RoR: Forum

"I expect some blowback on this one from those who might consider this kind of thing to be vile and terribly insulting."

Well, you nominated that last phrase, so I don't have to come up with it. Yes, it's terribly insulting.

Aside from your comments being not at all poetic, and not working to carry across the sound of a pithy metaphor, wherein Ehrmann succeeded on far more than a few occasions ... it's a matter of scrawling, and not just figuratively, on someone else's creation.

I'd be enraged if this were done to a painting I admired. It's just as pointless here.

There's nothing in this poem that needs "revision." It embodies a viewpoint of quiet inquiry, reflection, and generosity of spirit that stands on its own.

And, as it happens, these are all quite different, especially the last, from the thrusts of Objectivist analysis and commentary.

(Nobody I've met in the O-milieu has appreciated the worth of aphorisms, even though Rand came up with some excellent ones herself in her novels.)

My admiration for Ehrmann's creation preceded knowing about Rand at all, and it may well outlive my weariness with her and with her elaborators. And as with Wynand talking about books he admired at sixteen, I took in this poem at that age, and I still cherish it.

Write your own poem, please.

Post 1

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 - 4:09pm

Thanks for the feedback, Steve; honestly. I will try to take your advice.

Ed

Post 2

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 - 4:35pm

Would there have been any objection to this excercise had it been done in the poetry forum? I can easily see such an assignment in a poetry class. Regardless of the grade the work deserves, I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand as dishonest or mere plagiarism.

Post 3

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 - 4:56pm

Figure 17 Jake and Dinos Chapman
Insult to Injury (excerpt)
2003
Mixed Media

(The Chapman wankers having a go at "improving" Goya's etching.)

The original etching below.

(Edited by Newberry on 1/14, 8:05am)

Post 4

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 - 6:59pm

Since a post, like art, is selective, and you have selected to post that here, should Ed take it that you see his efforts as a deliberate attempt at defacing the work which he used as the subject of his excercise?

Or do you think the modified Goya was meant in good faith?

Or was it just a random post, that somehow ended up on Ed's blog?

One need not think Ed actually succeeded in improving the poem. But is there any reason to accuse him of bad faith?

Post 5

Wednesday, January 14, 2009 - 3:41am

Thanks for defending me, Ted. Not just because it's me, but because I had (probably) been wronged.

I won't forget it.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/14, 3:46am)

Post 6

Wednesday, January 14, 2009 - 5:34am

Ed, I don't see how you were "wronged." Please clarify this. You did ask for reactions. I'd say that thus far they've been reasonable and quite restrained from what they could have been.

Newberry was making his own implicit and quite arch comment about what some do to others' work in order to make a quite different point.

As for Ted's comments, I'll only note that � if this was, in fact, at issue in his own response � I did not accuse Ed of "dishonesty," "plagiarism," or "bad faith."

I said that I saw this revision as ending up being insulting to the original writer, lacking a productive point in its result, and less worthwhile than creating one's own poem. Those are quite different claims.

I have to note that this is making me want to post some long-standing thoughts about the whole phenomenon of "fan fiction." This ends up being another process of artistic "revision," though notably further removed in making use of others' creations.

Fan fiction can be � regarding its sources � productive or pointless, respectful or abusive, or anywhere in between these extremes. It's fraught with much more risk than many realize. I say this having perpetrated one such lengthy work myself {ironic smile}

And I admit to being surprised that nobody has yet brought up ... Prescott, Webb, and "We want to express our individuality, too."

Post 7

Wednesday, January 14, 2009 - 5:47am

Is this to imply works cannot be improved?
[see Opp-Art]

Post 8

Wednesday, January 14, 2009 - 8:39am

"I expect some blowback on this one from those who might consider this kind of thing to be vile and terribly insulting."

"...my only response is that I still am selectively recreating reality according to my own metaphysical value-judgements; I'm just selecting to recreate another's work..."

Post 9

Thursday, January 15, 2009 - 7:43am

Steve,

I didn't mean that you wronged me, I meant that Newberry did.

Newberry did what he did because he is a professional artist. No, that's not quite right. I mean, it's right, he's a professional (and a very good one) -- but he didn't do what he did because he's a professional, he did it because he's an "artist." You see, artists are not just a kind of people that re-create reality according to their value-judgments, they also often replace reality according to their value-judgments. They often have a "good imagination" -- IF you know what I mean. The perjorative term is "magical thinkers."

So, when Newberry comes in here and gives a "1000-word" rebuttal (assuming any picture is worth that) just as he did -- twice -- then he's using his imaginative powers to integrate what I did with folks who draw a mustache on the Mona Lisa. He's going down an existentialist hole wherein whatever art that folks create is kind of sacred merely because it came from their imaginative "insides."

