RoR: Forum

I disagree with Mr. Newberry. Ed didn't "write, draw, compose, or otherwise edit another�s work" - not in the sense that would be morally contravened. He was extremely clear in giving credit and praise for the original work and in his intent to show a difference he clearly indicating as his and not the artists. He never claimed credit for what wasn't his, he didn't take from another what didn't belong to him and he didn't deface the work of another out of malice or to be a vandal. Which made the display of those two vandalized paintings inappropriate to the context.

The inspiration of the poem and its value are not gone or hijacked. Ed's observations are his own and stand on their own. He did what he did because he admired what he read and wanted to see it more closely conform to beliefs he holds dear. All of this was obvious and I think the that the other Steve and Mr. Newberry were harsh and off track in their comments. Both of them are sufficiently eloquent when they desire, and could have expressed their dislike of that form of expression in a way that recognized Ed's admiration and honesty.

Myself, I like Ed's intent - the increase in moral content, but I like that poem in it's original form and feel that his attempt takes away poetic value. Good try, Ed, but no cigar :-)

Post 21

Friday, January 16, 2009 - 2:05pm

Exactly.

I appoint Steve as my intellectual heir.

Until such time as I find it convenient to repudiate him irrevocably.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 1/16, 2:58pm)

Post 22

Friday, January 16, 2009 - 3:54pm

Wikipediartists and their admirers! Heaven help us. :)

Michael

Post 23

Friday, January 16, 2009 - 4:47pm

Ted, can I request an early repudiation, just to relieve us all of any tensions or worries and save the intellectual world from having to chew on such a contentious and weighty bone?

(However, should such a bequest be accompanied by any monetary considerations, consider me your grateful recipient and ignore the sentence above.)

Post 24

Friday, January 16, 2009 - 4:51pm

I would be glad to issue a temporary repudiation. Irrevocable repudiations must be earned. Maybe if you get the Welshman blocked for his uncivil vandalism of your talk page.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 1/16, 4:52pm)

Post 25

Saturday, January 17, 2009 - 5:07am

Art as in poetry, painting is a personal expression�like a thumbprint of the of the creator�s soul. My sympathy, like Steve Reed�s, lies with Ehrmann. I don�t think painting or poetry can withstand two personalities without becoming schizophrenic-- a state characterized by the coexistence of contradictory or incompatible elements. I don�t think Steve Wolfer should have any trouble comprehending this concept with his background in psychology, but he may not have the ability to see the symptoms in art. My rejection of the aesthetic of correcting parts you don�t like in another�s work has nothing to do with good or bad craftsmanship.

I am trying to help Ed not make art even more difficult than it already is by making clear that appropriation is neither moral or mentally helpful�but then, Ed may feel that he doesn�t have a unique soul, just some wet clay bearing the marks of being trodden upon? If that is the case, Ed can continue on his surreal path, or get in touch with his unique self and try his best to create solely from there.

Michael

(Edited by Newberry on 1/17, 5:08am)

Post 26

Saturday, January 17, 2009 - 2:49pm

Mr. Newberry, I agree completely with your analysis of good art only bearing the imprint of the creator's soul... And I believe that I do see the symptoms of such a 'schizophrenic' product (but, perhaps not as keenly as an artist, or with the same emotional impact).

I don't know for sure what Ed's motivations were, apart from being sure that they were benevolent and not underhanded. Was he offering us a view of what he would like the poem to have been more like, and not pretending to any artistic heights of his own? Was he attempting to show us some intellectual awareness cast in what he hoped was a budding artistic achievement? Did he feel like his additions were of literary merit? I don't know.

But I do know that while Ed's efforts did not make it for me as art, they also did not register as a violation of individual rights. "Appropriation" means to take as one's own - as in theft, as in taking credit by not revealing that it was written by another. That is where your criticism is overly harsh. Why call Ed a thief? He just posted a type of composition that would never work for the reason you eloquently described. Without some degree of intent to steal, it isn't proper to chastise in the terms you used.

Ted said it best when he mentioned that it was the kind of thing that might have been assigned as a class exercise in English Lit.

Post 27

Saturday, January 17, 2009 - 3:03pm

Indeed - in fact, what is the difference if any between what Ed did, and what John did in Opp-Art?

Post 28

Sunday, January 18, 2009 - 7:48am

Guys,

I appreciate everything being said here.

I didn't mean for my post-hoc analysis of/addendum to Desiderata to actually be a new work of art built on the foundation of the old -- not in the same vein as a created poem (see my post 10). I kept every word of Desiderata intact and merely added notes in brackets just like I do when reading a book and leaving my notes in the margins. Since there are no available margins on this website, I used brackets. On that note, it's very much like a school assignment in English Literature (as has been said).

The reason I pre-emptively said all that stuff about folks getting huffy about this, is because it's been my experience that folks sometimes get huffy about this.

The reason I chose Desiderata is because I'm in love with it. I really love the thing for it's wisdom (which is noted in my original post).

