FourWinds
|
Re: who exploits who?
Sep 06, 2002, 12:58
|
The really sad thing is that we should HAVE to look at where and how something is manufactured.
All goods should have a photo of the person who made it on the front, taken by an independent photographer, along with a full biography of the person. :-)
I really can not see why a profit margin limit can not be enforced. Any good reasons why this should not be done? A fair process could be put in place where by you would have to justify the cost of production and then you could be allocated your mark up. Higher worker wages and conditions could earn a bonus percentage to that mark up.
|
stray
|
Re: Duchamp!!
Sep 06, 2002, 13:02
|
|
heheh, I bet u rate Peter Greenaway as well. I'll get my coat ;) Duchamp was more of a philosopher than an artist IMO. I used to love Duchamp, it's only recently I realised the ready mades were a scam. Warhol did a better job of finding the beauty in the mundane anyhow. Duchamp did some beautiful, important art. But all those lectures and theories on the 'Creative act' did more damage than good.
|
stray
|
Re: How about this
Sep 06, 2002, 13:04
|
|
agreed. And as a Mr Blake said 'I must create a system or else be enslaved by another mans'.
|
necropolist
|
Re: How about this
Sep 06, 2002, 13:09
|
Words change their meaning all the time.. its in their nature. it is not - in itself - adulteration of language. tho you are absolutely right about shit like Human Resources and all this repugnant management speak @Do not allow the adulteration of our language to meet the needs of the powers that be.' as you say, spot on.
does any word have 'a more significant true meaning'? We invented all these words yonks ago, we probably don't know there original meaning. And i don't belkieve any word can have a 'true' meaning, just one we are well used to. Because they're all inventions, so they can mean anything. A rose by any other name and all that.
i think I'm with Wittgenstein here: 'words mean however they are used'
And don't diss printers, there is great skill in printing, its not a simple task ny any means, especially if you are going to reprint something like the Book of Kells. getting all the colurs right is an amazingly hard job. Is the paper appropriate? Is it the right size etc etc. I'm not just tryinbg to be a petty awkward git here, its just that you seem to be overstating the extent to which mechanisation destroys
|
FourWinds
|
Re: How about this
Sep 06, 2002, 13:10
|
Was that him? I always wondered who said that. Now I know.
I must be honest and say that the works of Blake and Duchamp are a bit grey for me. Recommended reading/viewing anyone?
|
IronMan
|
Re: Duchamp!!
Sep 06, 2002, 13:10
|
|
Now don't get me started on Peter Greenaway... one of my old university lecturers was a huge fan, who insisted that we sat through all of his films... Draughtsman's Contract, Z and 2 0s, Drowning by Numbers are bearable but Prospero's Books, Bay of Macon etc? What a pile of pretentious, aloof horse-shit they are!!! sorry, but no, I do not dig Greenaway!!! :-)
|
necropolist
|
Re: Duchamp!!
Sep 06, 2002, 13:11
|
|
only talking comparatively, cos i prefer duchamp mindbendingness to blakes prettiness. not that blake wasn't mindbending as well. n a better poet deffo!
|
necropolist
|
Re: who exploits who?
Sep 06, 2002, 13:17
|
i think most of that could probably be done, don't see any great reason why not. but capitalism is a craft y system and the boss bastards wil always find a way around any system they dont like. for instance, splitting the manufacturing process into small components and then splitting the company into small parts, each of which does its job, then 'sells' it onto the next 'company' at its official profit rate, who then go and do the same. fiddles, fixes, scams, the buggers will sort them all out.
capitalism ,you can't reform it, gotta smash it
|
FourWinds
|
Re: How about this
Sep 06, 2002, 13:21
|
>its just that you seem to be overstating the extent to which mechanisation destroys<
Perhaps I am. I agree that in a small printing company the 'printer' (is there a technical-in-trade term?) is a highly skilled job and for all the reasons you point out. I would say that today, in large printing comapnies, those descisions are not made by the person who presses the button to actually do the printing. Choosing paper, size and form etc are usually publishing house descisions these days and they find a printer that can meet their requirements. And colour matching is done by computer now. I bet there are printers out there who have never seen a pantone chart. It is my opinion that the skill is being eroded from every walk of life, slowly but surely, and the only reason this is happening is for profit.
In the 50's we had all this talk of people doing nothing by the year 2000. Machines doing everything, even maintaining themselves or each other, and people would be living a life of leisure. A few house hold things, washing machines and such, have been the only developments to even contribute a remotest morcel to this ideal. Has any factory automation done so? I think not. It has just maintained the status quo by keeping the workers working and the bosses bossing, while producing more product and increasing profit.
|
FourWinds
|
Re: who exploits who?
Sep 06, 2002, 13:26
|
I actually thought of the 'scam' you described about three seconds after I pressed send. But unless stages of production were fully automated you would at least end up creating employment when splitting up the companies. I suppose independent monitoring of company relationships could prevent some of it, but as we know watchdogs are usually useless and merely token gestures to appease the populace - "Oh, we don't need to watch out for the phone companies screwing us, we have OFFTEL!". Bollocks! Everyone has to watch these bastards. You can fool some of the people etc ...
You could of course eliminate profit altogether :-)
|
