EDITORS NOTE: This is something I wrote on copyright 7 months ago now? I've gone through this with people, but it seems like my notes are complete than I thought. I've even left in my very rough plan, which is the big blocked off bit that has DELETE surrounding it. And this is how I procrastinate, productively...
An approach concerning artistic control
Roughly: Commercial publication rights and commercial derivative-works rights. Commercial publication rights are just that: they are a copy-right, a right to copy that is legally restricted and legally enforceable (how long should this last? I have no idea, but not comparatively long. Estimates range anywhere between 7 to infinity, but i'm banking on somewhere between 17-20 years.
Economists could chip in here and compute some optimal period based on sales and social welfare and all that jazz.)
Commercial derivative rights on the other hand last for the life of the artist. Non-commercial derivative works are exempt...completely. If someone uses some Radiohead track for the background music for their funny cat video on youtube (though gods knows why, and I don't really want to find out), I seriously don't think this is worthy of moral consideration to the artist. If someone creates some kind of mashup between works in copyright (say, between Jay-Z and Radiohead, and proceeds to call it Jaydiohead [link]) and proceeds to release it non-commercially, that strikes me as okay as well.
However: if said derivative work is released in a commercial sense, then original rights-holders can take action. If the derivative work itself is used in a commercial fashion (say, in an advertisement or related some such), then the author of the derivative work can take action.
CONUNDRUM: What happens if some particular derivative work is used in a commercial sense, and the derivative rights holder actually agrees and licenses his derivative work? Is he liable to the original artwork authors? Is he required to obtain permission from the original artwork authors? I feel not, but something feels uneasy about that.
What's up with that: how come book authors maintain and own copyright, and yet bands/musicians routinely give it up? Book authors effectively license their commercial publication rights to publishing houses, while maintaining their own copyright. Why do bands give up their commercial publication rights and their commercial derivation rights to major publishing houses?
You can roughly equate non-commercial derivative works with fair-use, fair-dealing, etc etc.
Pour example of all this: Take Radiohead's (look, I like Radiohead) seminal masterpiece Ok Computer. Released in 1998, it has so far been in MGM's copyright for approx. 10 years. Ideally, i'd rather Radiohead own the copyright, and licenses out the commercial publication rights to them for 20 years or whatever.
After a 20 year commercial publication period, i.e. from 2018 onwards, the original record can be published and distributed without royalties having to be paid to copyright holders (you can stick the damn thing online if you like). However, if someone wants to create some kind of commercial derivative work using Ok Computer, then they have to get in contact with commercial derivation rights holders (ideally Radiohead, but possibly MGM if that ended up being the case) and figure out a licensing deal or pro bono or whatever.
The issue of versions: doesn't matter. If 10 years after the release of OK Computer, they come out with some re-mastered super-deluxe version, that is okay. The original work will go into (semi)public domain, and the new version will begin the 20 year cycle.
The main difference between this system and current systems of copyright and public domain and so forth is that currently, copyright encompasses both commercial publication rights and commercial derivation rights for a long, long time. When the work passes into the public domain, no authors have to contacted in order to assess commercial derivation or commercial publication issues. This separates that into two different domains.
Commercial derivation rights and commercial publishing rights dissolves when the original copyright holder cannot be reasonably located within a reasonable period of time and effort [Don't even begin to tell me how weaselly that sounds.]. If a band breaks up, commercial derivation rights gone. Author dead, commercial derivation rights gone, and so on.
Obviously all the above does not in any way remove attribution rights. You can't go around claiming some particular work of art as your own if it in fact isn't. This can apply even long after the original author is dead and the works in the public domain. Shakespeare et al. I'm even willing to apply criminal charges to add some teeth to this, though ideally, i'd rather not.
Many many issues: Problems arise with multiple creators (even with straightforward multiple authors, does copyright expire when one but not the other author dies?). Corporate owned copyright (perhaps make it illegal or impossible for corporations to own copyright? But obviously, issues: what about films, albums, even advertising that require collaboration between large teams, related to first point.)
DELETE
Artists given fuller control of their copyright. Copyright reconstituted or reconsidered at least through not the financial incentive of exclusive distributive rights (given that changes in modern distribution make creation and duplication trivial), but rather through the lens of creative controls: artists don't care about the money they make (they do, but not primarily, atleast within this view), but they do care about who or what is being done with their work. Essentially, this comes down to a massive expansion and improvement of fair-use (or fair dealings, or whatever; they're all synonymical for the sake of this argument) rights for non-commercial derivative works. In this view, copyright would exist for the length of the owners' life, shorter than today, but certainly longer than many people advocate.
DELETE
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Friday, October 30, 2009
On CMG being the greatest music review site to date
Cranky, adorable young men
If you're smart, and hip, and indie and whatever other epithets appended to the youth of to-day, you're already/should be reading Cokemachineglow. I've taken the fact of CMG being balls-out great as self-evident for a while now, but a) never really understood why they didn't have a wider readership, influence or market share, despite being so perfectly on point with their reviews, and b) they don't even make money from this! They have this gorgeous site and a wonderful stable of talented writers and it's all charity, what the fuck! and c) oh wait, I know why they don't have a wider readership, influence or market share.
They're incredibly fucking idiosyncratic.
As patient and avid followers of CMG may have noticed, they have a blag of sorts going now. And much like how many blags turn into self-indulgent community notice boards, CMG has done something similar; one of their latest posts is effectively a rant by David M. Goldstein's on the 2009 World Series. Their latest post? The ever-favourite pastime of Liam Gallagher baiting.
Here's the thing: The Goldstein post is actually pretty fascinating, if you're looking into a virtual spittle-flecked insight into what a Mets fan feels like. And CMG is caustic! Mounting a campaign devoted to building a better world by "castigating one smug fuck at a time" can seem pretty bitter.
But here's the other thing: it is fucking hilarious. The CMG writers are much too funny and much too talented as music reviewers/writers to let themselves down. It's not just technical abilities (seriously, how many writers do you know are even aware of the word 'copacetic'?), but their general melange of urban, urbane angry ironic hipsterdom, which manages to strike that appropriate balance of self- and other-directed anger...and then slides off way into the other-directed anger. Especially at Liam Gallagher (which to be fair, he brought on himself. By being Liam. Gallagher.)
Oh CMG. Please never stop, now or forever.
If you're smart, and hip, and indie and whatever other epithets appended to the youth of to-day, you're already/should be reading Cokemachineglow. I've taken the fact of CMG being balls-out great as self-evident for a while now, but a) never really understood why they didn't have a wider readership, influence or market share, despite being so perfectly on point with their reviews, and b) they don't even make money from this! They have this gorgeous site and a wonderful stable of talented writers and it's all charity, what the fuck! and c) oh wait, I know why they don't have a wider readership, influence or market share.
They're incredibly fucking idiosyncratic.
As patient and avid followers of CMG may have noticed, they have a blag of sorts going now. And much like how many blags turn into self-indulgent community notice boards, CMG has done something similar; one of their latest posts is effectively a rant by David M. Goldstein's on the 2009 World Series. Their latest post? The ever-favourite pastime of Liam Gallagher baiting.
Here's the thing: The Goldstein post is actually pretty fascinating, if you're looking into a virtual spittle-flecked insight into what a Mets fan feels like. And CMG is caustic! Mounting a campaign devoted to building a better world by "castigating one smug fuck at a time" can seem pretty bitter.
But here's the other thing: it is fucking hilarious. The CMG writers are much too funny and much too talented as music reviewers/writers to let themselves down. It's not just technical abilities (seriously, how many writers do you know are even aware of the word 'copacetic'?), but their general melange of urban, urbane angry ironic hipsterdom, which manages to strike that appropriate balance of self- and other-directed anger...and then slides off way into the other-directed anger. Especially at Liam Gallagher (which to be fair, he brought on himself. By being Liam. Gallagher.)
Oh CMG. Please never stop, now or forever.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
It's a pittance, to be sure
But you've sold me!
I wrote this watching the guilty article in question while flying from Dulles to LAX, and have only just remembered that I finished editing it, sort of. I sent to Simon, who has rightly been pestering me about it for a while now, and realised it would be greatfiller material for the blagoblag! Especially given in the light of the recommendations by some people *cough* *cough*
17 Again
It really is hard to describe how terribly bad this movie is. From its insipid scripting to the incredibly vapid acting to outright offensiveness, the movie plumbs the depth of what it is to prostitute yourself to focus groups. The overall thematic is that of a 17-year-old wise beyond his years/has a conscience kinda thing. It doesn’t help that Efron is a crappy, crappy actor for the job, and the scripting is terribly terribly boring.
Witness the witless dialogue (“I’m a lot closer to them than you think.” GROAN. “Why is that new kid waving at me?” “I don’t know, but if he were an apple, he’d be delicious.” BARF) Totally charmless direction (what is this person’s idea of humour? Or characterisation? Or directorial vision?) Scoring that tries to oh so hard to be cinematic; note to who ever is scoring this, quit trying to be John Williams. Painfully clichéd camera/montage work, which climaxes ever so wretchedly with a contrived lightsaber scene.
