Jump to content
IGNORED

LaBeouf: Out of control and tweeting furiously


Schlitze

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I'm only just catching up on this, I'd heard little bits about it. I like Daniel Clowes' comics so I thought I'd be anti-whatever-it-was Shia LaBeouf was doing, but I think it's pretty interesting. I reckon he's playing next level media games and could definitely be seen to relate into that manifesto posted earlier, here's a recent interview with him:

 

 

 

Almost two years ago, writer/director/actor/comics creator Shia LaBeouf contacted Bleeding Cool about the mini-comics he was creating and selling at Meltdown Comics in LA.

 

After the skywriting stunt yesterday, and the continual "repurposed" apologies to Dan Clowes from other people, over the plagiarism of Clowes' work in LaBeouf's most recent short film, I came across the address again.

 

I sent an e-mail. Minutes later I had a reply. And so last night, I was up until half past three, deep in conversation with the man about art, apology and plagiarism. Here's how it went down. And a quick Google search indicates that they appear to be in Shia's own words as well.

 

Richard Johnston: Tweeting with the voice of others. Is this art?

 

Shia LaBeouf: What does an artist do - they just point and say look at this.

 

RJ: No, that's what a critic does. I am certainly interested though.

 

SL: I agree with Julian Schnabel , Jeff koons, Duchamp ect...... You agree with?

 

RJ: Scott McCloud.

 

art.jpg

 

SL: Cool, u stick with ur squad I'm good with mine Live good player

 

RJ: Do you believe art needs an audience? When they point and say "look at this" do they need to be speaking to anyone other than themselves?

 

SL: Of course - art is not about itself, but the attention we bring to it. (UPDATE - Duchamp) Art is a lie the makes us realize the truth. (UPDATE - Pica In the 21st century there is NO personal language. Just personal selection of language. We are products of editing. (UPDATE - George Ward) Not authorship. Appropriation has been the most influential theme in art sense the 70s. If you look at Warhol's work and say " oh well he didn't paint that - its just silk screens " Your missing the point. Our notion of genius- a romantic - isolated figure - is fucking outdated An updated notion of genius would have to center around ones mastery of information (UPDATE - see footnote below) And it's dissemination It's the 21st century, thug life It wants to be fee.

 

RJ: Well, Warhol said art is what you can get away with. Gaugin went for "Art is either plagiarism or revolution". Do you believe that opportunity is still valid, or is it all about plagiarism now?

 

As for "it wants to be fee" - is that a Freudian slip? Information may want to be free. But should the author be able to demand a fee?

 

SL: Authorship is censorship Should God sue me if I paint a river? Should we give people the death sentence for parking violations- You'll not only have less parking violations but less DRIVERS.

 

RJ: Jung said the only way to achieve true selfhood is to create what no one but you could possibly create and all the other stories are just guides to get us there.

 

I think God's rights to rivers have entered into public domain now.

 

I don't believe that parking violations deserve the death sentence. However fines are meant to be paid. If you park on someone else's driveway, you should probably ask permission first. And hotwiring someone else's car and taking it for a spin, is also frowned upon.

 

SL: The word law is against my principles. The problem begins with the legal fact that authorship is inextricably bound up in the idea of ownership and the idea of language as Intellectual property. Language and ideas flow freely between people Despite the law. (UPDATE: Gregory Betts) It's not plagiarism in the digital age - it's repurposing. (UPDATE: Kenneth Goldsmith) Copyright law has to give up on its obsession with "the copy" (UPDATE- Lawrence Lessig) The law should not regulate "copy's" or "reproductions" on there own. It should instead regulate uses - like public distributions of copyrighted work - That connect directly to the economic incentive copyright law was intended to foster. (UPDATE: Lawrence Lessig) The author was the person who had been authorized by the state to print there work. They were the ones to be held accountable for the ideas. THE FIRST LAWS ON AUTHORSHIP WERE USED TO CENSOR & PERSECUTE THE WRITERS WHO DARED PUBLISH RADICAL IDEAS. Simple - should creation have to check with a lawyer?

 

RJ: Do you recognize an inherent hypocrisy in your principles, in that you are a direct beneficiary of current copyright law, in that you have financially benefited from it to a far greater extent than most authors will ever achieve? That your acting work that has netted you millions and given you the financial independence that the vast majority of people can only dream of, is inherently a result of such laws? And that speaking or working against them in this fashion when they are the very reason that your word carries such weight and impact, can rub the wrong way those who rely on such laws to earn a small living? Can you hold a principle, when you reason you can hold it so comfortably is that you have benefited from the opposite of that principle being maintained?

