Re: [-empyre-] Re: copyright

Hi John!

As far as I am concerned, Museums, and Museums in general, no matter who is running
them, have a problem. That problem is, they appeal to a very narrow, limited audience,
whereas net.art, ideally, is much larger than that audience.

Art, when placed online, is, as we all know, available to millions, for free. All one has to
do is search out some interesting links. It is open ended, democratic, and in many ways,
a much more beautiful and direct way of experiencing "art" and experiences.

When net.art- art that is meant to be viewed in this fashion- is presented in museums, it
loses this democratic element, as well as, in my humble opinion, a good deal of it's beauty.

Now, I say Christiane Paul is partially responsible because she works within the museum
structure which I have come to resent out of my personal convictions that net.art is best
presented without frames, borders, or walls. This isn't a personal attack, as you have
inferred, but rather the result of a wide sweeping generalization of the idea of museums
in general. I think it is important to get over knee-jerk reactions to ideas like these and
look over alternatives to the older methods of display of art forms which are radically
different than the ones we use today. [Rhizome is a hive of knee jerk reactions, which I
am in the middle of taking to a point of explosion, hopefully, in an attempt to diffuse the
mass insanity and politicking which is occuring over there. I'm sort of offering myself as
a stupidity-martyr for the sake of instigating the list to the point of caricture. I don't intend
to spread this behavior onto other lists.]

Museums are, in many ways, completely obsolete when it comes to net.art. The network
that supports net.art is enormous compared to the foot traffic in a museum. It is also a
much more diverse audience than is attracted to a museum. The agenda I speak of is the
system that inspires artists to work for galleries, even though work can be presented online
for dirt cheap, attract an audience easily, etc. But over at rhizome, we hear complaints that
the Whitney Biennial didn't pay its artists enough, yet everyone participated. This seems like
a truly bizarre thing to me, in that artists are basically giving work to the exhibition for less
money than they feel it is worth, simply because of the prestige that the museum offers. I
think this is a poor structure- I am not fond of art that is manufactured to achieve prestige
for itself. The opposite of this is what I had rashly termed "real life art," which is art that is
made independant of museum, gallery, or art world involvement.

I am a firm believer in the art of everyday life, and I feel this area is neglected in such
exhibitions of "outstanding art." I believe that lawn gnomes are outstanding art. It is a very
subjective choice, rendered by a very few select experts- and I distrust anyone who would
claim this position.

I have nothing against Ms. Paul personally, but I question the role of museums in net.art.
I don't think the Whitney needed to include net.art in the biennial, because it co-opts some
of its vitality. I would much prefer financial aid for the development of projects which are
already in progress, as well as smaller funds to support smaller, independant websites
created by people who enjoy creating art on the web and sharing it with millions of people,
but are not neccesarily indoctrinated or grandfathered into "the art world, per se."

John Klima seems to dislike this idea, and my work, in general. I assume this is because I
believe firmly in independance in net.art, and he works closely with museums.

Everybody loves some sunshine.

-e.







John Klima wrote:


Melinda Rackham wrote:

as far as copyright, i'm very loose on the topic. i find the stack of
paperwork involved when i agree to show a work rather silly, i barely
bother to read it and sign without a care for the fine print. when

i find that scary  - eg siggraph almost seems to want to you to sign you
life away ..
also even GNU General Public License has copyrite clauses


i'm not scared. i've never read a clause that says i grant "exclusive
pertual rights of ownership" nor am i likely ever to. anyone who would
show "glasbead" or "ecosystm" or "earth" without asking me, is of no
importance in the first place. its not like gagosian is gonna download
glasbead, burn some cd's and start selling em for a trillion dollars. i
wish they would! and if i can't make much jingle from my work i doubt if
anyone else can with my work.


as far as my "estate" i could not care less, i'll be dead and i do not
intend to have heirs, at least none that i know of, yuk yuk.

yeah me neither.., thats why i want it now!!!


good point, though i assume you would know if you had any heirs :)

also ive had lots of mail off-list from artists responding to my earlier
post, but not wanting to do so publicly on the list.  Im wondering is
net.art such a small and fledgling arena still that we are uncomfortable
looking into, or exposing our own practices, cause as daniel points out its
a systematic problem , affecting writers and curators as well.


well, judging from the mud slinging on rhizome today, it seems nobody is
particularly uncomfortable about exposing anything.

i just have to copy this here cause its just too ridiculous not to pass
around, from the mouth of the briliant net artist eryk salvagio:

"Christiane Paul is low balling you into little boxes
and laughing her way to the bank. She is helping to
co-opt the vitality of your work by giving you an agenda, and she is dismissing the work of legitimate
art, as opposed to the art-for-order made on demand
of galleries or for galleries instead of real life
art made for real people to communicate a message
or experience."

hehe

so glad you started empyre list

best,

j
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyrean/empyre







This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.