Posted by: Sk | February 22, 2009

Step 5: Positioning

Lettre ouverte a Ines de la Fressange

Posted on by *Ask 4 Ten

Bien sur que tout est faux, et cela en toute évidence. Il resterait de savoir pourquoi exactement cela semble etre si vrai, et pourquoi, tout compte bien fait, on préfere croire au si faux qu’a un autre semblant de vrai. Car tout n’est que semblant, et meme si Loulou de la Falaise n’a jamais prononcé cette phrase mémorable, bien ce serait de la lui attribuer, aussi. Car tout est attribuable, a la fin, en puissance, virtuellement, et meme si absolument pas correspondant a rien, on pourrait argumenter qu’on y est pour rien si l’on s’est laissé inspirer par précisément celui-la pour faire ou dire telle ou telle autre chose.

Car tout n’est que semblant. Peut-etre, et cependant peut-etre pas toujours. Mais il faudrait alors savoir ou se trouve la vérité exactement, ou les modes appropriées de la dire, car selon quelque poet allemand la vision de la vérité toute nue rend fou, et c’est éventuellement a éviter.

Tu n’as rien fait? Dis l’autre. Hannah est morte parceque précisément quelques uns prétendent a etre la cohésion de la réalité sociale par le véhiculement de commerages qu’ils vendent pour vérités, prétendant etre la mesure des valeurs, car ils pourraient, semble-t-il, effacer quelques petits peches de jeunesse de certains (qui peuvent etre des meurtres) et faire porter le poids du blame a quelques expressions qui s’approcheraient encore de ce qu’est l’expression de l’ame, comme si sur cela, et seulement, reposait tout le poids de la faute.

Je le sais bien. On m’a fait de meme. Mais moi je vis.

Bien sur que c’est faux. Mais n’est-ce fausse aussi toute tentative de voiler, masquer, cacher, deguiser, couvrir ce qui est pour préserver quelques intérets qui ne font que se servir a eux memes sans servir a personne d’autre?

Imaginez-vous qu’on puisse a la fin, lorsqu’il ne reste plus rien, mener la plaisanterie si loin comme pour se chercher quelqu’un qui serait accusé de tout ce que je fais, comme je fut accusée de tout-ce que les autres faisaient, sans pitié et presque irréversiblement, qui devrait donc porter la responsabilité de tous mes crimes supputés, car tout tend a faire croire, tous les indices et meme des preuves irrévocables, que c’est vous qui avaez tout fait. Peut-etre meme dans ce cas, dans le mien, toute cette faute présumée serait quelquepart légalement justifiable, comme qui ne veut, meme dans des cas ou l’on pousse la raillerie si loin, tomber dans la mesquinerie, quand meme on pourrait.

C’est une évidence que meme si le nom Chanel était registré en Equateur, il n’est pas registré chez WordPress, et que la loi n’interdit pas l’usage du meme nom pour un champs commercial différent. Vous savez combien des Loewe existent de par le monde? Des trucs technologiques, et autres de pas trop grand intéret. Un Chanel qui regroupe 101 dalmatiens, n’a pratiquement rien a voir avec la mode, et meme si l’illustre dame qui sert comme référant est peut-etre la meme, on pourrait dédier aussi un site a Napoléon sans etre issu de la révolution francaise. Pour dire.

Les logos de Loewe ne sont pas registrés de par cette contrée, et il en de meme pour Roger Vivier. C’est encore gentil de ma part que je vous en attribue la propriété, car je pourrais tout simplement le garder pour moi. En plus j’ai pris le soin de le sécuriser: d’ici on ne peut pas le piquer, chez Vogue, on pouvait. Quelque négligence, éventuellement.

Bien sur que vous pouvez encore prétendre que la rue est a Paris, qu’a Paris se trouve un magazin qu’est le votre, et que ce magazin n’a jamais eu le rapport que ce soit avec le petit hooligan, qui est moi, qui fait n’importe quoi a l’autre bout du monde. C’est un fait. Heureusement pour vous, d’aileurs. Ou pas. Car, qui le croirait? Que l’on laisse des videos chez YouTube dont les codes peuvent etre inséres dans n’importe quel programme sans meme etre registré n’est pas une faute de négligence a moi non plus. Et quoi. Si je dis que c’est une expression artistique voulant dévoiler précisément le faux dans le faux, l’irréel dans le semblant, le danger de la négligence. Ou encore, des tests esthétiques pour mettre en évidence qu’il n’est pas trop difficile de se moquer de tout le monde vu le manque de qualité, d’originalité et d’inspiration de toutes les ‘présentations’ a voir sur internet. Et payées cheres, en plus. Vous voyez, pour moi, ca irait, pour vous, c’est moins drole.

Car, oui. Moi je ne perds rien dans tout cela, et je gagne l’hilarité qui m’envahit la nuit en pensant a toute cette orchestration poétique, meme si pas malsaine, ou qui sait, dans laquelle on prend sur soi la vengeance de ce qui n’est pas notre pour mieux s’avancer, masqué ou pas. A la fin, qu’est-ce que je m’en fous, de vous, de Loulou de la Falaise, de la mode parisienne et de tout cela meme qui m’est tellement indifférent.

Mais c’est que c’est drole, surtout en ce qui vous concerne. On profite de vous a toute heure, on vous prend tout, on vous exploite dument et en meme temps on se moque de vous presque devant vous, on veut faire semblant de ce que vous n’existez pas, une ombre aux marges qui est cependant dans l’obligation de tout resoudre et de nourrir tout le monde. C’est ce que je vois.

Moi, personnellement, je vous dis comme ca, franchement, je déteste ce Frisoni. Vous comprenez que moi je ne perds pas un rond si je le dis clairement, je ne me détruis pas une stratégie de marketing et a la fin, je peux donner libre cours a l’expression de ce que j’aime ou je deteste sans avoir a considerer rien d’autre sinon la blague résultant de penser qu’on vous attribuera tout. Mais c’est comme cela: vos desseins, votre esthétique, votre gout, c’est 4 pédés qui vous les piquent en les faisant s’imposer comme criteres generaux presque de par tout le monde. Ce qui vaut chez vous, vous permettez bien que 7 malsains en prennent gloire et surtout du fric. Il est bien que le mal résultant de toutes mes inspirations ne vous retombe en propre, car c’est celle-la la logique: ce que vous faites est mauvais, meme si ce n’est pas vous qui le faites, et le bien, le profitable donc de nos jours, c’est toujours d’autres qui peuvent en vivre pour le reste de leur existence.

Vous savez, a chacun son truc. Si ca vous plait. Bien sur que j’en deduirais quelques tendances un peu masochistes, mais ca aussi c’est mode.

