I'm not exactly sure I understand you. It seems as though you have switched the discussion from molds and niches to "apposition". Apposition refers to the placement of nouns or noun phrases beside another as an explanatory element or equivalent, both having the same syntactic relation to other elements in the sentence, eg. the artist Leonardo. Heeding this, how does one follow your instruction and find that "the "copy" can be another original if new talent is "apposed"."? It certainly piqued my interest, for it seemed like such an exhilarating possibility.
Urged on by my grammatical foundations, I untangled the words and arranged them as follows: I appose a new talent to a copy. These abstract beginnings, however, frustrated my sensibilities, so I decided on a concrete iteration of your sentence: I appose Dali [new talent] to his version of the Leonardo Da Vinci's last supper, The Sacrament of the Last Supper [copy].
Next comes the most difficult step. Appose refers to a grammatical structure, so one must then transform your sentence into an actual example of speech. Using our first example as a guide, I deduced that the framework for this would entail: the [copy] [new talent]; or, conversely, the [new talent] [copy]. This is where I ran into trouble, for I arrived at: the Dali Sacrament of the Last Supper; or, perversely, The Sacrament of the Last Supper Dali. I expect you intend the former, for the latter does not make sense to my ear, though it requires us to understand "the Dali" as the painting, not the [new talent]. I can accept that adjustment, but I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish. It seems fairly uncontroversial, even obvious. Of course it's Dali's Sacrament of the Last Supper...that's what he called it, but it does not tell us anything about "originality."
I decided that perhaps you mistakenly transposed some words and intended the apposition of the new talent -now the new work- with the old work. Here we engage the foundations of intertextuality - Dali meets Leonardo. I arrived at: the Dali Last Supper. We make the same grammatical concession and adjustments as above, but again, fairly uncontroversial. It may be unclear as to whether one has identified the subject or the predecessor, but it makes sense. It introduces Dali and establishes a relationship between Dali's and a predecessor's work, but it does not define the dimensions that relationship. It is hardly startling and barely informative. What does it tell us about "originality"?
More broadly defined, "apposition" refers to a placing side by side or next to each other. I would suggest that we have done essentially this with each exercise. We have placed Dali next to his own or another's work. In each case we identified an undefined relationship between them, but we have not communicated anything about originality or the originality of these works. Perhaps, however, I have misread your message or mislaid my analysis.
Best,
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: patachon [mailto:phsov@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 1:50 PM
To: DESIGN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: apposition
> From: David Moon <DMoon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Subject: Re: obsession
>
> that's like saying...instead of cracks, why not walls.
>
> Molds may be "convex", but to speak of a "convex" niche is nonsense. Many
> identify molds according to the design behind their dimensions, whereas one
> would associate a niche with a crack or crevice within a larger order.
> Nonetheless, instances such as "niche advertising" and "pursuing one's niche"
> assume the implicit and definable dimensions of a hispanic population, for
> example, or the rules by which one might conduct oneself in their profession.
> These examples demonstrate order within the niche, a trait shared with the
> mold. One might even conclude that a niche is a mold - a particular kind of
> mold. It is concave, it is immediately perceived as a aberration from the
> norm, but ultimately its dimensions are definable and, more importantly,
> reproducible. Therefore, one could make "plain copies" from both molds and
> niches. Now I return to your point, and I ask, how do they differ and where
> lies the "original" between the two?
any spatial artist ( sculptor) ,eventually a builder also, would say an
original is the first one of his kind.
The copies follow, molded or not from this original.It's simple factin
spatial artistry like bronce foundery.
Of course in teorical discussions, the original can be a text.
a song, a music.A new style of building.
remakes of those can be of any kind. plain copies, eventually partially
modified "as to appear like" another original.Or just inspired in the
glorious mind of another genius. So the styling appears as a kind of molding
when adapted by another creator.
f.i. in classical music, some pieces are inspired by the natural elements,
some noises of the cities or by gypsy or local, eventually indian
(G. Harrison,J. MacLaughlin) music or sounds.
where then is the original or the "molded" piece ?
the "copy" can be another original if new talent is "apposed".