Folks who haven't "walked the walk" (through the latest post-modern art museum or whatever) are considered "outsiders" and should ne'er judge the express magnificence that flows from the "revered." It's cosmopolitan snobbery, really.

Ed

p.s. Thanks to R. Malcom (another artist who participates here) for providing an improved example of "how to treat the art of others."

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/15, 7:48am)

Post 10

Thursday, January 15, 2009 - 8:11am

Opportunity Knocks -- by Edward Thompson, 2009

***************************
I sit at my table in the morning.
Though it's cold outside, the birds are still singing.
The sun shines in through my window;
And I am reminded of opportunity.

Before me is a new book.
Already in disagreement with it --
Yet I covet it like gold;
And I am reminded of opportunity.

My notes fill in all the margins,
As if I am trying to erase their blankness.
The black and white words come colorfully alive for me;
And I am reminded of opportunity.

I look forward at my computer.
A thousand voices are chattering inside.
Able to reach out with the stroke of mere keys;
And I am reminded of opportunity.
***************************

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/15, 8:15am)

Post 11

Thursday, January 15, 2009 - 8:54am

What's that - the opening to your next commencement speech? ;-)

Post 12

Thursday, January 15, 2009 - 10:05am

Rev',

Think of me like I was a latent homosexual, who finds a 'sham security' in his overt expression of homophobia. My distaste with much art -- and with many artists -- is like that, I suspect. Deep-down, I burn to express my potential and my creativity. So, in the meantime, I find a temporary solace in talking blithely about the art of others.

I believe I am a latent artist. Perhaps when I get more creative and produce more art, I'll quit looking for imperfections in the work of others. Until then, I may step on some toes and show apparent disrespect, but life is a process.

:-)

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/15, 10:09am)

Post 13

Thursday, January 15, 2009 - 10:20am

It may seem strange, in light of the millenia of art, but we are actually on a frontier of art, of finally seeing the nature and means of what its purpose is, why, and how to go about best in the 'showing'... most artists still labor, erroneously, in the notion that scenes, for example, if well rendered, complete a work of art, or that propaganda is fine art, or even that illustration is fine art [it is a border case, the best being so, but most not]... they've not learned, less accepted, that the nature of creativity is not to copy or deal in fantasy, that there is a difference between imaginating and fantasizing, and that the medium used is not the criteria for determining fine art from lesser forms of art... it is, in other words, a 'new frontier', an opening of opportunity of exploring new vistas, showing new possibilities, encouraging greater discernment and precision and more mindfulness in fine art, and the other arenas of art... more so in fact, than in the other philosophical branches - precisely because it is the essence of individualism, of exemplifying the practicality of the ethical code of rational self-interest... of, indeed, being a 'spiritual visualizer'�....

Post 14

Thursday, January 15, 2009 - 10:32am

I have always thought of you as a latent homosexual, Ed.

Post 15

Thursday, January 15, 2009 - 11:02am

Ed, I didn't like your revision, even if I liked what you were trying to say. But THIS is MUCH better. And I don't even like poetry that much. :)

Post 16

Thursday, January 15, 2009 - 12:17pm

Ed,
If you had simply said "Here are my thoughts while reading Desiderata, in brackets" instead of saying "Here's my revision...." and then inviting criticism all would be well. And that's exactly what you did, reprinted the poem with your contemplative remarks. That's how I took it and I cannot see in any stretch of imagination any insult given or intended. Steve's reference to "generosity of spirit" seems to me pure hypocrisy. I like your poem. I like you even though I think you are a work in progress and your stance on intelligence of animals borders on bigotry in a small way. I'm actually quite fond of you sometimes.....

Post 17

Thursday, January 15, 2009 - 2:21pm

Thanks Rev', Ted, Joe, and Mike!

You guys are "the goods."

Ed

Post 18

Thursday, January 15, 2009 - 7:51pm

Ed,

It really isn't about you. It's an ethical issue--you have no moral right to write, draw, compose, or otherwise edit another�s work. (There are tons of exceptions, like in cases where there are different published endings, cadanzas, writer�s editors, and so forth�but I am sure as hell not going to let you into my studio with an oil dipped brush!) You don�t take a Beethoven symphony, and replace bits that you don�t like. It�s the anthisis of respect to the artist. You should simply create your own fucking work�apparently as you have just done�)

Far from being unkind, I am advising you that appropreiation is not the way to be an artist.

Michael

Post 19

Thursday, January 15, 2009 - 11:59pm