Video that doesn't suck.

[elenore19]

Not porn because there is no intended sexual arousal or tittilation.

Definition.

Pornography:
From a definition standpoint, pornography is anything that is created to cause sexual excitement or arousal.

Look. This is what I do. Why the condemnation and such closed minds?

Do you hate the song or what it represents?

I've got a clean version of the song.

Guaranteed not to offend the closeted or closed minded.

Here's a definition of pornography that I found at dictionary.com
"obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit."
Doesn't say anything about arousal or sexual excitement.

BUT I did see the same type of definition with what you were saying with the whole excitement/arousal. So I'm not going to just outright say "mine's better, you're wrong" that would just be ridiculous.

On the other hand. Where did you get this footage? Why was it filmed? I would say with 99% certainty that the footage you have in that video was filmed for "Sexual excitement or arousal."

It's a porno.

Sure, you might see it as something else. I bet that 97 out of 100 people who watch this will think it's porn. And then of course you'll have those 3 people who aren't "closeted or closed minded" like yourself who will think it's amazing.

The music even sounds like it could be stereotypical "porn music."
You should at least warn people properly before posting videos like this since this is "what you do," so I'm guessing you'll post more.

From the music standpoint, I think it sounds pretty cool. Sort of reminds me of anything someone could throw together in fruity loops.

What does the song represent? Porn? I hate to be one of those guys that just blatantly criticizes someone's work. But seriously. Explain thoroughly.
so far I have this for an explanation of what the video was intended for:

"It's a video comment on the both empty content of that genre of music and on the perceived obscenity of the altered human body."

So you're saying that the music you made for that video has "empty content?" Either you like "empty content" or you're ripping on your own music?

If you have certain intentions with the song and the video then just post them in the original post man. Seriously. What were you thinking when you posted this video? "Oh man, everyone is going to get what I'm getting at Instantly and really dig it!"
No.
Or did you post this video/music for the objective of getting people to react poorly so you could be one of those individuals who thinks highly of his/herself and just to be "different" than everyone? Then you could act like you know more than everyone else and call everyone closeted or closed minded.

I really like crazy shit for music/videos. And I'm always game for watching "new" things. Like maybe if there is a nice explanation for the extremely vulgar nature of your video, I might enjoy the thought behind it.

So after my longest post ever. I'd just like to say.

Man, what the fuck.

Fuck you, dumbass. You post stupid shit and then get pissed when people don't like it. This is pretty diverse crowd around here. When multiple people from vastly different backgrounds tell you something is stupid, it probably is. That's your problem, not anyone elses. Post something that's not retarded and maybe you'll get some decent feedback.

Exactly.

 

[reklus]

just be ridiculous.

On the other hand. Where did you get this footage? Why was it filmed? I would say with 99% certainty that the footage you have in that video was filmed for "Sexual excitement or arousal."

It's a porno.

Right and my repurposing is what made it no longer presented as pornography

Sure, you might see it as something else. I bet that 97 out of 100 people who watch this will think it's porn. And then of course you'll have those 3 people who aren't "closeted or closed minded" like yourself who will think it's amazing.

No. It's not about open or closed mind. It's about me not censoring myself when I create my stuff and assuming others do the same for themselves. I don't expect to get other people's work because of the weird way my nerd brain works so I'm honestly as surprised if people get than if they don't.

The music even sounds like it could be stereotypical "porn music."
You should at least warn people properly before posting videos like this since this is "what you do," so I'm guessing you'll post more.

From the music standpoint, I think it sounds pretty cool. Sort of reminds me of anything someone could throw together in fruity loops.

Nice catch. This and a few other songs were done on fruity loops. This song is sort of mocking myself for making something in an environment I hated (not tape loops and noises) in a genre I hate (dance music/light techno) with a really ugly thing to have to mix together. Fruity loops was chosen because at the time (2002) it was often used in the genres that I hated. I was just doing the thing that seemed the most fun and represented what upset me.

