Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Revenge of the Clones: Open Thread

In a recent studio visit with Shane Hope, who has an upcoming solo exhibition in the gallery, I was introduced to a concept (OK, so in every studio visit with Shane I'm introduced to dozens of new concepts, many of which require reading a few dozen texts to even partially understand) that seems to have relevance to the latest publicity stunt scandal involving YBA bad boys Jake and Dinos Chapman. The concept revolves around the notion of a "singleton," the restriction to a unique or limited number of copies of something/someone who would potentially cause harm if permitted to exist in more copies. Although this remains science fiction in terms of humans, it's a fairly common notion in software engineering. The essence of the concept is that even though you can make copies, sometimes it's perhaps best not to.

Enter the Chapmans [from The Independent, via]:
Dinos Chapman claims he and his brother, who shot to fame in the mid–1990s as part of the Young British Artists movement, have recreated Emin's famous tent, entitled Everyone I Have Ever Slept With 1963-1995.

The original artwork, which comprised a tent with pictures of people Emin had slept with inside, was destroyed in 2004 when a fire tore through a warehouse in east London. Emin turned down a £1m offer from the Saatchi Gallery to reproduce her work, arguing it would be "morally wrong" to recreate a destroyed work of art.

But the Chapman brothers clearly think otherwise. Dinos Chapman said at the Hay Festival that Emin's tent had already been made and they risked being sued if they showed it in public.

"Who says you can't remake something," he said. "We've remade it for her. She's threatened to sue us if we show it, but we will anyway. We were thinking about doing a limited edition and selling them at Glastonbury."
The Chapmans have a history of remaking others' art (as well as their own), but either through clever PR or sincerely through the notion that they're not talking about appropriating, but bluntly recreating a work whose author wished it not to be recreated, they've managed to tweak enough noses this time to get their names in the papers again.

Personally, I'm not sure there's any real news here. I think there are interesting ideas with regards to where the copying might lead, though. Should Penelope Bottompincher-Smythe of East Anglia then decide to remake the Chapman's remake of Emin's piece, and then Hans Copendurstenhager remakes the Bottompincher-Smythe piece, and so on, does the Chapman's piece end up being any less significant (assuming it currently is significant, if it actually exists)? Of course, Ms. Bottompincher-Smythe and Herr Copendurstenhager don't currently have the reputation the Chapmans enjoy, so perhaps Jake and Dinos' copy remains "superior" regardless of the countless clones that spring up, but that would be a boring confirmation of the lingering strength of the 20th Century cult of personality problem. Surely, cloning eventually wears away at brand integrity, no?

The Independent submits:
But if the tent has been remade, it raises ethical questions over whether an artist should copy and elaborate on another artist's work.
Actually, I think the Hitler drawings piece by the Chapman (which is what the Independent is referencing by "elaborate on another artist's work" [read here for more info]) are more interesting because of how they elaborated on them rather than the mere fact that they did (see L.H.O.O.Q. and Erased De Kooning). In other words, if it does raise ethical questions, I suspect they've been repeatedly discussed for almost 100 years now. That doesn't mean there's a pat answer to them yet, but, again, this doesn't strike me as "news."

Legally speaking, I think this gets interesting in the details though. Under current law, it's clear that Emin owns the copyright to her work, but once it doesn't exist anymore, does it automatically become "intellectual property," or, by not remaking it, would she lose the copyright? If not, then, before the fire, did it exist as both intellectual property and tangible property, or was the fire the demarcation point? Perhaps this is clear as well. I don't actually know (IANAL).

But back to the singleton idea. What if Emin's piece had not been destroyed. Would things change here? I suspect legally they would, but that seems to be an evolving line of though. But what about ethically? Here I suspect we're still somewhat stuck in the past.

I loved the bit in the new Star Trek movie (spoiler warning...don't read this if you don't want to know a central plot line) in which old Spock, who has traveled back in time, suggests to young Kirk that he cannot be seen by his younger self without havoc ensuing throughout the universe, but then later reveals that, of course, there's no harm in that happening. This was a major advance in popular science fiction, in my opinion; a leap away from the disasterbatory* thinking that dominates so much of that branch of culture.

Likewise, the idea that co-existing copies of Emin's tent would automatically cause any rips in our collective ethical fabric seems speculative at best to my mind. There may be financial repercussions, but I refuse to equate that with ethical concerns without at least giving it due consideration.

Consider this an open thread on whether there truly are ethical issues involved in copies of artwork.

*Another concept Shane introduced me to. Definition:
Disasterbation (derived from masturbation), is the process of idly fantasizing about the possible catastrophes that technology and the future may bring. Considering such possibilities as ecological collapse, full-scale war, complete totalitarianism, a grey goo scenario, or computers taking over and killing all humans. All this is done without really any thought paid to the likelihood that these cases can occur, or considering any possible solutions and/or preventions to keep them from occurring in the first place.

It's taking on a wholly pessimistic view of the future, by only being concerned about the negative, about the worst possible scenarios, with little to no attention paid to the positive possibilities.


Blogger Eric Gelber said...

"This was a major advance in popular science fiction, in my opinion; a leap away from the disasterbatory* thinking that dominates so much of that branch of culture."

Post apocalyptic literature is a sub genre within the SF genre, along with cyberpunk and alternate history, among others. Stories about possible futures for humankind abound in the SF field and they are not ruled by a negative ideology. In fact, they represent some of the most imaginative and forward thinking writing that exists in the whole field of fiction, popular or otherwise. Time travel, spaceships, futuristic civilizations, interplanetary travel, post human mixing of species, the singularity, all of these concepts or tropes are very positive and life affirming. The very notion that humanity will survive long enough to accomplish any of these things contradicts your point that SF is 'dominated' by 'disasterbatory thinking'.

5/27/2009 10:11:00 AM  
Blogger George said...

Disasterbation is a growing problem in todays media rich society. Disasterbators are springing up where least expected, handing out their tales of gloom and doom and delivering a severe blow to the pollyanalacs.

While many speculate that there has been a rise in disasterbation because of currant events, it appears that many have raisin to the occasion as an expression of a long suppressed desire to worry due to fleeting deficiencies in certain brain chemicals. When nervous the compulsion to disaterbate is an overwhelming desire for relief not unlike compulsive housecleaning which serves the same function for many others.

Disasterbators deserve our compassion. In many cases DA (Disasterbators-Anonymous) may be an appropriate solution although in extreme cases, exhibiting cloudy vision or calluses, pharmacological remedies may be suggested. Successful results have been reported using variants of hemp extracts but depressants like alcohol should be avoided lest one wants to experience a screaming disasterbator.

5/27/2009 10:35:00 AM  
Anonymous Gam said...

shades and echos of Mr M McLuhan abound! He had some great ruminations of where art is going in the ubiquitous digital age. But here is an interesting take on "plagarism".

A quick look at an eastern take on copyright ny Susan D. Blum

"You could even imagine a place where a culture hero claimed “I transmit, I do not invent (or create).” (This saying is attributed to Kongzi, known as Confucius, in The Analects.)"

5/27/2009 11:08:00 AM  
Blogger joy said...

But if the tent has been remade, it raises ethical questions over whether an artist should copy and elaborate on another artist's work but this is disingenuous; surely they get the fact that all art does so.

5/27/2009 11:09:00 AM  
Anonymous anono said...

This post illustrates how insular, incestuous and irrelevant art has become. How many people care about this? Ethical concerns? There are people being blown up in Pakistan (and god knows where else), wars are raging, children are being sold into marriages and sexual slavery, the earth's resources are rapidly being plundered and not replaced, etc. ad nauseam, and there are "ethical" questions somewhere in this story??

5/27/2009 11:13:00 AM  
Anonymous Oriane Stender said...

I know it's just disasturbating, but what if Ms. Bottomfeeder-Smythe married (or civil-unioned) Mr. CopenhagerEisenStatzPlotz and they hyphenated their names?

Maybe I'm especially dense today, but after all the appropriators previously mentioned (and not mentioned: Sturtevant, Richard Pettibone, et al.) I don't see what's new in this scenario.

5/27/2009 11:31:00 AM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

Post apocalyptic literature is a sub genre within the SF genre, along with cyberpunk and alternate history, among others. Stories about possible futures for humankind abound in the SF field and they are not ruled by a negative ideology. [...] The very notion that humanity will survive long enough to accomplish any of these things contradicts your point that SF is 'dominated' by 'disasterbatory thinking'.Sorry if I was not more clear on this Eric. By "popular science fiction" I meant to imply the sort that gets watered down for mass consumption, not the quality that we see in the top literature.

