On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Nemo Nox wrote:
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.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.
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.
- Alan
Nemo Nox http://www.nemonox.com
_______________________________________________ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre