elevator dreams never really have much of a beat
Went to see Dark Water today. It wasn't as frightening as the original story, nor the original Japanese film. But what it lacked in sheer thrills it made up for in spades in utter, abject creepiness and despair. Whereas the first two Japanese works were all about obsession and precision, this one was about abandonment and lack of control. I think it was retrofitted quite well to an American audience, and I'm glad we saw that film instead of Fantastic Four, as originally planned.
j_crew_guy? This sounds like your movie, man. Bad movie meets boyband cinema. You gotta track it down, tell me how it is. I'm gonna go see if it's available through Netflix. [Edit: it IS!]
This from hairymonster, and it's all kinds of in-joke funny:
You are Kairet Mustapha. You have a heart full of anxiety and sorrow. Your husband was the Chief Security Officer for the ex-President of Nigeria. You have $30 million in an account in Ghana though you can't afford a comfortable meal. You want to give me 20%.
Which Nigerian spammer are You?
And I'll explain why: over on gaymerica, the main account tied to that comm has been hit with three different 419 letters. And, being a dutiful impoverished revolutionary, I've answered all of them.
And have any of the 419 spammers written me back? Hells, no. They are all afraid of my revolutionary gayness. :)
Oh, fer fuck's sake...tipped by feryl_child.
When do we stop being stupid? Make the bad monkey man go away!
embitca wrote me this reply in another forum, which was then deleted from under both of us. Yet I'm still mulling over her words:
"Is it really necessary to apologize for derivative work when both works are based upon someone else's work--say, the cinematographer, for example? It is nice and polite of fandom to want to credit people for having an idea that's given you an idea, but I think at some point it gets a bit silly, particularly since we are usually talking about images scanned, capped and manipulated by people who don't own the rights to the image in the first place."
And while this is true, I seem to have an ethical problem with it anyway. Because yes, icons, headers, and graphics usually are derivative works--not every graphic artist is able to use completely original images (one reason why places like Getty Images is such a good place for me, with their vast storehouse of royalty-free photos), and even past that, half the time they're quoting some literary work or musical lyric. And while most of us will credit for where we found the photo or where the words can be found, not everyone does, because not everyone knows.
And this is not a new thing. After H. Beam Piper died, folks were so enraptured with the idea of Little Fuzzy and his kin, that both William Tuning and Ardath Mayhar wrote books set in the universe. And this isn't the only example. People are frequently jumping up on platforms established by other authors, other creators, and going from there. Michaelangelo said, "Where I steal an idea, there I leave my knife." Billy Joel freely acknowledged several years back that if we, the listeners, of his music hear a familiar strain now and again, it's because he listens to everything and some of it, plagiaristically but honestly, filters into his own work.
This is who we are. We see the image, we recreate the image. We see the image, we use the image. We see the words, they sometimes filter into our own writings. We hear the songs, we tend to play the same notes--maybe in a different order, maybe at a different time, but for some of us, we know we put them in there. Attribution is good in these instances, but not always possible, and sometimes things slip through the cracks.
So we as creators--artists, writers, singers--sometimes get cranky when we see works we slaved over redone--the words rewritten, the songs retracked, the art remade. Was it ours to begin with? Yeah, in the sense that we touched it, we interpreted it, we made it our own by how we recreated it--but the original derivative works we launched from are not ours, and cannot ever be.
I come down on the side of attribution--when I know, I mention it. When I don't, I say that. If I create something from an original work, I try to keep that in mind. That's really all we can do.
I miss Legend. I know no one else saw it, but I do.
Finally, fashions.
Again we hit the "if I'd do it to my head, it probably SUCKS" portion of our show. And look, verily it does suck. Also, she looks as if the suckiness is actually draining personality and intelligence points from her.
So let me get this straight--a very fetching drooling idiot and her doll-part hair, here seen at the Basso & Brooke show in Sao Paolo. Do I have it right?
A model presents a Basso & Brooke creation during Sao Paulo Fashion Week, Monday, July 4, 2005, in Sao Paulo, Brazil. (AP Photo/Victor R. Caivano) (July 04, 2005)
Look at the UFO hat!
No, really. Look at the UFO hat. Because if you're looking at the hat, you're not looking at the horror of the weirdly quilted skirt or the fact that if she pulls down any farther on that black leather cinch-belt she'll be flashing the world. So look at the damn hat.
It's safer.
Brazilian top model Michelle Alves presents a Basso & Brooke creation during Sao Paulo Fashion Week, Monday, July 4, 2005, in Sao Paulo, Brazil. (AP Photo/Victor R. Caivano) (July 04, 2005)
Damn. I am not kidding. The color text below this one said, These cutout denims are best left to the ultra-toned and tanned. They are not kidding.
GUH.
Zoomp's skimpy twist on workmen's dungarees was just one of many cutting edge designs at Sao Paulo fashion week (Photo: © AFP)
Here's another look at the whole "I have eyebrows but some idiot drew another set on anyway" look at the Coelho show. The more I look at these models, the more deranged it all is. This one, particularly, gives me a freakish sense of double vision.
Though I admit, the cloth-rose boa? Kind of a cool idea.
A model presents a Gloria Coelho creation at the Sao Paulo Fashion Week, in Sao Paulo, Brazil, on Sunday, July 3, 2005. (AP Photo/Alexandre Meneghini) (July 03, 2005)
I can't decide if this is cool or creepy. On the one hand, that eye is incredibly realistic, and it makes it look like there's an eye on her chest.
On the other hand, that eye is incredibly realistic, and it makes it look like there's an eye on her chest. :)
Next up? Paris mens' fashion.
A model presents a Fabia Bercsek creation during the Sao Paulo Fashion Week, Brazil, Monday, July 4, 2005. (AP Photo/Victor R. Caivano) (July 04, 2005)
You know, on the one hand, Galliano can always be counted on for the crack. On the other hand, Galliano is always on crack. This year, it's manifesting in intense dreads and cans of Bud. Really. Was that necessary?
A model displays a creation by British fashion designer John Galliano during the Men's Spring-Summer 2006 ready-to-wear collection presentation in Paris, Friday, July 1, 2005. (AP Photo/Jerome Delay) (July 01, 2005)
j_crew_guy? This sounds like your movie, man. Bad movie meets boyband cinema. You gotta track it down, tell me how it is. I'm gonna go see if it's available through Netflix. [Edit: it IS!]
This from hairymonster, and it's all kinds of in-joke funny:
You are Kairet Mustapha. You have a heart full of anxiety and sorrow. Your husband was the Chief Security Officer for the ex-President of Nigeria. You have $30 million in an account in Ghana though you can't afford a comfortable meal. You want to give me 20%.
Which Nigerian spammer are You?
And I'll explain why: over on gaymerica, the main account tied to that comm has been hit with three different 419 letters. And, being a dutiful impoverished revolutionary, I've answered all of them.
And have any of the 419 spammers written me back? Hells, no. They are all afraid of my revolutionary gayness. :)
Oh, fer fuck's sake...tipped by feryl_child.
When do we stop being stupid? Make the bad monkey man go away!
embitca wrote me this reply in another forum, which was then deleted from under both of us. Yet I'm still mulling over her words:
"Is it really necessary to apologize for derivative work when both works are based upon someone else's work--say, the cinematographer, for example? It is nice and polite of fandom to want to credit people for having an idea that's given you an idea, but I think at some point it gets a bit silly, particularly since we are usually talking about images scanned, capped and manipulated by people who don't own the rights to the image in the first place."
And while this is true, I seem to have an ethical problem with it anyway. Because yes, icons, headers, and graphics usually are derivative works--not every graphic artist is able to use completely original images (one reason why places like Getty Images is such a good place for me, with their vast storehouse of royalty-free photos), and even past that, half the time they're quoting some literary work or musical lyric. And while most of us will credit for where we found the photo or where the words can be found, not everyone does, because not everyone knows.
And this is not a new thing. After H. Beam Piper died, folks were so enraptured with the idea of Little Fuzzy and his kin, that both William Tuning and Ardath Mayhar wrote books set in the universe. And this isn't the only example. People are frequently jumping up on platforms established by other authors, other creators, and going from there. Michaelangelo said, "Where I steal an idea, there I leave my knife." Billy Joel freely acknowledged several years back that if we, the listeners, of his music hear a familiar strain now and again, it's because he listens to everything and some of it, plagiaristically but honestly, filters into his own work.
This is who we are. We see the image, we recreate the image. We see the image, we use the image. We see the words, they sometimes filter into our own writings. We hear the songs, we tend to play the same notes--maybe in a different order, maybe at a different time, but for some of us, we know we put them in there. Attribution is good in these instances, but not always possible, and sometimes things slip through the cracks.
So we as creators--artists, writers, singers--sometimes get cranky when we see works we slaved over redone--the words rewritten, the songs retracked, the art remade. Was it ours to begin with? Yeah, in the sense that we touched it, we interpreted it, we made it our own by how we recreated it--but the original derivative works we launched from are not ours, and cannot ever be.
I come down on the side of attribution--when I know, I mention it. When I don't, I say that. If I create something from an original work, I try to keep that in mind. That's really all we can do.
I miss Legend. I know no one else saw it, but I do.
Finally, fashions.
Again we hit the "if I'd do it to my head, it probably SUCKS" portion of our show. And look, verily it does suck. Also, she looks as if the suckiness is actually draining personality and intelligence points from her.
So let me get this straight--a very fetching drooling idiot and her doll-part hair, here seen at the Basso & Brooke show in Sao Paolo. Do I have it right?
A model presents a Basso & Brooke creation during Sao Paulo Fashion Week, Monday, July 4, 2005, in Sao Paulo, Brazil. (AP Photo/Victor R. Caivano) (July 04, 2005)
Look at the UFO hat!
No, really. Look at the UFO hat. Because if you're looking at the hat, you're not looking at the horror of the weirdly quilted skirt or the fact that if she pulls down any farther on that black leather cinch-belt she'll be flashing the world. So look at the damn hat.
It's safer.
Brazilian top model Michelle Alves presents a Basso & Brooke creation during Sao Paulo Fashion Week, Monday, July 4, 2005, in Sao Paulo, Brazil. (AP Photo/Victor R. Caivano) (July 04, 2005)
Damn. I am not kidding. The color text below this one said, These cutout denims are best left to the ultra-toned and tanned. They are not kidding.
GUH.
Zoomp's skimpy twist on workmen's dungarees was just one of many cutting edge designs at Sao Paulo fashion week (Photo: © AFP)
Here's another look at the whole "I have eyebrows but some idiot drew another set on anyway" look at the Coelho show. The more I look at these models, the more deranged it all is. This one, particularly, gives me a freakish sense of double vision.
Though I admit, the cloth-rose boa? Kind of a cool idea.
A model presents a Gloria Coelho creation at the Sao Paulo Fashion Week, in Sao Paulo, Brazil, on Sunday, July 3, 2005. (AP Photo/Alexandre Meneghini) (July 03, 2005)
I can't decide if this is cool or creepy. On the one hand, that eye is incredibly realistic, and it makes it look like there's an eye on her chest.
On the other hand, that eye is incredibly realistic, and it makes it look like there's an eye on her chest. :)
Next up? Paris mens' fashion.
A model presents a Fabia Bercsek creation during the Sao Paulo Fashion Week, Brazil, Monday, July 4, 2005. (AP Photo/Victor R. Caivano) (July 04, 2005)
You know, on the one hand, Galliano can always be counted on for the crack. On the other hand, Galliano is always on crack. This year, it's manifesting in intense dreads and cans of Bud. Really. Was that necessary?
A model displays a creation by British fashion designer John Galliano during the Men's Spring-Summer 2006 ready-to-wear collection presentation in Paris, Friday, July 1, 2005. (AP Photo/Jerome Delay) (July 01, 2005)