Regardez que moi j’ai des raisons pour ne pas aimer Frisoni. C’est que c’est un flop commercial, et cela s’impose. Mais pour quoi? Qu’il soit pédé ou pas ne nous concerne pas, et a la fin il semblerait que l’on ne puisse pas en faire un critere financier. Meme si. Car voyons, celui qui va depenser son argent (encore pour la plupart du temps dans 80% de la population du monde ayant un tel pouvoir d’achat) c’est un mec qui est entiché d’une femme, ou a une terrible mauvaise conscience envers la sienne parce qu’il vient de faire une connerie. C’est comme ca. Les époques peuvent s’electroniser mais le fondamental de l’etre humain ne change a peine. Pour vendre il faut savoir se mettre a la place de celui qui va acheter: soit comprendre la fascination que peut sentir un type en voyant une femme habillée d’une certaine maniere (je ne peux pas, honnetement, mais je ne dessinerais jamais des chaussures – est un fait que je les prefere pieds nus et sans des ongles colorées, mais cela est un autre probleme), soit les méchanismes qui vont susciter une terrible mauvaise conscience qui doit conséquemment se racheter. Un pédé sera par nature plutot jaloux d’une femme et l’esthétique en résultant ne fera que refleter cela de maniere, des fois, presque insultante. Voir Lagerfeld. C’est quasiment hideux, quand pas piqué. En cela il est évident que je préfere Louboutin, car c’est une évidence qu’il n’est pas pédé, et s’il l’est, il le dissimule fort bien.

Mais ce n’est pas tout. Monsieur Frisoni dit que lui il a préfere un tout petit magazin car ‘il ne vend que des chaussures’: c’est en évidence une mesquine allusion aux grands espaces de la rue Faubeourg Saint Honoré, et dans sa mesquinerie il oublie précisément l’essentiel: quelqu’un qui veut acheter une chaussure a 800 balles aime les grands espaces, et si l’on pretend a une clientele qui puisse se permettre ce luxe on va tout de meme pas la mettre dans une boite a allumettes. C’est une évidence, qui manque donc a ce cher Frisoni et l’aveuglement en résultant se reflete aussi dans son esthétique.

Pire encore: il se fait luire par des articles qui le présentent comme ‘celui qui fait revivre la maison Roger Vivier’, et vous, comme d’habitude, n’existez pas. Terrible ca, que de prétendre que le fait de faire des mauvais desseins de chaussures peut faire revivre un genie. Car lui l’était. Mais des nos jours, un petit dessinateur qui n’avait pas de magazin avant et qui en évidence ne sait rien ni au marketing, ni a la publicité, ni aux marchés, ni a la présentation, et surtout a ce que cela signifie que de se tenir a sa place, peu mauvaisement prétendre a ce qu’il fait, tout seul, tiens donc, revivre une telle maison.

Il y a encore pire. C’est qu’insidieusement il vous accuse de tout par des petites phrases insipides et méchantes, car c’est une évidence qu’il est terriblement jaloux. C’est un fait que vos jambes seront toujours plus longues que les siennes, et meme si je n’y vois rien de spécifiquement méritoir, c’est un fait que surtout dans quelques milieux homosexuels on y voit une garantie de succes. Si vous saviez combien et surtout précisément des longues jambes ne savent pas marcher … Personnellement j’attribuerais donc tant de succés amer a d’autres élements peut etre de plus grande importance, mais pas lui. Qu’il vous accuse donc surnoisement d’homosexualité, mais il ne sais pas se tenir, ce gars, est d’une imbécilité presque sans bornes, car imaginez-vous ‘il aurait bien voulu etre comme vous’. Donc? Voila que donne une précise analyse de son esthétique:  a la fin il habillerait des lesbiennes, mais les lesbiennes ne portent normalement pas ce genre de chaussures-la, va-t-on savoir pourquoi.

Que je déteste Frisoni peut meme conditionner une esthétique aussi, précisément celle-la, dans laquelle on pourrait se venger du mesquin et du méchant par des mechantes mesquineries, aussi, ce qui ne se fait pas, en évidence, mais il faudrait, et surtout, surtout ce qu’il faut, c’est vous charger d’une telle responsabilité car on pourrait en toute justice vous objecter, que vous ne vous defendez pas et que cela laisse des lacunes meme au niveau de la stratégie commerciale. Ah, non, n’allez pas dire que c’est moi qui est tout fait, vous savez, je dirais que je n’en ai pas les moyens, et comme c’est bete, quelqu’un qui se promene dans le huitieme de Paris a l’air toujours plus coupable qu’un petit hooligan equatorien, je ne sais pas pour quoi, mais c’est comme cela. Ca a la force de l’evidence pour certains, et c’est cela ce qui compte.

Est-ce que cela justifie tant d’imagination, tant de mesonges, tant de coups montés, tant de rires en cachette, tant de foutaise de tronche si mal masquée? Je ne sais pas. Vous en penseriez quoi? Mais je ne vais pas aller tout de meme si loin comme pour vous laisser l’espace de penser.

C’est une évidence que ce n’est pas politique. Mais c’est que vous m’etes si bien tombée. Hannah est disparue il y a 20 ans et c’est difficile de monter une vengeance sur les brins d’une mémoire soigneusement effacée. Tandis que vous, vous etes la, bien la encore, presque disparue aussi comme Hannah car c’est les memes qui orchestrerent sa disparution et … la votre. Ah, quel plaisir. Un coup dans la gueule de Lagerfeld, un autre dans celle de Frisoni, un autre s’en va chez quelques baronnes aux titres affublés, ce fait du bien au coeur et je dors mieux la nuit.

Vous voyez. Tout se justifie moyennement, meme des princes imaginaires, car ils impressionnent toujours. Et qui sait s’ils sont la. J’ai beaucoup d’amis, précisément parce que je n’en ai jamais fait étalage.

Enfin, pour dire. C’est vrai que malheureusement la lumiére entre en interaction avec les fréquences electroniques formant des vastes champs electromagnetiques arbitraires et chaotiques qui font que les avions tombent, entre autre. Qui pourraient meme altérer de données fondamentales de quelques haut lieux aux formules physiques et mathématiques incomprehénsibles, peut etre. Que finalement Roger Vivier est une bonne excuse pour resoudre une equation presqu’impossible tout en gardant soigneusement les apparences, ou en profitant pour s’amuser convenablement. Mais c’est aussi cela: les equations ne semblent pas vouloir considerer l’evidence selon laquelle l’humour doit nécessairement faire partie du chiffre, comme si cet état aléatoire infusait la brillance nécessaire pour retablir quelques equilibres (fondamentaux). 

Ainsi, sachez donc que grace a vous et quelques autres, je pus en fin trouver la preuve selon laquelle il en etait ainsi, une preuve empirique et matérielle, pour que meme les allemands n’aient plus rien a redire, que la radiation prise en systeme photographique ressort en tant que lumiere autonome par le simple fait de faire usage de quelques fonctions d’Adobe Photoshop, ce qui serait preuve de ce que la lumiere interagit de maniere determinée avec l’electronique. Buuf. Tant d’effort.

Je ne vais pas vous expliquer des choses aussi complexes car vous me diriez que les chaussures n’ont pas de rapport avec cela (c’est un fait, j’avoue, mais est-ce qu’on peut eviter de se vanter ne serait-ce qu’un peu apres tant d’effort?). On le peut.

Des gravissimes erreurs se trouvant donc dans la theorie des quanta, il est impossible d’evaluer correctement les effets des radiations sur d’autres systemes frequentiels, ce qui fit que tant d’avions ne tombent et meme un Challenger lorsque ‘les fréquences devenaient trop hautes’ (condensation de masses electromagnetiques autour de quelques poles d’attraction). A defaut de preuves et d’un language adequat il ne reste que le constat du dégat.

Bon, oui. C’est que le luxe bien compris explique des echelles, des especes de spheres d’interaction sans lesquelles le phénomene ne trouve pas d’explication en soi. Or, les spheres ne sont pas fermées car un phenoneme frequentiel n’est pas un phénomene spatial mais temporel, de tel sorte qu’il est nécessaire d’intoduire aussi les notions du ‘vers quelquechose’ (indefini dans un certain cadre – finalité) et de source ‘provenant de’ (defini ou en puissance definissable dans un cadre aléatoire). Aussi peu en mathématique comme dans le monde du luxe on peut faire monter des echelons a qui n’a pas les elements nécessaires pour résoudre l’equation en question, raison pour laquelle mes aggressions sur Frisoni et Lagerfeld ne sont que des illustrations d’un phénomene mathématique dérivé d’une theorie mal faite. Vous voyez? Chez vous, ca fait faillite a moyen terme. A la Nasa cela fait perdre un Challenger avec les vies qui s’y trouvaient.

Si vraiment vous voulez votre prince, il va falloir l’inventer, car je n’en ai pas dans ma poche, mais tout est possible dans le meilleur des mondes.

Plus accessible est la serie de preuve de cette interaction, dont l’une (la derniére) se trouve dans ‘votre’ sitre dans les envois pour le concours 4, sous le nom de Releia, un astrophysician s’occupant de ce genre de question deja il y a tres longtemps, qui ne coute que 20.000 USD et, sur, vend mieux que Frisoni meme … avec du Frisoni.

Tout n’est que semblant, ma chere Anne Helene, mais les avions ils tombent malheureusement fort réellement, et c’est pour cela que des fois, s’il ne faut pas couper court a l’imagination, il faudrait cependant mettre quelques limites au mensonge, la medisance et surtout la fausse accusation. Va comme preuve?

Sur les motifs et raisons d’une fixation

Posted on by *Ask 4 Ten

Dirait Sask, mais ce qu’elle n’avait jamais des bonnes idées, que je souffre en toute évidence d’une fixation sur Inès de la Fressange, ce que elle, parce c’est elle, aurait interpreté de bien obscure manière. C’est une évidence que l’on peut excuser certains faits par des peut-être fort troubles mouvements de l’inconscient, précisément parce que étant de l’inconscient, on ne les connaît pas et donc, on peut leur permettre de s’exprimer par des gestes manqués, ou pas tant manqués, leur laissant cette aura benign du doute quand a leur interprétation.

La vérité est cependant bien autre (et une partie en est qu’il fallait absolument agacer Sask on lui faisant croire que l’on pouvait se permettre une fixation sans la permission de personne, au point meme de aller jusqu’à éclater de rire devant la possibilité d’une accusation de character monotématique, c’est a dire, schizoïd – den gamieste, dirait le grec), mais celle-la était la partie la moins sérieuse car il faut toujours profiter de tout pour agacer Sask et même, si l’on peut, pour l’accuser un peu de tout et n’importe quoi.

Ainsi. La réalité est bien plus cruelle, plus complexe aussi, s’enfonce dans des profondes méditations métaphysiques et philosophiques et demanderait presque d’un doctorat (mais a qui intéressent ces questions là de nos jours, n’est-ce pas) pour pouvoir dûment s’expliciter. Disons, brièvement, en esperant que je ne désespère de pouvoir rendre en quelques phrases un effort de 20 ans, concretisé en 10 ans de démultiplications de méditations, au point que j’eus presque l’impression de voir le temps s’effondrer devant la pressante nécessité d’obtenir la conséquence le plus rapidement possible, car, oui, c’est vrai, il fallait encore vivre un peu, après, si possible … que la notion de raison se tenant de quelques longs principes métaphysiques, elle fut saccadée par la parution d’une logique, la kantienne, qui ayant tout l’air de véhiculer quelques vérités, ne fit qu’introduire une faille dans les méchanismes de synthèse de la réalité rendant la saisie de la même impossible. Comme les logiques entraînent d’autres logiques et les failles ouvrent des fausses portes à l’erreur même plus mesquine et éventuellement perverse, on s’amusa à construire une logique symbolique comme base de la logique informatique qui reposait comodement sur une mechante erreur.

Kant n’aurait peut être pas eu trop de répercussion. Fait est que presque personne ne le comprend. Mais la logique symbolique se divulga pendant presque 30 ans par voie d’ordinateurs sans frein ni limites, causant grand trouble dans les déjà fort faibles recoins de la raison. Ainsi, les structures innées de l’entendement se fusionnèrent de manière presque irrevocable avec d’autres, ce dont la consequence ne pouvait être qu’une perte des repères de la réalité et un aveuglement sur tout par rapport à la saisie affective, les conséquences dans le temps et la subordinnation aux corps de loi. C’est à dire, la dérive à haute mer et avec tempête.

Cette fusion symbiotique de deux corps logiques produit de par elle même la génération d’un certain nombre de penchants à une récurrence excessivement haute pour une humanité ‘normale’ (tels que la pedophilie), par example, et la quasi incapacité de régulation de la société par une normative sensée, ceci principalement à cause du fait que l’informatique, de par sa propre logique, promeut des types psychopathiques graves (assassins en serie), qui se couvrent d’une allure socialement reconnue de par cette logique imposant critères esthétiques, normes de comportement et même loi sociale, puisque semblant être les réprésentants les plus adequats des nouveaux temps.

Ainsi disparurent pratiquement presque tous les reperes sociaux traditionnels, donnant lieu à des expressions irrationnelles et arbitraires dans une permissivité generale, surtout après 2002.

Il me vint a l’idee de ne rien faire concernant ce déplorable état des choses, puisqu’ne erreur evidente relevée déjà en 1992 qui aurait du donner lieu à quelques réflexions, fut enterrée, probablement pour ne pas faire des jaloux. Pas seulement. Accusée de tout on alla même jusqu’à me piquer des titres universitaires, de telle sorte que le resultat, bien brillant d’ailleurs, du développement des principes posés en 1992 n’appartenaient à personne et que je voyais mal pourquoi je ne devais arroser d’une gloire certaine ceux-là mème qui avait été à l’origine de toutes mes disgraces, ou n’avait rien fait pour l’empêcher, ou portèrent crédit aux dires des autres, etc.

En plus, il me semblait qu’il etait trop tard. Ainsi, je me voyais déjà en train d’aller faire paître quelques llama dans les hauteurs des Andes quand une serie d’événements inattendus me décidèrent à faire autrement.

Je découvre le program WordPress en août 2006 et vois une excellente manière non pas seulement de regrouper mes pensées mais de me débarrasser de mon evidente mauvaise humeure en me laissant croire qu’une page sur internet avait un auditoire universel. Ainsi, je dormais déjà mieux la nuit et mon agacement diminuait progressivement selon passaient les jours. Bien sûr que j’etais bien consciente de mon enfantillage mais le seul fait de pouvoir me permettre d’y croire avait des effets extrêmement positifs que je me suis decidée à exploiter dûment.

J’ai donc abandonné mon projet original pour un engagement décidé dans la dérision, la moquerie et la plaisanterie, vu qu’il ne semblait pas y avoir d’autre manière de survivre dans la jungle de la civilisation. J’ai même puisé quelques espoirs. Alors je me suis engagée dans quelques combats invraisemblables et quichottesques qui esquissaient presque une allure de solution. C’était une provocation, voilà tout.

