BobDylan

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 2, 2007 -> 06:45 AM) This had me thinking. Who/What is Apple? Hardware? Software? OS? Balance of the three? It's not Motorola chips anymore. Would Apple be Apple if Dell started making computers that ran on the Mac OS? Would Apple be Apple if they offered a choice of Mac OS or Windows on their hardware? Would Apple exist if everyone was smart enough to use a PC? Any software will work better with hardware that is designed for it (or the other way around). This is a lot of what Apple does. This way too, they're able to overprice the hell out of their products. There are PC's out there just as powerful as the Apple's, but cost 20% less. What I love about PC and Windows is that I can shop around and find the computer I like the most. I can find a keyboard that feels comortable with my hands. I can buy a lap top that is so easy to upgrade that I just unscrew a single panel on the bottom and I can replace the HD or RAM like a snap. I can go to pretty much any electronics retail store and find exactly what I need for my PC, and I can shop around for deals. With Mac, a lot of this is taken out of the equation. But the Apple OS does work great. It's less buggy than Windows, certainly, it's more "user friendly" certainly, but it's not consumer friendly. In whole, the reason I don't like Macs is because I have a very limited selection, the right click is entirely hidden -- and most Mac users can't explain to me how to use it -- and I think their version of the "toolbar" is very subpar. I also feel like I can locate files faster on my Windows XP than I can the Mac OS because of the start button. At this point I don't think it'd be very smart for Apple to put their OS on the market like Windows. I've never seen Apple more powerful than it is today, and it seems the only place they can go is up. If they can convince businesses, or even design machines specifically for the office jockey, then Windows might have to do something newer and different. If Apple were to put its software out on the market, users might find the same problems they do with Windows. The hardware has to be up to par for the software to work as intended. In Apple's case it is up to par, and they're designed to work together. If you take that out of the equation, the Mac OS might not be so user friendly, it might be buggy ... and in the end, it might be terribly devastating to the company which lives on its reputation of working so well. In the beginning I'd have called Jobs an idiot. I never expected Apple to make it this far up. I think it'd be stupid for them to change their entire business strategy at this point.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 2, 2007 -> 09:06 AM) Actually, yeah, morality is a big part of the storyline, but the plain truth is they are just fantastically written books that manage to engage a multi-generational audience. Plenty of people don't find them appealing or won't give them a spin, and there is certainly nothing wrong with that. But these are the books that 20-30 years from now my kids will be reading to their kids, and they are the books that got millions of grade schoolers (even the boys!!) to realize that reading is actually fun. For me, it's just hard to overstate the significance of that accomplishment. I've already said that I'm not discouraging kids from reading it. But why some adults are more excited to read the book than the children, that has me a bit confused.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Feb 1, 2007 -> 06:44 PM) Have you read the books? 'Cause, uh, they have plenty of deep meaning in them. I'm sure you've learned a lot about good and evil, about morals and ethics. Ahh, Harry Potter, you're so deep.

QUOTE(bmags @ Feb 1, 2007 -> 06:05 PM) is it the sounds of him sexing the indie beautys I'm not sure what you mean but I think I know what you mean. Yes.

QUOTE(RibbieRubarb @ Feb 1, 2007 -> 11:58 AM) I see NOTHING wrong with a product that gets millions and millions of kids to read books. I think it's great!!! That's true, but when its the only book their parents read too... QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Feb 1, 2007 -> 01:20 PM) If Rowlings really wants to continue writing in the series, she can either have Harry become a sports star who fights crime, or he can become a teacher Indiana Jones style. No, next she'll have to write about how she scarred Harry Potter as a child. All the drugs he did behind the scenes, the depression he's suffering from, how he's lost his magic powers.

Just got Bill Callahan's (formerly Smog) debut album. I haven't heard all of it yet, but it's pretty promising so far. I love what I've heard.

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! It's amazing how an easy read with hardly any relative meaning sells like hot cakes. 6.9 million copies? This must be some kind of a sick joke.

QUOTE(alennie @ Jan 31, 2007 -> 04:17 PM) Something you might send a pen pal or long lost cousin; something that gives an idea of what you look like. Do you discourage against people airbrushing the ugly out of their face?

QUOTE(CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Feb 1, 2007 -> 03:45 AM) If i culda ben numinatid 4 ne a ward i waz hoppin it wood b dat 1 ! Any fame is good fame, damnit. I've found it important to thank those who've recognized my shortcomings.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 31, 2007 -> 12:03 PM) I'm wondering of the people who have voted no way, how many have actually paid the $$$$ for Office? The roi of renting versus owning would be about 2 years. And with upgrades and etc. happening about every two years, the cost/benefit isn't as far out of line as first appearance. I voted no way, but I can't remember the last time I paid for MSOffice or any software whatsoever. In other words, I like pirates. And am I delirous, or did there used to be a day when Microsoft Word came free on Windows machines?

I'm nominaed for "Most eloquent poster who can right good." How did that happen? Anyway, whoever nominated me, I appreciate the thought and gesture. Same to those who've voted for me thus far and whoever will in the near future.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 30, 2007 -> 08:57 AM) Mas OS X The Mac OS is not "safer". It's just that if writing viruses is your thing, you get more bang attacking a PC because there are so many more PC's out there. It's kind of like using Mozilla Firefox instead of Internet Explorer. More use IE, therefore Mozilla floats under the radar. Of course, I realize you didn't make any claims and I'm just spouting my mouth off for apparently no reason. QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Feb 1, 2007 -> 12:10 AM) Make sure that you have your AV, the Vista firewall, and your antispyware on and ready to go. Also turn on the autoupdate feature, as they are already getting patches ready. The first exploits for Vista will be through the applications on Vista probably through email or messenger spam. They will target vulnerabilities in IE and messenger like in older versions. Just because this is on Vista doesn't mean you will be invulnerable. If I was going to target the system, I would look at the IPv6 stack as it is enabled on all Vista machines by default. You could encapsulate a normal IPv4 packet in IPv6 and see if it will answer and pass it through without checking it for security. I will probably install it on a VM just so I can mess around with it. First one to write an exploit will be famous. I'm running XP, but am I in the minority who thinks Windows Firewall and Automatic Updates are terribly tragic? Ever since I switched to a 3rd party firewall, I've yet to get a virus. And ever since I turned automatic updates off, I stop getting crap I don't want on my computer. QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Jan 30, 2007 -> 03:23 PM) Like the dvd creator on cpus that dont have dvd burners, Im sure theres an explanation but I dont get it. Microsoft makes software and sells it to computer companies who make the computers. Therefore, Microsoft doesn't control the computer hardware on the market, but they watch the trends. There are different versions of Windows, yes, but it's natural for them to assume that computers now have DVD burners in them as technology keeps improving and DVD burners pretty much come standard in new computers. Therefore, they put DVD burning software on all the Windows versions because it's convenient. If a computer is made without a DVD burner, Microsoft can't do anything about it unless they want to release a Windows called, "Windows for people who need to buy a new computer" and take off most of the luxury features.

I bought a car off Ebay once, and it was delivered via a giant truck. Cost $500 to have it shipped.

I used an illegal copy for about a month until they discovered me. It took some time to learn all the new "features", but I liked it a lot. It looked a lot better than XP, it was more organized, easier to use, and the search tool was amazing. I upgraded without any problem, but going back to XP was a pain. I had to delete my HD and start fresh.

QUOTE(bmags @ Jan 28, 2007 -> 09:29 PM) i loathe comedians like this. OH MAN CARLOS MENCIA CALLS THEM BEANERS LOLOLOLOL Carlos Mencia pales in comparison.

QUOTE(bmags @ Jan 28, 2007 -> 11:30 PM) That isn't writing, that's typing. HE'S NOT A WRITER. HE JUST TYPES!

I guess this goes alongside with some of what you were saying. The lump of clay may be a lump of clay, but to the next person, it's a symbol of freedom (or something). And to that too, does art really need to be created by man? As I look down at some of the Kerouac quotes I showed to bmags, look what he did with the forest. "I felt like lying down by the side of the trail and remembering it all. The woods do that to you, they always look familiar, long lost, like the face of a long-dead relative, like an old dream, like a piece of forgotten song drifting across the water, most of all like golden eternities of past childhood or past manhood and all the living and the dying and the heartbreak that went on a million years ago and the clouds as they pass overhead seem to testify (by their own lonesome familiarity) to this feeling. Ecstacy, even, I felt, with flashes of sudden remembrance, and feeling sweaty and drowsy I felt like sleeping and dreaming in the grass." Kerouac simply takes one instance, the forest, relates it to another, and bam, he's got new meaning. He's got his own meaning. He didn't create the forest, nobody did (unless you want to argue God, but for the sake of this argument, we won't say God did). (And yes, there are obviously other elements -- an entire book -- that I'm ignoring in which Kerouac was able to lead us and give that forest meaning.) But with that said, can I look at a lump of clay that nobody has ever really touched, ever really molded and created into something, and call it art? I say yes because I, with my own experiences, with my own imagination, can easily give meaning to it. I'm sure if I dig down deep enough I can relate it to a part in my life. If somebody takes that piece of clay and makes it into their own vision, then I believe it is something entirely different. It's still art, but a different kind of art. I guess what I'm trying to say is that one's imagination is art. We have the ability to believe whatever we want to believe. And it's beautiful that way. One might not find anything in that lump of clay, but the next sees a world unlike any other. Yet, it's just a lump of clay nobody has ever touched. And perhaps what I'm saying goes alongside what you said, "hey that speaks to the terror of an artist without inspiration!" And that's exactly right. You made that lump of clay art. QUOTE(bmags @ Jan 28, 2007 -> 09:16 PM) i roll my eyes at your 'kerouac' "I shambled after as I've been doing all my life after people who interest me, because the only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn, like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars and in the middle you see the blue centerlight pop and everybody goes 'Awww!' " "He saw that all the struggles of life were incessant, laborious, painful, that nothing was done quickly, without labor, that it had to undergo a thousand fondlings, revisings, moldings, addings, removings, graftings, tearings, correctings, smoothings, rebuildings, reconsiderings, nailings, tackings, chippings, hammerings, hoistings, connectings–all the poor fumbling uncertain incompletions of human endeavor. They went on forever and were forever incomplete, far from perfect, refined, or smooth, full of terrible memories of failure and fears of failure, yet, in the way of things, somehow noble, complete, and shining in the end. This he could sense even from the old house they lived in, with its solidly built walls and floors that held together like rock: some man, possibly an angry pessimistic man, had built the house long ago, but the house stood, and his anger and pessimism and irritable labourious sweats were forgotten; the house stood, and other men lived in it and were sheltered well in it." "A pain stabbed my heart as it did every time I saw a girl I loved who was going the opposite direction in this too-big world." "But why think about that when all the golden land's ahead of you and all kinds of unforeseen events wait lurking to surprise you and make you glad you're alive to see?" "Holy flowers floating in the air, were all these tired faces in the dawn of Jazz America." "I felt like lying down by the side of the trail and remembering it all. The woods do that to you, they always look familiar, long lost, like the face of a long-dead relative, like an old dream, like a piece of forgotten song drifting across the water, most of all like golden eternities of past childhood or past manhood and all the living and the dying and the heartbreak that went on a million years ago and the clouds as they pass overhead seem to testify (by their own lonesome familiarity) to this feeling. Ecstacy, even, I felt, with flashes of sudden remembrance, and feeling sweaty and drowsy I felt like sleeping and dreaming in the grass." To each his own, I guess.

Well, I guess I like to think more about myself sometimes... And certainly the process should be allowed. But unless the Church is going to make this a long standing argument and pick against all work that crosses their limits, why speak at all? Do they believe what they preach or not? I'd say that's enough. If a story can't be enjoyed without knowing the author, I don't think it's a very good story. This is very subjective, however. I tend to write my stories to one specific induvidual and make sure that one person can fully understand what I'm saying. I can't say all writers write that way, though in many "craft" books, they say to do it that way. I think either way you look at it, it's impossible to pull every nugget out of a story and understand it 100%. The reader can't get into the authors mind just as the author can't get into the readers head. I'd consider them in two piles as well the more I think about it. There are stories I enjoy just because it's a good story. I read a lot of existentialism, and with those types of writers, I try to get a little background information on them. For instance, Camus argues in favor of suicide in some of his work. Many might think he's mad. But I can understand where he's coming from. He lived through wars. He didn't fight in them (not 100% certain on that), but towns he lived in were bombed, he's seen his loved ones die, he's been at the point of having nothing but his sanity. While I don't agree with much of what Camus said, it's just damn interesting for me to listen to his perspective on life because it's different from mine. But then there are the stories that I love just because they're great stories. Adaptation, though it's a film, is an incredible story by itself. Sure, I know a lot about the writer as he's one of my favorites, but I've talked to others who just love the sheer creativity behind it. I mean, first, the writer writes himself into the screenplay, and then he writes himself into a screenplay that he's writing in the actual movie, and then he gives himself a twin brother and gives him a writing credit for the movie. That's fantastic! I guess it depends on the work, and moreover, what the writers goals are. I reccommend In Cold Blood to anyone that is just getting into creative non-fiction. It's not historical so much, but Truman Capote has quite a gift. I can count on two fingers as many writers who have that kind of gift for language: Jack Kerouac and Fyodor Dostoevsky. That makes my head hurt thinking about it. I'll say yes just because I believe failed art is just as much an art as successful art is. There's only one way for an artist to get better, and that's to fail (and for most, fail A LOT). Some art gets to an audience and THEN fails, but some, the artist creates it and just knows that it's a failure. I still believe that's art. And then there have to be plenty of great works out there that are locked away somewhere. J.D. Salinger has locked away his work, Franz Kafka did the same. Eventually they'll get to the public, but hey, art is art. It just has to be created. So long as it's not Bud Light.

Not at all. I was pointing my finger at the larger groups, the larger people. The one's that can overpower the minority opinion just because they're larger, they're known, and they're in a sense, powerful. The church is preaching it's beliefs on others. That, I feel is wrong. This film has controversy, but it doesn't cross the line in my mind. I realize what the church is arguing against, and I'd back them in that regard, but they're going about it wrong. They're picking out a piece of material that doesn't have any wrong doing in it. Perhaps they're trying to make themselves look better in light of recent events? I don't know, that's a pretty powerful statement and I don't have enough information to back that up. Either way, my stance, right now, is that the Church should keep quiet until something truly does cross the line. When there's no debate about it. You'll almost always know more about the work if you know the artist. Frankenstein might be a great work on its own, but what kind of parallels can you draw to the author? You'll know more about the story that way. But it's not essential. I prefer to know as much about the story as I can. I tend to read and study the books craft more than I look for things that I can relate to myself. Maybe that's because I'm a writer and I'm trying to "steal" ideas and make them my own. I don't disagree with that. And I think the artists way of stepping around (not that they'd want to glorify the murderers anyway) that is to just show it as is. Elephant by Gus Van Sant is void of a plot line, but still convey's the shootings. United 93 is the same way. One film I'd argue as glorifying the murderers is Schindler's List. But Spielberg steps around that too. He teaches his Nazi character a lesson. Certainly. Ideas and experiences are every creative writers best friend. Combine that with skills, a writer is golden. I just realized that creative non-fiction is rather difficult as well. I couldn't even imagine writing In Cold Blood. But maybe someday I will. I'm taking a creative non-fiction class this semester to see if I like it, to see how I can use it with fiction and because there are plenty of non-fiction stories that I've wanted to write, but have struggled sticking with the facts instead of letting my imagination take over.

New Order Rufus Wainwright Sufjan Stevens is probably gay

I don't ever expect the various groups around the world to stop expressing their views. However, I think there is a point in time where they have to accept that their views aren't shared by all and shut up. In politics, this is widespread. People will express their opinions, but really add no grounds to it, and then shun the opposing view and not even really listen to it. They're set in, "You're wrong." This is really interesting. My dad is a public relations journalist, I write creativly. His writing is certainly to communicate. He doesn't consider his work art. But when he asks about my work, my process and everything that goes into it, he considers it art. He considers creative writing a much more difficult task because it goes beyond just communicating. A creative writer has their imagination to deal with, which, as people go through school and work, it is usually zapped and taken away. And they have their own personal experiences, which are most important to a creative writer. They've got to examine, re-examine and live in past moments that sometimes they enjoy doing, especially for the moments that were monumental and happy in their life, but there are also the dark times that nobody likes to revisit. Everyone has those moments. I don't remember who said it, I believe it was Kafka, but he said, and I'm paraphrasing "the key to my work is knowing how to control my depression. When I write, I'm terribly depressed. When I stop writing, I can flick a switch in my head and snap back into reality." I've experienced this to a point. I've written, or attempted rather, stories about the dark times in my life. As they build, I find myself growing depressed with every word. It's because in order to write a good story, I have to examine everything as full as possible right down to the can of coke that was on the coffee table when the most terrible of all moments happened. And, if I want any good commentary to go with the piece, I have to rediscover that terrible mind frame I once had. I have to ask myself, "What was I feeling?" But also, why do writers write these stories? What good does it do anyone? Well, I always tell people because I have something to say. Maybe my work will make the difference for somebody, and even if it's only for one person, then I know I've done something. I suppose that is just a form of communication. And certainly, it is. But, why don't you consider communication an art? Without language, where would our society be today? If it didn't evolve and grow, would we have anything close to what we have today? And what about the way people speak, their dialect? Why isn't retelling stories, through our language, an art? I reliaze I may be off base. Are you saying that your writing isn't art? Or all writing isn't art? Depends on what kind of art, I'd say. Books and movies are generally "pitched" ideas before they're anything else, even a screenplay or manuscript. This is interesting as well. I used to hate my audience, but that was only because my writing was bad. And it was, leave no doubt about that. It wasn't until I started listening to what they were telling me did it get better. Columbia College Chicago preaches our audiences and says all feedback is good, but you're still the artist and you can pick and choose which feedback is helpful, which is not. In writing stories, the various drafts go through so many people and so many opinions that you HAVE to pick and choose which feedback works and which doesn't. There is no possible way to please everyone, especially when you put it into the mainstream, where, theoretically millions of people are reading the work. And yes, once it's in the mainstream, the art stands on its own. However, criticism is still plenty valid at that point. Why? Because they can take it and impliment it into their next work. Most writers second books are better than their first. Why? Because they learn from the mistakes they made in their first book. I agree with that, and I can provide a pretty concrete example of what you're saying about music. Bob Dylan. His voice can make your ears bleed at times, but his poetry is much more meaningful than his voice. If the penetration is actually shown, and I mean shown how they would in a XXX film, then yes, I totally agree that it's wrong. But film has the benefit of being selective with what they show. If the idea is presented somewhere in the film, but not actually shown, I don't see a problem with it. Some artists believe in the church, others don't. Where I go to school, the general populous does not. This is different everywhere. If a religious man wants to write a religous story, fantastic. I'll read it. If somebody who believes there is no god and wants to write about that, fantastic as well. I'll read that too. However, I don't think either should tell either party what they can write and what they can't. I don't believe anyone is truly morally superior to the next person, be it an artist, church goer or a murderer. We've grown up in a society where there is right and wrong, but as Dostoevsky wrote, "If there is no God, everything is permitted." That is to say, if nobody believed in a higher power, what would be the motivation behind right and wrong? Would there be any? If there is no God, is there right and wrong, period?

I'm a writer, and I guess I've failed, to some extent, to mention that I'm explaining some "theories" behind writing. Not so much the other arts. Writing goes through drafts, and these drafts go through a small audience before they even come close to the mainstream. If somebody had crossed the line, hopefully the small audience reading the various drafts would tell the writer. I understand film pretty well (it goes through a lot of drafts and small audiences as well), but the other mediums not so much. Painting, photography, etc...I'm not schooled in. Now, back to what I said about the small audiences. For film, it starts with the screenwriter. The drafting process can be different with film. Sometimes (most of the time, actually), especially with big company films, it's the director writing the revisions at the request of the production company. The writer is told to go away. If you're Charlie Kaufman, it's the writer and director talking about the changes that need to be made and the production company is basically told, "you either take what we have or you don't get it at all." If you know who Charlie Kaufman is, you might have noticed his stories are air tight. There are obvious flaws in cutting the writer out. The production companies (and even if you have a highly egotistical or well established director such as Martin Scorsesse) are basically taking the "art" out of the film by cutting the writer out. Sure, there are other elements such as lighting, cinematics and all of the aesthetics, but the ground of every film is the story. If you don't have a good story, you have a bad movie no matter how good it looks. Now, when you cut the writer out and rewrite it on your own, you lose the original man, the guy that truly knows what the story is about. You deny him the right to revise and perfect his story. If you write novels, they don't cut out the original writer. They might tell him to make revisions, but it's the original writer making those changes. This is imporant because the writer can still revise and keep his orignial vision intact (most times). Yes, once it's out there, it's out of the artists hand. But at least with novella's, the writer can rest easy knowing he was the force mind behind it. Well, I've been inspired before. But it's extremely difficult to follow through with that inspiration. Almost every time I sit down to write a story, my idea has changed by the end. I think most writers would say the same. We don't think far ahead. We stay in the moment, put it on paper as full as we can, and from there we have to make other decisions. Would this character do this right now? Would this character say this now? How can I get this character out of this sticky situation and not go out of the characters elements? How can I make it believeable? That said, it's almost impossible to create a fake story that sticks with the original idea. If you don't believe me, think of a story that would be interesting to read and try to write it all the way through while holding true to the original idea. As I said before, writing is an exploration. We've got to learn our characters as we write the story. Sometimes we dig ourselves a hole and are forced to change our ideas. As we learn our characters, everything evolves from them. People would like to think plot is the most important thing for a story, and for the reader it is, but for the writer, it's the characters. The plots, themes, symbolism, they all develop behind the characters. If you write a story and don't know your characters, the story will fail miserably. It'd be kind of like trying to build a house without anything to support the frame. There have been some mentioned in this thread already. Taxi Driver, Sleepers, 8mm, On the Waterfront, In Cold Blood. As I was explaining about characters, the plot and situations develop around the character and build off of each other. It's important to understand this because with this knowledge, it's easy to understand that the characters are in turn put in a box. Knowing the characters means they can only react a certain way. And, if the story is written well, the characters are changed by the end. The conflict will eventually tell the character, "If you keep going down this path, you're not going to make it." When that part of the story comes, that's when the writer has successfully taught his character a lesson. The lesson the character learned, is hopefully where the audience will relate to the story. This is what I mean by taking it in context. You've got to see what happened to these characters and see what led to the rape, see why they did it, and see what they learned from it. I'm not trying to censor you. I'm not telling you to shut up. If that's how I've come off, I apologize. Your opinion on this matter is certainly valid, however, we don't share the same view. I'm just trying to get you to see it through my eyes. You're not a bad person because a few people within your church (mine too) screwed up. But I don't think an artist should censor his work because of religious beliefs. Most artists aren't religious in the slightest and could not care less about the church. I'm not sure what point I'm trying to make, but I don't think art and church should ever really tell each other what to do. Regardless of who's telling who. I love to write. I'm enjoying explaining what I can to you. I'm learning a lot about myself, my own process, my own goals, etc. as I explain it to you. And if SoxTalk admins gives me the go ahead, I'll be able to feature a story about when I chose the Sox over the Cubs on the front page. (It'll probably be an early draft of the story, but I'd be happy that one of my first small audiences is a large community of Sox fans. I can't ask for better critics than that so I can re-examine the story for my rewrites. )

Tex, you've apparently never seen any art that's outside the commercial world. Art can be created for certain audiences too. Sometimes a project is made only for other artists, or people who know the process, the pains of creating, etc. There is art that is not meant for the mainstream. I've seen plenty of art I had no chance of understanding just because I didn't understand that form of art. To form an opinion on something I don't understand is just ignorance. And I should mention, a lot of this "underground" art, has tackled issues such as this. And gone beyond it, too. Yet, nobody was seriously offended. Why not? Are artists just naturally open minded? Or because the art was for a closed audience, made so other artists can get ideas and take it to a mainstream world where the non artistic variety can understand it? I don't know, but it's there, and nobody seems to be throwing a fit about it. Perhaps, I don't know...because they understand the artist isn't trying to offend people, but rather open a new door for other artists? Or maybe because the artist is just trying to create a debate? Because people are lazy? What are YOU doing about this film? So if somebody wrote a story and one of the characters was into child porn, it's wrong? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. TAKE ART IN CONTEXT. You act as if these artists are just filming a rape scene and only a rape scene and putting it out. For the love of God, that's not what's happening. Generally I don't know where my inspiration comes from. Most artists don't, and if any do, they're damn lucky. Stephen King wrote in his book "On Writing" (a book about the craft of writing) that if you wait for inspiration, you'll never get anything done. He's right. And you learn the meaning through revision (at least in writing). It starts with a vague idea. For instance, "I'm going to write about................Howard Hughes." The first draft of a story is just getting all the ideas out. They generally come in a fluid motion. You might start with a scene, and that spurs on other ideas and then that spurs even more ideas. Writing is an exploration. The first draft is essentially one big pile poop on a piece of paper. From there, you pick out the things that don't really mean anything, you find the story that's really being told, and then you go back to sculpting the story. This process can go on forever. It can take 1 day, it can take 20 years. I've been writing a story for 5 years now and I still haven't figured out what I'm really trying to say. Until I do, I can't really finish the story.

One artist can taint the entire artist community. I'm not sure what you're trying to say though. No, but that's phsyical pain. That's walking the fine line of life and death. Somebody probably should step in, but somebody should also ask the artist if they've learned from the others work. If they're trying to better it, put a valid message behind it. And in one case, the art was already created. There's grounds for what to expect in such case. If the art is put in a drawer and never given the time of day, you'll never know how people will take to it. Don't people benefit from that? You're censoring this art without even knowing the message behind it. That is wrong. Filmmakers do a lot of leg work, yes, but the editing and revision process generally throws much of that ground work out the window. No the artists interpretation isn't the only one valid, but it's usually not difficult to see what the artist is trying to do. I'm talking mostly about the story form, however. And how the reader/watcher is influenced by the film is quite subjective. That's out of the artists hands. If somebody laughs at something I made that was supposed to be serious, fine. That probably means I made a mistake in my work somewhere. But it doesn't mean I have to accept their opinion, it doesn't mean I have to change my work. But if I choose not to grow from their interpretation, that's my loss. Only the artist will know the "true" meaning behind it, but it's their job to make sure everyone else can understand it (thus making all interpretations valid). When one laughs and the other cries, the artist obviously didn't do a good enough job -- or the people viewing the art just don't know what the hell they're doing, or we've just got a case of a person with a wild sense of humor. I've laughed during movies when people die before, so have others. Doesn't mean I don't understand what's going on though.

A group is still the public. In this case it's the Catholic Church. They're being told to shut the f*** up because there is an obvious hypocrisy in them stepping in. I won't dive in any more than that because I, personally, don't have a problem with the Catholic Church making their opinion known. But I do have a problem with coming to a conclusion before seeing the art. And the debate has to start after the work is created. How can it start before? If you know anything about the process of art, generally the artists doesn't know what he/she is going to do. It's not until after they've made it do they know what they've actually made. If they deem it too offensive or racy, it's probably destroyed or put somewhere out of view. If not, the artist risks their reputation. Good point. I poorly conveyed what I was trying to say. I obviously don't try to offend people with my work, but sometimes it's unavoidable. Last year I wrote a story about a man who had died and saw that Jesus Christ and Satan were actually good friends, and furthermore, partners. For people of religious background, this is pretty racy. I was plenty aware of that. However, the point of my story wasn't to attack religion. Jesus and Satan explained to my character why people go to hell, why people go to heaven, and that they were partners because our lives aren't predetermined -- they had no bearing on our lives -- and they simply discuss whether a person should go to heaven or hell. It was determined by them that this man was to go to hell not because he had done anything wrong, but because he was miserable his entire life. And because he enjoyed that misery. The point of the story was to show that happiness, no matter what form, is most important in life. There was a girl in that class of the Christian faith that dropped the class because of my story. She talked with the teacher about it, the teacher talked with me about it. The teacher told me, "There will always be people that won't understand your work. There will always be people that will blindfold themselves as soon as they see something offensive and they won't put it in context. Keep writing, don't worry about her, she'll find another class, she'll write her stories and she'll live on." So I guess the point I was trying to make is that most artists are aware that there is a certain amount of material in their work that is offensive. And it's generally not a mistake, but more so an attention grabber. But any artist with good intentions also knows that if people keep an open mind to it, they'll find the good in what they've created. So if somebody wants to attack my work from an angle that isn't there, I'll tell them to get lost. If somebody wants to tell me they were offended, but take the time to see what I was trying to do and tell me I failed miserably, I'll say, "Thanks. I appreciate the comments. I'll impliment what you've said into my next creation and hopefully you'll like it." It is subjective, yes, but if the general mass audience is offended, the line was likely crossed. If the opinions are strongly divided (and equal) as they are in the case of this film, I don't think the line was crossed. Great point. I was trying to dive into psycholocial harm in my last point but failed. I wouldn't accept child pornogrophy, but I also don't understand painting much. Just from that alone, I wouldn't say anything. I may ask the artist what he/she was trying to do, but aside from that, I'd just walk away and forget about it. I think that's the approach others should take. Sometimes it helps to know the artist. When I read Kafka's The Metamorphosis, I knew a little bit about Kafka. That helped me understand the story and what he was trying to do better. I've read other stories / seen other works where I didn't know the artist at all. Sometimes it didn't matter, other times it did. And everyone's interpretation is valid so long as they take the time to explore the angles the artist was going for. Commercial art tends to be less racy, and this film is obviously for commercial purposes (maybe not, maybe the filmmaker just wants to get it out to a wide audience and doesn't care even slightly about the money going into her pocket), and it tends to be dumbed down and less subjective. Since this is likely the case, I reccommend, again, to see the film to make your interpretations. You're essentially trying to censor the art before it's created. That's about the worst thing you can do to an artist because you're denying them their god given right to explore and express their own opinions. You're denying them the right to revise and grow as an artist. QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 27, 2007 -> 09:12 AM) They set a standard for over one billion Catholics and all but maybe a thousand lived up to that. How low should they set the standard? What message does it send when the Church refused to speak out against abuse? Wouldn't the same people who call them hypocrites now claim the Chuch is not taking a strong enough stance? Abuse is wrong, we all know it. Why should any voice be silenced that proclaims that? By silencing one billion people, who does it help? Why hasn't anyone answered this simple question? The Church is stating that child abuse is wrong, y'all think they shouldn't say it. Who does that help? I agree that the Church, and all of society, could do much more to protect children. I also believe that society needs to continue to speak out against the hardships and horrors that some children face in their daily lives. Poverty, abuse, violence, wars, famines, persecution. You're dismissing the other 5 billion people in the world, first of all, and second of all, this movie doesn't condone rape. Once again, see the film, see what it's about, see what they're trying to say. Take the blindfold off.