Zac. Efron. Cannot. Act. He is waaaaay out of his league on this one. He’s a kid, who’s pretending to be a middle-aged guy, who has to pretend to be a kid? He can barely manage ‘kid’. He’s not even very good at basketball! Worse, he’s not even convincing pretending to be good at basketball!
A notable and worthwhile mention to Matthew Perry; he’s a little typecast these days as “Chandler” i.e. bitter, satirical, wittyish one-liner deliveryman, but it’s a role that suits him well, and a role that he plays well. The interaction between Perry and rest of cast is enjoyable, if a little formulaic. Thomas Lennon is also quite good, but I have a feeling that this is only because of contrast with how uncomfortably amateurish Ze Efron is.
So, obviously, though Perry is by far the better actor, they substitute the easy on the eyes (and hopefully easy in all the other ways that matter as well) Efron for the bulk of the movie. There is a lot, a lot, of screentime for him. Yeah, too much. Unless he shows more skin (and it better be egregious amounts of skin), I’m going to keep imagining punching him in his smug, self-satisfied face. NB: the malice may be going a bit far, but fuck it, he’s irritating. I guess I should be charitable in some way, and say that he’s quite good at the physical stuff; stick to the singing and dancing, kid.
What the hell was the point of that opening dance sequence? What the hell is this movie doing? And oh my god do you have to pound the principal idea of the goddamn title into our heads over and over again? We get it, he missed out on being 17.
Incredibly predictable sub-plot about his kid wanting to go out with head cheerleader, complete with jock-bully antagonist who’s fraternizing with the daughter? Check. Oh add a secondary sub-plot with klutzy, kookie sidekick trying to kindle lost romance in irritatingly kitschy ways? Also check. Ironically, Thomas Lennon’s acting and delivery is actually not half-bad, given what he has to work with.
I never, ever, want Zac Efron to ever say the word psychiatrist or bravado ever again. In any context.
Waxing jokes? Really?
Wha…I…No one…You…let…Zac…monologue in the health class scene. What can I possibly say? What’s probably even more horrifying is that this is only the first of many. Many. *shudder*
Aaand then they make fun of geeks. And then gays. How many stereotypes are you going set up and knock down? Do you think that this gives your more interesting? Is this what you think 'diversity' is?
I haven’t finished watching this movie, and nobody needs to. It’s hard to find a reason to see this movie, much less like it; a hackneyed clichéd effort that’s a waste of celluloid and a waste of time. I’m not going to bother cataloging all the its many and severely aggravating sins, or documenting the many many ways this movie is deplorable. Unluckily for me, I was a captive in a pressurized metal tube. Don’t make the same mistake.
ENJOY! It was amusing writing this while sitting next to christian dude from Colorado, who actually seemed to be enjoying the movie. Certainly made him squirm uncomfortably in his seat.
I wrote this watching the guilty article in question while flying from Dulles to LAX, and have only just remembered that I finished editing it, sort of. I sent to Simon, who has rightly been pestering me about it for a while now, and realised it would be great
17 Again
It really is hard to describe how terribly bad this movie is. From its insipid scripting to the incredibly vapid acting to outright offensiveness, the movie plumbs the depth of what it is to prostitute yourself to focus groups. The overall thematic is that of a 17-year-old wise beyond his years/has a conscience kinda thing. It doesn’t help that Efron is a crappy, crappy actor for the job, and the scripting is terribly terribly boring.
Witness the witless dialogue (“I’m a lot closer to them than you think.” GROAN. “Why is that new kid waving at me?” “I don’t know, but if he were an apple, he’d be delicious.” BARF) Totally charmless direction (what is this person’s idea of humour? Or characterisation? Or directorial vision?) Scoring that tries to oh so hard to be cinematic; note to who ever is scoring this, quit trying to be John Williams. Painfully clichéd camera/montage work, which climaxes ever so wretchedly with a contrived lightsaber scene.
Zac. Efron. Cannot. Act. He is waaaaay out of his league on this one. He’s a kid, who’s pretending to be a middle-aged guy, who has to pretend to be a kid? He can barely manage ‘kid’. He’s not even very good at basketball! Worse, he’s not even convincing pretending to be good at basketball!
A notable and worthwhile mention to Matthew Perry; he’s a little typecast these days as “Chandler” i.e. bitter, satirical, wittyish one-liner deliveryman, but it’s a role that suits him well, and a role that he plays well. The interaction between Perry and rest of cast is enjoyable, if a little formulaic. Thomas Lennon is also quite good, but I have a feeling that this is only because of contrast with how uncomfortably amateurish Ze Efron is.
So, obviously, though Perry is by far the better actor, they substitute the easy on the eyes (and hopefully easy in all the other ways that matter as well) Efron for the bulk of the movie. There is a lot, a lot, of screentime for him. Yeah, too much. Unless he shows more skin (and it better be egregious amounts of skin), I’m going to keep imagining punching him in his smug, self-satisfied face. NB: the malice may be going a bit far, but fuck it, he’s irritating. I guess I should be charitable in some way, and say that he’s quite good at the physical stuff; stick to the singing and dancing, kid.
What the hell was the point of that opening dance sequence? What the hell is this movie doing? And oh my god do you have to pound the principal idea of the goddamn title into our heads over and over again? We get it, he missed out on being 17.
Incredibly predictable sub-plot about his kid wanting to go out with head cheerleader, complete with jock-bully antagonist who’s fraternizing with the daughter? Check. Oh add a secondary sub-plot with klutzy, kookie sidekick trying to kindle lost romance in irritatingly kitschy ways? Also check. Ironically, Thomas Lennon’s acting and delivery is actually not half-bad, given what he has to work with.
I never, ever, want Zac Efron to ever say the word psychiatrist or bravado ever again. In any context.
Waxing jokes? Really?
Wha…I…No one…You…let…Zac…monologue in the health class scene. What can I possibly say? What’s probably even more horrifying is that this is only the first of many. Many. *shudder*
Aaand then they make fun of geeks. And then gays. How many stereotypes are you going set up and knock down? Do you think that this gives your more interesting? Is this what you think 'diversity' is?
I haven’t finished watching this movie, and nobody needs to. It’s hard to find a reason to see this movie, much less like it; a hackneyed clichéd effort that’s a waste of celluloid and a waste of time. I’m not going to bother cataloging all the its many and severely aggravating sins, or documenting the many many ways this movie is deplorable. Unluckily for me, I was a captive in a pressurized metal tube. Don’t make the same mistake.
ENJOY! It was amusing writing this while sitting next to christian dude from Colorado, who actually seemed to be enjoying the movie. Certainly made him squirm uncomfortably in his seat.
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
It is happening, again
It is happening, again
Over coffee and delicious breakfast foods consumed at Single Origin, talk happened, and I want to talk more about emergence. So here, i'll wend through some stuff about emergence and consciousness and climatology and how they relate (sort of).
Simply put, emergence is how complexity could arise out of simplicity: how complex systems and patterns can arise through a series of relatively simple inter/intrasystem actions. One example of this could be consciousness.
Human consciousness as emergence - consciousness as a byproduct of the homo sapien brain, which has certain evolved features and traits i.e. highly plastic, massively modular, relative large sizes of neo-cortices, composed of various systems and sub-systems regulating various functions (hippocampus, limbic systems. frontal/rear lobes, amygdalas, etc etc). This is a relatively non-controversial position - In the same way that one ant on its own is stupid, one neuron is stupid, but many (interacting neurons) are not. While we don't understand the workings of the brain overall, we have (some) decentish ideas about what parts of the brains can do: neo-cortex responsible for social relations, hippocampus for short term memory, brain stem for regulating bodily functions, etc etc. What we don't we know much at all is the interactions between various systems (and in some cases, even within systems); we have a vagueish idea of what the underlying processes are (in some cases), but no idea of how all this makes consciousness, or the brain work the way it does. However, one feasible method of simulating consciousness could be through building networks upon networks of 'dumb' neurons; the play and interplay between the networks could possibly give rise to some form of 'consciousness'.
Climatology (specifically in relation to climate change, cf. global warming) could work in the same way. We understand some of the underlying processes, albeit in some limited way: we know albedo does...shit, we have a vague idea of hydrological systems, sunspot activites, volcanic eruptions, etc etc. But we have no idea, not even really the faintestest clue, on how all these various processes interact. We don't even know whether we know all the processes that affect climate (which is actually a pretty serious dent in the whole emergence idea of climate). Even so, we may be able to make rudimentary guesses; through inputting huge amounts of statistical data (ice cores, temperature histories, carbon histories, etc etc) in teh GIANT COMPUTORS (like this NEC one) we can hope to simulate, even if don't understand per se, what the hell is going on.
