] [Thread Prev
Re: Basic intro (OT)
On Thu, 16 Aug 2001 23:04:12 -0400, Tim Nelson <email@example.com> wrote:
>At 09:12 PM 8/15/01 -0700, you wrote:
>>I hate it when people try to tell me what I think, and bitch
>>about it for days whenever it happens. Please accept my apologies; I
>>*should* have said "evidently" or "apparently", at the very least.
>No apology necessary. But you're doing it again. (See below)
Not to my knowledge, I'm not. See below.
>Besides short snips like Gomer Pyle ('Surprise, surprise, surprise!')
Dammit, now I've got "Nobody Home" in my head.
Okay, that sounded *really* bad. I'd delete it, but it's too funny.
>Sure, the sequencing of an album's tracks is *extremely*
>important to the way the work is perceived, and IS an art in itself
So why isn't it also art if a series of samples are likewise sequenced?
>were talking about using unauthorized eight-measure chunks of OTHER
>people's well-knownm, commercially relased music,
No we weren't. We were talking about whether arrangement constituted
creativity. Or, at least, that's what *I* was talking about. Context is
>>But you've already stated that you don't feel rearranging the samples
>When did I say that?
"Just as when a curator puts together an exhibit at an art museum, the
way the works are juxtaposed can have a LOT to do with the way they're
perceived by the viewer. But the curator, skilled as he may be, did not
create the art."
My contention is that there are two layers of art which then constitute
a third combined layer. The curator has made an arrangement, which is
art, and the artists have made... well, art. The two combined make an
exhibit, which is also art. Likewise with sample-based work: there is
the art made by the people I sampled, and the art of putting them all
together, and that results in a final work of art.