Car une solution ne pouvait que prendre une forme esthétique determinée pour être efficace et la forme esthétique ne pouvait être que la fixation de lois en des instants, vu qu’il était impossible de créer un cadre métaphysique genéral adequat suffisamment vite. L’image tend à vouloir figer l’éternel par des structures spatiales fixes. Mais cela n’avait pas d’issue. L’éternel avait disparu comme concept, pour pas dire déjà la notion. Les seuls qui semblait figer des instants dans des gouttes à l’allure éternelle étaient les gens de la mode, mais il fallait, pour arriver là, traverser les déserts des photographs qui entendait l’éternel encore dans d’autres cadres.

Puisque Inès de la Fressange était apparue accidentelment dans mes longues méditations et surtout plaisanteries sur la vie et la mort, elle attira mon attention par le genre d’inspiration qu’elle m’inspirait. (C’est vrai que je pique tout, ou presque, mais je prends toujours grand soin de mettre une étiquette pour savoir d’où je l’ai piqué comme conséquence de longues études sur les méchanismes psychiques par ‘transfer’ commencés en 1994 pour générer une théorie des intéractions psychiques internes qui consistaient dans l’analyse précise de pensées et sentiments éveillés par la présence d’une autre personne isolée, ou d’un groupe, formant des espèces de cases séparées jusqu’à ce que je ne pus rélier les différentes cases par des compexes logiques, normalement groupées en codes – codes psychopathiques.)

C’était une évidence que ce que ressortait de l’association de ma pensée à ce nom (sans que je sache pourquoi puisque je ne connaissais précisement que cela, le nom) était une profusion de situations hilarantes touchant à l’absurde sans devenir cependant dramatiques qui me mettait dans une spéciale bonne humeur, raison pour laquelle je passais de plus en plus de temps a concocter des histoires autour du personnage.

Je dus couper court à mes plaisanteries lorsque la curiosité pour savoir qui donc était réellement la personne m’inspirant tant de bêtises me confronta à des biens dures réalités, lesquelles, cependant, furent absorbées précisément dans le mème esprit qui avait généré les histoires, ce qui explique une grande partie des réactions impulsives et irrationnelles se cachant derrière un prince russe illusoir, comme qui ne veut se désaisir d’un irréalité plaisante par une réalite qui aurait mit fin à un rêve.

Cette situation quasiment suspendue de la fantaisie semblait cependant être un bon pas en avant dans la tentative de trouver une ligne esthétique adéquate à mes propos fondamentaux. S’il etait possible de trouver un principe quelconque dans la multiplicité, diversité et l’éparpillement des multiples images (j’irais jusqu’à l’appeler ‘une goutte d’eau cachée dans une bouteille en cristal, doublée d’une multiplicité de bouteilles de différentes couleurs et diverses formes’), alors non pas seulement j’aurais saisi une ligne d’instant de par le principe même de recherche, il aurait été possible de tracer le processus même par lequel cela ne fut possible.

Raison pour laquelle je me suis decidée à me laisser obséder par Inès de la Fressange (ne pouvant pas cacher mon malin plaisir a dûment embêter Sask par la même occasion) ne voulant pas que trop d’éparpillement dans la recherche de lignes esthétiques ne finisse par former un bouillon inmangeable. C’est vrai que d’autres histoires s’en mêlèrent et que l’esprit médiéval surgit de mes premières histoires finit par baigner le tout dans une aura presque mythologique. Ce n’est pas plus mal, je finis par me dire, car le résultat n’est pas trop mauvais, à ma manière d’entendre, c’est à dire, quand à l’adequation de ce qui est produit par rapport au principe ordonnant le tout: les lignes esthétiques et mêmes sociales obtenues pourraient correspondre aux principes métaphysiques posés tout au debut.

Et précisément. Je n’avais plus à me soucier pour savoir à qui la gloire. Il fallait simplement se laisser piquer tout par celle à qui j’avais tout piqué. Ainsi se restauraient des équilibres fondamentaux tant desirés depuis si longtemps, presque.

Et quoi. Si Sask disait que c’était obsessif. Fallait seulement écrire l’explication aprés. Seulement pour l’embêter.

Gossip, yellow press and valuable information

Posted on by *Ask 4 Ten

 

