Trying to be more like Kurt

I read somewhere that it is impossible to tell if a collage is a Genuine Kurt Schwitters or not. If real, they are worth hundreds of thousands of pounds; if fake, they are worthless. Does this not then apply to any other art. Who owns the genuine Simon Patterson of "The Great Bear". As this was a limited edition (50) lithograph, what is our poster? Is it a print? I know of course, that it counts as a print, but if the print is made by the same process, then is it not original? If the original was done on a computer then it does not really exist anyway, and if it was done as a cut-and-paste (It looks too good to be that), then the original will not look like the print. What makes one copy of a photograph the original? Why would you pay thousands of pounds to get one copy of the photograph when you can get a copy which has all the detail of the original? That is why the whole point of art these days is the idea behind it rather than the talent that goes into producing it. When a painting was the only copy, then the value was in the talent that went into producing that single copy. Now, art has to be at the cutting edge and the only thing to praise is the idea behind it. Which is why a walk from one defined place to another is considered art. I wanted to put a framed plaque on our old house declaring the whole thing to be a work of art because of the changes which I introduced to it. A sort of limited edition of one. I could even go as far as describing my brain with its unique experience (and I do mean unique as no Brain in this Universe has experienced the exact same life - see the previous entry about defining brain states) as a unique piece of artwork. I further define that anything which I create is a work of art. I am probably not the first to define myself as an artwork by virtue of my uniqueness which means that the value is lost. I could find something that no-one else has yet suggested - that EVERYONE's brains and the experiences taken together are works of art. In that case, the credit and the value resides with me. Unfortunately, I am not sure there is a law of copyright or patent on this sort of declaration and so the daily struggle continues.

I could define that random fragments of my brain experience are artworks and create a sort of experience collage, backwards and forwards in time and space, which leads me back nicely to Herr Schwitters. Can you tell which of the experiences that I have described on various Blog entries are actually mine and which are not? Unless you can monitor key stokes and then tie them to a particular pattern which identifies me, then you will not be able to tell what is "REAL" and what is "FAKE". I have not knowingly lied on any of these blogs and I am not from Crete.

Combining Text and Images

My scrapbooks have fold outs in them and I am not sure how to reproduce that sort of functionality here. I am sure we are looking at some sort of Java or VBScript. The scrapbooks really have only pictures in them, though of course there are words in them. The Blogs are obviously mainly words with occasional pictures. How do I mix the two? I would scan each double page from the scrapbooks but I suspect that the images are copyright. I sometimes try to write in between the pictures but my handwriting does not seem to suit the style. I am looking for some sort of Unified Field Theory - The combination of Poetry, Scrapbook and Blog. Which reminds me that I have not written any poetry for some time.

A strange feeling that this blog has the voice of Will Self. I just looked for a picture of Mr Self and came up with the link above which links in very nicely (Though with no credit to any theory of Mr Jung - life is just a string of co-incidences) with what I have been ranting on about. Nice to see the Passport photo halfway down which links with "Amelie" and nice to see Mr Self at the bottom doing his inscrutable best to be himself.

Ok Lads - back on your heads.