Self-Portrait Study 3, in pencil

Self-Portrait Study 3, 21cm x 29cm, 8" x 11.5", 2012, Moleskine folio Sketchbook, graphite.

Just before shop closing I got the 'bright' idea to run out and try to find a magnified 'make-up' mirror, thinking my problem is that I can't see up close without readers (which I don't wear otherwise). I found a  7.5" diagonal mirror at the dollar store for $2.99! Distorted glass? -maybe. Then, on my way out with my dog, I stopped and thought, why not just try something quickly? Ha.

An hour later. The eyes resemble mine, but a bit big. Too lazy to do all those curls, indication suffices. After staring intently at the magnified mirror, and sketching what I saw, I ended up finishing my drawing holding the Moleskine sketchbook against my chest looking into a large mirror and drawing backhand what I saw reflected!

I've certainly got my desperate and perplexed look at how difficult doing damn drawing of myself is! I have a 30" x 40" canvas ready and waiting, but am trying to learn how to draw my aging face as we get acquainted again seemingly for new (since I haven't achieved a true likeness yet - resemblance, yes, yes, but....).

Onward, fearless artist(s!... :) :)

We traverse different versions of ourselves without a quizzical blink anyhow. Other people in real life never look quite like they do in photographs, and if you stand with them looking into a mirror, it's a whole other person again. I am always amazed by this - and yet, each 'image' is recognizably 'that person.' The real life person is three-dimensional, you almost never see anyone face-on like in a photo, but rather from various angles, and they are not cropped by the frames of the photo either, but full body in an environ. I find my reading of the curves and hollows and lights and shadows of a person's face is never anything like the camera's rendition, no matter what lighting or angles it captures. Some people are photogenic and look incredible in photos, while others who are beautiful don't photograph well, but mostly everyone kind of resembles themselves. The mirror image is always mind-blowing, though who can comment coherently on it? Stand at a bathroom mirror with your lover or family member or friend and see something of what they see and you'll understand what I mean. Truly, we are mysteries, not only to ourselves, but each other.

The body is unknowable. Our art, and photographs, and mirrors only offer approximations of who we are.

                              

January

What was accomplished in January of my 2012 list:

-12 pages of my Moleskine Folio Sketchbook

-


-Tangled Garden, my longest and most ambitious videopoem to date. Tangled Garden encompasses a lifetime of reflection on Nature, natural processes, and our lives and deaths in the midst of those ongoing natural processes.



Some emails dealing with 'issues' - I retrieved a file from Podbean; successfully dealt with a nonsense Copyright Violation notice from YouTube. I wrote a review of Pierre-Marie Coedes Concerto No9; and wrote some VidPoFilm articles (though I have suspended all activity on that site until I determine how or even if I want to continue with the project).

It does not seem like much, but, in my own world, certainly a fruitful month. Traditionally February and August are my lowest months, so we'll see.

February has begun with an email to Jamendo that I hope successfully deals with a longstanding issue and which I will share soon, and some personal experiences and decisions that are very positive.

                              

Resolution to Rumblefish Copyright Notice from YouTube

For those of you following my story about YouTube sending me a "Copyright Violation" notice because Rumblefish claimed copyright content on the soundtrack for 'Videopoetry: Voicings,' (which I had made in GarageBand from a voice recording, a midi file generated from the text of the poem, and some small GarageBand loops, all absolutely legal):

5:54 PM (today)

Hi Brenda,

I have released this claim. Apparently is has been misidentified by the YouTube content matching system.

Best,

-Ben

****|Catalog Manager
****@rumblefish.com |

My original post with all the emails is here:
http://brendaclews.blogspot.com/2012/01/rumblefish-copyright-notice-from.html

Nice of him to 'blame' YouTube. YouTube had originally written that: "Your video, Videopoetry: Voicings, may have content that is owned or licensed by rumblefish." Yesterday, I wrote back to Rumblefish, and registered a Dispute over this claim with YouTube, and they have backed off.  YouTube gives you only 48 hours from the time the notice is sent out to dispute a claim - then YouTube puts an advertisement on your video which generates money for Rumblefish (or whoever's made the claim) and YouTube.

While I am glad this issue was resolved quickly, it does make me wonder how many artists get hit like this and don't fight back.

                              

Rumblefish Copyright Notice from YouTube

Sent from YouTube at 5:38am Sunday morning (and apparently you only get 48 hours to dispute a claim against your work):

 Dear brendaclews,

Your video, Videopoetry: Voicings, may have content that is owned or licensed by rumblefish.

No action is required on your part; however, if you are interested in learning how this affects your video, please visit the Content ID Matches section of your account for more information.

Sincerely,
- The YouTube Team

So I sent rumblefish an email at 8:52am:

Dear Rumblefish,

I have received copyright notice from YouTube that I've used your music.

I am in shock.

No, I have not used your music, nor violated any copyright as far as I know. Reciting a poem I had written (which I can prove), I generated a midi file on-line with text from the poem (which is entirely legal and free, I know one of the creators of that site), and looped a few seconds of some garageband sounds in the distant background. I've scoured GarageBand and do not see anywhere that using a short loop of a few seconds is illegal.

So I am *very* confused.

I can send a .jpg of my GarageBand track.

YouTube is going to put an ad on a video that I slaved over - making that track was a lot of work!

Can you explain to me why you are claiming my voice track as yours? The commercial world can be befuddling to a poet.

http://youtu.be/cj4wdx03Lhk

Thank you,

Brenda Clews


At 11:10am, I sent a second email:

Please Note: I made the sound track myself - from my own voice recording of me reciting my own poem and using a midi file that I generated from my own text and a few small GarageBand loops, as my screen capture of my GarageBand file shows. I've lodged a Dispute Claim with YouTube.

Thank you so much for your kind attention to this matter.

I hope it is resolved soon.

regards,

Brenda

Using GarageBand loops as part of your mix, even for commercial use, is legal and free. From Apple Support http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2931:

"The GarageBand software license agreement says:

"GarageBand Software. You may use the Apple and third party audio loop content (Audio Content), contained in or otherwise included with the Apple Software, on a royalty-free basis, to create your own original music compositions or audio projects. You may broadcast and/or distribute your own music compositions or audio projects that were created using the Audio Content, however, individual audio loops may not be commercially or otherwise distributed on a standalone basis, nor may they be repackaged in whole or in part as audio samples, sound effects or music beds."

So don't worry, you can make commercial music with GarageBand, you just can't distribute the loops as loops."

I definitely did not infringe on any copyright by using GarageBand loops, then.

Click here to see my next post for the resolution to this issue.