The concept of followers is by no means a new one. In ancient Greece most public figures had followers. All religious dogmas speak of disciples. In Europe, Theodoric and Alexander the Great started a real royal court culture that extended further to local noble courts. The Islamic world had Caliphates, the Chinese empire had one of the largest courts in the Forbidden City. Later on, these entourages evolved into political groups, parties as we now know them. Throughout the history, anybody who was somebody had a group of followers around them who would enrich their presence at any place, listen to their words of wisdom, spread their opinions and enhance their fame. Granted, those followers were as prone to leave their “master” at a drop of a hat as they are today. Loyalty was as much of a fickle thing back then as it is now, mostly because the act of following was not based upon any soul deep connection or conceptual compatibility, but on social favors and power.

Being “très à la mode” granted you special privileges, invitations to fashionable events, the ohs and ahs of the  general public, gave your words the value of an axiom and made you suitable for becoming a model to be followed. The followers, especially those to which loyalty was anathema, were there for sharing part of that fame. Was it trendy to follow the thoughts and fashion of a certain Madame de Pompadour? Then, by all means, let the whole Europe dress and talk like mini copies of her. Was it rumored that she might have fallen from the king’s grace? You would hear her being dissed at every corner by the same mini copies that were now dressed like the present protegée. People felt the need then, as they do now, to be part of the trend. If they couldn’t be the ones to set a new path, they could at least say that they belonged to the group that followed that path. “I follow the trends, therefore I am” is the motto of the practiced follower.The whys and hows do not exist. If asked for an explanation, they would only repeat the words of their mentors. The world would lose yet another opportunity to evolve and gain one more mindless – though sometimes prettily adorned – sheep.

Alexander Chase said “People, like sheep, tend to follow a leader – occasionally in the right direction.” While this statement might seem outrageous, it holds an undeniable truth: most people need leadership. Not necessarily because they are natively incapable of thinking for themselves, but because they need guidance. We are all searching for our path. In this search, before we define ourselves as freestanding, we need models to look up to, to follow. Leaders of any kind, be they kings, governments or clergy, always knew this fact and exploited it to obtain utmost obedience. Nowadays politicians and marketers are milking the same, well, sheep. Social media, while not inherently created for that, it serves the same purpose. The model of elite and followers works exceptionally well, mainly because shallowness is an integral part of our life. Too busy with our day to day existence, we pick ideas from here and there, not always having or taking the time to delve deeper into the subjects in question.

The principle is rather simple: as we absorb information, we will always look up to those who are considered to be experts or authorities in that field and we will start carving our own opinions based on that. And while staying informed and being up to date with people’s opinions is vital these days, mindless idea adoption can be disastrous. Ignorance, lack of depth or “la forme sans le fond” may and will get us in trouble.  One must never forget that trend-setters, at the end of the day, are just people and people are subjective. One cannot read someone’s opinion and expect a BBC report. Said trend-setters, unthinkable as it may sound, do not hold the absolute truth – only the public’s attention. By adopting and promoting their ideas, you are responsible for more followers who, in turn, thought that you knew what you were talking about. A vicious circle, I would say. And, in the mean time, we forget to use our own brain.

So what is one to do? Read. Read the basics on a subject, then the details, know the norms or standards by heart and, by all means, invest the time to learn what others have to say about it. But as you do that, don’t forget to think for yourself. With all the knowledge you acquired, experiment. And, if you are bold and knowledgeable enough, break the rules in case you think they stand in the way of your goal. In regards to the web, there is no web police that will give you a fine for breaking design and development norms – only your visitors can do that. As long as your code or designs provide a good, attractive experience for the user, the rest is more or less irrelevant. Yes, you might be dissed and accused. The elite and its crew might hold you in contempt. But playing inside the norms never gave us any groundbreaking masterpiece or discovery. Lose the herd for a while and wander a bit. And who knows, in the process of finding greener pastures, maybe you’ll happen to set your own path.

The scene set evokes a temple or rather the very heart of a temple. And it is indeed, as the scene transforms itself along the play from Dr. Dysart’s office into the stable and  – for a short time – into the cinema place, these three places being in fact temples to the psychiatrist, Alan and his father. The play starts with Dr. Dysart’s thoughts and brief introduction into the Alan’s case. Richard Griffiths, I must say, does a marvelous job. You make no connection whatsoever with any other characters that you might have seen him playing. He’s just the psychiatrist who takes an awakening journey from the moment that he accepts to treat Alan Strang. And while Richard Burton’s performance in the same part has been strong and vibrant (but when has Burton not been strong and vibrant?), Richard Griffiths gives the character a new personality, a lot more on the philosophical side. Dr. Dysart is not torn, but distressed at the realization that he let passion slip away from his life and, most of all, that he resigned to it. He starts questioning himself, his life, his almost-dead marriage and his whole purpose as he perceives the intensity of Alan’s feelings.

