Randomness

[Patroklus]

Grasshoppers eat plant fibers. Clothing is made from plant fibers. Don't let them live.

[lowrey]

[Karamazov]

Baited traps with glue or sticky paper are probably your best bet.

Also, I think it's mainly crickets that destroy clothes, but grasshoppers will eat through cotton or wool if there's no food around.

[Carcass]

And who will pay for the dry cleaning afterwards?

[interest1]

*applies to wayward grasshoppers, as well.

[Vanna]

Im really fucking excited for "The Dark Knight Rises."

[Shucks]

watching this right now - pretty interesting...

[0JSIMPS0N]

have really bad ocd about clothing. every garment from a brand has to be the same size

[Vanna]

Interesting article about artists rights:

http://hyperallergic.com/54104/my-chuck-close-problem/

[crtk001]

Interesting article about artists rights:

http://hyperallergic.com/54104/my-chuck-close-problem/

I want to know how much of these was just stuff he knew, or a case for copyright in art that he googled and researched after having been told to stop by Close. I was impressed he brought in the Sherri Levine reference which would be his best case I feel, because the two end pieces are identical.

What he's doing is derivative, self admittedly by referring to it as "Free Chuck Close Art", but also in what his end product is. Assemblage has a wonderful history in art, but it's done as re-appropiation, look at Richard Hamilton's work. It's this thought into the work that permits Levine work too. What he is doing is taking Chuck Close's painting, cutting them up, and recreating his Close's work with the pieces. There's no re-appropation, or re-contextualization, its simply reproduction and not even creating his own pieces to do so with.

He's just whiny and trying to now try to save his ass by attempting to through himself into the middle of the whole digital copyright debate thats been going on.

[casem]

Interesting read but yea I agree with the above. I agree creativity doesn't come out of thin air, but there are basic differences between the legitimate forms of direct appropriation he sites (ie. recontextualization or other transformations that demonstrate a point of view coming from the artist) and what he is doing which replicates another artists style without him adding anything to it. I totally think what he's doing is legit as an homage and for that reason if I was Close I would let him continue, but I don't think I'd call the images created with his program art.

There's a major fault in what seems to be the base of his argument "I believe my digital mosaics were not copying his art but rather a logical extension of the creative process." The problem is that it isn't an extension of "the creative process" it's an extension of Chuck Close's creative process. Personally, I'm happy to take ideas from wherever I find them but I'm not interested in anyone else's creative process but my own.

[Vanna]

I agree with the both of you. It wasn't a logical extension of his creative process, but rather Mr. Close's, like Casey said. I just find it funny that Chuck Close would site these things as reason enough for him to desist:

"It may be an amusing project and many people might like it, but it is MY art that is trivialized, MY career you are jeopardizing, MY legacy, which I have to think about for my children, and MY livelihood. I must fight to protect it."

Especially for an artist with such an illustrious career. I mean, he's not Bacon, or Vermeer, but he's still important enough a part of contemporary art to know that his career will unlikely be jeopardized because of some guys digital version of his work. What an old queen.

[Czx]

So where are you? I'm pretty much and all the stages at the same time. Did I reach the real godlike level? <the life of music journalist>

[casem]

^Wow this is amazing! I'm working on a PhD in music so I definitely spend a lot of time in level 6 to infinity, though I'm not ashamed to admit I spend a lot of time in level 1 and 2 as well.

[Patroklus]

apparently this is plebeian level music