It’s an evidence that the changes introduced into general social behaviour through mass media as mainly developped after 1945, have produced horrible confusions concerning what is to be said and not, how and who by. Even about the value and signification of what could be called ways of talking.It’s true that official statements are usually quite boring as trying to keep balances in image suspended of many ancestral rules whose exact signification is difficult to grasp. It’s usually called ‘keep appearance’, as it is known that the fact of not doing so causes gravest damage to image, which on the other hand may cause financial troubles along with psychological disturbances whose origin is the pressure deriving of a psychic mass believing a certain number of things. Thus, as the very fact of having one lover, may be understood by some parts of population as meaning the person in question may have 200, the same may be induced to do things he/she actually doesn’t want to do, just because high parts of population are convinced it were so.Consequently, people try dealing with private life as secretly as possible, in order to avoid unwanted side effects. On the other hand though, it is impossible avoiding or even stop the flourishing popular imagination, who associates through quite ‘mythological’ turns of mind, people to the most incongruous situations, even more so if these people leave on imagination some mark that wakes up all sorts of configurations of all types.As remarked through all the endless story concerning Inés de la Fressange in www.robios.wordpress.com, the very fact of being confronted to a visual impression as deriving from someone appearing in different situations, allows the development of a certain number of stories (the hooligan and the Russian Prince) which are perhaps linked to reality somehow, but show obvious diformations as resulting from imagination.It seems as if the impression provoked on the unconscious by some ‘public person’ could be devided into two parts: the one which attaches the image to a certain number of information as seeming to have official character (date of birth, activity, personal statements, etc.), which creates some hole in its attachment to what is left as general impression in the mind, hole which is filled by all sorts of fantastic characters and stories, as perfectly visible through the stories concerning Ricky Martin, made up around the character of Inés de la Fressange. (See: www.inesdelafressange.wordpress.com : Spanish gossip)At the same time the human mind is trying to fill gaps through hypothetical constructions, the very unconscious of the public person as leaving marks through gestures, tones, appearances in general, is worked out by curious observers of the structuring of ‘important’ people, as their way of being and doing will become referential for whole lots of others certainly lacking of some kind of originality.In Spain, this was mainly the realm of homosexual male, who thus were somehow left free in their prodigality of imagination, as their comments were usually quite useful in the working out of more important data. This custom, whose obvious continuation shows itself clearly even in electronical times through usually forums were they continue in their deepest analysis of psychic types without anyone’s permission, is though clearly to be differentiated from common yellow press or wicked gossip.How to make the difference? Yellow press pretends to some kind of factual truth, which is not always the case, or which does consist in gravest attempts against someone’s privacy, even if it is a ‘fact’. Facts are not necessarily of public domain, and consequently the fact of pretending that it is enough for it to be a fact in order to be allowed publishing this or the other information, does not justify itself (to my understanding suable, even more so if concerning public people who have always to handle with the pressure deriving of the divulgation of information.)This is more or less the pattern of Spanish press behaviour, where at least until I lived there (1988), even criminals were handled with ‘el presunto asesino’ (the presumed murder)  without name (or only initials), for the preservation of anonymity, as it was thought that it could be the judge decides he was not the criminal, so that the publication of the name may be at the origin of gravest damage in case it were a wrong presumption, and in any case could influence the court’s decision through public pressure. (Things look quite differently in Germany, where already in 1970 Heinrich Böll writes a book describing the horrible consequences of such a public ‘accusation’ made on a woman by a Bild-Zeitung who finishes by being proved innocent and though commits suicide.) Thus, in Spain the invasion even of ‘aerian’ territory of a private house is considered a crime: pictures obtained for example of Stéphanie de Monaco through zoom while she’s taking a bath somewhere were suable in Spain. Which is to say, that it is factually forbidden to take a picture of someone inside of his property, and even outside without permission. The same for pictures taken with permnission inside of someone’s property, that can’t be published without the house owner’s permission.The problem deriving of these very strict legislations is that some people may cover themselves in the most criminal activities pretending to these legal protections. Problem of catholic priests accused of paedophilia in the United States in 2004. Problem of some Greek parliament member spending his earnings with transexuals around 2002, and so on.How far may private life be protected by law and how far is it of need sometimes to reveal a certain number of facts in order to avoid people who are involved in some kind of criminal activity become referential for others who can’t absorb immediately the consequences of some appearance in its effect on moral, social or even financial fields?The question is almost bitter, as it does not seem to deserve a proper answer, and though it should as it determines the how far courts may punish excessive liberty in the publication of information.Fundamentally it seems an evidence that the spreading of information, images, constructions, which without having any other meaning but to harm someone’s reputation, are not based on proofed facts and/or are violating private space, are suable. How though handle the ‘proofed fact’ which as such may be harming, of no one’s concern and as such causing moral damage, or other, to the one concerned?Let’s take the example of Inés de la Fressange. Spanish law allows the free dealing with names of people of the ‘public domain’ as long as not infringing law. Thus, the making up of stories, even more so if framed as stories, is not factually forbidden. Two problems appear: one is the wicked use of this in order to transmit all sorts of vile information (case: Manual of a soldier), second, it may happen accidentally, that the information as gathered does give birth to stories which are actually linked to reality, because the unconscious is working out residual information and putting it into the right order.If in ‘The manual of a soldier’ the language does allow in reconstruction to affirm almost bluntly that the affected lieutenat general had never made any kind of experiment as described, but finishes by showing only that, if ever (the person associated corresponded actually to the described psychic type), she was the possible victim of some kind of psychopath, the constructions on Inés de la Fressange seem to point at the evidence of facts, which I got aware of much later. Why?The ps type taking the pictures at her home in around 2002 shows an obvious female homosexual character, which may become quite agressive sexually, which shows itself also in some distorsion made on the pictures caused by a superposition in which the first layer has been wickedly altered. A ps type like the one of Inés de la Fressange keeps itself fundamentally in image: a sexual agression, even more so if homosexual, (as may be understood some kind of proposition, even only induced) may be at the origin of fright, rejection, agression and other. Fright may be at the origin of an attempt of reassurance, and this obtained through some happily appearing pretender, who may be Russian (corresponding in ps). And who probably pretends to more than he is (Prince) covering actually a hooligan … Of course I have no evidence for the latter, but it is an evidence that the observation of pictures of which derive subsidiary data, gives birth to all sorts of imaginations which, if well analyzed, may even allow the reconstruction of a whole situation.Thus, even ‘wicked’ information, if wisely delt with, give light in distorsion on weakness which may be of importance for a certain number of considerations: in cases there is crime, in cases of heavy financial transactions (testing of reliability), etc. It is obvious that the forbidding of Channel 5 (the scent of gossip) does actually deprive interested people from vital information.There is though some kind of information which finishes by saying nothing but only something about the wickedness of who ever furthers it. What I called the ‘German gossip’. German gossip may even seem to take very positive turns: the idealization of Diana of Wales, for example, who shows some weakness in character that does not allow her dealing with excessive notoriety: the fact of pushing her to notoriety does in fact nothing but pushing her to death. The difference here is that information is used in the deliberate purpose of distroying someone by whatever means, causing his death, morally, socially, physically. If it is possible to establish a link between an information and a damage of whatever kind, it seems to be of need to protect the person by legal means.This though may be restrained in a certain number of cases: the criminal will of course not want his criminal activity to be known. If he/she gets ‘depressed’ because of the publishing of such information, if ever established, it becomes of evidence that it is caused by the criminal activity itself, and not by the publication, which becomes even more so of need in cases or places where such activity is covered by a certain number of judicial entities or the press blocks the access of reliable information to the public, in which case it would still have been possible to publish information in more ‘diplomatic’ ways.Going a little beyond Spanish law in this that I recognize the utter need of making public a certain number of facts which are of importance for perhaps many, I adapt my usual dealing with reality inside of this frame. Thus, I may justify even quite aggressive attacks on some people whose behaviour may affect further environments, were it familiar, professional or social, in cases where it has become obvious that the attempt of solving a question through a court, has remained without answer against all proofs.If I were a possibly existing Sask, I would though prohibit the ‘Manual of a soldier’, as the character possibly recognizible. In this case though it is not necessary to file a claim. It is enough to send an e-mail to which if not answered to, may follow a claim, as otherwise I may justify the ‘Manual’ by simply saying the truth, that it is absolutely coincidental if some aspects allow the recognition of a person who has never been involved in the rest, thus creating confusion in people being in knowledge of the same.Even if it were the same for Inés de la Fressange, also coincidental, if it ever happened, I don’t think it causes any damage whatsoever to her public image, on the contrary. A Russian Prince is always helpful in those environments even if invented.

Concerning the rest (were it Maxime Catroux, Gregory Leurent, and some others) I have proofs which are evidence enough, and proof also of the attempt of solution in legal ways (the same for the German School of Guayaquil), or in any case, of attempt of solution on amiable ways, which has been rejected in those cases, though not in others which consequently do not see their story in my yellow press department.

What is an abusive clause of contract?