So you're saying that the music you made for that video has "empty content?" Either you like "empty content" or you're ripping on your own music?

What it represents is self hatred and a desire to make others feel the same.
Why someone would watch something that vile on my recommendation gives a sense of humor to the process. It's one of the more accidentally repeated themes in my work. "fuck you for listening" It's not an intentional thing, it just keeps reappearing.

If you have certain intentions with the song and the video then just post them in the original post man. Seriously. What were you thinking when you posted this video? "Oh man, everyone is going to get what I'm getting at Instantly and really dig it!"
No.
Or did you post this video/music for the objective of getting people to react poorly so you could be one of those individuals who thinks highly of his/herself and just to be "different" than everyone? Then you could act like you know more than everyone else and call everyone closeted or closed minded.

No. If I posted what it was nobody'd watch. Then the experiment is over. What I didn't expect was the closed definition of art and music. I really never anticipated it. I make things for consumption by everyone. But I hate everyone and most of my product. I'm really stoned now so I'm probably being too honest. Music for me is about hate. Love songs are ultimately about frustration and blueballs. Non love ballads (exploration-space or otherwise) are about desires unreachable (current favorite Queen song '39). Stories about being a musician usually involve talking shit about other people (in rap) or about the crowd and the road (rock+country). Music is about pain. I though I'd bring a little pain to the brain of people interested in my music.

I really like crazy shit for music/videos. And I'm always game for watching "new" things. Like maybe if there is a nice explanation for the extremely vulgar nature of your video, I might enjoy the thought behind it.

There is a really simple explanation. I thought it'd be neat and interesting to try. I'm proud of the result, but in discovery of the hermaphrodite facade, I disown this piece. This was to show the real ugliness of the genre.

So after my longest post ever. I'd just like to say.

Man, what the fuck.

Thank you. Actually that is generally the response I look for in work. If I can go what the fuck or not be able to watch/listen to the thing for a few years then I'm really proud of the work.

 

[Chili]

Copyright laws only apply to intent to sell or distribute. This also falls under fair use.

Not true on both accounts (at least in the US) Copyright infringement has nothing to do with whether it is intended for sale or distribution. And Fair Use does not cover "Art" as you have already called it.

I agree with you in that the original material as used was intended for pornography. However, I've repurposed it and claimed it as my own by editing and changing the context. That is how it works.

That's not how it works. That is stealing. Whether it's music or video, if you're going to sample someone else's work, you need their permission.

Of course, the FBI won't be knocking on your door, but you shouldn't be claiming material as your own if it isn't. Especially in art and music.

Peace,

 

[elenore19]

Right and my repurposing is what made it no longer presented as pornography



No. It's not about open or closed mind. It's about me not censoring myself when I create my stuff and assuming others do the same for themselves. I don't expect to get other people's work because of the weird way my nerd brain works so I'm honestly as surprised if people get than if they don't.



Nice catch. This and a few other songs were done on fruity loops. This song is sort of mocking myself for making something in an environment I hated (not tape loops and noises) in a genre I hate (dance music/light techno) with a really ugly thing to have to mix together. Fruity loops was chosen because at the time (2002) it was often used in the genres that I hated. I was just doing the thing that seemed the most fun and represented what upset me.


What it represents is self hatred and a desire to make others feel the same.
Why someone would watch something that vile on my recommendation gives a sense of humor to the process. It's one of the more accidentally repeated themes in my work. "fuck you for listening" It's not an intentional thing, it just keeps reappearing.



No. If I posted what it was nobody'd watch. Then the experiment is over. What I didn't expect was the closed definition of art and music. I really never anticipated it. I make things for consumption by everyone. But I hate everyone and most of my product. I'm really stoned now so I'm probably being too honest. Music for me is about hate. Love songs are ultimately about frustration and blueballs. Non love ballads (exploration-space or otherwise) are about desires unreachable (current favorite Queen song '39). Stories about being a musician usually involve talking shit about other people (in rap) or about the crowd and the road (rock+country). Music is about pain. I though I'd bring a little pain to the brain of people interested in my music.



