O for criminy sakes, Miller, I don't copyright my scribbling here to cash in later date but to prevent others, not as smart, from cashing in on my work and plagiarizing it. Simple. There's no money in art writing anyway. Everybody knows that.
How can you write a decent review of art, as you did about my shows, and then go off on a Smokey Stover wacky path proclaming copyright law being somehow about filthy money that ruins art? Is this some sort of Luther act, as if copyrights and protection of artists' intellectual property and their right to earn a living by it is analogous to selling in indulgences, the selling of spiritual salvation? Once you write something sensible, like your published art journalism, it becomes the new Miller threshold and you can't revert to blockheaded ideas again. OK? WC --- On Tue, 2/24/09, Chris Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: It only makes sense that you would borro w from the past, take > w hat s best, what evoke s a response in yo urself from the > To: [email protected] > Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2009, 1:18 PM > Cheerskep, regarding what you call a "dismaying > non-sequitur": > > We can agree that there is no causal connection between > copyrights and "who > knows how many children who died under the age of > ten". > > But -- as you have been asserting, copyrights are a > necessary condition for a > writer to make money. > > So we can then ask how much more a writer might have > accomplished if > copyrights had not enabled money making to be a > (distracting) possibility. > > The connection between art and money is fascinating because > people have such > strong and often contradictory opinions about it. > > On the one hand, someone, like William, will > self-righteously decry the crass > monetization of the art market -- and then, turn around, > and rather > whimsically,copyright everything he says online, in the > hopes, one assumes, of > cashing in at some later date. > > In bourgeois society, money establishes status. > > So there is something shameful about not making it, and > something > unquestionably distinctive about a high income, regardless > of how > it was made. > > But, I think we need to move beyond that, and attach > distinction to quality. > > In India, the word for that would be "dharma". > > Good art/music/literature is the appropriate contribution > of the > artist/musician/writer, Whether the artist dies very rich > (Andrew Lloyd > Webber) or penniless (Mozart). > > (and think of what Webber could have written if he > hadn't been so dedicated to > making cheesy hit musicals) > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Click to learn about options trading and get the latest > information. > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxUZ1nCesoa4hOn7Va4OUZJTY > U8xoXlxLySV2wLZBRXb4FotEleEDW/