The New York Times example:You may say that the body of law is built up the following way: there is a constitution, where the most general principles of law are given. After, you have laws that are ordered in fields (social, financial, etc.) and after you have particular regulations or contracts, that rule a determined place, company, organization or other. Thus, it may not be forbidden by law to smoke in bars in a certain country and though a specific bar forbid doing so in its place.Usually, laws are submitted to Constitution and contracts or private regulations should not infringe law nor Constitution, otherwise they become anticontitutional or illegal. Which is to say, they invalidate themselves through the application of main laws or determinations of constitution.It is though difficult to evaluate exactly when there is an abusive clause: as abuse is usually covered by some legal appearance and it is difficult to evaluate whether there is actual violation of law or constitution.To give an example (as accidentally it happened to fall under my attention these days and not concerning specifically New York Times, although found there as example, as these kind of contracts are quite common nowadays due probably to the lack of adjustement of common law to internet):NYT provides a gracious service through server, a page, where there are forums and other services, some you have to pay for and some not.Concerning forums you may read that on the one hand you are the sole responsible for the contents of what you are writing (from a legal point of view) and on the other hand that NYT has the right: of copying, using, distributing, altering … and many other etc. of your contents without former authorization of the author. Which is to say, they acquire the property and thus the rights of author from whatever appears on their screens without though any legal responsibility whatsoever.This is a legal absurd. First: the fact of providing a gracious service, does not make of you the owner of anything and even less of rights of author or intellectual rights. Second, if it were, it would imply the legal responsibility for whatever appears on the screens, which is impossible.Actually the problem of WordPress, for example. ‘I’ as a private person, may use WordPress within a legal frame that allows the use of texts and images ‘for private use’, as I’m actually not earning anything through it but just exposing, explaining, saying, expressing, sharing. WordPress though is earning money through the program as they get percentages on use of currents, so that the fact of embelleshing sites through Dior, Inès de la Fressange or Athina Onassis, makes them earn much more than through little hooligan’s inspirations, as people get much more interested by those than by these.Logically, WordPress can’t claim for the ownership of things which are of private use for a user but of commercial benefit for a program. This may be applied, too, to other programs, like Adobe Photoshop or Office, which may have pretended to claim for rights of author on … a work made with their program. Another legal absurd.In an interesting conversation with the British Counsel for Intellectual Rights, the question arose whether then Faber Castell may ask for rights of author on paintings made with their pencils.Or if, I continue the questioning, the fact of renting a house makes the owner of the house owner of my furniture. The fact that a server does not get direct benefit, does not mean that they don’t profit of my work, as the use of the programs provides them with enough benefit (equivalent for the rent) To deal with private property as property of the server, page owner or other, can be considered an abusive clause, infringing laws of property, intellectual or other as there is appropriation through clause of contract, which isn’t considered in any country as legal means of acquiring property.Or to put things to their proper place: The program is the owner of a presentation with some program applications. As the program is viewable by a larger public, it may decide to make disappear news/posts/pages that may be considered harmful from a legal point of view or from the point of view of image. In no case though this makes of them owners of contents, which to become such, should have the mention: offered by … to NYT, which is the only way of acquiring property except of buying and inheriting. And I’d rather advice, from a legal point of view, that the disappearing of a post should come after a short notice in which it be asked to proceed this way by the same owner, as otherwise there could be  charge of ‘violation of private property’. A program owner is no judge, and it may happen that a third person may not find it of its interest to see something in internet, without there being though violation of law. In this case, the quarrel should go up to the court and can never be ‘of the program’s owner discretion’ whether something can or not be published.To drive the absurd to its correct place: if ‘I’ as a private user, take thousands of images to embellish my site, there is legally no infraction. If I sell for example the site www.inesdelafressange.wordpress.com (which was just gathering information for private use) to, let us say, Inès de la Fressange herself, she may have to pay … rights of author, as it may be presumed in right that she will take of it some commercial benefit through image reverting in benefit for herself. The absurd is such because she (either as a person or a company) is certainly profiting of it, and though, I can’t sell, nor she/it buy.Consequence: to inspire interest of people who may put their work graciously to your disposition is of … cheap profit ! Can’t even ask for a perfume … see, it’d be considered as I don’t know which other horrible legal crime. Ah! And still concerning NYT: saw the mention “defamatory, obscene, pornographic … or otherwise illegal material”? Pornographic is not illegal in the US? I’d say. And though there should be reasons … But this is not an abuse of clause, you see, it’s just not … correctly expressed.