There is a really simple explanation. I thought it'd be neat and interesting to try. I'm proud of the result, but in discovery of the hermaphrodite facade, I disown this piece. This was to show the real ugliness of the genre.



Thank you. Actually that is generally the response I look for in work. If I can go what the fuck or not be able to watch/listen to the thing for a few years then I'm really proud of the work.

See, now with that. I dig this whole thing a lot more. Granted I still consider the video porn, and I still think this whole thing is a little messed up. But now that I see what you're tryin' to do. I find it pretty interesting.


On a side note...I'm way too sober right now to really get "deep." Damn school work.

 

[reklus]

Not true on both accounts (at least in the US) Copyright infringement has nothing to do with whether it is intended for sale or distribution. And Fair Use does not cover "Art" as you have already called it.



That's not how it works. That is stealing. Whether it's music or video, if you're going to sample someone else's work, you need their permission.

Of course, the FBI won't be knocking on your door, but you shouldn't be claiming material as your own if it isn't. Especially in art and music.

Peace,

Just as a point of clarification. I never claimed to be the maker of the source material. So...yeah. I'm not claiming that. However I'm claiming that by repurposing this material and releasing it for free I've changed the nature enough to call it my own.

You're right in your statement about law. I disagree with those laws. I also claim the right to state that I made these videos overseas. I can say I or an agent created these remotely or other shores. Also. Fuck copyright laws. If the copyright awareness of the public was like this in the 70's and 80's we'd have no good early rap.

Art has always been about stealing and lifting other people's shit while giving credit to the original. That's how artists learn and how people start most bands.

The difference is modern interpretation of copyright law applies to the idea of the material, not the material itself.

Fuck that. I reject these immoral and unchallenged laws.

 

[rayc]

We've had this discussion publicly in australia this year: a famous photographer exhibited ina gallery & posted on a web site photographs of nude 12 & 13 year old gorls.
He & his supporters claimed, perhaps as a noble and artistic manifesto , that the intention of the images was neither erotic nor pornographic & that an artist had the right to make such images for "art's sake".
Making such a statement, which was eventually accepted by a court, has created an excuse for those who's intentions are less artistic.
Regardless of the artist's intent, the images are not always used according to design. How many renaissance, neoclassical or simply nude paintings provided titillation for many generations of pubescent boys?
Posting the images, publicizing them and providing free access allowed those who's intentions were less noble opportunities to enjoy the work in a way that is less than savory.
Dadaism, surrealism and various other isms use the juxtaposition of images/concepts/values to provoke thought and a reaction but the king of surrealism, Dali, was also an old perv so his intentions are muddier.
Claiming a cause to be noble doesn't make it so.
Copyright law also covers claims of ownership/authorship/etc.
"Repurposing" is, I assume, you mediating an image/work/concept to your own ends.
Regardless of copyright status the moral high ground in dealing with source material that is in the public domain and free of encumberances is only achieved by crediting not only the creator but also the sources.
"Repurposing" is, by the way, a very clumsy new word for a very old process.
Now, this was a piece of old porn presented in a such a way as it no longer excited, titillated and aroused the viewer?
Was that because it debased the viewer, debased the participants, debased the artists, was so (deliberately) out of context that it shocked the viewer into a higher realisation, or just wasn't much good?
I didn't get to view it obviously.
Oh, I'm not really a prude and not a censorship loving freak: but there are things that go beyond the pale and the road to some really hot club is paved by good intentions.
Oh, oh, re copyright and good early rap - I think you can claim ownership of the oxymoron!
Oh, oh, oh, "I'm mad as hell & I'm not gonna take it any more!"

 

[reklus]

Regardless of copyright status the moral high ground in dealing with source material that is in the public domain and free of encumberances is only achieved by crediting not only the creator but also the sources.
"Repurposing" is, by the way, a very clumsy new word for a very old process.

I agree. The problem with found stuff is often the creator is not apparent or credited. I credit Kazaa then. I have no way of knowing or reasonably finding out the original owners of material. Part of the statement in this video was indeed that all elements of the song were stolen (even the programs used to mix and sequence) mostly through Kazaa.

It's been a few years and I've distanced myself from the original intention and I have to say that part of it is pretty crap. Attribution is important and it certainly is missing in this piece.

 

[reklus]

Oh, oh, re copyright and good early rap - I think you can claim ownership of the oxymoron!
Oh, oh, oh, "I'm mad as hell & I'm not gonna take it any more!"

http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/120201/NEW.MOV

if you're interested.

 

[Rokket]

Copyright laws only apply to intent to sell or distribute. This also falls under fair use.

Ummm, no. They also cover public display and performance, which is what you did posting it on the internet. I have 10 copyrighted songs registered. I read all the fine print. Go read up on it:

http://www.copyright.gov/

 

[Chili]

... However I'm claiming that by repurposing this material and releasing it for free I've changed the nature enough to call it my own...

It's a matter of ownership. If you were to pick out a car in a parking lot that was not yours and then paint it a new color, it's still not yours. Change the tires... not yours... break into it and drive it away, not yours....

... You're right in your statement about law. I disagree with those laws. I also claim the right to state that I made these videos overseas. I can say I or an agent created these remotely or other shores. Also. Fuck copyright laws. If the copyright awareness of the public was like this in the 70's and 80's we'd have no good early rap...

You can certainly disagree, but that doesn't change the law. Most countries have signed treaties that respect each other's copyright laws. While I'm no expert, I believe you can expect the same laws overseas... except maybe North Korea, ha ha.

... The difference is modern interpretation of copyright law applies to the idea of the material, not the material itself.

Fuck that. I reject these immoral and unchallenged laws.

Yup, I'll agree on this one, there's a bit of interpretation involved. Unfortunately, it would interpreted by a judge (or jury) in a court of law. But no one is ever going to take you to court over it.

I never saw the video, so I can't comment on it. Not that I'd want to see Ron Jeremy with a hermaphrodite, anyways. I think there's better porn to look at....

 

[reklus]

Ummm, no. They also cover public display and performance, which is what you did posting it on the internet. I have 10 copyrighted songs registered. I read all the fine print. Go read up on it:

http://www.copyright.gov/

My real point is that I don't recognize these laws because they infringe on my exploration of my art. I'll fight for that anyday. I don't sell any work I do and I don't use it for commercial gain so they can't claim a loss. I still go back to Duchamp for this. Nobody came down on him for copyright and all he put a goatee on the Mona Lisa. Nobody claimed losses or copyright infringement. The government has a responsibility to enforce laws that pass the test of common sense. I don't see the ice cream in a pocket in Utah law being a big deal anymore and I think these laws are basically the same: Signs of a time better left forgotten.

Also, as for modern understanding of copyright infringement: It's only there to protect people with enough money to make ungodly amount of money off of it. If I create a song and Nike hires some inhouse production guy that is a fan of my work and he lifts the basic theme to one of my songs for a Just Do It commercial, the chance of me getting them to stop using that song is minisicule.
But if a band uses a super small sample in a song from someone representing the big money (see that awful song Bittersweet Symphony) they get sued by the big boys and forced to lose all money and rights on the finished product.

I denounce these practices and the mindset that goes with them.

 

[Rokket]

My real point is that I don't recognize these laws because they infringe on my exploration of my art. I'll fight for that anyday. I don't sell any work I do and I don't use it for commercial gain so they can't claim a loss. I still go back to Duchamp for this. Nobody came down on him for copyright and all he put a goatee on the Mona Lisa. Nobody claimed losses or copyright infringement. The government has a responsibility to enforce laws that pass the test of common sense. I don't see the ice cream in a pocket in Utah law being a big deal anymore and I think these laws are basically the same: Signs of a time better left forgotten.