Perhaps even that is too broad an assertion on my part though. (Your point that the mere fact the world exists to see aliens of the future destroy us suggests an optimism on some level is well taken.)

But very few of the stories that make it to celluloid that incorporate advances like Artificial Intelligence or bio-engineering are offered as anything other than cautionary tales. Even time travel is rife with imagined catastrophes (if you meet your younger/older self). This tendency does support a disasterbatory urge, in my opinion. In fact, the disaterbatory tales generally prove much more popular than the others, suggesting it's what people want.

5/27/2009 11:40:00 AM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

There are people being blown up in Pakistan (and god knows where else), wars are raging, children are being sold into marriages and sexual slavery, the earth's resources are rapidly being plundered and not replaced, etc. ad nauseam, and there are "ethical" questions somewhere in this story??Why are you here reading this blog and not out there stopping these atrocities?

5/27/2009 11:47:00 AM  
Anonymous anono said...

Because I am interested in art, I care about art, but this dithering about whether the Chapmans remaking Tracey's piece is ethical, or whatnot, is a good explanation of why most people DON'T care about art. I didn't mean to be dismissive of your blog in general - I read it and find lots to interest me here - but this kind of tempest in a teapot "controversy" makes it difficult for me to explain to non-art people why any of it matters. I apologize for the snarky tone in the previous comment.

5/27/2009 11:54:00 AM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

Now you've gone and made me feel like a bully, Anono...

Excuse my snark as well.

The thing is, in the coming era of Google dominated legislation, issues like this will impact the lives of most people...artists fleshing out where the boundaries are ARE helping their fellow's not has universal applications.

Imagine, for example, that a company owned, oh, I don't know, say the human genome, what could that mean for someone like you or me, especially if that company wanted to make us pay to use our own DNA somehow (such as in stem cell based cures for cancer or whatever)? By raising awareness to what "ownership" means...they increase the working vocabulary of the public in general and give us all better tools to fight those who'd abuse their patents. (I, obviously, could use better tools.)

5/27/2009 12:13:00 PM  
Blogger George said...

Eric, Ed - so, who's writing good Sci Fi now? Or to rephrase that what, Sci Fi now, has good writing?

Regarding the disaterbatory story. While tongue in cheek, my earlier comment touches on some very real points which apply.

Some of the pessimism seems to address the old "is it half-empty or is it half-full?" personality type question. With the recent news somewhat negative it is no wonder that we are seeing more disaterbatory stories -- there's a market for them.

For example stock market newsletter writers (advisory letters) frequently emphasize the negatives, playing on investor fear to sell newsletters -- and it works. Surveys of investor sentiment, a disasterbation metric, show that market bottoms always occur if there are high levels of negative sentiment.

From the current sentiment, those looking out for a depression or recession aesthetic, are going to discover it's too little too late. The recession will be over by the end of the year, and all that pessimism will be old news.

Also, I've noticed that disaterbatory sentiment seems to afflict people more as they grow older, seems like older people worry more. This will have a direct affect on the direction new art, which is by definition art by younger artists who are less prone to disaterbatory sentiments.

5/27/2009 12:18:00 PM  
Anonymous anono said...

I guess I don't quite understand all the potential consequences. I know there is a difference between a patent, a copyright and trademark.

I know this is a somewhat different issue, but people have been making quilts with text on them for hundreds of years. What if (and it's not that far-fetched) someone, unaware of Emin's quilt, did the same thing, made a quilt with all the names of everyone they had slept with on it? If they were unaware of Emin's quilt, would they be violating any kind of copyright? I guess it would depend on the context. If they just used in their own, it would probably never be an issue. But if they put it in a local boutique on consignment?

ps I'm glad we've cyber-kissed and made up.

5/27/2009 12:39:00 PM  
Blogger George said...

Why this matters.

A most profound change in our post-agrarian world is the slow transformation of culture into nature. Our natural world is no longer comprised of just the mountains and valleys of the natural world, but now includes the cultural world as well. Our culture is our nature, it is our environment.

So artists who are interested in addressing this new nature will find, at almost any lever or topic, their ability to access the cultural database allows a discourse utilizing language sampled from the culture itself.

It allows them to address cultural and social issues at all levels using culturally identifiable and familiar metaphors as part of a self-critical discourse.

The ability to address the culture in its own terms is part of the self-reflexive way culture moves forward.

5/27/2009 01:00:00 PM  
Blogger Eric Gelber said...