Btw, this is all me, bullshit-theorising. This wiki article does a pretty decent job w/r/t the whole attribution of climate change business, if you're looking something specific. Otherwise, wiki/google anything and everything you want to find out more on.
Over coffee and delicious breakfast foods consumed at Single Origin, talk happened, and I want to talk more about emergence. So here, i'll wend through some stuff about emergence and consciousness and climatology and how they relate (sort of).
Simply put, emergence is how complexity could arise out of simplicity: how complex systems and patterns can arise through a series of relatively simple inter/intrasystem actions. One example of this could be consciousness.
Human consciousness as emergence - consciousness as a byproduct of the homo sapien brain, which has certain evolved features and traits i.e. highly plastic, massively modular, relative large sizes of neo-cortices, composed of various systems and sub-systems regulating various functions (hippocampus, limbic systems. frontal/rear lobes, amygdalas, etc etc). This is a relatively non-controversial position - In the same way that one ant on its own is stupid, one neuron is stupid, but many (interacting neurons) are not. While we don't understand the workings of the brain overall, we have (some) decentish ideas about what parts of the brains can do: neo-cortex responsible for social relations, hippocampus for short term memory, brain stem for regulating bodily functions, etc etc. What we don't we know much at all is the interactions between various systems (and in some cases, even within systems); we have a vagueish idea of what the underlying processes are (in some cases), but no idea of how all this makes consciousness, or the brain work the way it does. However, one feasible method of simulating consciousness could be through building networks upon networks of 'dumb' neurons; the play and interplay between the networks could possibly give rise to some form of 'consciousness'.
Climatology (specifically in relation to climate change, cf. global warming) could work in the same way. We understand some of the underlying processes, albeit in some limited way: we know albedo does...shit, we have a vague idea of hydrological systems, sunspot activites, volcanic eruptions, etc etc. But we have no idea, not even really the faintestest clue, on how all these various processes interact. We don't even know whether we know all the processes that affect climate (which is actually a pretty serious dent in the whole emergence idea of climate). Even so, we may be able to make rudimentary guesses; through inputting huge amounts of statistical data (ice cores, temperature histories, carbon histories, etc etc) in teh GIANT COMPUTORS (like this NEC one) we can hope to simulate, even if don't understand per se, what the hell is going on.
Btw, this is all me, bullshit-theorising. This wiki article does a pretty decent job w/r/t the whole attribution of climate change business, if you're looking something specific. Otherwise, wiki/google anything and everything you want to find out more on.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Apparently, I like sad religiousy music
what the hell does that even mean
Heard this on the end of the episodes on Season 2 Deadwood, and went out and got it through the magic of interwebs. Now can't stop listening to it. Blog deserves more attention, which I'm hoping to remedy beginning with this
Madeleine Peyroux - A Prayer
Heard this on the end of the episodes on Season 2 Deadwood, and went out and got it through the magic of interwebs. Now can't stop listening to it. Blog deserves more attention, which I'm hoping to remedy beginning with this
Madeleine Peyroux - A Prayer
Monday, August 17, 2009
Oh he's one of those
yeah he's of those alright
While I look over this whole healthcare business and ponder whether I want to write some kind of thing about things, I came across this guy. He's one of those sickening intelligent people who come from sickeningly intelligent families who consistently write sickeningly smart, insightful things about their areas of expertise, in his case being public health (reminds me of the Huxleys and the Darwins, actually). Seriously, if you want a decent grip on a lot of healthcare issues, just read his New Yorker stuff. Obama reportedly ordered The Cost Conundrum to become required reading in The White House; his excellent piece of how heathcare reform was passed in various places in the world is engrossing with all sorts of historical tidbits; and as for horror, one either has the abstract (his piece on on how extended solitary confinement could be constituted as cruel and inhuman punishment, or even outright torture) or the visceral, to wit on itching. No kidding. Some seriously fucked up horror movie shit in there:
While I look over this whole healthcare business and ponder whether I want to write some kind of thing about things, I came across this guy. He's one of those sickening intelligent people who come from sickeningly intelligent families who consistently write sickeningly smart, insightful things about their areas of expertise, in his case being public health (reminds me of the Huxleys and the Darwins, actually). Seriously, if you want a decent grip on a lot of healthcare issues, just read his New Yorker stuff. Obama reportedly ordered The Cost Conundrum to become required reading in The White House; his excellent piece of how heathcare reform was passed in various places in the world is engrossing with all sorts of historical tidbits; and as for horror, one either has the abstract (his piece on on how extended solitary confinement could be constituted as cruel and inhuman punishment, or even outright torture) or the visceral, to wit on itching. No kidding. Some seriously fucked up horror movie shit in there:
One morning, after she was awakened by her bedside alarm, she sat up and, she recalled, “this fluid came down my face, this greenish liquid.” She pressed a square of gauze to her head and went to see her doctor again. M. showed the doctor the fluid on the dressing. The doctor looked closely at the wound. She shined a light on it and in M.’s eyes. Then she walked out of the room and called an ambulance. Only in the Emergency Department at Massachusetts General Hospital, after the doctors started swarming, and one told her she needed surgery now, did M. learn what had happened. She had scratched through her skull during the night—and all the way into her brain.Now try going to sleep.
