At 02:59 PM 10/6/98 EDT, Steve81778@aol.com wrote:
quoted 2 lines er, the way i reckon it, anything good is good, not good because of the
>er, the way i reckon it, anything good is good, not good because of the
>thought that went behind it. when i hear a piece of music, see a film or
go to
quoted 1 line a gallery i don't demand to see the artists medical records and a thesis
>a gallery i don't demand to see the artists medical records and a thesis
paper
quoted 4 lines on his thoughts behind the work.
>on his thoughts behind the work.
>
>-steve
>
yeah, that is true.
but what you seem to be doing is taking the work itself (song, film, etC)
as what is good, and not the artist behind it. for example, if i wrote a
book, and you took it completely out of context and really enjoyed _your_
interpretation of it, then you would be viewing the work as good, and me
(as the author) as irrelevant to the work.
that's what i mean when I say Syd Barrett sucks. maybe a song or two he has
done is good, but his authorship seems irrelevant (since there was really
no intention behind it as he's completely fucking bugger).
am i making sense? probably not. it's a matter of opinion, i guess.
ah well ;)
:: wells oliver / s0ewoliv@titan.vcu.edu /
http://mute.simplenet.com
:: 'try to smile as they devour our youth'