Sometimes we treat our friends or loved ones more harshly than our enemies, because we see the potential value in our friends and are willing to invest in our friends. What's good in our lives gets the most scrutiny, the bad or the evil simply gets disregarded. Rand was somewhat mean or harsh toward the philosophies closest to Objectivism -- e.g., Conservatism and Libertarianism -- precisely because they were close enough to philosophical perfection (i.e., Objectivism) to be accidentally mistaken for it; which would be disastrous.

And just like that, Desiderata was close enough to perfection for me to care immensely about it (and, therefore, to publically scrutinize it).

Ed

p.s. If any of you ever get scrutinized by me (if I harangue or harass you), then take that as the highest compliment -- because it proves that I value you.

;-)

***********************
Edit: This post crossed in cyberspace with Michael's post 29.

Michael, I consider myself more like Blade (Wesley Snipes). I have the thirst of a vampire, but also the virtue required to create my own "serum." A contrasting view would be that of Louis de Pointe du Lac (Brad Pitt) who got nourished from drinking rat blood (which sucks). I assume my use of these movies (i.e., of "art") to make point clear is not only fair game but also in the same spirit of this blog -- i.e., using art (even other's art) to communicate values.
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/18, 8:14am)

Post 29

Sunday, January 18, 2009 - 7:52am

We are talking at cross contexts here. Steve W. and Ted think that the motives are what matter, and I am pointing out that regardless of motive, the act is theft; the stealing of another's spirit--like a vampire. Maybe Ed could do a series of vampire self portraits? Variations on the many ways to suck the life force out of another being�s art? Unable to live by recreating reality, the vampire watches the flourishing creators for opportunity to sink his fangs under their skin and drain their passion for life. Of course, the vampire doesn�t have evil motives, it is in his nature, he cannot help himself. In fact, he honors, admires, and, even gives his victims credit �if they didn�t have a thriving essence they would not be of any use to him.

�Ted said it best when he mentioned that it was the kind of thing that might have been assigned as a class exercise in English Lit.�

Undoubtedly, I would ask the teacher if they have ever written a fucking thing from scratch. :)

Edit note: Ed's and my note were posted simulaneously. :)

(Edited by Newberry on 1/18, 8:14am)

Post 30

Sunday, January 18, 2009 - 11:03am

In defense of my actions I hereby bring out evidence from the good book of success ("Outliers") from an ivory-tower liberal, Malcolm Gladwell. Ivory-tower liberals aren't totally useless to the heroes on planet earth (i.e., to the folks found here and elsewhere) -- they are sources of information, just like anyone, potentially, is.

In his ground-breaking book about how society is an actual being which "takes care" of it's children (i.e., citizens, subjects, etc) ... okay ... that's unjust. I'm sorry. I'm 41 pages into the thing and should really read the whole book before possibly (de-)moralizing him as an author/artist. Anyhoo, Gladwell is a source of information, and he has information about great artists.

For example, Mozart got his great start as an artist by first focusing on the art of others (just like I did here) ...

"Many of Wolfgang's childhood compositions, such as the first seven of his concertos for piano and orchestra, are largely arrangements of works by other composers. Of those concertos that only contain music original to Mozart, the earliest that is now regarded as a masterwork (No. 9, K. 271) was not composed until he was twenty-one ..."--p 40-41

Apparently then, I am to poetry what Mozart was to symphony. No, that's too self-aggrandizing. Said another way, the difference between Mozart (music) and I (poetry) is merely a difference in degree -- which is not identifiably a difference in kind.

:-)

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/18, 11:07am)

Post 31

Sunday, January 18, 2009 - 11:44am

Ed, I was waiting for someone to bring up the musical equivalent...performances artists and musicians are often stamping their own views onto the composer's original...

Post 32

Sunday, January 18, 2009 - 12:22pm

Ed's version of Desiderata was presented to us as a revision, not a commentary. I don't think private efforts to change or improve a finished work of art are improper or immoral. That's as private efforts, note. Ed was claiming to improve the poem, and held his revision up as a work of art itself.
The revision is not a work of art, not even a poor or failed one. I think part of what offends in this is the very casual, and, ultimately, incompetent changes made to a genuine work of art. It is disrespectful of art as such.
The self-critical, striving, soul-stretching efforts of an artist are of a kind other work lacks. It is because there are no limits on artistic efforts, because anything is possible to the artist, that what he actually does is utterly revealing and personal.
If Ed actually appreciated Desiderata, he would have realized his comments were inappropriate. If he appreciated it, he would have discussed it rather than pretending to improve it. If he appreciated it, or poetry in general, he would have looked at his production as utterly unartistic.
Nor can he excuse his "revision" as the faltering first steps of a budding artist. (Not even by comparing himself to a 13-year-old girl.) The insertion of personal musings on reading a poem is in no way--except by blind presumption--artistic.