 

But I come back to the original question. Is the repurposing of other people's apologies for your own on Twitter art... or laziness? Is it an attempt to create, or is it simple dickishness? Can it be both? Is there an inherent hypocrisy in apologising for reproducing someone's work without their permission on film, by reproducing other people's work without their permission on social media? Is it all part of a wider plan, a wider statement, a wider artistic endeavour, or is an attempt to wind people up? Or is it both?

 

SL: Both I never asked to be paid And never profited off anyone's back acting is Plagiarism Like magicians We tell you we're gonna lie to you

 

RJ: You have an agent. You have lawyers. Do you not pay them to ask for you to be paid, on your behalf? Aren't you just outsourcing the request to be paid?

 

And can acting be plagiarism when it is being conducted with the author or owner's approval, when they are credited as author or owner, when they are paid as author or owner?

 

When you apologize, Shia, is that the truth?

 

SL: I'm very sorry I have agents to suss out material I have a lawyer to get me out of jail Nothing is original Creativity is just connecting things (UPDATE: Steve Jobs)

 

----

 

And with that, we left it. The conversation continues, if only in our own heads.

 

If you quote from this conversation, Bleeding Cool would appreciate a mention, though Shia doesn't mind too much, it seems. Also I'd like to credit Hannah Means-Shannon for the Jungian point.

 

UPDATE: We are updating any plagiarisms made by Shia in this interview within the piece, but this was offline and too big.

?our notion of genius ? a romantic isolated figure ? is outdated. An updated notion of genius would have to center around one?s mastery of information and its dissemination.? - Uncreative Writing by Kenneth Goldsmith.

Thanks to Dr. Darren Wershler. Concordia University Research Chair in Media and Contemporary Literature, for that spot. Also, thanks to OhSnapSki and Glitchy.

 

 

 

 

Here's the short film in question, it has plagiarized lines but that's not all there is to it. Make up your own mind:

 

http://youtu.be/jtgBWou5E-A

 

 

 

He should work on wall street, be perfect for the place.

 

If the shoe was on the other foot Shia would not be so philosophical about this, i can guarantee it. People like this tend to be major hypocrites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm actually even more confused by this guys state of mind after watching those first 3 youtube clips. Seems very self aware and over-confident (perhaps speeding or coked up) and almost pre-empting his lack of self control. Now is a good time for him to pull out the modem like he said he was going to do.

Maybe he will go on an acid journey or something

 

According to Shia LeBeouf, Shia Lebeouf actually took acid to make his ecstasy scene in Charlie Countryman more realistic :facepalm:

And when the director was asked about it in an interview he was like ''What?"

 

Oh, and this just in from his co-star today http://www.mstarz.com/articles/24864/20140115/shia-labeouf-strips-naked-drops-acid-hallucinates-demolishes-the-necessary-death-of-charlie-countryman-movie-set-dont-do-drugs-harry-potter-star-rupert-grint.htm

 

Well put, I think it's too bad since he had some potential at the start, I liked him in Constantine and thought he was basically fine in the Indy 4 movie, despite the movie itself being trash. I wasn't a Shia hater.

 

But now he just comes across like a moron, I think the whole "performance art" angle was an excuse later, after getting stone cold busted for plagiarism. Trying to rescue a shred of artistic integrity by making it appear meta and "Joaquin Phoenix".

 

Also I think it's possible he fried his brain on that acid trip and hasn't been the same since. It does happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't he go to the same school with someone here but he was a few years above them? And he used to be super-obnoxious on the school bus? Is my mind creating fantasies about LeBeouf and watmm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm actually even more confused by this guys state of mind after watching those first 3 youtube clips. Seems very self aware and over-confident (perhaps speeding or coked up) and almost pre-empting his lack of self control. Now is a good time for him to pull out the modem like he said he was going to do.

Maybe he will go on an acid journey or something

 

According to Shia LeBeouf, Shia Lebeouf actually took acid to make his ecstasy scene in Charlie Countryman more realistic :facepalm:

And when the director was asked about it in an interview he was like ''What?"

 

Oh, and this just in from his co-star today http://www.mstarz.com/articles/24864/20140115/shia-labeouf-strips-naked-drops-acid-hallucinates-demolishes-the-necessary-death-of-charlie-countryman-movie-set-dont-do-drugs-harry-potter-star-rupert-grint.htm

 

Well put, I think it's too bad since he had some potential at the start, I liked him in Constantine and thought he was basically fine in the Indy 4 movie, despite the movie itself being trash. I wasn't a Shia hater.

 

But now he just comes across like a moron, I think the whole "performance art" angle was an excuse later, after getting stone cold busted for plagiarism. Trying to rescue a shred of artistic integrity by making it appear meta and "Joaquin Phoenix".

 

Also I think it's possible he fried his brain on that acid trip and hasn't been the same since. It does happen.

 

I think if you go back and look at the changes he did make to the original, there is something very deliberate going on.. but I'm not going to spell it out to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Randomly bringing up the parking ticket thing in the interview gives a window into his personality. He rails against it because you know that he goes and parks wherever he wants and so has been ticketed on innumerable occasions. Ergo, he is just general alround douche, probably doesn't even care that he's blocking some business' driveway, "i need to go here, there's a spot". Then if he gets busted it's always, "i was only going to be there for a second" or now the amazing. "there is no law".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ease up, it's just a short film. It's not a 90 minute feature planned for general release or anything. ;)

 

Clowes is quite the psychological fucker (I like that about his work) but your own medicine is inevitably going to taste weird coming back at you... but this is how creative people play games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest disparaissant

avclub said he was plagiarizing all the articles that used "performance art" as an avenue to mock him furhter lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to me this whole thing reeks of a guy who got caught plagiarizing, and because he has a big important career with a team of managers/lawyers etc who are also banking on that career, he/they thought up a way to play it off as if it's some larger piece of a wacky zany happening type situation. all this shit that has happened after the plagiarism is a distraction from the plagiarism.

 

the plan was kind of brilliant because it seems to be working.

 

it's like 'i fuckin got it! get on twitter, and apologize. but STEAL THE APOLOGY TOO. then start saying all this vague bullshit to sound deep. drop quotes and reference things about well known dead people and make vague comparisons between them and yourself. we'll research to find any artists who ever compared art to stealing/plagiarism, and you say those are your fav artists. so you keep stealing shit, stealing your apologies so it becomes this whole big thing. to some people it will seem like 'oh look hes having another one of those hollywood meltdowns' and to other people it will seem deep and you will come off as intelligent and they will think the whole thing was planned. either way they forget about the fact that you stole another guy's work.'

 

a huge chunk of the population has these super strong urges to idolize and worship celebrity figures so if one of those figures juxtaposes a bunch of big words with over 3 syllables each, even if those words were chosen at complete fucking random, and forms several sentences out of those words, into a few paragraphs, you are going to have tons of total fucking dumbasses think they are clearly a genius deep thinker. the sentences don't even have to be grammatically correct nor do the words even have to be used correctly. just make it seem poetic and it can come off like you are using the words in new poetic ways. which is exactly what his bullshit manifesto is. you could look up the definitions of each of those words he's using in that thing, and try to piece together what the meaning of each sentence would actually be, and it wouldn't be anything.

 

i mean i guess i don't really know if the fact that this distraction tactic is working and shifting focus away from his thievery speaks to how brilliant his handlers/team is, or if it just speaks to how stupid most of everyone else is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If MisterE talks, he speaks with such clarity that if he'd stand on Tiananmen Square, the skies would be cleared from all pollution instantaneously.

 

 

Edit: i'd still find a way to disagree though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes you would. I like that image of him standing smiling in the square with the mist rapidly clearing around him in all directions, whilst everything else appears as though time has stopped people and machine and the birds in the sky pause whilst his presence reverberates through the fabric of their reality, very cinematic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

or if it just speaks to how stupid most of everyone else is.

probably this

 

Yes if only the world had the clarity of vision as our two exalted ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

says the guy with GOD in his username

face it youd be lost without my wisdom

 

(jk, im fully aware im a dumbass/asshole/whatever and that my posts are too wordy. it's an affliction i've struggled with for literally ever)

 

i'm tryin my best to integrate into the watmm hivemind. i want to belong. i want to be one of you.... one of.. us. when i first came here i made a tiny stir by saying in EKT that i didn't like some tracks because they were tryina be analord and i thought that was silly. well, eh, now i think some analord knockoffs are OK. im CHANGING

 

im a fuckin metamorphosis in progress and when its done i may just well become a beautiful red butterfly with hammer and sickle on each wing. but for now we can all agree that shia labweef is a dumb guy cant we? and that rjd is tops? an how bout the square-pusher, is he a good guy at doing music or what?

 

yeah mistere, i think so too. i also like those guys, and dont like those other ones as well. we are so alike how wonderful!!1

 

great so we agree then! i just really want to be in the giant anaconda snake orgy that is watmm. the writhing, wriggling, watmmy, wet, scaley glistening slimey big ball of huge phallic symbolism that im talking about kinda thing, i want to be right in that

[youtubehd]PQvDfarQZbg[/youtubehd]sooo sexy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sorry, first rule of watmm is you can't want to be part of it.

 

when through bitter life experience and bad trips you gradually develop a scaly crust of cynicism, a hair-trigger of insanity and paranoia, a burden of crushed dreams - then and only then, will you be a true wattmer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.