[-empyre-] confused no

[christopher sullivan]

just because someone does not agree with you, or does not share your enthusiasm
for Open Source, and free exchange, does not mean they are confused. I usually
run into this in discussions with believers and non believer..I.E. "you don't
believe in God? you will in time." similar to the language of new media open
source. you are surely confused to imply that free software, might contain, the
gene for free culture. and perhaps your crits are based on prototypes, mine are
not. I will go away for a while. chris. 



Quoting Julian Oliver <julian at julianoliver.com>:

> ..on Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 04:34:05PM -0400, Cynthia Beth Rubin wrote:
> 
> >I offered the critique system of artist-to-artist discussion as
> >evidence that the artist dialog is generally based on Prototypes,
> >and generally Open Source.  Art, in any format, real or virtual, can
> >be considered as a manifestation of ideas and the synthesis of
> >insights, and each iteration (each new work) can be considered as a
> >prototype for further iterations.  Few of us are interested in
> >repetitively reproducing similar works over a lifetime.
> >
> >As for the Open Source aspect - -   ideas, insights, responses,
> >suggestions, connections,  all of these are exchanged when artists
> >get together to discuss work using the critique model.  This way of
> >discussing is not limited to academia, but that is where many of us
> >learn it. I felt that I needed to point out that this is not true
> >"Open-Source" in the academy because it is not technically free.
> >Nonetheless,  generally we not change how we speak when are not being
> >paid, so in some sense it is still an "Open-Source" exchange of idea,
> >insights, etc.
> 
> I think you've confused a few concepts here.
> 
> First of all, something /can/ be Open Source yet restrict modification. As a
> computer programmer I come across this fairly often, code released freely as
> Open Source means that it is code you are allowed to read, nothing more: the
> source is "open" for reading yet is not allowed to be modified or
> redistributed.
> It merely refers to the fact that the information, not the rights, are
> shared.
> The OSI has a different definition but it's not always attended in practice. 
> 
> Open Source is a confused, confusing and difficult term. In my opinion is
> better
> not used, along with 'copyleft' which suggests so-called copyleft licenses
> are
> anti-copyright, polarised by principal. This of course simply isn't the case.
> 
> 	"
> 	The term “open source” has been further stretched by
> 	its application to other activities, such as government,
> 	education, and science, where there is no such thing as
> 	source code, and where criteria for software licensing are
> 	simply not pertinent. The only thing these activities have
> 	in common is that they somehow invite people to participate.
> 	They stretch the term so far that it only means
> 	“participatory”.
> 	"
> 
> 	http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
> 
> Free Software (and perhaps Free Culture) are definitions strategically
> independent from Open Source for this very reason. Hence there can be Open
> Source software that is truly free: Free (Libre) Open Source Software (or
> FLOSS). This is software released under a pro-copy Copyright license that
> declares it free to be read, redistributed and modified. 
> 
> This kind of software I've used almost exclusively in my practice for around
> 12
> years, from the operating system to 3D modeling packages, video and image
> editors.
> 
> 	http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
> 
> > I agree that artists in countries with true poverty artists face a  
> > different situation. In wealthier economies we often live from the  
> > academy, but also where the standard of living is so high, artists  
> > can afford to compromise in ways that artists living in countries of  
> > poverty cannot  (the choice to live in a small apartment and not a  
> > huge house is a choice that is irrelevant when the norm is crowded  
> > living quarters).  In countries with few academies, artists become  
> > photo-journalists, they become web designers for someone else's web  
> > sites, or they work with patrons in mind -- producing "prototypes"  
> > and perfecting them with feedback from buyers.  Still, when I was in  
> > Senegal for an extended period, I found many artists who embraced the  
> > critique model with other artists in terms of concepts, in a way that  
> > I experienced as different from how they told me they interact with  
> > patrons.  They knew the difference, we all know the difference,  
> > between talking about art as the manifestation of ideas and insights  
> > and talking about product for sale.
> 
> Regarding the sale of art artefacts, just because something is freely given
> away
> does not prohibit one from making money from that thing. Regardless, FLOSS
> software art is absolutely sellable.
> 
> 	http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
> 
> The Free Software philosophy makes a valuable distinction here however - the
> practicality of a move from a product based economy to that of a service
> based
> model (the great bulk of Internet companies have adopted this model). I have
> 'sold' works to museums that are freely downloadable: I'm offering them a
> service that the piece will always run, a lovely manual, customisations video
> documentation and good feelings.
> 
> Secondly, by giving all my source code away I'm attracting attention from
> educational institutions, cultural centers, potential collaborators and
> getting
> plenty of traffic to my project pages. I haven't needed a regular job since
> 1996
> and there are a lot more like me that have been doing it longer..
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> -- 
> Julian Oliver
> home: New Zealand
> based: Berlin, Germany 
> currently: Berlin, Germany
> about: http://julianoliver.com
> 
> > 
> > On Mar 19, 2010, at 4:54 AM, sdv at krokodile.co.uk wrote:
> > 
> > > cynthia/all
> > >
> > > The logic of open-source seems to work in subsidized environment like
> > > academia where they are paid for teaching and perhaps a little  
> > > research
> > > - but external to the academy how would an open-source artist  
> > > survive ?
> > > I can see how the economics of it would work in West, with a false
> > > economics of scarcity and with rich patrons investing in art objects -
> > > which rather obviously are not open-source objects, but still without
> > > these how would the economics work ?
> > >
> > > Is that it ? That the art academy supports artists, so that when  
> > > the few
> > > produce art objects for patrons, they in turn then support the
> > > generation of ideas for the spectacle ?
> > >
> > > Or is the model something else ?
> > >
> > > s
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > empyre forum
> > empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> > http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> 
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre


Christopher Sullivan
Dept. of Film/Video/New Media
School of the Art Institute of Chicago
112 so michigan
Chicago Ill 60603
csulli at saic.edu
312-345-3802