So when Ed says he differs from Mozart only in degree, he is comparing the proverbial monkey at the keyboard to Ayn Rand or Victor Hugo! Damnable presumption. Ed needs to produce a single piece of art, of poetry, in this case, before he can rightly think of himself as comparable by degree. Since it will spring to mind, the "poem" that repeats the line about thinking of opportunity is without artistic merit at all. I have tried to stay away from criticizing either of Ed's efforts, as it will be taken, largely, as vindictive. Sorry if I underestimate some people here, notice I said, "largely." But his presumption is becoming corrosive.
If anyone requests it, I'll post a formal critique of Ed's own poem.
The offense, then, that Ed gave when he posted his "improved" version of the poem was to the genuinely artistic achievement of the author, and to all art and artists. It is arguable whether that is what was in his heart, but his actions stand alone, apart from his motives.

Post 33

Sunday, January 18, 2009 - 12:59pm

What forum is this?

What part of "My revision" in his title is unclear?

Is this Ed's blog, or is it the poetry forum? Did Ed post this as a new work, or as a work in itself? There is a way to do that on this site - in a different forum. Ed invited us into his space here on this forum to comment on his own exploration of a work he admired.

So far as I know, the unanimous consensus is that he did not earn the cigar.

No one likes what he did.

To go beyond that, and attribute to him some evil motive in his act, rather than perhaps a bit of foolishness, is quite a stretch.
(Edited by Ted Keer on 1/18, 1:06pm)

Post 34

Sunday, January 18, 2009 - 2:35pm

Joe,

Before the NFC football championship game today, Jordin Sparks (hottie) sang an old song -- but in her own way. It was something about "the land of the free and the home of the brave." Anyway, she injected her own tone inflections; and she held notes either shorter or longer than its original composer had intended. She kind of made that song "her own."

Now, here's the $64,000 question:
Is that so wrong (to take another's work and add to or modify it), or is it -- counterinuitively -- absolutely the right thing for her to do?

:-)

Ed

Post 35

Sunday, January 18, 2009 - 2:35pm

Mr. Newberry accuses Ed of theft - a violation of individual rights. Maybe he is being 'artistic' with words, maybe he doesn't take them seriously. Maybe he is 'painting' with words such as to selectively recreate the actual reality. The heart of theft is getting between an individual and their ability to pursue their life by depriving them of their property. This obviously is NOT what happened.

Nor was there the spirit of theft since Ed laid no claim whatsoever to the work of another - he made clear what was his and what was not.

I have seen pages by Mr. Newberry where he illustrates principles of art by commenting on the work of others. He shows his own work on the same page. Does this implied grouping with great artists amount to spiritually stealing their greatness? No. He is always clear as to what is his and what is theirs, and thus leaving us free to judge for ourselves - as did Ed. That is the principle involved.

Those cute little remarks he made about vampires are just gratuitous insults since neither the author of the work nor any property rights holder had their spirit or blood sucked out of them.

His criticism of the revision would have been an informed opinion by someone of standing in the field of art. But the attacks on Ed's character are just sloppy reasoning - something one should never do when it might amount to character assassination.

Post 36

Sunday, January 18, 2009 - 2:53pm

Ted,

No one likes what he did.

And, thankfully, I didn't do what I did to be "liked!"

:-)

I have much more ingenius ways of sucking up to others -- to achieve that kind of a second-hander aim or goal! Like when I post a sideways smiley face, for instance. Now, I may not have CREATED the smiley face (or even the computer use of the sideways smiley face) -- but I do use it for my own purposes, and I do so unapologetically.

:-/

:-O

:-)

Ed

Post 37

Sunday, January 18, 2009 - 5:00pm

Steve,

We are speaking a dfferent language. Though I do understand what you are saying--but I don't see it as applicable to aesthetics.

Michael

(Edited by Newberry on 1/18, 8:07pm)

Post 38

Sunday, January 18, 2009 - 7:53pm

Thanks, Ed, for drawing our attention to the poem. Your revisions are to the point. Let me add my objection to a line in the original poem:

"...gracefully surrendering the things of youth."

Unless the author meant giving up 10 sugars in a single drink or playing with dolls and toy soldiers, I disagree with him.

I say never surrender the playful, spirited, fun-loving spirit of youth! Retain the wonderful belly-laugh, the spirit of adventure of seeing a new city, or the delight of a child constructing a plastic model of a a giant sailboat.

Here is a poem I wrote about the finite duration of life:
(I like the third line from the end.)

DEATH BRUSHED BY ME YESTERDAY

Death brushed by me yesterday,
It was the briefest meeting.
I hurried on along my way,
The encounter short and fleeting!

I didn't get to know it well,
Someday without a doubt I will.
They say it guards the gates of hell
Exulting at its latest kill.

No one's ever beaten death -
It hasn't lost a battle.
Even as we still draw breath
We're slaughter-bound like cattle.

Death finds its victims unprepared,
Their hopes and dreams yet unfulfilled,
Regretting deeds they wish they'd dared,
Their Christmas stockings never filled
With life-long joys, enduring things,
That to the soul such passion brings -
A symphony, a planet found,
A jet that flies the speed of sound!

But death shall not sneak up on me
For I've become what I wished to be,
Mastering, not dabbling,
Creating, never babbling,
Crafting beauty, seeking truth,
Capturing eternal youth,
Toiling hard, pace fast and steady -
And when death comes, I shall be ready!

Post 39

Sunday, January 18, 2009 - 8:31pm