...
“The guy next to you?” I asked. He had had shingles on his neck, she explained, and also developed a persistent itch. “Every night, they would wrap up his hands and wrap up mine.” She spoke more softly now. “But I heard he ended up dying from it, because he scratched into his carotid artery.”
Sunday, August 09, 2009
Comeex
how many alternate spellings are there
A quick mini-review of Understanding Comics: it's good and you should probably read it, if you're interested in these whole pictures and words business. It's pretty straightforward stuff (atleast to me, and I figure to anyone moderately intelligent and interested in the medium), and pretty well set out in terms of being a comic talking about comics. He's making a case, and not stating 'facts' per se, and there's plenty to argue and cuss and debate over. Actually, some of the most interesting material of the book is the historical analysis of comics, of the evolution and what factors (economic, social, technological, etc) ended up shaping comics into what they are today. The material on iconography, art history, styles of comic creation are also quite good as well. Plus, well-written and a breeze to read.
Feel free to disagree as vociferously as you wish regarding the Six Steps business.
Anyway, I'm going to be much more blase, and offer two what are really quite superficial observations regarding the whole reading/understanding comics criticism, especially in relation to storytelling.
Comics allow two useful improvements in storytelling:
1. The shortcutting or fast-tracking of storytelling. Basically, this is a general variation of the idea that 'a picture is worth a thousand words'. Why tell when you can show? Words are cumbersome and laborious to read and process; pictures provide a much more primal method of understanding and greatly simplify the storytelling process. Note: I'm not saying here that you're going to get some kind of perfect one to one correspondence between what you want to say and what the reader understands using pictures, but that rather, the scope for communication is sped up, if only a little bit.
2. The amplification or expansion of storytelling. By using pictures, storytellers can spend far less time setting the scene, and use the readers precious attention span and mental energy involved in what they want the reader to pay attention to. The use of pictures allows for expanding the imaginative frame that storytellers wish to express and explore. Changes in plot, scene, dialogue or other technical aspects of storytelling that would be disorientating in novels or prose can be portrayed without confusing or frustrating the reader (obviously, within limits).
A quick note about abstract concepts in comics: abstract concepts are much harder to represent within comics, precisely because they are abstract (duh). We can all (well, almost all) readily form mental images of specific, concrete concepts such as 'tree' or 'car' or 'door', though obviously our exact representations of those concepts will differ. But what about 'justice' or 'beauty' or 'deconstructionism'? Obviously, there's a shared cultural symbology that can be represented, such as Lady Justice, or Michangelo's David or Derrida. But we're not going to say that that is justice itself, or that is beauty itself or deconstructionism itself (though I feel that some may disagree with me on the latter). This is a basic problem why there's a general lack of comics that tackle abstract concepts all that much (however, big mentions should be made with regards to both Scott McClouds efforts, and the entire Introducing/For Beginners series of books. Again, there's a caveat, in that both those works are quite word-heavy, and very tightly written.)
Now, i'll end this here, lest the vampire hordes of Platonists/neo-Platonists/Postmodernists/Baudrillardians attack me for my sloppy, sloppy reasoning (and tell me that all representation is futile or something along those lines). Although you'd think they'd like that kind of reasoning...(ho ho, I jest. But seriously, some of your ilk is giving you guys a bad rap. I'd look into it.)
A quick mini-review of Understanding Comics: it's good and you should probably read it, if you're interested in these whole pictures and words business. It's pretty straightforward stuff (atleast to me, and I figure to anyone moderately intelligent and interested in the medium), and pretty well set out in terms of being a comic talking about comics. He's making a case, and not stating 'facts' per se, and there's plenty to argue and cuss and debate over. Actually, some of the most interesting material of the book is the historical analysis of comics, of the evolution and what factors (economic, social, technological, etc) ended up shaping comics into what they are today. The material on iconography, art history, styles of comic creation are also quite good as well. Plus, well-written and a breeze to read.
