> My real question was about value to the (re)creator: If I make a
simulacrum
> of an existing piece, how can it be of value to me?
If you made it, you did it for a reason. You took the time.
> I don't think you can
> say "it's art, period". For me, art has to have a direction and a purpose
> beyond its creation.
Done, for you.
I keep "forgetting" what time I have art period.
> I can't understand why an artist would make a note-perfect copy of a song
> unless there was a larger comment or subtext intended by its creation.
Like
> Duchamp's ready-mades, which are not about the pieces themselves, they're
> about the about.
Done.
> Of course, you could exploit the commercial potential of a previously
> successful artwork, but I don't see any artistic value in that. That's
> craft, not art.
I don't want to to that! Craft is bad.
----------------------------------------------------
Rumori, the Detritus.net Discussion List
to unsubscribe, send mail to majordomoATdetritus.net
with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
----------------------------------------------------
Rumori list archives & other information are at
http://detritus.net/contact/rumori
----------------------------------------------------
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
N© Detritus.net. Sharerights extended to all.