Brushes, Hammers, Paste and Nails
Initial statement when I posted this to Yahoo before Yahoo dropped videos made by seersucker suit wearers like me:
"When I first began experimenting making films out of my artwork and poetry I came across a product called Photoshow. This allowed me to create "fades" & other effects, while also utilizing captions. (At that point I was not savvy enough to figure out how to use a sound recorder and microphone.) I tried achieving the same thematic effect using windows movie maker, but have always been a bit torn about what was achieved originally, and only recently learned how to covert photoshow to avi. I thus present this film with (fingers crossed) the clarity of the original while still hoping to create a spiritual exchange between the art and the viewer.
What I wonder about now is how guilty I am of an "unconscious appropritation" since a number of the images in this fim were made by photographing the glass blue heart, an actual object, on images which changed given the effects of light flashing off of the heart or due to adobe effects I used. I mean, taken as a whole, where many of the images were directly created from my own surroundings/paintings to create the whole, I believe any "unconscious appropriation" ( I just loved how the blue heart looked against particular backgrounds and felt it was a symbol for the soul's journey through life) is outweighted by the fact that the entire, when combined with my original text, has created a different stand-alone piece of art, (pretentious, over-reaching or not.)
I welcome other members feedback on this work and my summation. I don't believe I'm at the artistic caliber to be selling anything in a Sotheby's price range and hence being sued, but if such a controversy could happen and one's name could be made (like being banned by the Church), I would like to know how other artists here feel they would handle it. Not having nerves of steel myself, I'm sure your insights would be beneficial.