Feel free to disagree as vociferously as you wish regarding the Six Steps business.
Anyway, I'm going to be much more blase, and offer two what are really quite superficial observations regarding the whole reading/understanding comics criticism, especially in relation to storytelling.
Comics allow two useful improvements in storytelling:
1. The shortcutting or fast-tracking of storytelling. Basically, this is a general variation of the idea that 'a picture is worth a thousand words'. Why tell when you can show? Words are cumbersome and laborious to read and process; pictures provide a much more primal method of understanding and greatly simplify the storytelling process. Note: I'm not saying here that you're going to get some kind of perfect one to one correspondence between what you want to say and what the reader understands using pictures, but that rather, the scope for communication is sped up, if only a little bit.
2. The amplification or expansion of storytelling. By using pictures, storytellers can spend far less time setting the scene, and use the readers precious attention span and mental energy involved in what they want the reader to pay attention to. The use of pictures allows for expanding the imaginative frame that storytellers wish to express and explore. Changes in plot, scene, dialogue or other technical aspects of storytelling that would be disorientating in novels or prose can be portrayed without confusing or frustrating the reader (obviously, within limits).
A quick note about abstract concepts in comics: abstract concepts are much harder to represent within comics, precisely because they are abstract (duh). We can all (well, almost all) readily form mental images of specific, concrete concepts such as 'tree' or 'car' or 'door', though obviously our exact representations of those concepts will differ. But what about 'justice' or 'beauty' or 'deconstructionism'? Obviously, there's a shared cultural symbology that can be represented, such as Lady Justice, or Michangelo's David or Derrida. But we're not going to say that that is justice itself, or that is beauty itself or deconstructionism itself (though I feel that some may disagree with me on the latter). This is a basic problem why there's a general lack of comics that tackle abstract concepts all that much (however, big mentions should be made with regards to both Scott McClouds efforts, and the entire Introducing/For Beginners series of books. Again, there's a caveat, in that both those works are quite word-heavy, and very tightly written.)
Now, i'll end this here, lest the vampire hordes of Platonists/neo-Platonists/Postmodernists/Baudrillardians attack me for my sloppy, sloppy reasoning (and tell me that all representation is futile or something along those lines). Although you'd think they'd like that kind of reasoning...(ho ho, I jest. But seriously, some of your ilk is giving you guys a bad rap. I'd look into it.)
This is probably not exactly what I should be doing
far too seriously
I've had barely 4 days to decompress and process an aptly self-described epic journey across the United States, and yet here I am already looking at gigs that are happening in the short-term future. So with apparently the foolish intention that I wish to supplant A Reminder, here's a quick perfunctory gigroll of interesting acts coming up:
In what looks to be a great double-billing (if you like the bands involved, and there is quite a bit of overlap in these two) The Lucksmiths are playing their final farewell show with Darren Hanlon on the 21st of August at The Factory. With tickets $22ish, this looks to be a very good deal, and most likely going to sell out. Advise to buy now.
Rather oddly, The Sydney Symphony is playing the music of Star Trek, along with clips of highlights from all eleven Star Trek movies. At the Opera House, for two nights only, on the 4th and the 5th of September.
You should all know by now that Malkmus is playing on the 22nd of September at the Metro.
Good news: Metric are coming to Australia for their first time. Bad news: It's at Parklife, and they are no announced sideshows. This is going to be one of those quandrys that i'm going to be slowly gnawed by frustration over, as Parklife actually has a decentish line-up this year: Empire of the Sun, Metric, Junior Boys, The Rapture, Lady Sov, and a few decent second-tier acts, MSTRKRFT, Crystal Castles, etc. But unfortunately, Parklife also tends towards a preponderance of irritatingly stupid pill-popping douchebags with oversized sunglasses and way too much fluoro (which by the way, any quantity more than zero is too much). Tickets are also pricey, as they've always been. Sidenote: Have web designers learned by now not to fucking autoplay music when you enter a site? And compound the problem by not having an easy way to turn it off? I have my own music to listen to, douchebag, and if I wanted to listen to yours, i'd turn it on. Now, you've just gone and pissed me off and close your website altogether. So DON'T DO IT
With what looks to be one of the most hyped unannounced gigs ever, Animal Collective are coming back to Australia. With over a hundred people attending a gig that theoretically does not exist yet, this does look to be a "massive hipstergasm". 11th December, at the Enmore Theatre, if last.fm is to be believed.
