Posts by Keir Leslie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
And, er, I don't think I loathe computers, but fair play. That's about the level of my arguments, isn't it? O dear.
Also, I have been conflating Mark and your arguments, so that may explain the apparent illusionary interlocutor.
-
Look, Don, your idea of an art school was the learning connexion. I'm trying very hard not to be rude about TLC, cause the people who work there do a good job, I'm sure, and they don't need some dickhead on the internet mouthing off, but, in point of fact, they haven't produced an important artist ever.
Again, the affordable art show's cool and all, but it's a middle-brow show (at best) that hangs like the Salon.
The Renaissance was the [dilettante]'s ultimate wet dream
Da Vinci went through the old fashioned Florentine guild structure; Michelangelo was professional likewise, Raphael also. In fact, that was a criticism of Raphael, taht he churned out Madonnas for mercenary purposes. Art was a professional activity in Florence & Rome, which is why we care about patronage & the Medicis.
Compared to the medieval craft structure, yeah, it was more broad, in a liberal arts sense. It wasn't dilettantism though -- it was people who worked for their living at painting or sculpting.
I'm not saying you need to justify yourself per se. I'm not arguing that you're wrong about copyright because you don't know art history. Your statements deserve to be judged on their merits, not ad hom.
I am saying it is very frustrating seeing people with little evident knowledge of art history mouth off about how artists don't care too much about getting paid etc. (Yes, they do. Some are kind of famous for it.) Or that stuff has to be in the public domain before you can build on it -- especially in the face of evident contradiction.
And, er, I don't think I loathe computers*, but fair play. That's about the level of my arguments, isn't it? O dear.
Um. Yeah. There's maybe a better argument in there, but.
* Except the GIMP. I hate that. And sound. Don't you love the little things with linux?
-
And "youse"
You are only talking to one of me, thus making the plural form incorrect. Learn your non-standard English!
20 years as an IT professional, a personal affinity with technology and time in professional organisations like GOVIS and InternetNZ (as an elected official), and the NZOSS as a member.
Well, yeah. That was kind of the point -- an awful lot of tech knowledge, not as much fine arts knowledge. In particular, I don't think youse have very much art historical knowledge in terms of the less glamorous stuff, especially, who pays the bills & how does that effect the artists?
Take the claim about artists creating for the love of it, there's a raft of Marxist art historians who could (and have) rip that to shreds.
Or Doctorow's fussing about if Lichtenstein could paint like that today, when there's a whole bunch of people doing very similar stuff.
-
Hang on, hang on, who says Tizard screamed?
Seems to be unfounded to me.
-
Argh, of course they'd be allowed, look at bloody Imants Tillers. Doctorow doesn't know what he's talking about at all.
In fact, the problem is that Lichtenstein got away with murder in terms of ripping off comic artists -- or rather, there's a class based double standard being invoked.
-
Observation: the people arguing the Doctorowish position appear to be be male technological types with an active amateur interest in the arts, a good grasp of copyright law, but very little art historical knowledge, very little conception of how culture and art actually work at a professional level.
I mean, things like
support for art schools such as The Learning Connection.
and (I paraphrase) ``artists don't care too much about the money'' ``work in copyright can't be built upon''; youse don't actually know a huge amount about how culture & fine arts work, do you?
-
Why should I not be able to copy those films if I want to show people about the origins of animation?
Er, i suspect you can -- i think it'd the criticism -- or education --? bit of the applicable law, there's probably a fair use right somewhere in there.
I'm not sure, and i've no legal knowledge, at all, but i think you could.
-
Fair enough, I do withdraw and apologise for that comment. I hadn't heard the term before and thought you were just bagging Californians for being Californians.
No worries; it isn't what you might call a very common term.
-
You could always contact the copyright holders
Harder than you would think, quite often.
-
I do think Mark could have the decency to apologise for, or at the least explain, his `stupid & prejudiced' comment.
As far as I can see it was utterly unfounded, although if any one could explain what is `stupid & prejudiced' about the term `Californian Ideology', I'd be happy to listen.
But I really can't see what on Earth his objection is; the `Californian Ideology' is a reasonably well-known concept, identifying the sort of Wired/Jimbo ideology that flourished in Silicon Valley and elsewhere, especially in the late 90's. It isn't any more `stupid & prejudiced' than saying that Stallman's a Naderite, and I thus have an aversion to his ideology.
why?
Because that's part of the arbitrary deal. There's no real underlying reason exactly, it's just that society gives and society takes.