"It's taking on a wholly pessimistic view of the future, by only being concerned about the negative, about the worst possible scenarios, with little to no attention paid to the positive possibilities."

I think the biggest SF film franchise, Star Wars, does focus on the positive possibilities of humanity. I think the Star Trek films do. And even in films like I Am Legend, the Alien films, Starman, Wall-E, The Road Warrior movies, etc., the disasters that the plots revolve around act as little more than backdrops, as backgrounds that help emphasize the triumph of the human spirit. Blade Runner is far too complex to label as nihilism. Even the upcoming film The Road might be nihilistic to a certain entent, but certainly the father's struggle to save his son and himself has some redeeming value. So yes there will always be a fascination with apocalyptic imagery, the Statue of Liberty getting toppled over, the incineration of entire cities, the exploding of a planet, but even in films that are rife with this sort of imagery, humanity, in some shape or form, triumphs to a certain extent, or at the very least, continues to plod ahead.

5/27/2009 01:07:00 PM  
Blogger Eric Gelber said...

I don't know what your reading tastes are like George so here is a link to a very thorough index of fairly well written reviews of many contemporary SF books.

5/27/2009 01:31:00 PM  
Blogger George said...

Eric, Thanks for the link.

I like William Gibson, because he's a very good writer and has an interesting philosophical insight. I don't care so much about genera if those two points are hit.

5/27/2009 01:45:00 PM  
Blogger joy said...

So artists who are interested in addressing this new nature will find, at almost any lever or topic, their ability to access the cultural database allows a discourse utilizing language sampled from the culture itself.George, that's such a great way to frame the problem!

5/27/2009 04:05:00 PM  
Anonymous Franklin said...

Two thoughts: Emin and the Chapmans deserve each other, and I'm looking forward to Moon.

5/27/2009 04:51:00 PM  
Anonymous Vis-a-Vis said...

My pillow this morning, like a shroud, had burnt into it this dream. Or was it a nightmare.

Without the original this is no copy ~And then mail. A note from the team Creative Copy, but it was for a text. And then it dawned on me. Copy is the small text, what we call body. And this body is copy. And the two lovely lackluster lads are small body copies of a creative text. Luster to the lads. Creative to the text. Copy to the original... a day dreamed stamped on the pillow who never lies.

When we get a better handle on what this copy is, there will be an original text.

5/27/2009 09:42:00 PM  
Anonymous Luis of Brooklyn said...

In a perfect scenario the Earth is enveloped by an ecological collapse of the highest order complete with flooding of coastal cities, tsunamis, megatornados, megavolcanos, rampant wild fires and furious desertification, which creates a prodigiously massive amount of refugees in all five continents, resulting in the rapid expansion of complete totalitarianism, followed inevitably, and as a natural consequence by a full-scale war waged with an excess of computerized devices, which are overtaken by a self-aware virus just as a global pandemic spreads everywhere, so in order to prevent complete annihilation, scientists develop self-replicating nano-robots intended to combat the disease and allow humanity to get on with the war, but they go wrong and start devouring absolutely every moving, living thing with protoplasm in its cells, and just when everyone thinks this is the end and the final, terminal conclusion of, to use a metaphorical term "creation", a huge meteor appears from behind Jupiter and hits the earth with enough force to turn everything to lava and produce another moon. Now, I don't thin any of you can disagree with that. Can you?

5/28/2009 12:07:00 AM  
Blogger George said...


Artists who are interested in addressing this new nature will find,

at almost any level or topic,

their ability to access the cultural database

allows a discourse utilizing language sampled from the culture itself.

5/28/2009 01:11:00 AM  
Blogger George said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5/28/2009 01:31:00 AM  
Anonymous Cedric C said...

Bah, I already remade works I like for my own pleasure (and of course describe them as counterfeits). Chapmans are making a turmoil because they're known, or because everyone forgot Sturtevant.

I am surprised by the reaction of Emin. She should just feel homaged. As anon said, they are "problems" in the world, Emin has agreed to this.

I think art is good against world problems because it reminds people that there is not just materials in the world (money, flesh), but also..philosophy? Well, that's not what the market tells us, but more project like Chapman could one day democratize art.

I really believe in the philosophy of cloning because reproduction technologies could ensures one day that everyone would be rich (instead of the situation of now where everybody go to the museum to see an untouchable object acquires by a very rich person: to me this serves to cement a situation of power. If everybody gets their Rodin or Rembrandt (lithos were all the point), you don't need this power to exist).

