On 6/23/07, Crosbie Fitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > peculiar that an artist would wish to overtly copy another's expression > except for practice or reference, i.e. that the implicit aspiration has > always been originality.
A lot of phases and schools of art have been based around communities of artists who explore visual theories or techniques as a community. Artists often train with a studio which has a feel or style. There is a culture of learning the craft of your community or school. Japanese and Chinese cultures have similar strong community and cultures of learning embedded in creating. I feel that this is at least as strong a tradition as the idea of the lone artist or inventor. We probably have a mix of both. I dont see why either should be the only way. The community of people who are collaborating on building the Sagrada Familia are learning skills together and learning about the math and engineering of Gaudi. Impressionists, Expressionists, Cubists, Dada, Pop Art, Mashups, We are all making and all exist as children of the culture we have been born into. It is a sad thing for a generation to feel the only way that they can secure their own creativity is to steal the opportunity to participate from the next generations. The photo of a mother's ultrascan belongs to the radiographer. Big deal. The image also has a wonderful and powerful meaning for the people in and around that image from a social perspective. Creation is a part of our interaction with each other. Defining images and ideas and as something which can be fenced by one person breaks much of who we are as a community. Copyright is breaking because we can now implement it fully and that in itself is making the problems more obvious. We need to make business AND community. Culture and participation as well as investment in innovation. Freedom should not be the price of profit. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
