howl! the lower east side spectacle
mimus
wrote:
> quoth bbs.thing.net
>
>What will be the implications of this? This question is really "how
>shall we live?", and it might be heard plaintively voiced on the
>margins of the emergent discourse of cultural policy.
One item I'd like to see injected into this "emergent discourse" (gad)
is a little clause in the standard contract for, say, paintings or
sculptures that when such paintings or sculptures are resold the
artist gets ten percent of the sale price.
Ditto on patents.
And where patents are held by the original individual inventor they
should be valid as long as and in the same terms as copyrights,
instead of seventeen years, which is a total ripoff of the scientific
and technical creativity on which all our lives fundamentally depend..
> I expect that
>our commercial culture will become more inventive, and ever more
>alluring, since more artists must work more hours for corporate
>masters to gain their living.
Um, no, their efforts will still have to be passed on by the same
management, "creative review boards" (snicker), boards of directors,
owners . . . .
> Again, exploitation of creative youth,
>apparently perceived to be a limitless resource.
Um . . . if they're gettin' paid, "exploitation" is not exactly _prima
facie_ the word . . . .
> And our public
>culture will become more impoverished and less progressive since city
>artists will have little leisure to play with ideas that won't butter
>their bread.
The real ideas will take over the artists or inventors involved,
ruining their lives, as usual-- at least until payday, if it ever
comes.
> Only those who are already leisured will have that
>opportunity.
If you mean those who are living on the proceeds of their previous
efforts, so what? if you mean those who live on inherited wealth, what
percentage of substantive art or technological innovation comes from
that group?
> Advanced art will be even more a product of the
>privileged classes, or it will come from outside New York.
What a frightening thought, that last one-- you can tell it's
practically apocalyptic to the author.
An interesting "howl", overall, provoked, I take it, by some sorta NYC
cut in public arts funding.
But, frankly, copyrights and patents replace patrons, whether wealthy,
corporate or governmental, in this modern era (the last two or three
hundred years).
And until an artist's art, or an inventor's inventing, can support his
or her further and undivided efforts, it's "Hold on to your day job"
time.
How terrible a fate is that?
smeeter 11 or maybe 12
mp 10
mhm 29x13
"What is art to me and my way of living?"
replied the tumblebug, wearily.
< _Jurgen_
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----