On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 07:48:27 -0400, Jason J. Tar wrote:
quoted 4 lines ...gag... The whole idea of "artists" and glorifying people in such a
>...gag... The whole idea of "artists" and glorifying people in such a
>manner is such crap. "Oooh, look at that work...s/he is such an
>ARTIST. Oooh.". Instead of dreaming, do it yourself and get over
>it. Demystify the act.
oh, stuff it. he said later on or in another post that he *did*
create so you're not helping him here. just because you create
doesn't mean you have to do it in every medium. i like acting (don't
have much chance to do it), but i listen to music. i still think
about the artists in that medium, even though i don't work in it.
people who create are all different. some may take it as a mystical
process, others might not even consider themselves artists and think
of it more as an engineering exercise. i tell you now, the
engineering exercise is less likely to end up an inspiring, spiritual
work.
and don't knock spirituality of any sort - there isn't enough of it
around today as it is.
quoted 3 lines ever impressed by Bomb20 who says things using the voices of many. It'd be
>ever impressed by Bomb20 who says things using the voices of many. It'd be
>a hundred times easier for him to just speak it, but to pull unique
>sentences out of samples takes time and a lot of searching.
actually, i personally think it's more difficult to create unique
words you haven't heard before. i like to write [bad] poetry,
occasionally, and it's very often harder than hell to come up with
anything interesting on my own. but i recently *constructed* a poem
out of various snippets of song lyrics that i spent one day looking
through. it didn't take me long since i was already familiar with
the lyrics and had some idea of what i wanted. it was sooo easy
compared to actually coming up with words on my own.
i still think the result was quite nice, but it's a very different
creative process. it was a matter of having previously heard and
read things that expressed what i felt, and then using them to create
something new. i think it's valid, but it's still extremely
different. it took a lot less *something* on my part -- call it what
you will -- and that makes me different from, say, e. e. cummings,
who might have written a poem that addressed the same subject i did,
and did it 'from scratch.' I don't think one is objectively better
than the other, i think it's merely a matter of taste.
and that's my point. if some people prefer to pay more respect to
one type of creation, and other people to another, don't get your
undies in a twist about it. it's no different than liking
non-fiction more than fiction, or action movies more than comedies.
they're all just different, not necessarily "better."
quoted 6 lines By the way, I can't beleive that although I specifically said that I wasn't
>>By the way, I can't beleive that although I specifically said that I wasn't
>>saying anything bad about sampling,
>
>...but you were. Basically, your argument came down to "it would be ok if
>he said it, but instead he sampled it so it is crap". Which seems an
>attack on sampling...
i thought he meant this: "i thought he did it one way, but found he
did it another and it changed how i thought about it"
-adam
--
Adam Piontek [
http://www.tcinternet.net/users/damek/]
ICQ: 3456339 [damek@earthling.net]
... "Evidence is worthless if you're dead!" - Scully
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org