Re: [-empyre-] Re: authorship

On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Nemo Nox wrote:

Furthermore if Cezanne hadn't made them then somebody
else would have - they were a product of their time.
Both Leibniz and Newton independently devised calculus
because it was necessary at that point in history. So
the whole concept of authorship, in that sense, is (and
always has been) meaningless. So this is nothing to do
with metacreation. To quote Biederman - art is about
the evolution of visual knowledge. It's not about
buying and selling names.

I just want to say here this doesn't make a lot f sense to me. History isn't linear, necessity doesn't work that way. Leibniz worked with infinitesimals for example but they were abandoned by Weierstrasse and it wasn't until Robinson in the mid-20th century that infinitesimals came back. Quaternions are in and out.

Philosophically, look at Alexander Bryan Johnson's work which didn't come into recognition until Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations.

A 'product of its time' is always after the fact.

That makes sense from a historic point of view.
But consider more mundane and direct implications.
If you are an artist planning on making a living
by selling your work, it is pretty important to
be recognized as the author. I see many artists
saying authorship is meaningless but I don't see
any not attaching their names to whatever project
they develop. It matters to the author's ego and
it matters to the author's bank account.

Depends on the artist, for example there's the Guerilla Girls. Also if you look at Pueblo pottery development pre Maria Martinez, you'll find real contestations over the nature of the signature, which was generall imposed by white traders, not the creators.

- Alan

Nemo Nox

_______________________________________________ empyre forum

recent WVU 2004 projects recent related to WVU
Trace projects partial mirror at

This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.