Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 23:50:55 -0400
Subject: Re: art/capital
From: "Robert Janiga" <rjaniga-AT-yorku.ca>


Edwin,

until you can explain to me what the parameters of originality are, it seems
the discussion has been sucked of its energy.  You say that I say that
"samples are copies [of ordinary originals] in the usual sense".  But I have
said no such thing.  All I stated was that copies are indeed copies, but
they are not copies of something original.  Now, I have something to say
about "origins" but I would like to hear what you have to say about the
matter.  You also state that my use of the term may not fit in to the usual
use.  But does your understanding of the term qualify as "usual"?  I think a
lot of people in media studies might disagree with this.  Anyhow, waiting
for some clarification of the term "original".

Cheers,

Robert :o)
----------
>From: Edwin Coleman <edwincoleman-AT-mail.bigpond.com>
>To: deleuze-guattari-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>Subject: Re: art/capital
>Date: Sun, Jun 20, 1999, 6:09 PM
>

>Robert Janiga wrote
>>
>>Could this be expanded on?  It isn't clear that "contradiction" plays a role
>>(unless, I guess, you're an adherent to symbolic logic, or something) here. 
>>Sure, to say that a particular cultural artefact "copies" something that
>>doesn't even exist sounds bizarre.  But it seems to me that it points to the
>>circular predicaments of reason.  Secondly, take a dance track, say, from
>>the genre of acid jazz.  When Djs like Kruder and Dorfmeister mix various
>>musical genres from different decades, add in samples, and employ other
>>technological manipulations, how does one even begin to speak about
>>"originals"?  A particular track on their CD might pay homage and credit to
>>an artist (Depeche Mode, for instance), but is this a copy of something
>>original?  What are the specific conditions for originality?  Nonetheless,
>>it is a "copy" since it can be re-produced ad infinitum by major record
>>companies, as well as with CD burning technologies.
>>
>>Robert
>>
>
>I don't know what you mean by the "circular predicaments of reason", please
>explain.
>I am a longtime opponent of accepting symbolic logic as hegemonic, but I
>still think we should use terms with care and consistency.
>You ask 
>>how does one even begin to speak about "originals"?
>but in fact you show how this can be done yourself in a completely
>unconfusing way by the description you have given : the samples are copies
>[of ordinary originals] in the usual sense, which are then combined and
>altered to make something which is not itself a copy of anything, though as
>you say it can itself be copied. But 
>[1] why call something a copy just because its ingredients are copies ?
>That's an empiricist confusion begun by David Hume, so at least it has
>basis in tradition, though we should reject it. And 
>[2] to call it a copy because it can be copied is like calling a mountain a
>copy of a photo of it. You can do it, of course, no-one owns english, but
>you are being confusing, since until recently copies have been understood
>to come after what they copy. All you are doing is introduce a new and
>incompatible use of the term copy so that people can't be sure if its your
>usage or the usual one when someone else says 'copy'. I just think things
>are confusing enough without deliberately making it worse.
>
>edwin coleman