The music festival you should go to atleast once: Meredith is back for its 19th year. The first round ballot is now open to existing subscribers, with later ballots, online presales and what is dubbed enigmatically, "Aunty's last chance". What's surprising about Meredith, and argubly attests to its popularity, is that Meredith has not announced a single act in its lineup (Animal Collective are strongly rumoured to show up, despite the fact that they're rumoured to be playing a gig in Sydney on the first night of the festival). In one of those rare instances, its popularity may in fact be justified by quality; in addition to post solidly entertaining line-ups (past performers have included Final Fantasy, Augie March, The Avalanches and The Shins), they have lots of fun attractions (YURTS) and sensible policies (you can bring your own liquor!) From 11-13th of December, Meredith. Ticket prices have not been announced yet, but are most likely going to be quite dear.
It is too damn cold at 5.30 in the morning. This post took me over an hour to compile which is far too long. My sleep cycles are being completely fucked up by too much drinking, too much late-night staying up, not enough sleep, never enough coffee and weird-ass jetlag. I'll post something on comics soon, being inspired by both Scott McCloud and my drunken (embarrasingly one-sided, I suspect) ramblings with Matt.
I've had barely 4 days to decompress and process an aptly self-described epic journey across the United States, and yet here I am already looking at gigs that are happening in the short-term future. So with apparently the foolish intention that I wish to supplant A Reminder, here's a quick perfunctory gigroll of interesting acts coming up:
In what looks to be a great double-billing (if you like the bands involved, and there is quite a bit of overlap in these two) The Lucksmiths are playing their final farewell show with Darren Hanlon on the 21st of August at The Factory. With tickets $22ish, this looks to be a very good deal, and most likely going to sell out. Advise to buy now.
Rather oddly, The Sydney Symphony is playing the music of Star Trek, along with clips of highlights from all eleven Star Trek movies. At the Opera House, for two nights only, on the 4th and the 5th of September.
You should all know by now that Malkmus is playing on the 22nd of September at the Metro.
Good news: Metric are coming to Australia for their first time. Bad news: It's at Parklife, and they are no announced sideshows. This is going to be one of those quandrys that i'm going to be slowly gnawed by frustration over, as Parklife actually has a decentish line-up this year: Empire of the Sun, Metric, Junior Boys, The Rapture, Lady Sov, and a few decent second-tier acts, MSTRKRFT, Crystal Castles, etc. But unfortunately, Parklife also tends towards a preponderance of irritatingly stupid pill-popping douchebags with oversized sunglasses and way too much fluoro (which by the way, any quantity more than zero is too much). Tickets are also pricey, as they've always been. Sidenote: Have web designers learned by now not to fucking autoplay music when you enter a site? And compound the problem by not having an easy way to turn it off? I have my own music to listen to, douchebag, and if I wanted to listen to yours, i'd turn it on. Now, you've just gone and pissed me off and close your website altogether. So DON'T DO IT
With what looks to be one of the most hyped unannounced gigs ever, Animal Collective are coming back to Australia. With over a hundred people attending a gig that theoretically does not exist yet, this does look to be a "massive hipstergasm". 11th December, at the Enmore Theatre, if last.fm is to be believed.
The music festival you should go to atleast once: Meredith is back for its 19th year. The first round ballot is now open to existing subscribers, with later ballots, online presales and what is dubbed enigmatically, "Aunty's last chance". What's surprising about Meredith, and argubly attests to its popularity, is that Meredith has not announced a single act in its lineup (Animal Collective are strongly rumoured to show up, despite the fact that they're rumoured to be playing a gig in Sydney on the first night of the festival). In one of those rare instances, its popularity may in fact be justified by quality; in addition to post solidly entertaining line-ups (past performers have included Final Fantasy, Augie March, The Avalanches and The Shins), they have lots of fun attractions (YURTS) and sensible policies (you can bring your own liquor!) From 11-13th of December, Meredith. Ticket prices have not been announced yet, but are most likely going to be quite dear.
It is too damn cold at 5.30 in the morning. This post took me over an hour to compile which is far too long. My sleep cycles are being completely fucked up by too much drinking, too much late-night staying up, not enough sleep, never enough coffee and weird-ass jetlag. I'll post something on comics soon, being inspired by both Scott McCloud and my drunken (embarrasingly one-sided, I suspect) ramblings with Matt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