Also, as for modern understanding of copyright infringement: It's only there to protect people with enough money to make ungodly amount of money off of it. If I create a song and Nike hires some inhouse production guy that is a fan of my work and he lifts the basic theme to one of my songs for a Just Do It commercial, the chance of me getting them to stop using that song is minisicule.
But if a band uses a super small sample in a song from someone representing the big money (see that awful song Bittersweet Symphony) they get sued by the big boys and forced to lose all money and rights on the finished product.

I denounce these practices and the mindset that goes with them.

Denounce and refuse to recognize all you want. If you do this to the wrong entity at the wrong time...

I'm done with this argument. It isn't fun anymore. Good luck with your art. I hope it doesn't get you into trouble.

 

[reklus]

Denounce and refuse to recognize all you want. If you do this to the wrong entity at the wrong time....

At the time I was trying to.

That's part of the statement too.

I've nothing they can take. So they won't.

Now, not so much. I've got a wife and a studio and a business that I'm fairly happy with. Plus I'm almost 30. So I don't play around quite as much. Which sucks.

 

[rayc]

OK, I downloaded and watched/listened to the flick.
Given that Porno flicks routinely raided the copyright dumper bin for recordings &/or manuscripts to record as soundtracks; I can't see this rendering as much different.
The time shift of 70's disco porn to noughties doof doof porn isn't a large stretch really.
Ron Jeremy would be a "star" in any era of porn - he was prepared to be as gross as circumstances demanded.
Colouring classic movies was probably a more offensive attack on original art - both in concept (tart up for resell) and execution (SOOOO badly done).
RIGHT, now to tin tacks:
My aim is to repurpose this thread as a discussion of the neofreudian symbolism of the neoclassical image of the neometrosexual rebadging of the hermophrodite as a pseudoneopolitan sauce in various "art house" movies of the late 60's.
let the discource disgorge...

 

[dualflip]

My aim is to repurpose this thread as a discussion of the neofreudian symbolism of the neoclassical image of the neometrosexual rebadging of the hermophrodite as a pseudoneopolitan sauce in various "art house" movies of the late 60's.
let the discource disgorge...

Wow that was deep!

 

[Greg_L]

Ray, I love you bro, but I can't understand 90% of what you'res saying.

 

[reklus]

My aim is to repurpose this thread as a discussion of the neofreudian symbolism of the neoclassical image of the neometrosexual rebadging of the hermophrodite as a pseudoneopolitan sauce in various "art house" movies of the late 60's.
let the discource disgorge...

If you're not even going to try to take this seriously, I'm going to take my gameboy and go home.

 

[ido1957]

If you're not even going to try to take this seriously, I'm going to take my gameboy and go home.

Ray is a master when it comes to the English language.... He's serious as a heart attack...

 

[rayc]

dualflip,
"Wow that was deep!" There's only so much depth at the bottom of a barrel.
Greg_L,
"...I can't understand 90% of what you're saying." That's because I was only saying 10% so in reality your on the money Greg!
reklus
"...try to take this seriously..." C'mon, I was serious for a sentence or two at the top. The juxtaposition wasn't a clash of icons or an undermining of mores so it didn't really cut hard enough. Ron & Hermie performing the beast with two backs to Swan Lake or Schoenberg's Pierrot Lunaire would have been interesting; the same crew performing to More than A Woman would've been a giggle and seeing the vid cut with Montessaro Seed adverts would've been provokative. I just think you were too conservative given your manifesto.
ido1957
"...serious as a heart attack." And I have a cardiac arresting stare! (Sorry I appropriated that from an 80's pop song "Goosebumps" {T. Britten} performed by one Christie Allen - the Kylie of her time - such a bad song with such a great line).
Vale Christie, died of pancreatic cancer last month.

 

[ido1957]

......................