Precisely. It is the essence that endures, not the creator. Thank you for the assistance! I felt like I was forgetting the word I wanted.
Chinese company has copyrighted.... ahegao.
- Thread starter Specter Von Baren
- Start date
- Status
Paper is a tool with which the creator expresses their ideas. A piece of paper cannot create, it's paper. One creator may draw something on that paper, another might fold it into a paper crane, and still another might tear it up into strips and throw it as confetti. If you do not have that creator then you do not have any of those, but the creators could do without that paper and find some other material to create something with. The constant here is the creator. Your logic is that of a thief who sees only what they can steal from someone as having worth but if the person they steal from does not exist then the thief has nothing to steal.
Historically speaking, folklore and tales are the very basis of story telling and they usually don't have a singular author; just a long branch of story tellers changing, reinterpreting, and adding to a tale or song for what's appropriate for their time and place. Because of that the tale enters the "public" consciousness and thus no specific person can claim ownership. The convention of the 'auteur' is something that's reinforced by copyright and modern notion of 'intellectual property', brought about by the 20th century's printing process and fetish for industrialisation.
Ewok brings up a good point with Gilgamesh, and last I remember that story has 37 different iterations.
Au contraire, mon weeb chéri. You have pointed to three constants: creator, material, and essence. The creator brings existence, the material brings continuation, and the essence brings value. In your example, the material is inconstant, and is imbued with different essences, yet the concept of the necessity of material remains constant. Without all three, there is no art. Once there is art, the creator is the least important component of what was necessary for the art to be art.
You did say the word "essence" in your other post, so I don't know what I helped with, hah.
I agree that human essence is the important part. But it is human.
It doesn't matter who the artist is, or if the artist is alive or dead. The important part, possible the MOST important part about art, is that a human put their emotions, passions, or ideas into the work of art.
That might be what Specter is getting at. Art is a human's intangible thoughts made physical. That's the necessary component that turns a bunch of inanimate objects into something that inspires emotion.
Indeed, art must be human! Thus far we have not had any true evidence of artistic expression elsewhere in the animal kingdom, it is currently theorized to require an appreciation of abstract thought for a species to even come up with the idea for art. We have evidence of very clever animals; certain birds and dolphins are believed to have something akin to language, certain primates are on the cusp of tool invention, and octopi have been observed to have the capability of long term planning and strategem. Yet given our lack of ability to communicate with them, our only recourse to test for abstract thought processes are the use of art, and I believe there have been encouraging signs of at least art appreciation among primates. A very good point, sir!
In a way, the human society or 'hive' has its own form of essence and character, therefore the author of an art piece can be the entire ethos behind it much like the ethos of a collection of atoms create a state of matter; art is the molecular expression of the human whole.
I don't know much about the rules but response are so dry on the nose I am upset at people engaging them legit. Its kind of funny.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,389
- 4,184
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
That is such a weird stance to take that I think you are just massively ignorant of how art works. You do realize that a lot of people start with tracing or copying other peopls works before they find their own style. Hell, a lot of successful writers start with fan fic.
I give no fucks what your skin color is, but you kept saying 'moral degeneracy' and till you, I have only heard alt right people say that and primarily inreguards to interracial and same sex dating.
That makes no sense at all.
They can be one in the same.
This is a nonsensical statement. Most artists would be happy to be able to support themselves by selling their art, but the problem comes from that not being a stable way to support yourself.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,389
- 4,184
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
Brainwashing will never work, my brain is dry clean only.
The examples I provided were related to underage characters being sexualized, or sexual violence. Concerning the copyright, I used the term in the context of public pornographic displays. At no point was race or sexual orientation discussed, until you brought it up.
No, they cannot, because they have fundamentally different creation processes. Art is about expression, sending a message, being uncompromising to one's vision. Selling a product is to think about how to make a profit out of the creation process, where the expression is directly based on making the piece marketable and profitable. There is art that is marketable. There is art that turns out to be profitable. But profit is never the goal of art.
Like in your example, why should I care if some random person makes a T-shirt out of my art? To that person, they saw my work and found it aesthetically pleasing, and either wants to keep it for themselves or seeks to sell it for profit, at which point the person that buys the T-shirt because they found it aesthetically pleasing. Either way, the art has accomplished something. It has also been propagated. You can only spin this negatively if your primary concern is making a profit.
Yes, well done on repeating the argument. Artists would love to subsist on their art alone, but the majority cannot unless they make concessions and compromises to ultimately market their work for mass appeal. Likewise, because art is not a stable way of supporting oneself, a lot of people will not try becoming artists because they don't want to lead a life of poverty. There is nothing nonsensical about it. Have you not heard of people saying they'd love to practice art only to be put off by how grim a reality that corresponds to? The material conditions and the current model of finance is what is putting the majority of people off of artistically expressing themselves, not some fear of having their art stolen and sold by someone else.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,389
- 4,184
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
I brought it up because you are using terminology that I have only heard racists use so I am still half expecting someone in this thread to ask what you mean by moral degeneracy and you going off on race mixing. That doesn't mean you will do it or that you believe in it, but its what I have been exposed to before. You also seem to think that underage characters being sexualized or sexual violence is an anime thing when it shows up in western media all the time, we have an example of a bad teacher in one of the harry potter movies being carried off by centaurs and its implied they raped her, we have a bunch of weirdos thirsting for underage celebs.
Last edited:
Excellent argumentation. Extremely deep analysis of your reasoning. Boiling everything down to a "Nuh-uh" has certainly left me without counterpoints.
Money money money. Ah, the perils of consumerism. The very idea of non-commercialized art seems to fly over your head.
That person will claim my art as his, and he will skip out on his commissions and he will sully his name. Then if someone will come to me and tell me that I was the one that skipped out on those commissions, then I merely need point out that it was not I that accepted the commissions, and if they request proof I need merely show the ample proof that I am not that person, because I am not that person. And in that sense, the situation will fix itself, because the fraud will expose themselves. The only one's reputation getting tanked is his, not mine.
It seems to me that the proper response would be to remove underage sexuality from both cultures, not condone it in both.
And for the record, "degeneracy" seems like a rather tame term when specifically discussing the sexualization of minors, or people who perpetrate sexual violence.
- Status