Comments | exsanguinatrix: Artists vs the world

exsanguinatrix

Artists vs the world

Feb 02, 2009 00:31

I've always held that certain fields --law and business to be precise-- remain absolutely ignorant and unsympathetic to other fields like the arts.

Take this example. Gary Granada vs GMA kapuso network.

The worst part is that legally, he probably doesn't have a chance in hell to win this case. Artists have no fighting chance against big profit ( Read more... )

law, business, arts, artists, academic

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

gattara January 31 2009, 18:35:28 UTC

Not yet reading the link comment: Isn't that too "binary thinking"? Art isn't exactly pure. "Art culture" isn't exactly free of twisting words, worming through the hole of a needle and so on.

exsanguinatrix February 1 2009, 01:08:21 UTC

Well. Yes. That's true. BUT my parents are lawyers and I can think this way if I want. :P

Hehe. Yeah, the arts aren't pure, there's plenty of back-handed politics, etc. But all the same, law creates nothing. And business is all about money. Compared to that, the arts are pristine.

gattara February 1 2009, 05:19:58 UTC

Haha! My mother's dream is I become a lawyer so I could defend the defenseless. Like a superhero. Haha.

Law is not frigid. Haven't you ever watched Ally McBeal? Hahahaha.

exsanguinatrix February 1 2009, 11:57:04 UTC

Pfft. He who fucks nuns will someday join the Church.

aearth February 1 2009, 08:36:00 UTC

i'd have to disagree with art being pristine and the whole art vs. business argument. i believe that if people knew just a little about what was going on the other side of the fence, then there would be less problems like these. i'm not saying that what GMA is doing is right - what I'm saying is that businesses also have a role in helping art reach a wider audience. the law, while sometimes too cumbersome and technical, helps keep everyone in check. even your so-called big, evil corporations have made contributions to society's progress that would not have been possible in their absence.

in the end things get screwed up because of the malicious intent and the underhanded motives of humans who taint the nobility of said vocations. im pretty sure that just as there are starving artists, there are also those who got rich off of plagiarizing (or becoming inspired by) the works of the lesser known. making sweeping generalizations does not help advance anyone's cause.

exsanguinatrix February 1 2009, 11:55:39 UTC

Well, yes, obviously, there are people who defy my magnificently black-and-white logic. But this is much more fun.

But, see, this-- what I did-- is the only weapon I have. I identify with Gary Granada in this case, as an artist I am vulnerable to big businesses taking advantage of me. Legally, I am powerless. Because I have no money, I am powerless. The only thing I can do is to make sweeping generalizations that anger people. This is a weapon. It gets people talking and thinking and I'm sticking to my guns. :)

aearth February 1 2009, 12:09:10 UTC

But that victim mentality and feeling of powerlessness is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If people like you (i.e. "artists") knew your rights and organized yourselves in order to have the strength in numbers necessary to be able to fight for them effectively, then I'm sure that big businesses will be less inclined to prey on you. Sure it only addresses one aspect of the problem but we do what we have to do. Unless things change in a major way (i.e. capitalism collapses) - things will remain tipped in favor of those with more resources on hand. We all need to be more proactive if we want to stay afloat in this world. Fuming mad and hurling invectives at "big corporations" is akin to shooting in the dark. I doubt they'll care (unless again, you get yourselves organized ( ... )

exsanguinatrix February 1 2009, 12:32:58 UTC

There is a call for artists to organize. I definitely agree with you on this. The problem is, artists really don't have rights. This is the saddest part. And I don't think it's a victim mentality so much as... fighting words, haha. Take Gary Granada's problem, for example. His musical composition was rejected by GMA. That's fine, it's well within thier rights. But the aired version is based on his product. It's not the exact copy. The law tolerates this. Plagiarism/ piracy/ whatever legal jumbo can only be claimed if Granada can prove that the aired version was based on his music. But he can't prove this because the aired version is modified and the technicalities of music are complicated, possibly only understood by other musicians. Like Granada said --it took him 30 days to make that song but it took him 30 years to hone the skills that make him an artist. How do you defend that? What law will protect an artist like that? All GMA has to prove is that the new version is not at all like Granada's version and that's that ( ... )

Back to all threads