Situation of perspective: zoom on Inés de la Fressange

Luckily some time has passed, and most serious considerations have gathered around another interesting story, the one of Athina Onassis. It leaves time to consider even why you get involved in things without anyone’s permission, as if some sacred medieval knight’s spirit had invaded your contemporary mind blinding it to any other understanding.Of course I may blame Inés de la Fressange herself for her seducing name, which at the end, is at the origin of the whole disaster, but I suspect it is too simple as an excuse. Although I have already given long explanations to myself in www.robios.wordpress.com concerning the justification of such an invasion of other people’s private life, which is rather not of my custom, I’ll have to draw the lines again in order to get to some general conclusion concerning such devoted defense of princesses kept by dragons in obscure towers.Of course I was as usual amusing myself with some extraordinary characters, as principle derived of logical systems (Mr Dashtag for Google and Ms Wingsurf for WordPress) in www.sonjakasten1.wordpress.com when my usual search for general balances obliged me to introduce a third factor, some character whose more aleatory and spontaneous nature should build bridges between and around the before mentioned. I thought a French fashion character would do it and my forlorn memories brought back the name of Inés de la Fressange to my mind, who, I thought, would never but never get aware of such an unproper usurpation. There are many reasons of the need even of a real, copied and usurpated name, but these are long and exhausting explanations which would be given only under specific request.My Inés de la Fressange was thus happily irritating my American characters with her usual non chalance when time passed, and the very mention of the name did attract some information through the Dashboard (searches for pictures referring to pages and events), which woke up my curiosity. Who may this person be at the end? I asked myself, quite puzzled about the possible link between my ironical contemplations and reality. And immediately the first pictures give birth to whole tons of hilarious stories, where reality as inspiration generates the most extravagant inventions. (www.robios.wordpress.com )Perhaps there was a moment when I asked myself whether my imaginations would not have some effect on reality and whether a real Inés de la Fressange would not finish by claiming millions for my abusive use of her name, so that I start very carefully making some researches on the more social aspect of the person, see how to face some anger, if ever of need. It’s then that I discover through wikipedia that some obscure judicial affair was related to my aery princess, which fills me of surprise. Ça alors … I think. I knew that things were not specially well in France but to that point …My curiosity is thus woken up concerning what seems to me to be  at first glance  an obvious judicial mistake (anticonstitutional and if depending on contract, abuse of clause of contract*), because it was my job in Greece to deal with such horrible events and make great wars against arbitrary angers resulting from frustrated pretensions stopped by law as given.Intuitively I make up a story. I feel fashion people hate courts for obvious reasons and that this distance may be a prejudice for whoever damaged, if it were the case. What, I think, if some deeper misbehaviours are not cut short by some excuse, which may even explain a judicial mistake? You always have to be very careful with these things as circumstances do often give light on things whose first appearance may be a shouting error.As I go on with my investigations moved by a real interest for the extreme complication of the story, I do neither presume an innocence nor a guilt, the construction as it will follow has as goal only to move things enough so as to get the proper information. Thus, two enthousiastical defenders of Inés de la Fressange are built up: the hooligan, a young devoted admiror of the same, whose finality is to get as much information as possible in an environment where rights reserved are so heavy that only an innocent and unaware hooligan may cross all barriers, and a Russian Prince, whose steady and serious exploitation of the material in question allows more serious positionings and attacks, whose feedback may allow to get a proper image of the whole situation.Of course, my fantasy can’t avoid developping the characters far beyond their limited functionality and thus, another series of incongruous stories is born from their very presence. Strangely, the results obtained through their very limited perspective are quite satisfactory. Comments on the court’s decision in 2002 are found on a Spanish site in Alicante where some French lawyers publish different texts … in pdf.After a while, the ‘I’ who takes critical and almost frozen distances from the admirors, whose presence allow covering a damaging to image judicial affair with some romance and Maurice Leblanc inspired novel characters, collapses under one horrible evidence: this woman is a disaster. Thus, in my thoughts, making fun on the epithéte “le manequin qui parle” (the model who talks) I start refering myself to her with “le manequin qui racontait n’importe quoi” (the model who says whatever), gloomingly drawing the consequences of a wider spread similar behaviour.At a certain moment, I even think of closing my investigations with a sudden distance, not wanting to disturb her happy wanderings (which though look quite depressed, I think) around the fashion world with the quite negative conclusions as arising at that moment. But that’s it, I consider, as if giving in to the pressure of the pretended admirors, this woman looks so horribly sad, even, yes, even I really can’t agree with what appears under my eyes.How strange. Is there a possibility of considering things differently? Are there things that escape my attention and are distorting my view on the whole? What has really happened?At that moment I don’t consider a judicial affair as such. The question arising is how I would have judged a person, from a moral point of view, not from a social perspective. As if the fact of determining whether there was or not moral innocence, may allow to consider things from another angle. This time I’m really curious, as challenged by the very appearance of the question to solve an almost logical impossibility: were it possible to establish the moral guilt or innocence from someone?I wander down and along information as appearing: sentences, answers, happenings. I even visit shools and streets in my virtual cyber world, as if it were possible to get a concrete answer through the mass of information as arriving through different chanels. I reconstruct historical events, social classes, syntaxical structures, try one impossible thing: to see things from her virtual point of view. In the meantime the Russian Prince is left carte blanche to continue proving his most devoted admiration as if in spite of the evident awareness of the possibility I may discover even darker aspects of a ravaging logic, there was something wanting necessarily to cover with some veil even the most disastruous consequences.More than anything it is an analysis on language that finishes by building up the fine lines of an answer, while I continue observing my own reactions developed through the characters, as if they could be the clue to some more hidden mechanisms revealing themselves in the intuitive answer to what is left by empirical impressions. One day I may have been woken up keeping in the depth of my unconscious the evidence of some innocence, which I was maintaining almost against all proof as of need for a constructed character, becoming image for others.That day I decided that such an innocence was worth the while fighting for and dedicated a whole amount of headers (www.soniakasten.wordpress.com, www.sonjakasten1.wordpress.com , www.skstats.wordpress.com , www.robios.wordpress.com among others) to the claim of such a belief, whose last ressources laid in the understanding of general structures difficult to grasp. That day the Russian Prince died in Siberia and was substituted by a more convinced ‘I’ who didn’t need of devotions but just of proofs in order to maintain an evidence.The conclusion was finally driven the following way: it seemed obvious that this quite peculiar person, I must say, had inherited patterns of structuring reality that were ‘refracted’. In short you may say, that the said word was pointing through the undertone to another meaning than the one resulting from the very identity of the word itself. And this inside of a general logical mechanism that tended to associate more intuitive realities (feelings, desires, of the general realm of pleasure or disliking) to abstract quailities of immediate perception (colours, volumes, etc.) Extremely effective in a world where the immediate association of senses to a given liking may warrant success, fashion, it creates a disastruous financial or legal environment and most of all, the complete incapability of defense in realms governed by other principles than fashion itself.Not only it could be presumed that these structures were resulting in a complete effective isolation, in spite of all success (perhaps similar to the one of Marilyn Monroe and other on different scales), it was an evidence that the apparent weakness in the organization of reality could be the source for less successfull entities and beings to want exploiting it in order to get the most benefit out of a success that was though warranted only by her sole presence.That this was so, became most obvious through the recurrent observation of the video for Roger Vivier in www.interieurs.fr . What strikes the mind? She is trying to give back an ordered commercial speech, which as such is neither surprising nor strange. Strange though is that at a certain moment she closes the hand to a fist. This person is very nervous, you conclude. Why? Someone who has been walking down model shows all her life. I may. Why should she? It becomes obvious that the type of speech is not natural to her, that she may have probably learned it by heart. The tension arising from the effort gives back the measure of difference to what would be her natural speech and thus, her natural ordering of reality. The evidence becomes apalling: she’d never understand a structured word as such in fields as law, economy or other.You may say, so what. I don’t understand the specific language of computer people or fashion or cinema. So what, I think at the end, if only you have people you may trust taking care of the other aspects of reality. What happens though if you don’t and you just attract the type of people who is going to rob you out of everything? It’s there where law should decide and where, to my understanding, law failed. You will never make of a lawyer a genius of fashion, and should never expect that a genius of fashion may speak the same language than a lawyer. The fact though of not speaking a concrete language should not make of you the victim of those who pretend to deserve all just because they deal with concepts differently.Without wanting to intervene in court’s decisions, it seems to me an evidence that is the intellectual’s responsibility to point at these kind of facts. And if law and court do play the game of those who want to take away everything for nothing, it may become a burning image to do the same for those: I say, her name her surname her image are hers. It’s obvious that if the court does not want to see its attributions be taken away by the need of restoring justice otherwise, it should judge in justice.If the court doesn’t like its attributions be relegated to the public opinion, may you understand what it may mean to see your name, your signature, your image in the hands of those who just violate law in order to get some temporary benefit?Seen from that point of view, it’s to my understanding of moral obligation to question a certain number of decisions, which, if well founded, build the frame of the freedom of speech. Which is not the loud shouting around for pretended rights, but the well founded questioning of happenings which may as such, influence through jurisprudence broadest fields of human activity.* What strikes the mind while reading about the court’s decision, and most specifically in France, is that a name, surname, signature, image may be taken away from someone as it is (if I remember well) a constitutional right (if not only law): “le droit à l’image est inaliénable”, (the right to image is essential – can’t be taken away from someone) which is the same for the name, surname and last but not least, the signature.If you think about things a little deeper and you consider the usual extravagancy of the fashion world (contracts of exclusivity and many quite border line clauses: as if they were constantly playing with fire), you’re somehow obliged to put some legal barriers to all sorts of inspirations: first) you can’t sell a name, second) if you put it to the disposition of a company (césion de droits), this may only be valid as long as the contract lasts, as otherwise (and it seems to be exactly what happens) some may be tempted by just throwing you out under a vulgar excuse in order not only to keep everything for themselves but to leave a third almost without possibilities of survival by her/himself, as the main tools of her/his work are taken away from her/him. Of course punitive clauses in cases of broken contract of her/his side, are usually necessary: you can’t just stand up and leave a company without name or logo or whatever just because it pleases you, but as it happened there is obvious abuse and deliberate distruction of a career, perhaps just because it deemed to some that to become a Marianne meant to belong to the extreme right and had to be consequently punished.There is where I think that the specific logic of someone who signs a contract, is to be considered for evaluation: I see that immediately and don’t sign or cause restriction. Someone in a refracted logic does not see the possible trap arising from a determined clause and signs and may loose everything.Inside of different logics it is an evidence that there are some that you may consider ill (mental illness). And there are others that are not only not ill, but whose specificity allows the talented development of an activity in a given field. It is obvious though that these logics do usually produce incapability of understanding of more common logics, so that those people have very often problems in social environment (to take the example of Mozart). Logically justice is there in order to restore balances in view and consideration of higher laws that do forbid actually the execution of some or other deviated interpretation or clause as such.

You may say the same for the reasons Inès de la Fressange is fired by Lagerfeld: he argues that she has signed a contract of exclusivity and that the fact of modelling for the French town hall’s counsel (mairies de France), who have chosen her as Marianne is cause of rupture of contract. Now, it is of evidence that an exclusivity can only apply to a company and in no case to a national entity, as the town hall is, and that Lagerfeld could have been sued at that time not only for that but for insulting behaviour towards a national symbol: “I don’t dress a statue”, he said, whereas he was not supposed, it would have been an honour he didn’t get, to dress the statue itself, but a model who may maintain her right against all private contract to submit to national obligations or honours. Or may the young actor be fired in a contract of exclusivity if he goes to the army, if of obligation in the country in question? It is absurd.

Limits to tolerance: rights and obligations in photography

It’s always after, when subtle considerations concerning esthetics leave the field to the legal questioning.You may consider things with humor, and even participate this way to the contemporary quarrel concerning rights of authors and intellectual property, to the adaptation of mass media, publicity and marketing to contemporary habits and means, and many etc.See from that point of view, you may even discover legal gaps, interesting ideas and launch fine provocations in order to try becoming famous. Were it the goal.Where the limits are, where arrogance becomes even violation of private space and thus illegal.This is Lisa Roze, who has some share in the photography market and signs pictures everywhere in order to appear in Google. It’s not that I don’t like her photography, because that’s taste, and we are not supposed to fall in adoration of whatever there is all around, without that implying it can’t be of the taste of others. It’s that you ask yourself which can be the misuse someone may make of so called property.As said before in http://robios.wordpress.com/tag/considerations/page/2/ my own positioning concerning author’s rights seems soft. Not that I don’t care about them, it’s that I think that massive publicity as of need nowadays in strategy through internet obliges to a more tolerant attitude inside of a general frame (in my case, strategy is determined by some Robin Hood allure with corsair’s spirit, which does not justify anything, but ads a little pepper to the excessively boring common behaviors.)Were it though thus, it keeps somehow slight balances between legislation and innovation while pointing at arising problems. My sites are all personal and the showing of pictures for personal use is not forbidden. Creations as shown in professional pages are mine, and justify legally the use of a ‘base’ through transformation. The use and misuse of Inés de la Fressange as reference model in different pages has strangely an ironical touch: no one has the legal rights of name or image. Who then would claim?Personal pictures in personal sites may be justified, I suppose, although you’re always juggling with stricter points of view. As said though in http://ask4ten.wordpress.com none of the pictures appearing in sites are sold, just given away for local use without the loss of rights. And in no case are there pictures belonging to a personal context, mine or other’s, to the extent that it may be said that the professional is clearly separated from the private sphere, while the professional may still be a window in order to point at critical problems as resulting from the very moving legislation as existing nowadays.What though about Lisa Roze? She publishes in a professional photographer site a series of pictures that seem to be personal pictures of Inés de la Fressange.Here precisely, questions that already arose when dealing with photographer María Teresa García, appear again. Photographers do not seem to have clearly made difference between what is theirs and what is not, so that sometimes obvious crimes are committed. To say: I’m a private person who hires a photographer to make pictures of an event, of my house, of anything, and pay him for that. Whose are the pictures and whose the rights? Obviously, to my understanding, of the one who has bought the pictures, as the buying is the commercial exchange signing the change of hands of rights and property. This implies even pictures the former didn’t like. Illegal, and thus crime, can be considered for example the publishing of Marilyn Monroe’s pictures she had marked with red in order to forbid publication.Photographers though may create for themselves. They take a series of pictures and work on them in order to transmit a determined vision of reality. In this case they may take a model, they have to pay, and keep the rights and property for themselves. In some cases conditions (contractual) may warrant another type of interaction (that the author hasn’t the right of publishing here or there, that some pictures may not be of use, etc.), kind of conditions some highly expensive models may put.What happens though if a photographer (as it seems to be the case, here) takes some personal pictures, perhaps without saying he/she is photographer, and then publishes them for professional use? Personally I would consider that as a crime. If I know Inés de la Fressange and publish a careful souvenir on a personal page, I don’t see it may imply any illegal activity. If I though pretend to be a personal photographer of a top model, there is something else getting into the game as the very fact of mentioning that, may allow selling pictures that are worth 100 $ to 1000 $, without too much of a thought. Which is to say, that you’re profiting of the friendship or tolerance of someone in order to get a financial benefit, and that is forbidden, even more so, I’d say, if it concerns a private space (home, children, etc.)Of course, I may be accused of the same, in appearance, seen the proliferation of pictures of public people appearing in my indefinite number of sites (which luckily, the judge of California says, have lately concentrated themselves around one single person, making things easier … in appearance.) Now, it is a fact that my distribution of images concerning what I think sympathetic, agreeable, nice, positive in general have first of all that main characteristic: if accompanied by a picture, the object, person or image is considered from its more favorable point of view (critical articles are slightly ever accompanied by pictures except if of need in order to point at a problem). Generally they serve the illustration of a problematic, were it legal or other (mainly the distortion effect is treated), or are proofs for whatever is advanced (mainly security in internet.)As such, they are more a support for a text than something that would want to profit of others in order to shine. Which is to say, that there, the professional activity is the one of writer, and not the one of photographer or artist. The style developed through internet implying a certain number of questions and obliging to some positioning, may ‘allow’ the somewhat ironical game with rights of author and intellectual property, as I have myself limited the misuse of my own texts (required by some one in Bogotá, for example) to the obligation of quoting author or source.From that point of view, my own more or less accidental creations, were it my pictures or my slogans, my publicity ideas or my compositions, are as much lacking of protection than the before mentioned, which does not excessively bother me as I think that the multiplication of something makes people get used to something new, which then awakes the interest of others and finally may make you sell a picture for thousands, eventually. But it’s not even my main goal, it may though happen accidentally.Concerning the hooligan’s site of Inés de la Fressange, which is a priori forbidden, it does somehow sarcastically point at the stupidity of some jurisprudence. As things are, today, no one may claim for the name and image Inés de la Fressange as such, except of myself, eventually. The private person with IdN who allowed Lisa Roze take pictures at her home, may though perfectly claim for compensation in misuse of private property. As the hooligan’s pictures do come from there, she may even go that far as to write a comment saying she would like the hooligan to take the pictures away from there, which he’d certainly do, seen the absolute devotion he shows for the person, where it becomes obvious that his enthusiasm concerning the finding of pictures was so strong that he didn’t take into consideration legal problems (he’s certainly not even aware of.)Well, the scanned pictures are brilliant, you can’t say. And the others? To whose rights submitted? Were it only because of that (the possibility that a multiplication of pictures everywhere does not increase her popularity from 1 to 10000, which may have as consequence her conditions may after be much higher than actually thinkable) I’d proceed to a revision of judgment. If I were her, I wouldn’t even try. The simple multiplication, chaotic, erratic, and though, oh! so horribly seducing, may have as consequence that she gains such a strong position in very little time that it may cause the fall and ruin of LVMH whole, and this, the same for many others that are already trembling.

Ma dear, if you wanna get money, just use French law against Roze, there are little chances for you to loose. In the meantime I’d leave the hooligan do his work. Why get 60 if you can get 300? He just need to travel a little bit around in order to prove what the turnover of a well working Maison de Haute Couture is in order to warrant higher benefit. Not that you need it, certainly, z’ just a question of pride.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: