Posts by Sacha
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
further thought on the its our culture argument. why don't we as a society buy the rights to items we see as important to our culture, just like we do with works in art galleries
Rob, thank you for proposing a different solution. Perhaps you could say more about who would get to decide what was "important" and to whose culture.
I have a different understand of culture and its importance and because it is different to yours or some book you read doesn't make it any less valid or worthy of discussion.
And all I'm asking is that you treat the understanding of culture I've described as valid and useful. It's not an either-or situation. I've acknowledged your committed practical understanding (which was apparent before knowing who you are).
"Culture" to me - and to thousands of worldwide academic specialists over the last five decades and more - is not some narrow set of products and experiences that is pre-annointed from on high as valuable (and sadly tends towards what boring old white folk like). That's the traditional view many of us got fed in school, and it underpins wildly unfair state funding where classical music, ballet and suchlike get more than their share of the funding and recognition while modern musos, film-makers and other creators struggle. There are nonetheless valid points grounded in that way of looking at things.
Here's the more modern view I've tried to contribute here: every cultural product is part of culture, no matter where or how its value or importance is negotiated, before, during and after creation. As I've said, "creation" is a joint process (which I know challenges traditional views about "authority" and ownership). Culture is also plural and complex and real - and politics and power determine value at least as much as aesthetic considerations. It's no accident that cultural theory has been influenced by hegemonic marxism and other political understandings. Copyright is one process for managing value over time, and its coincidence with capitalism makes it the underpinning of current culture industries.
The well-developed field of cultural theory helps describe that big picture and make sense of our grounded experiences. Other specialist disciplines like law and business obviously contribute strongly to our understanding of copyright.
To dismiss academic knowledge as just some book I've read is sad evidence of the deep vein of anti-intellectualism that this country really must get over. Any "chip on my shoulder" is probably similar to what Keir was saying - about the sheer lack of respect extended to some disciplines and those who have gone to the trouble of developing some expertise in them. You should be able to relate to that, surely.
the one time you were demeaned is when I misread a name on a post, and you got your full apology for that
Rob, I have never been offended about being confused with someone else's posts. I made it clear that I was talking about demeaning this forum, not me personally.
You put a decent effort into actually listening to what people say and respecting what they bring to the conversation and we'll be fine.
-
Why does the master tape differ from the house?
Simon, a house is fundamentally useful for shelter, though it also has cultural aspects which affect its value. Those differ across places, times and societies (as you'd be well aware comparing Bali with Aotearoa).
However, the realisable value of a master tape depends entirely on cultural context as it is only useful for making cultural products. Despite what Rob thinks that is not an "add-on".
And no, Rob, it's not some personal belief of mine but an entire field of study that you dismissed as "hypothetical". It's a "theory" like evolution is one.
You can keep saying "if I create something I should own it" but that just shows you really don't understand the broader nature of cultural creation or the negotiation of cultural value over time - which copyright is just one mechanism for managing. We probably agree that we need a better mechanism.
I may be grumpy at times but I'm only offended when people waste oxygen and demean shared forums, not when they disagree with me.
-
I was more underwhelmed by the "nobody in the cast knows -- or cares -- what iambic pentameter is, let alone knows how to speak it".
So true - Pete Postlethwaite turns up as the priest and just shows the young yanks how it's done.
-
Kyle, you're right. I wasn't thinking clearly enough about who those short term benefits would be for - those who play the market.
-
However, Jon - Rob did dismiss out of hand some of the relevant intellectual underpinnings from academic cultural theory - that culture is not created solely by artists and authors, and that this changes the "ownership" equation and therefore any consequent "rights". He also doesn't seem to be paying much heed to the views of the copyright specialists who have contributed to this conversation.
Some mutual respect might allow deeper understanding. Running an indie record label and a recording studio brings valuable lessons but to think it supplies all the relevant knowledge guarantees a certain lack of illumination. Perhaps the dark feels somehow more comfortable, or a bonfire is needed for those with weak sight. Match, anyone?
-
Rupert Brown
Genius! You're wasted in PR, Mr Brislen.
-
John, to be fair I don't think Key was talking about divesting - and I heard him say something about letting the fund Guardians decide how long to take to reach that 40% target - which makes a mockery of any short term benefits. Sounds decisive I guess. Just typical campaigning talk.
I'm hoping voters make a connection in their own understanding with raiding long-term investment to subsidise short-term consumerism, as if that pattern isn't part of what got us into this pickle. I know spending our way out of a recession sounds more fun..
-
'In a world without that guy who did the voiceovers... '
I was impressed to learn that he had come up with that catchphrase himself. Now there's cultural influence! Along those lines, "Business time" must be one of our most successful exports (other than corrupting the Aussies into doing the Kylie raised inflexion thing at the end of their sentences).
-
__Rome + Juliet__ was fitfully inspired, and largely ambitious, but often overreaching- I wasn't totally convinced by the whole 'Bard goes pop' gambit
Hell I was, Matthew. Would actually rate the first ten minutes as some of the best moviemaking I've ever seen. It struck me that if Shakespeare were working now, it would be exactly the medium and pop approach he'd be drawn to. My niece agrees and she's a fresh-eyed member of both the William and Baz fanclubs. Mind you she hasn't seen Run Lola Run yet.
Berlin represented in film
Wings of Desire?
-
MR was cutcutcutcutcut and it pissed me off. I felt as though Luhrmann was artificially manufacturing the excitement generated by wonderful musical numbers where none really existed.
Danielle, ta for the elaboration. I don't like musicals at all (never got through more than ten minutes of Oz or Sound o Music). Maybe that swirling jumpiness of Moulin Rouge is what does it for me? Hmmm.
Once I got over the idea of Ewan McGregor singing, that is, which for some reason seemed improbable. Kidman, yes plain awkward. I loved the colourful silliness of it all although I'd imagine those who know more about the actual historical basis might find that a tad shallow.
I have no idea why but the overwrought melodramatic emptiness just worked for me, to the extent that I bought the DVD (which my niece promptly flogged in the fresh flushes of Baz fandom).
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 … 1971 Older→ First