[-empyre-] how would it work

[Julian Oliver]

..on Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 03:59:34PM -0700, adrian at cnmat.berkeley.edu wrote:
> 
> >> > 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 ?
> 
> There are lots of alternative models (and always have been): busking,
> begging, trading,
> recycling, stealing, property speculating (gentrification). Usually though
> (in the west) open source open media and art are the bait for a
> bait-and-switch where the engaged have to switch
> to a paying model to serve their craving for the charismatica.

I guess someone had to say it! 

You're are right; a participatory, open development model doesn't fit well
within an artefact (product) driven art market quite as much, even less so if
developed 'publicly'. Among other things, this is because that same market is
dependent on a neatly documented legacy where sole authors (rarely groups) are
attributed for their cultural transformations and are heralded as such
("charismatica", as you say). It's a 'leader' legacy that points the money..

Cheers,

-- 
Julian Oliver
home: New Zealand
based: Berlin, Germany 
currently: Berlin, Germany
about: http://julianoliver.com