Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="BooksB4Coins, post: 2511750, member: 36230"]It is indeed one of my very favorite words, especially when it's so perfectly fitting. Sure, readers can draw their own conclusions or assumptions based solely upon how many times a certain word was used, or they could dig a little deeper, place its use in context, and see for themselves WHY it was used, but doing so wouldn't help your little narrative, so let's forget about that. As for the rest of this drivel, artificially low production numbers are just that; artificial. A wise business move all things considered, but your product still is what it is, and that's a well-done knock-off/copy made in lesser numbers than others. The entire point though was that one might think someone who so desires his own "work" to be widely viewed as "art" would give the same respect to others, deserving of it or not. As for the "quality" claim, I find it very interesting as it somewhat deviates from and contradicts earlier arguments over what "art" is. Previously it was implied that your non-existent skill to create with your own hands was your claim to "art", but now it's the quality of your "work" (computer generated copies), so which is it? By your own definition, if someone else's copies developed a following/demand and began to sell at premiums above that of their metal content, they'd no longer be generic. If so this would suggest that the sole definer of "art" is what some poor schmo is willing to cough up for it and not the talent used to create (not produce) it. And I well understand the meaning of generic, and think it perfectly applies to someone whose greatest fame is due to the exact copying of the work of others. Let's be honest here; had you stuck to your so-called original designs, which often seem to incorporate elements of others work, you would be nowhere near as well known today. Like many 80s or 90s rappers who made their name "sampling" the genuine talent of others, you've piggybacked your way to the majority of whatever acclaim you presently enjoy within this hobby. If you now wish to distance yourself from previous statements regarding your "art" as the result of exact copying, and now wish to focus only on your craftsmanship, I can certainly respect and buy that. Of course we both know this would go against your very "take credit" nature. After all, you're the one who has publicly claimed the "date to be [your] signature" when pressed with questions of why you steadfastly refuse to incorporate clear and obvious identifiers into your copies, but also turn around and say you do not "claim ownership" of the dates. How can such a contradictory and ludicrous claim make sense to any rational individual? Remove the fanboy mentality and what are you left with? A steaming pile of BS. I also noticed, sir, that you failed to address or even acknowledge a direct question asked of you. Perhaps you simply missed it, but history suggests another cause, and one best described by another of my favorite words: deflection.[/QUOTE]

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches