Chuck writes:
> These may be rough times for U2, Britney Spears, and
other mega stars, but it's a wonderful time for small artists.
But a terrible time for not so small artists. If you are a bunch of white boys with a garage it is fine. But if you write plays with queer themes requiring Black or interracial casts, times are very difficult. I have had plays turned down because the cast was too large, they felt they could not cast the righ actors (couldn't they all be white instead? does it matter that much?), and because the play might offend people (isn't that one of the purposes of art? Or is art now made so that it can be consumed/owned as a tool to help shore up a middle-brow, middle class sense of self?). Everyone wants one-person/two-person plays that will appeal to a white, heterosexual middle-brow sensibility.
> File sharing and new technologies have smashed this exclusive
distribution system.
But you still need appropriate physical space for theatre/performance.
Justin writes:
> You're helping feed him, do the housework, making it possible
for him to write.
Me housework? LOL. Why do you think I got married? LOL. But I guess I believe that the minimum a person should do in life is to create safe, nurturing environments for others.
> Actors will act in it, directors will direct it, publishers will publish it,
booksellers distribute it.
True, but none of them will write it (though actors often think they do or try to LOL).
> Locke and Nozick gave up on trying to say. I don't
think there is an intelligible answer.
Now you lost me.
> So, what matters is the product, not the effort?
The effort matters, but varies from person to person. Thomas Pynchon writes one novel for every twelve by Joyce Carol Oates. It seems she has a greater facility or maybe he just sits on his texts for a longer period of time. But how can you compare the effort between the two? Is it harder to write one Pynchon novel every 10 years or 12 Oates novels every 5 years? Is it even worthwhile to try and figure out a way to measure this effort?
> Does it matter if the product is good or bad?
It matters if it is useful or not. Good or bad is an aesthetic reaction that individuals will have.
Something that is bad art to me may be of use to someone else. In fact, it may be of use to me.
> Does a great work belong more to the creator than
a poor or derivative onee?
Great Tennessee Williams belongs as much to him as poor Tennessee Williams.
> So only the product matters? Just testing your
intuitions.
The usefulness of the product matters and the circumstances under which it was created. But my struggle over a phrase is a circumstance that I create for myself. I could whip off an e-mail, but when I have tried that approach I am dissatisfied with the result. A more painstaking approach suits me, so it is the one which I use.
On the otherhand, TJ just types away and usually needs little revision. I do not know how he does it, and I am in awe. In each case, the method of production suits the producer. (You have no idea how many times I have re-read this e-mail, making slight adjustments).
> The problem is that the labor theory of property tells
you that the act of proucing confers ownership rights.
Why then shouldn't the effort and time of that act
count too? Doesn't it matter that he worked hard or
for a long time? (Or not?)
But isn't the time and effort part of the process of producing that creates the product? At least to me it is obvious that time and effort are included. Why separate them out? Nobody writes at the same pace or with the same ease (see above).
> No -- as Mike Ballard was saying, if aything gives
workers a right to the fuit of their products, it's not their
having produced it, but the bad consequences of keeping
it from them, like alienation and oppression.
I did not think that deeply, but reflecting on it, it is how I understand it. To me, a person's right to the fruits of her labor is a tool to reduce suffering. Since it accomplishes this goal (if implemented properly) it creates the right of workers to own the fruit of their labor.
> So far we haven't run out of new things to say about
Homer and Sophocles.
Maybe. But it still doesn't mean a) that there is an infinite number of things to say; or b) that what remains unsaid is of any use.
> Depends on usefulness for what.
It seems that most people seek to decrease suffering in their existences. Didn't Charles once say that maybe one of reasons humans banded together was for mutual support? I don't have evidence, but I believe this to be true.
The problem is that somewhere along the line our culture came up with the notion of self. This self was largely defined by its desires, so we set up desire-trinket manufacturing systems. We began to believe that each person had a self that had to be actualized and its aspirations met. It has been downhill ever since. (Sidebar: who came up with the notion of the individual self and when? And how and why did this notion of identity best others? If anybody can point me to some research/texts I would appreciate it).
If we could recover a sense of usefulness and no-self instead of desire satisfaction and individualism, we might get somewhere.
Kelley writes:
> a great person to read on this is dorothy smith who talks
about all the labor involved in the act of writing the book you're
reading: the person who built the building, the janitor who cleaned
the floors and emptied waste baskets of crumpled up paper, the
person who fills the vending machines, etc. etc.
I get the same perspective from Buddhism -- the interdependent origination of reality. I am getting the sense of miscommunication here. What follows is an approximation of what I sense -- I have to meet TJ at the dentist so I must be a little rushed.
The fact that everyone/everything contributes to the existence of everyone/everything (interdependent origination) is the ground of reality. To oppose this fact against the fiction of the individual seems wrong in some way -- I am just not sure how.
Nagarjuna identified ultimate reality and practical/pragmatic reality. As sentient beings we live with the knowledge of ultimate reality and perform in pragmatic reality (see The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way for a clearer/better explanation -- the Garfield translation is the one I find most useful).
Just as in Zeno's Paradox (I think) where it is shown that you cannot cross a room since you are really always going halfway, the truth is that your body does cross the room.
In the same way, while it is true that everything/everybody gives rise to everything/everybody else (a brief period of simple meditation will allow a person to experience this truth), we create a fiction of self in order to navigate the world of chairs, walls, plays, computers, etc. To oppose the fact of interdependent origination against the fiction of self seems empty: we all agree on the interdependent origination of reality -- the question is is how do we deal with the people/things created in this process.
Interdependent origination creates the convention of self. To oppose the convention of self with the fact of interdependent origination seems like begging the question. I wish I could be clearer. I will think more upon it.
I know there have been more responses, but I have to leave. However, I was pleased to see Miles coming out against hyperindividualism. Next thing you know he will be championing no-self. It's a regular gosh durn Christmas miracle, thank dog.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister