my point was that if corporations/government are going to spend millions of=
dollars creating symbols/icons that have a meaning/message … then anyone=
that disagrees with the message should be able to create a counter-message=
by twisting/manipulating the image in a different way …
artists already do this. many have become quite famous by using religious =
symbols in ways that were not intended. the only reason that artists can d=
o this is because the Holy Cross is not a registered trademark.
david goldschmidt
—– Original Message —–
From: unbehagen.com
To: David Goldschmidt
Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 6:16 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: please reply
hi again
I think I might have misunderstood you mail
I thought it was about the question of the relation between language and =
images. And I found the idea of a "dictionnary" paradoxical and conceptuall=
y interesting.
It seems to me now that it's more focused on a very practical question ab=
out copyright….
Christophe Bruno
http://www.unbehagen.com
—– Message d'origine —–
De : David Goldschmidt
A : list@rhizome.org
Envoye : dimanche 15 septembre 2002 06:06
Objet : RHIZOME_RAW: please reply
there is not a single person on this list that would deny that the imag=
es of film and television … is a language … if Webster can create a dic=
tionary of words then there needs to be a dictionary of images (from mickey=
mouse to the WTC) … and we should be able to use any image that enters t=
he public conscience to our own ends.
what do you see when you imagine the world? what are you not saying be=
cause you are afraid of copyright infringement? what is not being said? w=
hat is not being said effectively?
if this email doesn't make sense then i apologize. i'm a bit toasted a=
nd very angry. i can't help but think that today's copyright laws are unco=
nstitutional … they restrict free speech/expression.
david goldschmidt
On Sun, 15 Sep 2002, David Goldschmidt wrote:
> my point was that if corporations/government are going to spend millions of dollars creating symbols/icons that have a meaning/message
and the point of this is? let's throw in 'millions of dollars' as an
attention-hook–or is this because you feel corporations should spend
their money as you see fit? or is this an attempt at 'appropriation-
by-shadowing' of the power of that 'millions of dollars'–but making
yourself look clean by packaging it as 'righteous rebellion'?
> then anyone that disagrees with the message should be able to create a
> counter-message by twisting/manipulating the image in a different way
No, you shouldn't. It's not 'yours'. If you want to 'comment' or
'counter' create something of your own which has strength.
You're not creating a 'counter-message' by stealing, you're
appropriating power for self-aggrandizing purposes.
And most corporations–and individuals–know how to deal with that.
> artists already do this. many have become quite famous by using
> religious symbols in ways that were not intended.
Right–was waiting for this to come up. Let's elevate church burning
to an art form.
> the only reason that artists can do this is because the Holy Cross is
> not a registered trademark.
And idiotic bashing of the Holy Cross is so.. intelligent.