to me, its close to ripping people off
you remove a piece of audio from its context, and you've divested the
creator from the sound with almost 100% efficiency
I see the point - but there are whole schools of art which purposely
divest an object from its context to recontextualize it/present it in
entirely different ways as a whole other work of art, often 'commenting'
on the source via the new context.
The difference I can see is that your Lichtensteins and Warhols -
as well as all manner of audio sampling which lends itself to
trainspotting - use enough of the borrowed text to comment/wink inside
of the new frame.
What emerges from Hawtin's process is not the same kind of art; we
don't recognize the sources, so those references from the first context
are gone until we look on the liner notes, for the most part.
It seems to me like Hawtin is immersed in the
philosophy/concept/possibilities inherent in what he is doing less than
exactly how it functions when it lands.
As long as he's clear about his sources, he can't be accurately labeled
a plagiarizer. The notion of it is interesting in a poststructural kinda
way, regardless of the mix. <dux>
