| | Mr. Newberry said to Ed in post #18, "you have no moral right to write, draw, compose, or otherwise edit another’s work." And, "I am advising you that appropreiation is not the way to be an artist."
My reply in post #20 was, "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."
In post #25 Mr. Newberry is "...making clear that appropriation is neither moral or mentally helpful..." He is still calling it appropriation. Which is why I said, in post #26, "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.
-------------
I think I see where things went awry. Mr. Newberry was using language appropriate for discussing art - and that IS what we were discussing. But there were also claims of what constitutes moral transgression and that requires more precise language - language that is geared more to a fine, linear parsing of meaning, rather than the rich, evocative language of passion, spirit and nuances of feeling.
When he said, "If you destroy art, you have no business among the living.", there wasn't anything in that context to evoke the poetic image of life as "active or thriving; vigorous; strong." I don't know him or his writing style and had no clue that is what he meant. You know, if someone saw the following statement (and no context), "If you destroy a Koran, you have no business among the living.", one would understand that as threat that could lead to a beheading!
I thought I was reading an outburst of anger leading to a strong statement (but not a threat - just a way of saying someone isn't worthy at the lowest of levels). I'm very glad to find out he meant, "...you have no business among the strong, the vigorous, and most active."
So, the whole time it was about words. I have no problems with strong feelings about art, or about philosophy... I certainly have strong feelings about being clear in what one writes, and doubly so when it is reasonable to see a set of words wrongly impugning someone's moral character.
-------------
Michael, our disagreements appear to be more in our style of writing, and the way we are using words. I am still saying that your words weren't what they should have been in talking to Ed - not about art, but about morals. But this feels like it has been about 10 times as long a thread as it should have been - mark that up to one of the ways passion can get in your way :-)
|
|
