[-empyre-] Thoughts on the appropriation of immaterial work

[andre mesquita]

Dear Friends,



This is a text wrote by a Brazilian collective called Elefante (Elephant -
http://elefantecoletivo.wordpress.com). They asked me to send this *
communiqué* to Empyre.



Best,

André



Thoughts on the appropriation of immaterial work – Brumaria 7 Case

English Version: Milena Durante



Today, several agents from artistic, cultural and political spheres seek to
elaborate and implement new possibilities of transformation in several
spheres of life and also in everyday life practises. By questioning
behavioural and thought structures that are conditioned by the logic of
market and spectacle, such agents constantly face the challenge of
recognising themselves reproducing mechanisms of power, conditioning and
alienation already established in our society.

To reflect upon this observation, our starting point will be the fact that
took place in 2007, which we entitled "Brumaria 7 Case": the publishing of
photographic records of projects and works by several Brazilian artists and
collectives in the Spanish magazine Brumaria 7. (1) Among the records,
images from the work "Capacho-Dignidade" [Dignity-Doormat], from Elefante
collective, were used to illustrate an article in the magazine mentioned
above. The images from the work – which were obtained through unknown ways
(although they are available on the internet) were published without the
authors being given any notice,  neither reference that could identify the
projects or its original contexts anywhere in the magazine(2). Other images
from different groups and authors were also used in the magazine in the same
way, in different pages or as divisions of magazine sections (3).

It is impossible to mention culture without taking into consideration what
are the market laws, massive consumption and the culture of spectacle (a
hyper advertisement network). They currently define a significant part of
our society, establishing its pace, ways of living and the organisation of
society itself. Such laws are also enforced by access to, construction and
flows of information. This case is being used so we may think about the
small-scale repetition of appropriation of immaterial work practises that
usually arise from market spheres, without objectives of extending or
distributing free information – or worse – distributing information that is
partial and induced by specific interests. Such practises only attend a
claim to align themselves with a certain momentary trend in order to gain
institutional recognition and/or prestige from the media*.

What initially may seem as a simple misunderstanding, or still, a lack of
communication, shows the frailty of undeniable efforts to articulate art and
politics into a project founded in cultural ideas, not hegemonic and
connected to a logic that considers artistic processes and those of creation
of knowledge more than mere consumption products or historic and cultural
fetishes. Such approach in regards to arts and politics is already being
incorporated to the institutional scenario in which artistic practises
involving such issues have become a "trend" in the mainstream circuit – a
phenomenon that particularly arises from the media logic and the market
principle, ruling a significant part of current artistic production. In this
context, such issues are usually drained from its critical density to become
a new fetish that feeds the art's institutional system and the market's
voracity that depends on it*. The production process of the magazine, in
this case, unfortunately seems to contradict its content. The discursive
coherence of the magazine collides with a practise that represents the
perpetration of models that are already known, criticised and fought against
by several cultural agents involved in this process: publishers, writers,
critics, artists and readers.

Even if we understand the collaborative practises today according to the
logic of free circulation of content and information, qualifying actions and
images – not only quantifying or illustrating theories no matter how
relevant they might be – is also part of the process. The relationship
between freedom, responsibility and ethics is not satisfactorily discussed
through issues that approach the appropriation of works, value and
information aiming at objectives that differ from equal information
distribution.

What is the logic (social or economic?) that converts creative work in
merchandise, whose value disproportionably reverts itself in favour of those
who are in control of circulation and distribution means?

The appropriation is a phenomenon that has permeated our society throughout
time. Some examples are: the appropriation of labour so it becomes
immigrants' slavery in significant portions of the population of
underdeveloped countries or refugees (undervalued workforce), the
appropriation of natural resources, genetic codes, land, chemical formulas,
etc. We may think about the appropriation of information today from several
viewpoints such as: intention, legal system, production devices and the
dimensions of functioning – and still – through several hypothesis, such as:
what may occur if I appropriate myself of text or image by an author without
mentioning him? Are there specific intentions that allow and validate the
act of appropriation? When and why? What may occur if a large company
appropriates itself of an artist's work aiming at profit or at associating
itself to the artist's image? And what if an artist appropriates himself of
the image of a large company with cultural or subversive objectives?

The central role that intellectual property has today in the immaterial
market of global Economics, also with a significant role of conflict and
collision, once it is directly related to production and to the control of
culture, the production of values and knowledge. In this sense, we must not
distance ourselves from the idea that the right to free information must
prevail and, more than that, in our vision, it should be the tool for
transformation and become an instrument of social and cultural empowerment
and consciousness. But it will only be such tool if the mechanisms that
create such situations and procedures differ from those of the dominant
sphere, if the process becomes a counterpoint to the increasing
industrialisation, commercialisation and spectacularization of aesthetical,
intellectual and informational production.

It is not about being for or against appropriation, but thinking about the
process and the effect that we, cultural agents, create when we make
information public. If that information is based on the work of others
(close partners or not), it is a matter of thinking how can we proceed
without creating oppressing rules. What are the ethical principles involved
in this processes? What are the objectives, intentions, responsibilities and
how does freedom work in these cases? What are the laws that enforce or help
perpetrating the control over these images and information that, in the end,
maintain the idea of property? What are the mechanisms that would allow free
expression and free circulation of information as a legitimate way of
fighting the acts of control, monopolies and hegemonies? What are the
collective mechanisms that should be taken into consideration?

We can still think about the appropriation from the viewpoint of academic
research or intellectual production. Research is also built from its
references, sources and quotes, which offers the reader the possibility of
deepening specific topics, making the sources of information available. It
helps, for example, the assessment and magnitude of research. By reading
texts published in the magazine Brumaria 7, it is possible to learn more
about the author, compare his work with previous ones observing the effects
of its course and discourse, verify unsuitability and establish a possible
dialogue with his thoughts. In the case of the images, it is not possible to
do the same without their references. It is impossible for the reader who
wants to understand its original contexts and operational conditions; they
are completely disconnected from the situations that formed these images and
gave them intention. The images, in this case, are reduced to mere text
illustration, useful to give a certain aspect of truth and "reality" to
them.

The fact that the texts in the magazine contain the name of its authors
-differently from the images – emphasises a hierarchy among contents
(already known to be difficult to balance, but not for this reason should be
forgotten or amplified). An important percentage of the equation of
communication that represents creative processes is eliminated, depleting
part of the exercise of thought/creation that has, thus, a power of
interference in reality and of participation in the guidance of its
destination, being an essential tool of transformation of subjective and
objective landscapes*. This is a very important focus for several collective
projects that are connected to public spheres today.

Facing such an intricate scenario of production of information, images and
knowledge, how can a questioning about the topic of appropriation be
articulated without leading to propositions that may seem reactionary or
without being able to re-implement a discourse on image control even though
the critical potential that carry these issues is kept? A possible path
seems to be that of contraposition between spheres and the individual and
the corporative objectives, in their scales and intentions… And we will
certainly find the dichotomies between individual and exponential supremacy
of the industry of "cultural" or "cognitive" capitalism.

The first impulse for writing this text was a demand for the enforcement of
rights and it was developed aiming at the reflection upon the repetition of
models of power and the appropriation of immaterial work that are
deep-rooted in our society and in our cultural environments. The fact that
these images are not registered under a "free" license does not prevent any
person who is interested in using the material from doing it in an ethical
way: recognising, contacting, including credits and consequently respecting
the authors. Thus, a greater equanimity in the production of knowledge can
be established and actually become collaborative and collective. We must
also consider the financial implications and the causality of this process
in which work relationships may benefit only a certain part of the producers
involved (those who control the totality of research, diffusion and
circulation means) (4).

Even if the scale of such fact presented here is small (a few images in a
magazine) we really must not repeat the empty discourse about "complete
freedom" or "that's how the system works" because that "democratic and
libertarian" discourse resides at the centre of free-market logic,
globalisation, of certain imperialist actions and it only points out to a
continuous domination through those that control them. Although in a small
scale, fighting these deep-rooted practises, even in the most ordinary
procedures, and searching for a process that reverts conditioning must also
be the focus of our actions. We must not repeat the process, neither the
discourse arising from the same sphere we criticise. It is necessary to
think of new procedures, its ethical implications and responsibilities of
their respective processes in regards to the increasing mercantilisation of
urban life and social relationships, to set an example.

We want to see change: we work on it, research, write about and imagine it.
The development of these changes goes through clarifying and reflecting upon
current production situations in everyday life, including knowledge
production, starting from our own environment. We believe that is the exact
sense we should give to each thing and image, which also includes research:
make them public, publish them in whole, allowing access to its processes
and sources. They should become actual immaterial "goods" that can be
understood, absorbed and – why not? – appropriated in ethical ways, as
components of human development in collective and individual spheres. If we
believe such topics are extremely important today it is because we, artists,
thinkers and producers of meaning are constantly called to validate such
diverse and interconnected practises that not always are evident.
Appropriation today is a common practise but what we must always question
ourselves is: how, when, where, what for and for whom.



(1)    The Geopolitics of Pimping, Suely Rolnik. Brumaria no. 7 – art,
machinery and immaterial work.

(2)    Fact that can be observed in the series of e-mails exchanged between
Elefante collective, editors and authors in 2007.

(3)    Among them, there also are the works "Impensável" [Unthinkable] by
Elefante collective and "Travessia-Vegetação" [Vegetation-Crossing] by
Flávia Vivacqua, among others
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://mail.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20080515/c810dad0/attachment.html