And that intensity is beautifully conveyed by Daniel Radcliffe’s act. I must confess that I had expected to be reminded of the Harry Potter part at least at times during the play. To my surprise it never happened. I haven’t thought of Alan as the character who is played by the guy who played the famous wizard, but only Alan, an anguished teenager who sees the values of his world turn to dust and that very world turned upside down, mostly like Dickens’ Pip. Many have interpreted the stable blinding scene as a fall from Paradise. In some regards, I do agree. However, in my opinion, Alan doesn’t fall from the biblical paradise, but from that of childhood and innocence. He is a Peter Pan that has been forced to leave his Neverland by the revelation that his father was, in fact, “just a poor old sod on his own”, doing his own secret “thing” just like Alan did and that his mother was a prude. In the most talked about naked scene in the play Alan bares himself completely, his soul as well as his body. He shares his revelations and pain with Dr. Dysart, who, in his turn fears the future lack of pain or passion in Alan’s life once he has been “healed”, once this false society and its rigors tamed him. I cannot stress enough how impressed I was with Radcliffe’s performance. Although he is a very young actor and perhaps(and hopefully) oh-so-blissfully-unaware yet of the many types of anguish that life can provide, the part fits him and his youth like a glove. I believe that if he managed to keep at least part of the audience entrapped inside the universe of the play for the whole two acts as I was, then he has already achieved a lot. The intensity that he gives to the character proves by all means that he has so much more to give on stage than just playing the part of a teenage wizard and I expect we’ll hear and see more great performances from him in the years to come.

I left the theater with the distinct feeling that I can and I should do everything that I long to do. It’s not very often that one encounters such inspired and inspirational performances. And as I headed outside I saw the after-theater show: the fans waiting at around 15 degrees Fahrenheit for an autograph, a picture or just a glimpse of their idol. And perhaps for many it is hard to understand, even for me it is most of the time – for I’d rather keep my food for the mind unaltered by the mundane mere minutes after the show. Yet, in a way it makes sense as perhaps, for them, that is their cherished stable.

Who are you laughing on my sky?
I forgot where you rise.
Maybe you aren’t a star and I
Just saw the light through your eyes.

With the heart torn and your hand tense
You said “thee” to me, but I
Was already flying for a long while
And you were only hearing your cry.

I don’t wish to watch you again
As my eyes asleep for you are.
I’d rather stay like this, burning,
And wait for the next star.

I figured that this year my tree will be gold and red, so I bought these for starters:

naming the things that I wish for.

So, you see, I am a good girl, Santa. Please bring me someone to

The funny part was when I signed up. I had to choose what I was: designer or developer. And it got me thinking, what am I really? I know that if anyone would ask me, I’d say UI Engineer, cause that’s the title of my job. But that gives no answer to my question. I’d say that as a web designer you’re a bit of both. So considering that in the last few months I’ve been giving myself headaches with Javascript and XMLHttpRequests, I said developer. It took me half an hour to make up my mind though.

The conference started with Joshua Davis‘ presentation, whose artwork I already knew as being great. What I didn’t know was that he is a great speaker as well. I sensed in him the same joy and passion about his work as I do about mine. Sometimes when I get to make something to work or look the way I want to, I would jump around like a child and laugh. That’s the same feeling I got from Joshua Davis. A breath of fresh air and an awakening view on inspiration. Some while ago I told someone that a photographer has to always keep a fresh view on everything, like a child – like he sees everything for the first time. Joshua Davis extended that to the design. Some people said that he showed the same art as some time ago. I say that no matter when his artwork was done, it’s still cool. That must be the beauty of art, you don’t get tired of it.

Other presentations that I enjoyed: Ryan Singer from 37 Signals talked about usability and then Andy Clarke, Josh Williams & Jeffrey Zeldman, sparkling as always, discussed where web design is going to ( and if it’s ever coming back). I did want to meet Zeldman, but when I saw him there I was absolutely dazed, I lost my voice and my ability to move.

Elliot Jay Stocks had a presentation on the so called “web 2.0 look”. While he said things that I totally agreed and even wrote about a while back, I think people need to move along from that trap. Instead of focusing on “what a designer shouldn’t do”, I think people should be more willing to talk about solutions and new means of inspirations to escape those pattern websites. I don’t think that web designers are stuck on that “look”, maybe we’re all just up to something, taking some time to discover the next hit.

The first kind are the ones who dream and fight for their dreams.With the good and bad, with their ups and downs, they fall and they stand tall again, remembering each time what they are looking for.

The second kind are the ones who had a dream, but somehow along the way they settled for a “half-dream” or “the next best thing”, as somebody told me long ago. And because a half-dream is never equivalent to a proper, full rendered dream, they crave illusions. And when they meet one, they take it as a granted property, a given, something that is meant to fill that gap in their half-happy life. What is an illusion? Well, an illusion is somehow the same as a dream. Somehow the same. The difference is that an illusion will never become your full time dream for several reasons.
First reason would be that no matter how exciting an illusion might be, a half-dream is far more real because it’s right next to you.
The second reason is fear. Of the unknown. With an illusion they would have to start all over again, from the first steps, from the very first gestures and build again everything from scratch. And what if they lose? What if their illusion will turn out being not more than the current half-dream? Imagine the disappointment of someone who treasures more the destination than the road to it.
The third reason would be possession. Because they own the illusion, because it’s meant to be there for them whenever and only when they need it. So there is no real point in transforming it into something more demanding, more challenging and life changing.

You might say that the illusions and the half-dreams might be two different kinds of their own. Well, no. You see, illusions and half-dreams can have dreams themselves. And they can become somebody’s whole dream someday.

And that’s what I dream of. That someday I’ll be someone’s full time dream. And that he’ll be my breath-taking, earth-shaking, heart-flying whole dream.