my response to the following lies after it:
quoted 20 lines the piece of art be effected? It can't. Art is about the> the piece of art be effected? It can't. Art is about the
> expreience inside
> the brains of the people experiencing the art not the pieces
> themselves.
> And objects of art cant have experiences, thats just stupid.
>
> Is a Bach CD not a work of art because it was not originally
> released on CD
> therefore the actual work of art must be the original sheet music or
> somesuch?
> I think not, the art that is music is the Sound. Sound does not exist
> outside
> of the human brain. The packaging might be pretty to look at,
> even in some
> cases
> art, but it has nothing at the end of the day to do with the music.
> Appreciation of music is not affected by the fact that it was
> originaly
> bought
> in a shop or wether it was downloaded off the internet.
i agree. but, that said, can't we conclude that since the 'art' itself is
the sound in the context of the human brain, then when you dl something from
napster, as soon as you play it and listen to it and enjoy it without paying
for it, you're getting the art for free? and if you think it makes sense
for the artist to be paid for you becoming an audience to that art, and if
there isn't (philosophically) a difference between the art as packaged in a
CD or LP or when its packaged in an MP3 file on my harddrive, shouldn't i
pay for either one?
i don't know, i'm feeling a little hungover, just a thought
k
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org