Mary Shelly went back and edited frankenstein after it was published. there's some pretty significant changes from the 1818 text to the 1831. George Lucas has gone back and pissed on the original star wars trilogy so many times it's a miracle that the original, cooler, lightsabers are still in there. When is a work of creativy completed? at what point is it 'done', and once we've reached that point, does the creator have any right to go back and say 'hang on, i'm not done after all' what's the rule of thumb? do we churn out sequels until we've gotten blood from a turnip? do we go back and change the plot because it's no longer PC to have a gay antagonist? this is really the crux of the matter... when is it inappropriate to change a work of creativity, even if you're the creator?
Tricky. Plays, musicals orchestral works etc are always being revised based on audience or critical reaction. I understand this and don't have an issue with it. Where an artist has been prevented from creating the work (s)he wanted to, (studio, backer, censorship reasons) then also I can see the point of a re-visit - e.g. the director's cut of a movie. Other than that, if a work is published, then there shouldn't be a revisit. Go off and start again, rather than try to bring a new perspective to an existing work, say I.
As long as it's yours, it's yours. Once millions of people have seen and invested in it quite a lot, it's not only yours, any longer. You can't change the past of what you've once created.
It has been my experience that my projects are often best about two steps before I actually finish them. It has been the hardest thing for me to learn, when less really is more. I agree, after millions of people have invested in your work, you really don't own it all by your self anymore, The Star Wars second trilogy just didn't make much sense to me by the time it was through. I wish Mr. Lucas would have done more with some of the writers who based their works in that setting then just licensing his logo for the books, some of those stories would have made much better bases for filming then the overworked outline that he apparently depended on. I think almost every thing that really advanced the story in the second trilogy would have been better if it had been in one movie, There is still a long way to go from when the Emperor went public to Obi Wan living in a cave waiting for luke to find him. I just didn't get the hold the Sith had on Anakin/Vader.
My mum is an artist, and many a time have I seen her go back to a "finished" painting and add or change something. Sometimes, you only see what's wrong once you have walked far enough away from your creation. The record I think was a picture she changed 20 years after painting it. She had walked past it for all those years and suddenly, one day, she stopped and looked at it and noticed there was something wrong with th cat's tail. The problem about creation, is that it keeps being created, not only in the artist's eyes/mind, but once it's public, it also creates in other peoples eyes and minds, some people prefer the new version of Star Wars, others prefer the original. They are all right. People spend years studying the Mona Lisa, but there are still people who walk past it in the Louvre and say "I don't see what all the fuss is about, it's just a boring girl with a faint smile". The first rule of art is that you will [b:81e547504d]never[/b:81e547504d] create something that everyone will like. So sod 'em all, and do what YOU want.
I am a fan of folk music. This, by its very nature, changes constantly in the hands of different people, sometimes over hundreds of years. I have absolutely no problem with this. Why does it matter if a work of art evolves? In my opinion, no-one owns original work, so no-one can complain if you change it. That is, unless they actually own it. If there's only one copy and some geezer bought it, he may well be a little pissed off if you break into his home to make a slight alteration!
