[-empyre-] fwd: davids response to Tom and Clare

["Melinda Rackham" <melinda@subtle.net>]

from David Wadelton (in the library at Runaway Bay :):

In response to Tom's remark that "The labour involved in this is
disproportionate to the intended life of much of this material." Well I
guess I get a kind of perverse joy out of this contradiction - like Raymond
Roussel's endless
painstaking labour constructing novels that originated in childlike word
games. Like him, once I have decided on a course I stick to it through thick
and thin. And
besides, who is to decide what is and what is not worthy of attention? I
happen
to think most of this cheesy stuff is fascinating and will certainly reflect
our era
more than official portraits hanging in parliament house!

Clare asked "David, and following on from Tom's comments, given your acute
awareness of these issues as an artist how does it impact on your own choice
of medium?"
Archiving and longevity don't dictate my choice of medium at all, but once I
choose a medium  to work in I want it to last as long as possible. With
painting I
have always used the best materials and techniques - others don't bother,
but
that's just the way I am.

I'm also interested in the audio restoration mentioned in the forum. 60s pop
music gets remastered and repackaged often as a cynical marketing exercise.
It
depends on how much control the artist's or their estate have. Despite the
fact
that it's usually done to shift more units the results can sometimes be
extraordinary, like the Beach Boys Pet Sounds box - the remastering seemed
to
lift a veil and everything is shiny and new.