My question is why won't youtube, now owned by mega mogul Google, strike a deal with warner music? Do they feel they don't need them? Or that the force of youtube will sweep the old boys' clubs rules away if they wait long enough? or that public opinion will somehow decide an outcome? I would like to be a fly on the wall, listening to that debate. That said, the question of ownership and what constitutes infringment in our brave new internetted world is ongoing. Youtube is a public forum, but lorded over by those with private interests. We've grown to think of it as a "freezone" equal oppurtunity employer (with no money exchanged.) Google is making money off of other peoples desire to show their stuff. Record companies have made innordinate profits off the backs of artists for years, because the only way for musicians to reach the masses was to be "discovered" by someone at a record co. and be promoted all the way to fame and fortune. Many have embraced independence, but the crumbling of the old ownership system has affected the artists too. While the new generation adapts to the new apparent Glastnost, there are many musicians who feel they have lost even more control of their art. I know of one well known jazz player who would stop concert if he saw someone recording it. Others see it as free publicity. For artists, the struggle has always been how can I connect my work to the public, the way I envision it, and how can I make enough money to continue to be an artist. The modes of control are forever shifting but ultimatly the issue of money emerges on either side. How bout if we do away with this pesky money thing. It complicates everything!

neuroasthetics

Personally, I always find this kind of research to be annoying. If you want to study the brain and it's reaction to stimuli, fine. That in itself can be fascinating. The process of all these electric impulses working together to form a concept of reality, real or created is interesting and profound. But trying to measure beauty, or to say that there is such thing as "universal beauty" seems to me ridiculous. We do not all find the same things beautiful. Maybe there are specific parts of our brains that "activate" when we find something beautiful, but any composite potrait I've seen, claiming to create "the perfect face" does nothing for me. And comparing brain centers lighting up during a deeply moving experience looking at a painting, to someone responding to it's financial or cultural "value" is just silly! (and a superficial understanding.) Obviously they are not the same in any real way. Though there are some images many people respond to positivly, I think  personal experiences including memories and dreams have as much if not more to do with personal taste then some concept of universal beauty, or an external value system. Of course we are all influenced by our cultural experience and maybe to some extent by genetic memory. I wonder what someone from a completely different culture would think, looking at some of our "masterpieces. I can't help but be reminded of the movie "the Gods must be Crazy." It seems to me this article is extremely eurocentric and egocentric on the part of the author and his subject. Their attempts try to neatly package the power of the language of art by breaking it down to compartments which they observe, but in my mind, don't understand. The part of this article I found most interesting was the concept that it is nearly impossible to translate what is in an artists mind to actualization.  I thought the idea that the reason we relate to unfinished works is that realization of the impossibility of perfection in a finished piece was correct. Now that I'm writing this, it sounds rather highbrow and pretentious. but still, somthing about it is interesting to me. I think an unfinished artwork, invites the viewer partly to finish it with thier own mind. They become part of the creative process. And that is satisfying on some level.

vector self portrait- Pinktastic

Lorenz: YouTube vs. Warner

I think that companies like Warner need to learn to pick their battles.  I understand and respect the fact that they own certain copyrights and have the right to protect them, but most of what's on YouTube seems like it should be a pretty low priority.  If a 15 year old wants to sing a Christmas carol that's been around for 60 years, why not let her sing it?  We all know it, we've all heard it a thousand times on the radio, so what's the big deal?  

I'm not sure what the correct action in this case actually is, though.  While I feel like it's a little ridiculous to target people who use a song for a few seconds in the background of a video, the copyright does belong to Warner.  If they don't want it played, that's their prerogative.  It's a tricky issue, but hopefully YouTube and Warner can come up with a sensible agreement to retain the rights of both Warner and the public.

YouTube Vs. Warner

As ridiculous as it may seem that Warner Music Group removed a 15 year old girl’s cover of a Christmas carol, I don’t necessarily disagree with them. It’s just business. The article states that YouTube has licensing deals with numerous major music companies, so for every popular song that plays on YouTube, someone is making money by allowing YouTube to keep it up on the website. For whatever reason, Warner and YouTube could not agree on a deal, so Warner is just reacting to this. I agree that pulling the video of a guy teaching sign language may be going overboard, but Warner stated that their song identifying software is automatic and has no way of distinguishing professional from amateur. This is a much more efficient way of removing videos than having someone manually go through them, which would be pretty much impossible. Warner may seem like the bad guy here, but they are just doing what they need to do. I think any other music company would do the same thing if they could not agree to terms with YouTube. As much as it stinks, people need to remember that there’s always a risk when you post something on the internet. Having Warner remove the videos is not the worst thing that could have happened, being sued would be a lot worse.

Al Greene's Self Portrait

Al Greene's Self Portrait