It really doesn't matter of the idea was original or not - if the final piece of art is good, then it's good. Originality, imagination, talent, it all comes from the artist and cannot be taught except in a truly cynical, false way. If someone has talent then you can help them with their technique but that's all. If you have to tell them how to be original, open-minded etc. then all they'll ever do is produce material based on how they've been taught to be original and open-minded ... just like everyone else taught by that person. The conscious search for originality for the sake of being original is folie. If you have a good idea, follow where that idea takes you, which leads to a great final finished item, then it really doesn't matter if it's original or not - although, chances are it will at least contain a certain amount of originality. What's important, though, is the quality of what you've created. A couple of years ago I had a girlfriend who was sexually very open-minded and always wanted to do something new. Now, if you're of an experimental nature then this probably sounds like she's the perfect woman. Except her attitude to sex is the same as a modern artist's attitude to art. The sex wasn't about the pursuit of sexual pleasure but about the pursuit of sexual originality. This meant that, for most of the time, the sex was original but mechanical. It was original but lacked passion, pleasure, beauty. Occasionally, originality and passion and pleasure would meet, and that was great, but it was rare. Modern art is the same thing. -- Veggie Dave http://www.iq18films.co.uk "To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin." Cardinal Bellarmine
Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, ogden You refer to Roy Cross, I believe. You fucking philistine.
Actually, on reflection, I'd quite like to see one of spitfires flying over battleships at Jutland. Preferably with added melting clocks.
Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, ogden Shouldn't be a problem. White phosphorus was still legal then, IIRC.
Still is, only against civilian targets is it's used proscribed by the geneva convention and then only if the user country has signed it.
Geneva Convention, yes. Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (annex to GC), no. But they're still bound by the section of the GC that relates to protection of civilians, hence the cries of 'war crimes'.
As far as I could find out, very few have signed the bit about WP being used as a weapon. As Ogden says it's an annex to the original convention.
