Quote:
Originally Posted by henry quirk
if i write the book (my idiosyncrasy/worldview made tangible) then, indeed, it's a one-man affair (i'm talking, here, of original work...not formulaic or genre crap)
everything that comes after may be collaborative, but only in bringing my work to the marketplace
and that can be sidestepped by way of self-publishing and selling
at the very least: the self-publisher takes a great many collaborative hands and minds out of the mix
regardless: the work itself (the cultural artifact i crafted) is the 'reason' for the collaborative effort
hell: even in the transaction between writer and reader (the transaction/telepathy mediated by my book) it is -- at best -- a two-man event
sure: i hope thousands of individuals read what i've written, but it will be 'individuals' -- not an aggregate or collective -- who read my work
like a 'free market', 'culture' is the median of all these aligned, individual, transactions between writer and reader, sculptor and viewer, filmographer and film-watcher and so forth and so on
i can see how some might take a collectivist view on culture, but -- really -- it starts with 'one'
 |
Yes, but one is not culture in and of itself. I believe most do take a collective view that it is the contributions of many that make up culture, certainly not the one, or a single work of art, written or otherwise that the masses may or may not ever see in their lifetime. As you state it is the collective that really makes up culture, "'culture' is the median of all these aligned, individual, transactions between writer and reader, sculptor and viewer, filmographer and film-watcher and so forth and so on".
Thanks for sharing your thought process anyway.