Horizon

The 'creative breakthrough' of sampling in music gave rise, IMO, to the dreariest phase of popular music in 100 years. It also liberated the untalented. When I heard the opening riff to I Can't Explain by the Who dropped into one of their songs, I thought, 'no, this is just perking up rubbish.'

Ok, fair enough. Let me pose a somewhat different question. Do you think that the Christian groups who are putting out purchaseable re-edits of DVDs for 'family' audiences should be allowed to do so? (They're being sued by the Hollywood studios, who claim breach of copyright).

I don't have any strong feelings on the subject either way - I'm just curious what other people think.

No they shouldn't be allowed to do so. All the chopping around of other people's stuff is to be discouraged I think.

In hopes of helping the discussion, here's an argument in favor of the Bowdler Family Shakespeare. Citing Swinburne, yet.

My own view is, you ultimately can't stop people from misrepresenting or cutting a work, but there should be such a thing as an archival complete version -- a "director's cut". There should be a reliable, definitive way for any member of the public to buy or borrow a copy of the work as its author intends it to be. The public should be able to learn easily what differences exist between this original and any other given version.

As long as it's established what the original is, and as long as the archived original remains on file and available, let anyone do anything else they like with it. The memory hole problem only exists when there is no such thing as a reliably unchanged record.

As long as it's established what the original is, and as long as the archived original remains on file and available, let anyone do anything else they like with it.

Paging George Lucas ...

Paging George Lucas ...

You mean he'd be peeved by my view (and that he would), or are you saying something more specific that I'm not picking up?

Nother thought for discussion: what about the Kathy Acker and Alice Randall kinds of rewriting?

I was just referring to the ongoing war with his fans sparked off by his continuing tinkering with the 'original' versions of his Star Wars trilogy, and the various moral claims on their ownership.

Can't help you with Kathy Acker. Three pages of Don Quixote: Which Was a Dream were enough to tell me that I'm never going to be avant garde enough in this lifetime to understand what she was up to.

Thanks. Hadn't paid attention to the George Lucas tinkering issue. Do you mean the more recent so-called Star Wars trilogy? We've successfully avoided it.

I admit I can't help anyone with Kathy Acker. I just remember vague things from the '80s about her alleged wonderfulness to those brilliant enough to understand her. Actually I was kind of hoping to fake someone else into explaining the said wonderfulness.

Do you mean the more recent so-called Star Wars trilogy?

If you mean The Phantom Menace, Send in the Clones (as it's known in our household) and the upcoming third movie in the Star Wars prequel trilogy, then - no. I'm talking about the digital manipulation of the original movies released between 1977-1983 and repeatedly buggered about with ever since. (Lucas now considers the early versions of these films non-existent and will as I understand it use every power available to him within the law to prevent viewers from seeing them.)

Of course, the ultimate in let's-pretend-this-never-happened Lucas nightmares remains this.

LOL.

... "According to Steve Sansweet, at a convention in Australia, George Lucas said something to the effect "that if he had the time and a hammer, he would track down every bootlegged copy of that program and smash it." ...

But he shouldn't be allowed to do that. And he shouldn't be allowed to mess with the Star Wars originals either.

OK, it's not that the definitive edition should be what the artist eventually decides on wanting, it's that when something is placed on the public record it should stay there.

And Joel wants to know, "so, are you saying that if I bought a copy of that movie in 1983 and if I bought a copy today it would be different?" That can't be right, can it? This is tinkering/buggering-about in what sense?

But he shouldn't be allowed to do that. And he shouldn't be allowed to mess with the Star Wars originals either.

Well, so far as the Holiday Special goes I don't believe he actually owns the legal rights to it, though he has presumably been able to use other means of persuasion to effectively suppress it. But serious question: why shouldn't he be allowed to do that? You know my feelings about altering the historical record in order to erase political embarrassments (the NYT-Pulitzer business), but this is an aesthetic issue. Is Lucas morally bound to keep extant an early iteration of his work that he genuinely dislikes? If he were a painter, wouldn't he be within his rights to alter canvases that he still owned?

And Joel wants to know, "so, are you saying that if I bought a copy of that movie in 1983 and if I bought a copy today it would be different?" That can't be right, can it? This is tinkering/buggering-about in what sense?

Yes, I am saying that. My earlier link has more details on the changes. It is now impossible to purchase a new copy of Star Wars in the version that was shown in theaters in 1977.

"Creepy," said both of us here.

Call it Usenet ethics but I think the safest rule is that a work of art, once made, belongs to the public and should stay made. Let posterity decide what's good. Would you have trusted Auden to suppress "September 1, 1939"? Aren't you glad Max Brod disobeyed his friend Kafka and published those manuscripts instead of burning them?

I find it quite ironic that you can't get Star Wars '77 now since that was the only good film out of the whole lot and when I say good film I mean good/bad film since it was a geeks wet dream had after watching Lawrence of A, 2001 and The Searchers. It's Lucas's *hair* that I find creepiest of all though....
The business of the work of art belonging to the public is a tricky one. The buzz word in art theory circles of the postmodern persuasion is 'appropriation', which is encouraged in a Duchamp-worshipping way. To me, people should be free to practise this vandalism and rechauffe because is shows with vicious acuity how bankrupt taste and imagination has become.
I have appropriated stuff myself in my art see:
http://www.geocities.com/nick_garrett_ppfan/macbeth.htm
But there I believe McDonalds and The Beatles are not individual works of art.

Would you have trusted Auden to suppress "September 1, 1939"? Aren't you glad Max Brod disobeyed his friend Kafka and published those manuscripts instead of burning them?

As far as my own opinion goes, I think Mr. Lucas is making a grave error of judgment and I wish he would reconsider his decision. But I find it difficult to see why he "shouldn't be allowed" to do it. About the only reason I can think of to prevent such behavior is when there is a compelling public interest involved; and I really can't see that in this case.

Perhaps a requirement could be added for consideration for an Oscar: a copy of the movie as it existed at the time of the nomination would have to be donated to the Academy in perpetuity. That would give filmmakers a powerful incentive to keep the historical record alive while still maintaining the essentially voluntary nature of the decision.

There's also the case of Stanley Kubric's first feature film, Fear and Desire, which is reputed to be hideous. Kubric reportedly bought up every extant copy he could find at one point so he wouldn't be embarrassed by it anymore.

Also, I heard at one point that somebody actually re-edited The Phantom Menace, removing all the horrible Jar Jar Binks stuff, and then released it on the internet. Lucas, of course, pounced on it immediately. I've been told the "bootleg" version was a halfway decent movie, which must have made it doubly insulting.

mutter verfuhrt sohn http://mutter-verfuhrt-sohn.inc-diary.com/