From martin burbridge Sent Wed, Oct 7th 1998, 15:18
From martin burbridge Sent Wed, Oct 7th 1998, 15:18
> > that's what i mean when I say Syd Barrett sucks. maybe a song > or two he has > > done is good, but his authorship seems irrelevant (since there > was really > > no intention behind it as he's completely fucking bugger). > > > > am i making sense? probably not. it's a matter of opinion, i guess. > > You're making sense but you've got a few facts wrong. no, no, no. he may be being provocative, but he's not making any sense. he is saying that to validate art it needs to have been created with the intent to come out the way it did. pardon me but this definition is utter bollocks, and would exclude any artist who has attempted to inject some chance into the outcome of their work, whether it be jackson pollock splashing paint or aldous huxley scoffing acid. and this is ignoring the number of absolutely bobbins artists who are just born that way. whether its an accident of birth or some deliberate mind altering fuckery, art is always more interesting to me when there's some madness in the mix. and i don't think any number of happy accidents or severe mental disability can discredit authorship, because that's just arguing that someone with a physical or mental illness doesn't count as a person any more. but yes, just being nuts doesn't make anyone great. at anything. -martin