I'm pretty tired of my old work. Although, I might have a hard time giving up the horse carcass... it's very sentimental... and when given consideration, begs to be available to the public.

For years my mother has tried to sway my enthusiasm for drawing skulls, but I can't seem to swing it. We've been raised on Weird Al, Gangsta rap, and Tom n' Jerry (not to imply that music and violent depictions can have an effect on young and impressionable children), yet I must say that I and most of those that I surround myself with, are not violent people. Sarcastic... yes, inappropriate... sometimes, but very much not violent (despite the "over-eager interest in death"). If I didn't get a job because I punched an interviewer in the face... you know... I'd understand that... but I've been drawing mohawks and Uzis since I was kid. Would it be ustified to sacrifice such intrinsic practice, a thoroughly explored and ingrained realm, for a dollar... or 40,000?

In regards to appropriation... I will happily comply to any cease and desist I receive, but no imagery on my site is untouched by myself. Do not imagine that these acts are frivolous, for it is quite intentional. 3M put a copyright on their green and purple, and you can't sing Happy Birthday on television without paying an extravagant fee to the "owner."

-- every action has an equal or opposite reaction --

I will sing Happy Birthday to all deserving of such things... in a big 3M green/purple room with a large pixelated (72ppi) photograph of Saddam's face rendered raw in the name of patriotic blood lust.

There is a note at the bottom of the first page of on ekff claiming all work as mine... with the exclusion of the work that is not. I have sold no digitally appropriated or altered imagery from my site. I very thoroughly understand that I did not take certain photographs or create certain images and am not about to claim that I did. However, I did use them, and in an attempt to distribute my personal creation and contribution, I give them back to the internet, from whence they came.

I would imagine that you are correct in noting that the depiction of myself, my visual tendencies, and my work, via "erickillsforfun.com" very well may have turned off potential employment, and this is
something that must be considered -- similar to how one's personal outlook, ethics, and morals should be under constant scrutiny to ensure that one's actions match up with their beliefs.

Making my work is the job that I truly want.


potential new domains:
ericcuddlesforfun.com
ericlovesformoney.com
happysupernicegooddesignwork.com
cashforpassion.com
slowlybleedinginmywhitecubicle.org
icutmyselftofeelalive.com




Truly,

Eric Timothy Carlson
Et Cetera (ETC)
erickillsforfun


I apologize for the any hint of rebellious immaturity in regards to this situation, but I often feel obligated to drastically over explain myself when communicating online. You have always been incredibly helpful, and I thank you for this.

Anna Nym said...

icutmyselftofeelalive.com has a nice ring to it. I think it's something you should truly explore. As an employer, I might think, "Now this is a guy that would be dedicated to the job." And I could feel good about giving you something to bravely live for.

Never mix up identifiers in a relative clause. Strike 'a guy that would.' Replace with "a guy who would."

Never end a sentence with a preposition. Stike 'something to bravely live for.' Replace with "a reason to bravely live."

Never split an infinitive. Strike 'to bravely live.' Replace with "to live bravely." Ignore Star Trek's 'to boldly go.' It is incorrect, and it was constructed to confuse and mislead. There isn't no 'to boldly go.' Instead, one must 'to go boldly' or 'boldly to go.'

Never use a double negative. Math says two negatives makes a positive, and that has somehow carried into the English language. Ignore the classist, racist sociolinguistics at play. Ignore the fact that many languages require double, triple, and quadruple negatives. Ignore the fact that when I say "there isn't no 'to boldly go'" everyone knows that I'm not actually saying "There is a 'to boldly go.' Just strike it. By eliminating the second negative, sentence clarity is enhanced.

Never use dangling modifiers. Revise to: If I elimate the second negative, I increase the clarity of the sentence. Dangling modifiers have no clear SUBJECT. "Sentence clarity" cannot eliminate anything, idiot. Whose STRIKE Who's eliminating? I don't know...CAN you go to the bathroom? I'm not sure, but you MAY. I would love to BORROW that book, but can you LOAN it to me instead. To WHO STRIKE WHOM STRIKE WHOSE STRIKE WHAT THE FUCK STRIKE am I speaking with?

ETC, dearest ETC. Every field has its obligatory parades. Attendance is mandatory.

Potential sites:

noonespeakslikethisbut.com
thegrammarhammer.com
dontyouspeaknoslammergrammaratme.net

FYBS said...

I just busted out laughing in the computer lab like 4 times reading your response.