johnnyshape wrote:Sample and have a hit = get sued, usually rightly so.

Sample, not a hit = don't get sued, world keeps on turning.

Define 'hit' as you will. I believe this debate is actually entirely about money, and very simple for it. The aesthetics can be debated separately and at length, but away from me thanks. Is someone else losing money you are gaining? Then you probably owe it them.
Everything else keeps faculties in business and sociological brains taxed, rarely to much value or interest to the world at large.

Yes, yes, the last 3 pages of discussion was just the disinterested bullshit of some wannabe eggheads. Especially that LAD, what a dick.

Subtract your posts and 100% of the content of this board is not of "much value or interest to the world at large."

Everyone but you should shut up, log off, and recount their money.

"Everyone but you should shut up, log off, and recount their money. "
_________________

hey hey hey now... there'll be time enough for counting when the discussin's done...

thank you all for the interest in my question, you guys have really helped me think about stuff and just want to say a big thanks
lynx

I expect we'll all be compensated in some way, right?

well, im sure i would answer anyone elses questions if they were stuck:)

always here to help

Oh, boy. The thing is, you admit you don't read, so I wouldn't expect you to come to the conclusions that most people do. Where to start?

toomanyhelicopters wrote:by photographing the car, you're no more ripping off the car's designer than you are ripping off the photographer who took the picture of the girl and put it on a billboard.

A designer is an artist of a sort. He or she designs (creates) a product to sell and once someone pays for that product, the rights to it are forfeited by the original creator (designer). That is pretty basic, right? I mean, you couldn't design a car and then keep the manufacturer (your boss) from making the car, right? A car is (wait for it) not a work of art. Nope. No matter how many times you call it one, it is not. Not because you sell it. No no, we're not going there. Because the artist has given up the rights to it. Like Thomas Kinkade, Painter of Light (surely you've heard of him?). He used to paint, now his images are being used to hawk statues of tractors and fairies and puppies and shit.

tmh wrote:because it's all synthetic, it's all someone taking what came before them and building on it. find me the person whose art is purely creative in the first place, is not just their own angle on something that's already been done (and possibly done to death), and we'll all give them a big round of applause.

Those letters have been used before. So have those words. You see?

Again, if you had read (Art 101), you would realize that art is based on the building off of tradition, off of what has been done before. That's the only way to recognize when something is done really well; when it jumps off from what has been done into what hasn't. To atomize each jump-off point is to miss the big picture, which is to miss the beauty of art. I mean, you play bass right? Why? Hasn't someone already done that? You see why these semantic nitpick arguments don't get any closer to truth? Obfuscation only serves as intellectual tennis. By robots. Tennis robots. Back and forth, what's the point? Go to the museum and get lost in some great art. Who cares that someone took a picture before someone else - open yourself up to the truth in beauty.

lyn wrote:well, im sure i would answer anyone elses questions if they were stuck:)

always here to help

how about your opinion on the Bible as literature ?

Dylan wrote:Again, if you had read (Art 101), you would realize that art is based on the building off of tradition, off of what has been done before. That's the only way to recognize when something is done really well; when it jumps off from what has been done into what hasn't. To atomize each jump-off point is to miss the big picture, which is to miss the beauty of art. I mean, you play bass right? Why? Hasn't someone already done that? You see why these semantic nitpick arguments don't get any closer to truth? Obfuscation only serves as intellectual tennis. By robots. Tennis robots. Back and forth, what's the point? Go to the museum and get lost in some great art. Who cares that someone took a picture before someone else - open yourself up to the truth in beauty.

Bravisimo Dylan!

dylan. well put. so then the answer to her (?) question is "yes, taking a photo of a photo is a new form of art, and for the first person who does it, it's done really well because it is jumping off into something new, and after that it becomes progressively less well done because it's not new". um, heh? that's what your statement ("That's the only way to recognize when something is done really well; when it jumps off from what has been done into what hasn't.") suggests. to me anyways.

also, i don't understand your explanation of how a car designer is not an artist because he sells the rights to his design to a car manufacturer. doesn't a photographer sell the rights to his photo to the soap company that puts it on a billboard? is he no longer an artist? when a musician's songs belong to the publishing company, the musician is no longer an artist? i think i'm clearly not understanding this correctly.

ultimately, i have the good fortune of not truthfully fancying myself an artist. so i really don't have to worry about the history and tradition of what's been done. the only folks who really *have* to know that history are folks who fancy themselves artists, or who want to teach art history. i don't think that any aspect of my music is wholly creative and free of influence (i.e. i've listened to too many bands' music before) nor do i think there's actually anything truly "new" left to do in the context of a rock band, or in music for that matter. maybe there is, maybe it'll be a cross between the boredoms and the new year and britney spears or something. of course it's still a synthesis. everything is synthetic. my point that i was aiming for was this: there's nothing wrong with a photographer choosing a photograph as his subject matter, it's still art just the same. it's just probably gonna be lame.

everything and anything is art, if it thinks it is. it's just a question of whether it's living in the past, breaking free from the past, or oblivious to the past history and tradition. of course in principle, thinking for myself, i believe the best art, by your definition ("That's the only way to recognize when something is done really well; when it jumps off from what has been done into what hasn't.") should come from people who are jumping off from what's been done because they don't KNOW what's been done, and they're forced to come up with their own ideas moreso, and are less able to come up with something 'new' as a reaction to 'what has been done'.

like tennis robots. this intrigues me. i think there's more merit to the creation of an installation of robots that play tennis against each other than to any photograph i can recall seeing. that would be art!

i just went to the hirschorn a couple months ago. i saw TONS of photographs. the one thing i remember best was a giant painting, probably 20' x 20', that had a box sticking out of it. as far as asthetics go, it was great to look at. in general, most of the stuff there was rather boring. most art is rather boring to me. very little of it stands out and grabs me.

toomanyhelicopters wrote:also, i don't understand your explanation of how a car designer is not an artist because he sells the rights to his design to a car manufacturer. doesn't a photographer sell the rights to his photo to the soap company that puts it on a billboard? is he no longer an artist? when a musician's songs belong to the publishing company, the musician is no longer an artist? i think i'm clearly not understanding this correctly.

(biting off a chunk)
A car designer works for the car manufacturer. The rights to the design do not belong to the designer. The photographer sells the rights to the advertiser, but retains limited rights to further reproduction. Or not, depending on the contract. The songwriter sells the rights to reproduce the music to a label, but retains the rights of ownership to that particular sequence of sounds and non-sounds. Each person is an artist in their own way, but each has different methods of keeping their work as their own.