If some interpretation is added.
cheers
prunes trees already blossoming here... but no cherries ...
bees are busy...
best also....
¼(tm)ß
>
> Best,
>
> Dave
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: patachon [mailto:phsov@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 11:59 AM
> To: DESIGN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: obsession
Urged on by my grammatical foundations, I untangled the words and arranged them as follows: I appose a new talent to a copy. These abstract beginnings, however, frustrated my sensibilities, so I decided on a concrete iteration of your sentence: I appose Dali [new talent] to his version of the Leonardo Da Vinci's last supper, The Sacrament of the Last Supper [copy].
Next comes the most difficult step. Appose refers to a grammatical structure, so one must then transform your sentence into an actual example of speech. Using our first example as a guide, I deduced that the framework for this would entail: the [copy] [new talent]; or, conversely, the [new talent] [copy]. This is where I ran into trouble, for I arrived at: the Dali Sacrament of the Last Supper; or, perversely, The Sacrament of the Last Supper Dali. I expect you intend the former, for the latter does not make sense to my ear, though it requires us to understand "the Dali" as the painting, not the [new talent]. I can accept that adjustment, but I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish. It seems fairly uncontroversial, even obvious. Of course it's Dali's Sacrament of the Last Supper...that's what he called it, but it does not tell us anything about "originality."
I decided that perhaps you mistakenly transposed some words and intended the apposition of the new talent -now the new work- with the old work. Here we engage the foundations of intertextuality - Dali meets Leonardo. I arrived at: the Dali Last Supper. We make the same grammatical concession and adjustments as above, but again, fairly uncontroversial. It may be unclear as to whether one has identified the subject or the predecessor, but it makes sense. It introduces Dali and establishes a relationship between Dali's and a predecessor's work, but it does not define the dimensions that relationship. It is hardly startling and barely informative. What does it tell us about "originality"?
More broadly defined, "apposition" refers to a placing side by side or next to each other. I would suggest that we have done essentially this with each exercise. We have placed Dali next to his own or another's work. In each case we identified an undefined relationship between them, but we have not communicated anything about originality or the originality of these works. Perhaps, however, I have misread your message or mislaid my analysis.
Best,
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: patachon [mailto:phsov@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 1:50 PM
To: DESIGN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: apposition
> From: David Moon <DMoon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Subject: Re: obsession
>
> that's like saying...instead of cracks, why not walls.
>
> Molds may be "convex", but to speak of a "convex" niche is nonsense. Many
> identify molds according to the design behind their dimensions, whereas one
> would associate a niche with a crack or crevice within a larger order.
> Nonetheless, instances such as "niche advertising" and "pursuing one's niche"
> assume the implicit and definable dimensions of a hispanic population, for
> example, or the rules by which one might conduct oneself in their profession.
> These examples demonstrate order within the niche, a trait shared with the
> mold. One might even conclude that a niche is a mold - a particular kind of
> mold. It is concave, it is immediately perceived as a aberration from the
> norm, but ultimately its dimensions are definable and, more importantly,
> reproducible. Therefore, one could make "plain copies" from both molds and
> niches. Now I return to your point, and I ask, how do they differ and where
> lies the "original" between the two?
any spatial artist ( sculptor) ,eventually a builder also, would say an
original is the first one of his kind.
The copies follow, molded or not from this original.It's simple factin
spatial artistry like bronce foundery.
Of course in teorical discussions, the original can be a text.
a song, a music.A new style of building.
remakes of those can be of any kind. plain copies, eventually partially
modified "as to appear like" another original.Or just inspired in the
glorious mind of another genius. So the styling appears as a kind of molding
when adapted by another creator.
f.i. in classical music, some pieces are inspired by the natural elements,
some noises of the cities or by gypsy or local, eventually indian
(G. Harrison,J. MacLaughlin) music or sounds.
where then is the original or the "molded" piece ?
the "copy" can be another original if new talent is "apposed".
If some interpretation is added.
cheers
prunes trees already blossoming here... but no cherries ...
bees are busy...
best also....
¼(tm)ß
>
> Best,
>
> Dave
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: patachon [mailto:phsov@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 11:59 AM
> To: DESIGN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: obsession