[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: cold coffee mutterings.
"l. godlove" writes:
>the gist would have been:
>Over the Rhine = artists = their work.
> not ours. they can do whatever the hell they
>want to with their stuff, really...
Thank you thank you thank you! I've been trying to find a nice way to
point this out for a while now.
>I can't figure out any of it. how much of the work
>the artist creates is theirs, how much belongs to the
>audience, the reader, the possesser of it? is it
>still theirs, even when they give it away? in that
>sence, are all of Klimt and Chagall and Van Gough
>still very much theirs despite that they're dead and
>their stuffs hanging stoically in museums? is the art
>the personification of the subject? making the
>subject to real owner? argh...what's the point of my
>wondering...?
The way that I've always looked at it is, art work isn't *owned* by the
artist, but rather is an extension of self, of soul. There are certain
pictures that I've painted that I look at and say, That Is Me. Not, that
is how I feel or that painting effcts me emotionally, but that with that
painting, I took a piece of soul and put it on display. In that way, the
painting is an extention of myself. Where as a veiwer of it can identify
with the painting to extremely high degrees, but because they could never
have created that unique work, it is not an extension of themselves,
merely something that they identify with.
>and I ask you again:
> what makes Over the Rhine?
>is it words scrawled in the hand of Linford? the
>soulish voice of Karin? the six folks on stage, in
>lights? the folks that it has been? is it an
>essence--Michael Wilson photographs, tobacco boxes,
>sepia tones, and sunny orchards graced with apples?
Yes, but it is also that extension of their souls that combined in a
unique way to create over the rhine. We can only identify with that,
not be that.
Which is where I start haveing problems with the tribute album.
In a sence we're taking an artists work and perverting it with out their
permission. In general, I think that tribute albums are wrong to do
unless the artist is dead, or that group of artists has disbanded. Until
that point it feels to close to plagerizum for me, because that artist is
still out there creating, and still performing that song that we've then
taken and done and SOLD.
But because we're not keeping any of the profit from this
venture, I have alot less problems with it then I otherwise would.
My suggestion would be that someone talk to Linford and inform
him that we're recording the demo for this album. This gives him time to
discuss it with the rest of the band while we're doing the actuall
recording of it, and also time for him to even develop suggestions for
us. Then, when its recorded, give him the demo, and the band the right
to have the final yea or nae on whether we release the album (in addition
to their choice of charities).
Well, that's my soap box.
Take care guys!
jen
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
References: