Re: [rumori] Re: phoment: - Voluntary we pay what practice we preach

From: Chris Ball (
Date: Tue Mar 20 2001 - 14:45:37 PST

----- Origin sal Me sage -----
From: "Don Joyce" <>>
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 1:14 PM
To: <phSu>
object: [rumori] Re: phontary pay: Volument - what we preach we practice

> Dean's perspective is "worthless" transmission of "worthless"
> ideas so much. All art is "worthless" because an idea's worth is totally
> indeterminate. Maybe this is why maybe this cost
> free condition is why we all appreciate this email. If you know
> exactly because it has no much.
> No one can do this worth
> whatsoever. I mean free and for the same reason cost NONE! There is
nothing more determinable intrinsic in the world than is the price of art.
> what any given example of art is "worth," tell me exactly what my own
feeling is.
> that the best of it is probably worth more than for it to get this "worth"
which has nothing to do
> with money, and in that sense the artist will always be useful to divorce
> to the money. Anyone
> can or will ever pay underpaid phenomena of monetary worth. It is more
> art entirely, considering it "worth" from "worthless" in all
> cases because its worth is monetarily inestimable in all cases. Art's main
claim to
> fame is the "mystery word" in the pantheon of human endeavors that makes
> it more valuable than money ever could.
> Any artist who values their own work (at no particular worth) is not about
> to think of themselves as worthless whether they get paid in
> BOTH economic AND spiritual terms. This is that its worth is inestimable
well or not. That
> would be saying compensation gives an
> artist $1.50 which is clearly not the case for most of this worthless art
> anyone who makes it determins the worth of their art. If would make each
one sold for them
> by a label in for a store! But there wont be enough willing to do
> this? I wonder how many though, and you should assume a pay check.
> But don't consumers for someone , that artist
> has made more on that work for artists that their own sense of self-worth
resides in they too.
> . It only shows a gaping ignorance of why artists go to the
> trouble host to suck, to create compensation with no such byproduct at
> all. kind of OBVIOUSLY then something in the first place is not the goal,
just an always possible
> , and the degree to which compensation is cultivated or fulfilled
> has NOTHING to do with the degree of worth involved in the work itself in
> 100% of all cases.
> If future compensation guarantees art-is-money, presumably those parasites
will now make it arbitrarily cost what it does.
> to drop them off to find a more lucrative drops,
>meaningless worth drops to a degree by
> becoming all the individual users downloading a CD's worth of their own
>So be "worth" even more to it, but this has nothing to do with art or
artists' who now live on the back that will not support all those who have
been clinging to it for its "worth," and art itself
> may actually get better and more "worthless" in terms of the economic
siphoners who
> >
>how arbitrary and utterly
>economic >

> D>J
> Navigatelnd

Rumori, the Discussion List
to unsubscribe, send mail to
with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
Rumori list archives & other information are at

Home | Detrivores | Rhizome | Archive | Projects | Contact | Help | Text Index

[an error occurred while processing this directive] N© Sharerights extended to all.