jeru

Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is non-existent. And don’t bother concealing your thievery–celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: “It’s not where you take things from–it’s where you take them to.

This quote from Jarmusch is so perverse, wrong, artistically fraudulent, deranged; such a fragrant thievery of the spirituality and language of the heart that it is a bastardization of the creative process, turning it into a fasicimile of nothing itself. Uselessly braindead and hopelessly lazy, nothing can come from such a so-called “artistic” “ideological bent.” A sickening and sickly neurosis of the soul, and beyond plagarism it pretends plagarism is fashionable and hip. Worse than a waste of words: it’s a cognitohazard so blatanly perverse and deranged that even the MKULTRA and population and culture control schemes–.and schemers, of the cultural and medical eugenics eras can get behind them. Here’s another perverse and deranged cognitohazard: “just let people enjoy corporophagia, it’s not hurting anyone.” Yet another somatic cognitohazard: “it’s all relative, everything is subjective, so it’s a matter of taste, there’s no such thing as good or bad.”

He acts like he is commenting on art widely, and as if he is speaking figuratively, or ironically, ending with using “l’pisser” creator’s hopelessly inane words to play coy–.when he was blatantly post-Lynch anyway; yet, he directly states “you don’t even have to credit it, just steal it,” and after watching the first thirty minutes of two of his decried “masterpieces” I decided he was not only terrible at writing a script, but he doesn’t even know what a story is, let alone a narrative. I can see he was “inspired” by Lynch so he thought “oh, I’ll do something surreal and weird and quirky, I’m not like the other movie makers, I’m different,” and had his stolen style branding from someone who was better–.all while directly stealing, all while not taking credit, all while he did what he says directly in this quote, all while claiming he’s artistic for framing blatant plagarism as honorable because “all art is derivative,” so, “nothing can be posited therefore nothing is true” dialectic crap.

As for the inescapability of pretentious snobbery in film and art and the ideation of novelty versus derivation, there’s a careful balance.. Familiarity is key, but novelty is crucial. Yet, an inverse counterexample, an obvious one, why don’t people watch Captain Superheroman movies anymore? Once you’ve seen any two, you realize you’ve seen them all. Marvel tried to market a convoluted mess of disparate narratives into a series of movies that simply wore itself out on its own oversaturation. People weren’t following the narrative because it simply wasn’t there, it wasn’t important to Marvel or Disney to make the movies’ many disparate stories make sense, so you have to go outside the movie and talk to some comic book nerd that’s been waiting all his life for this moment and even he hates the movies by now. There’s the same two romances and the same five fight scenes in each film. With Marvel heading the films you’d think they care about differentiating the characters in combat, let alone in personality or development, let alone let the overarching story make sense.

On a more serious note, most sensible people would see 2001: A Space Odyssee as a non-derivative work due to the absurd amount of liberties taken with the plot, scenes, characters and development, as well as the high level of detail, and the completely novel imagery and rewriting of the plot by Kubrick. The same is true for Fennesz –. Plays and his ‘covers’ there. The rights societies, lawyers, and legal system cannot categorize them as covers due to their sheer novelty. One simply cannot paraphrase or rewrite a song or transpose anything into another song and it is a new song, as Jim says–.in the case of Fennesz it’s quite literally a completely different song; Fennesz plays simply two notes to comprise the theme–when the original song had at least 4 in its theme! An interesting ’less is more’ stylistic and formattic choice.

Novelty almost always translates into authenticity, but plagarism and derivation almost never do, and that’s the thing, this proves Jim’s argument dead wrong, whether interpreted literally, figuratively, ironically, or even self-depreciatingly. Unfortunately for him, it’s literal, yet he pretends it’s figurative, and the ironic part is he doesn’t realize how self-depreciating it truly is. Paying homage to inspiration and direct bastardization of conceptual elements in other art are completely different things, and this is obvious to any sensible person.

To return to dialectics, “nothing can be posited, therefore nothing is true” is practically the root of dialectics in cultural eugenics. To say “everything is subjective, so there is no such thing as objective measure,” or “nothing is truly original, so originality doesn’t exist,” arrogantly suggest that every thought, every possible word, every possible sentence, every possible concept, every possible book, narrative, arc, tone, tambre, instrument, philosophy, form, format, etc., every possible art or expression is already unoriginal before it even comes into cognition, let alone creation and publication, since it definitively had to exist before the art’s creation–.this truly is absolutely absurd. Many people do espout and believe these false axioms, and I’m 200% certain Jim means it literally, not figuratively; but irregardless that’s the same exact framing as “everything can be posited, therefore everything is true” or “nothing can be posited, therefore nothing is true,” and yet any preschooler can tell you 2+2=4 and 2+2=/=5, proving both wrong definitively. Unfortunately for those of middling ability to conceptualize, if one introduces the concept of the subjective lens along with the cognitohazard of “everything is subjective so nothing can be measured objectively” the reasoning is reduced to an apathetic willful ignorance: “let people enjoy terrible art, philo, science, cultural diarrhea–.taste is subjective anyway, it’s all a matter of taste,” and people really believe this trite–.they live and die by it.

Imagine a piano keyboard, eighty-eight keys, only eighty-eight, and yet, hundreds of new melodies, new tunes, new harmonies are being composed upon these keyboards every day im Dorset alone. Our language, tiger, our language–.hundreds of thousands of available words, frillions of legitimate new ideas, so that I can say the following sentence and be utterly sure that nobody has ever said it before in the history of human communication: “Hold the newsreader’s news squarely waiter, or friendly milk will come to mark my trousers.” Perfectly ordinary words but never put in that precise order. A unique child delivered of a unique mother. And yet, and yet, all of us spent all of our days saying the same things time after weary time: I love you, don’t go in there, get out, you have no right to do that, stop it, why should I, help, Margorie is dead. And surely it’s a thought to take out to tea on a rainy Sunday afternoon.

Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie on Linguistic Elasticity on A Bit of Fry and Laurie

The cultural eugenics movements uses Hegelian dialectics to destroy true axioms and replace them with one half of an extremely disparate false dichotomy. It’s a way to reduce art, to reduce language, to bastardize culture into a sickening mass of perverse false axiomatic dichotomies and distort perception of culture to make it more malleable.

The way out is up and through and inward: introspection, self-reflection, identifying one’s identity, looking outward inwardly–.not inward ourwardly, taking account of one’s own drives, needs, wishes, dreams, thoughts, reasonings, loves and hates, likes and dislikes, and so on, and to temper these into a coherent set of constructs of axioms and dichotomies and dualities, and so on, and compose a comprehensible ideology of one’s own.