(eredien, I'd recommend you read this whole essay and the interview with Saar if you're interested in more about appropriation; I've read them a few times now and am still getting stuff out of them. We have the book in the library, except right now it's on the dining room table. The whole book is good, but not all as germane to this discussion.)
What's important here for defending Paley is the idea (echoed later by hooks) that artistic vision and creation is important outside of the context of appropriation; the critic should criticize the art, not just the artist. However, also important for challenging her decision to publish/distribute and her decisions for how to do so is "the crucial factor" of "use." I don't know where this film falls, and I think there's room for disagreement. I can absolutely respect someone's desire to avoid the movie because they believe it will fall short of their expectations, or because they have criticisms of the artist. I think zooeylive's criticisms are valid but those criticisms of the artist aren't enough for me to avoid the art. That certainly may have something to do with what I bring to the table as a white woman in academia with an interest in DIY art projects.
Personally, I think there is also room for criticism based on Paley's choice to use music that's under copyright here in the US. While I'm not a huge fan of punitive copyright fees, the attitude she takes on her blog when it comes to copyright and licensing rubs me the wrong way. I'm of two minds about the film and filmmaker, and personally, I want to see the film to have more information. Even then, I'll be making a value judgement that could be (and maybe should be) torn down. Was she driven by her own life toward this story, originally foreign to her, that she then worked with and let work with her, producing something that could not have existed without either her or the story and telling the new story of their entanglement? Or did she just see something that, in her frustration with her own life, she could deform and recast as her own story? Could two people look at the same thing and each see one of those?
The more I go back and reread zooeylive and Paley, the more I am frustrated with both of them. Perhaps that means it is time to go to bed and approach this with a fresh eye tomorrow morning or the next. :)
no subject
What's important here for defending Paley is the idea (echoed later by hooks) that artistic vision and creation is important outside of the context of appropriation; the critic should criticize the art, not just the artist. However, also important for challenging her decision to publish/distribute and her decisions for how to do so is "the crucial factor" of "use." I don't know where this film falls, and I think there's room for disagreement. I can absolutely respect someone's desire to avoid the movie because they believe it will fall short of their expectations, or because they have criticisms of the artist. I think zooeylive's criticisms are valid but those criticisms of the artist aren't enough for me to avoid the art. That certainly may have something to do with what I bring to the table as a white woman in academia with an interest in DIY art projects.
Personally, I think there is also room for criticism based on Paley's choice to use music that's under copyright here in the US. While I'm not a huge fan of punitive copyright fees, the attitude she takes on her blog when it comes to copyright and licensing rubs me the wrong way. I'm of two minds about the film and filmmaker, and personally, I want to see the film to have more information. Even then, I'll be making a value judgement that could be (and maybe should be) torn down. Was she driven by her own life toward this story, originally foreign to her, that she then worked with and let work with her, producing something that could not have existed without either her or the story and telling the new story of their entanglement? Or did she just see something that, in her frustration with her own life, she could deform and recast as her own story? Could two people look at the same thing and each see one of those?
The more I go back and reread zooeylive and Paley, the more I am frustrated with both of them. Perhaps that means it is time to go to bed and approach this with a fresh eye tomorrow morning or the next. :)