|Contacts Tour Buy on iTunes Ringtones j-morrison.com|
Monday, August 11
i am just thinking that the concept of stealing something is probably going to be very outdated soon. i'm not presenting some radical critique, i think i am postulating something that is happening. it's more of a prediction than a criticism.
when things shift (paradigm shifts?), everything gets contradicted.
shit, is this sounding vague? or, is it sounding clear?
i had this really interesting conversation with someone who just got back from some internet conference with google and they said people are predicting that there will be a reversal in where money is made. people won't buy music anymore. instead, people will pay money to put music online. like, not bands. i mean, like fans, like someone will put up music they listen to online and pay to do it... like using myspace or something - but paying some fee to upload the music you like so that other people can here.
this sounds a little crazy?????? but it's really interesting - b/c it's a total reversal. and it is valid enough for some people to actually discuss it as a potential future.
this has nothing to do with anything:
there's an interesting statement in an hans ulrich obrist and marina abramovitz conversation where abramovitz says that in the future artists will not use objects but will transfer energy directly from them to the audience. not in a "conceptual art" material less art-making practice - but purely about energy. so, it's like being a shaman, maybe. and that is like dealing with magic. but then, these seems so elitist also?
i had this thought that might make a bunch of people mad, but the idea of making art that uses mass production (using materials from the world, and turning them into some kind of material) should outweigh the negative effects that production entails. Like, the idea that this is "art" isn't necessarily good enough as a form of justification for the production of a ton of books or cd's or posters (all things that essentially use up resources and inevitably turn to waste), the "art value" of it must be greater than the fact that it's not just waste.
ok, i said it, people are pissed at me now? but, you know what i mean? i just printed 1000 newspapers. they look cool. they are "my art." but they will end up as trash soon enough. did something meaningful enough happen that outweighs the fact that these newspapers used a bunch of paper and ink and some process that will probably give someone cancer and then turn into trash?
but this is why i love digital. it doesn't create waste. and it can be reproduced infinitely. or like live music, there is still some kind of energy there.
September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010