Copyright is Out of Sight

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

For the reasons stated.

Sorry, "reasons" aren't facts. The argument doesn't hold. Commercialism doesn't negate art. Art is creativity, whatever the intention behind it.

[spellbanisher]

On music, I'm not sure i would apply the same standards as I would to other art forms. Writing is intellectual, regardless of what novelists tell you, because it requires readers to make judgments (on how to use the symbols) after every line and phrase. Paintings and other visual arts are physical representations of a persons view of reality, a window into another persons mind (and hence intellectual). But music seems a purely evocative and sensuous medium. I can listen to a song sung in a language I don't understand and still be moved by the song; it's melody, it's rhythms and tone can still speak to me, whereas a novel written in a language that I can't understand is worthless to me unless someone else translates it or I learn the language. Music is supposed to evoke emotions and feelings. I just don't see how a musician can be considered a sell-out when they go commercial. The musicians we call "sell-outs" are artists who have decided they will not continue to make the same music that you like for the rest of their life.

A popular book is like a charismatic person who is generally well-liked because he has personality traits that are considered desirable. My favorite books are the ones that feel like they have been written specifically to me, instead of generally for everyone, like i have met a kindred spirit. These are the books that may have traits that are generally not considered all that desirable. Maybe the book is a little shy, not giving away anything too easily. Maybe the book is a little cranky, having fits and bouts of unwieldy writing. Maybe the book is a little too weird, or doesn't quite follow conventions like everyone expects a good book to. Maybe the book is a little rude, or insensitive, maybe it has a quirky sense of humor, or comes off as distant and aloof. I love these books because they have personality, because they don't follow every rule and convention, because they don't wear name brand clothes and speak with the cool kids slang, because they are a little awkward and goofy. A popular book is a fun and safe acquaintance. A popular book is good for parties and one night stands. A forgotten or overlooked book is often a potential soul mate, something that will stay will you for the rest of your life.

[dmikov]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Sorry, "reasons" aren't facts. The argument doesn't hold. Commercialism doesn't negate art. Art is creativity, whatever the intention behind it.

Craft is also a creativity, art is more. Not going to repeat what many people in this thread already said about art. You cannot see distinction it's ok, others can.
And if you need facts and not reasons, just read some popular books (or trying to be popular ) and tell me that's art. That's enough facts for me at least.
And if you are not against drawing parallels and conclusions from other art forms look what Hollywood done to movies as art form - amputated it would be a mild way of putting it - in pursuit of popularity and money.

[spellbanisher]

I generally distinguish between three kinds of "art." There is "art" that is meant to provide immediate gratification or pleasure and to be safe and comforting. I generally call this entertainment.

There is "art" that is instructive or critical. This is mostly self explanatory; these works seek to instruct, to teach, to compel. They can also critique society. Works such as 1984, The Jungle, And Uncle Tom's Cabin fall into this category, and perhaps could even be called propaganda. Most of Dickens works would fall into this category, because his purpose was to critique society. However, it could also be argued that Dickens was actually articulating his own worldview and philosophy which he thought were eternal truths, which fall into the three category which is

Works that strive for eternal truth or aesthetic bliss. In sense, these works attempt to expand our sphere of consciousness and reality, and to achieve aesthetic bliss is to reach a state of being or spirituality that is impossible to define and impossible to achieve through other activities. Great poetry and great music can fall into this category. I think linguistically experimental novels also fall into this category, because they push language to its limit, and language is the basis of human society, the way we communicate with others (sex is also how we communicate) and the way we define who we are, what we feel, and what we believe. To expand ones knowledge and mastery of language is to expand ones mental universe. Generally, I would say the works of Shakespeare, the metaphysical poets, the Romantic poets, and modernist novels like Ulysses, Mrs. Dalloway, and In Search of Lost Time (or Remembrance of Things Past) fall into the third category. Pure mathematics can also be considered a form of art. This might sound counterintuitive, but if you accept Leguin's definition that "art is that which attempts to express in words what cannot be expressed in words" then mathematics is art because it attempts to explain the truths of the universe.

Some works, of course, straddle the lines between categories. Comical novels for instance, are primarily made to make people laugh (thus making them part of the first category) by critiquing the foibles and follies of society (thus meeting the criteria for the second category). I guess if the novelist is skilled enough he could write a comical that is also linguistically experimental, but I suppose it would very difficult to write in a language that extraordinarily unusual yet still able to make people laugh.

I would also say that the great nineteenth Century Russian writer (Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Turgenev) are second/third category writers. All of them critique their society with their novels, but they also seek ultimate truth and answers to how man can achieve the good life.

Note that this is not a hierarchy. The third category is not superior to the first category, and vice versa.

[wyndslash]

What spell said

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by wyndslash

What spell said

You're very wise, Wynd.

[wyndslash]

Indeed xD but jump on the hot new topic in the news subforum

[spellbanisher]

This is the hot topic, now and forever more.

[wyndslash]

Lol! Giggleton's words will live forever

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by wyndslash

Lol! Giggleton's words will live forever

He truly is a prophet.

[wyndslash]

A teller of things to come

[spellbanisher]

His giggles echoes into eternity.

[wyndslash]

And beyond!

[Giggleton]

lol!!

I think everything is art, the double exclamation points above, a form of art.

There's independent and mainstream art, all art starts out as independent, from within the creator, over time art will tend towards the mainstream as it builds an audience.

Is the art discussion relating to how the artists are going to be paid in the coming copyright free world? I believe a strong AI will take care of that problem, but in lieu of that a more encompassing facebook-like like button might be enough.

I mean really, how many of us have bought a book, read a chapter or two and then said "nuts to this!"

Wouldn't it make more sense to have all books available, let everyone read everything they want and then allow us to say "I liked this book, go ahead and send a bit of my monthly content allowance to the author."

On the surface it sounds like a simple subscription plan and it might be just that, it would have to be implemented on a shoestring budget though I am sure, at least in the beginning. But what is up with all this greed anyway?

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Groucho54

Yeah, but I know of someone who wrote one hit song.. and he get's £120,000 per annum from that and has done since 1968!

Now that's OK but really was one pop song worth that and should one pop song provide an income for life?

OK he's done a lot before and since and still plays gigs and works hard but the performing rights from a song... are they a measure of worth?

If his song creates that kind of wealth, why not? What about a sports star that rakes in 100 million a year? If he or she can generate enough income money for advertisers -- then yes, they are worth it.

While I know some workers who get only 1000 each month but their work is worth less than that for the company, if you really analyze it. It is not about the effort put in, it is about the wealth created by work performed that determines it's "fair" monetary value. If a book sells well (instead of just being given away for free) it creates value for society. It generates income for many people involved in its creation or distribution.

And for those of you who are disgusted by artists and writers who try to be popular there are still plenty of options for you. It is obvious, of course, that the most popular books are not the ones with the highest artistic value. Writers are still free to strive for artistic value, and even some great books are making money. And I am sure their authors are very happy about it.