Re: [-empyre-] Re: [backup.lounge|lab.02]welcome to february's discussion on open source-open art
On Freitag, Februar 7, 2003, at 12:11 Uhr, Jon Fawcett wrote:
1. What does the term "source(s)" mean to an artistic environment?
2. Which elements of the artistic process can become exchangeable
and how can they be determined -> Basically meaning "what is it I
to contribute and what do I want to receive/learn from the others"
technical knowledge, conceptual approach, material, files,...)?
The source is the artist. I will jump right in with a thought from
having discussed these ideas while participating in the project. I
remember deciding that in a non-consumer/product based artistic
culture - perhaps simpliefied broadly as time-based work (that I and
all of the artists participating find ourselves a part of), the
product, the item to be consumed is the artist themselves. In relation
to this we can say that artists themselves are the source, in every
way. Every aspect of themselves is the source, from personality to
skills to ideas to conceptual frameworks. The question is what do they
want to share? What programs do they want to work on today? And what
other programs are accessible to combine code with? In a collaborative
situation such as Lounge.Lab, who is around to build relations with
and in which way?
It may be more of a semantic argument but I disagree. I think the
'source' in Open Source software is a set of non-tangible components
and techniques that can be reproduced to build a copy or appropriated
to make a variant or unique work. It's a set of instructions and
concepts. To me, open source does not necessarily imply collaboration,
just that the process is completely (as much as possible) transparent.
Some artists are very secretive of their techniques for fear of being
copied or criticized. This is akin to proprietary software where you
can see the result but you cannot look under the hood to see how it was
made and how it works. Pride and economics are the main motivations I
see for this sort of proprietary attitude. This also reinforces the
romantic notions of the artist as a heroic mysterious genius.
Open Source art would attempt to document the techniques to create a
work and the concepts that drive it. I think there's quite a lot of
art that fits into this category already.
I agree that the social aspects are very important and that social
factors have lead to the success of Open Source software but I don't
think it's inherent in the definition. But to me the essence of Open
Source is to produce some kind of work and to make it completely open
to inspection. The social connections that result are just a wonderful
consequence of people being willing to share.
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and