I'll stop because I'm leaning toward sci-fi again.

Cedric C

5/28/2009 04:56:00 AM  
Anonymous Cedric C said...

I remember I saw an exhibit of Rubens, and they were showing lithos (or whatever was the reproduction technology) next to the original plates that served to make them. And I thought: Duh? Why don't they just make copies of the Plates and install a machine at the end of the exhibit where each visitor can press their own copy of a litho. Oh, because it's not "the artist touch"? Or they need the editions to remain rare so they can present them in museums? I really don't have taste for this gibberish thinking. A painting is a painting, but lithos are made to be reproduced, and the artist hasn't produce million
copies because they didn't have that much time to waste or it was too expensive (paper, distribution, etc..). Automatic processes change a lot of that. We are getting toward a situation where publication occurs one-on-one at the demander's request (press the button, get your digital book).

Artists of today might have reasons to ensure an edition is limited (so they can sell it at a high price and have money to eat and make more art). But in the case of Rubens?? Surely
the copyright issues have been assessed a long while ago.

So this is the future: everyone gets their Rubens print (if they want it).

Cedric Caspesyan

5/28/2009 05:24:00 AM  
Anonymous Sean said...

I thought Emin's tent was excellent - I sat in it a while once... it was much more interesting as a habitable space rather than as an object to view from afar.

I went to see 'Rip! A remix manifesto' yesterday (myself and my wife were the audience!) which touches on these very issues - and very complex issues they are! However, the film raises far more questions than it answers - this post and the subsequent comments are as interesting if not more so than the film itself.

Rather than copy the tent, would it not be better for the brothers to make a Do-It-Your-Self-Emin-tent: a package including a tent, needle and thread, patches of coloured cloth, patches of coloured cloth with letters pre-embroidered on them... shit, just get the stuff yourself and make your own!

5/28/2009 06:12:00 AM  
Anonymous Gam said...

Sorry for the length of this, but I really would like to convince anono that this "controversy" matters to him/her.

Here is another spin on the controversy. Consider this controversy as a metaphor for something larger. Imagine if words did not have ownership of their meaning. Could we communicate? Likely we would end of with a tower of Babel, with the words not meaning what you thought they did. We probably would not even have poetry as there would be no juxtaposition of intent to reveal the poets unspoken meanings.

So when an artwork's authorship may become lost or hidden just like a words meaning being changed, what might happen? If copyright is irrelevant, if we can simply take and call something whatever we please, we move into the realm of appropriation. The realm of appropriation is a bit like graffiti. The norm becomes an appropriation of meaning and space. And this leads to an escalation of monologues, with each graffiti tag simply taking over the significance of the prior tag. Which is all fine and dandy, but these overlapping monologues prevent a dialogue of exchange. We risk not communicating and not even realizing we aren’t communicating. The ability to arrive at a mutual understanding is reduced and little opportunity is left for concerted action.

This kind of sounds like the Internet doesn't it? Lots of chatter without any guarantee of the real meaning behind all the talk? That is today’s Internet, tomorrows' promises to be embedded within our public spaces. Literally we will be living among our Internet, not in a desktop, but citywide as part of our urbanscape, augmented living. So what happens to our society where our interactions and dialogues are nurtured by a copy and paste paradigm? If everything is simply a digital echo, and not a chorus of authentic individual voices, can we come to an understanding to then allow consensus action?

The importance of understanding the ethics of digital technology imbuing a cut and paste philosophy into our social structures is crucial for this generation. It may be an ancient concern, but it is something this generation needs to be able to absorb and turn to the next generation’s advantage. That somebody may be stepping on some one else’s copyright might appear trivial, but the larger metaphor for us to contemplate isn’t insignificant. By not respecting copyright, we do not respect authenticity, so the words can mean whatever we wish. We lose the basis for exchange, for understanding, for common action. Tomorrows Internet risks promoting this attitude even more.

part 1

5/28/2009 06:15:00 AM  
Anonymous Gam said...

part 2

Every way of knowing becomes a way of being. So when we live in a cut, copy and paste society, we may be risking the ability communicate and understand each other. Where will society be if we are all just distorting mirrors? Where will we find the source of innovation? What happens when clones overwhelm authentic voices and ideas? Does diversity in ideas matter? What does it mean when politicians are a monoculture class of 3rd Reichian proportions? How will we view and understand the world if we don't contribute to the world, but only mime the noises around us? If we are all identical, how do you love someone? If you accept an imposter as reality, are you more prone to accepting stereotypes instead of individuals? Ignoring copyright is a metaphor of these potential dangers.

Now every generation raises the alarm over the technological impact they foresee arriving on the horizon for the next generation. Socrates warned of the dangers to humanities intelligence if "men" were to write their thoughts down on paper with the alphabet instead of nurturing ideas in their minds. Was he right or wrong? We don’t have the art of epic storytelling anymore, but then again look what the written word has opened to us. The same with the dangers of a cut and paste mentality. We can't ignore that all of literature is just thought expressed as recombined words. And music has a fixed scale, which is recombined to such heights of genius. And eastern societies have a richness and depth that is enviable. So why not cut and paste art being as rich? There is value in the cut and paste paradigm, but it also does pose a risk to innovation and authenticity as we understand it in our society. And the loss of those is a real danger to our civilization.

So is the controversy of a possible copyright violation as an art work worth considering important to todays generation? Its' metaphor does reflect our current reality and does have an impact on the next generation. The art and its controversy does offer consideration on the hidden social paradigm shift brought about by McLuhan's digital realm. In my opinion, each generation’s hidden social paradigm shift is significant regardless of the technological turn that causes it. (see H Innis)

Oh very young, where will you lead us this time? (meow)

The controversy over a possible copyright infringement leads to the ability to reach a consensus of understanding and so possible concerted action, which then can lead to your concerns. Don't stop caring about art, it ultimately leads back to us and how we see and know of the world, and so how we may act in the world.

Now if it's good art or not....or even if I like it …

5/28/2009 06:15:00 AM  
Anonymous Ivan Twohig said...

Wasn't it Goddard who said "Its not where you take things from, it's where you take them to." ?? I like that quote, I cut and pasted it from a blog post, it was a quote within a quote by Jim Jarmusch that was actually a jpeg I saw on I subsequently saw it on many other blogs. The fact that Goddard said this seems to give it a bit more meaning than had I said it myself. The fact that Jim Jarmusch quoted Goddard lends it a little more cultural/historical weight.

This might be slightly off the point being discussed but it touches on something I'm interested in. That is as a young artist I find there is a certain pressure to reference other works and artists within my own work. I also see this in alot of other artists' work which is why I find this a really interesting discussion. But its less cut and paste culture that we should be discussing, its tagged (html) culture. As if through the act of reference it attains a greater legitimacy. Youre nothing if youre not referenced, If youre not back-linked. The tent might be seen as a publicity stunt but then again in the meritocracy of hyperlinked culture its as good as an exhibition no? Right now we are adding to the value of the Chapman's Tracy Emin tent whether it will exist or not. The use of wit and sarcasm and irony that often goes hand in hand with referencing artworks within artworks and reappropriating artworks in general maybe belies the failure of traditional capitalist concepts of originality/ownership/intellectual property etc. to cope with the speed and accessibility of contemporary culture.

Its the discussion that takes precedence over the individual work anyway. Its a win win situation for both the Chapmans and Tracy Emin if we are talking about art in these terms. They dont really need to remake anything now. The artwork is done. The discussion has been instigated. The actual physical remake might slip into folly and backfire because the discussion will have already played itself out.

Thats what the internet allows us to do, is to watch culture in real-time. In terms of authenticity versus originality, as a young artist I have to realise that I am what I eat (culturally as well as litteraly speaking I mean) and most of what I consume has been played out many times before. If I am trying to be original in what I do I only have to open my blog reader to send me into a state of depression. The artworld is so competitive because there is this latent understanding that singular originality is just non existant, a construct and merely a necessity for the capitalist system to sustain itself. But does this mean that I should let the collective conscious deter me from making the art that I want or feel I need to make?

Hey I would have loved to have been sued by Hirst when I was 16. He did not sue Lura Keeble for her remake because she didnt sell it. but it was a better remake in my mind than the 16 yr old guys print.

I wonder though could an anology be drawn to the phenomenon of the film remake? What if they remade the tent but with a better selection of names embroidered on the inside? Or what about a series of sequels to Emin's tent? Everyone I Have Ever Slept With 1963-1995 Part 4: The Revenge. I'd go see that just for for sheer cringe factor!

6/13/2009 11:50:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home