[-empyre-] laws, outlaws & golden pirates

[naxsmash]

that's interesting, Paulo, what do you mean by 'what really scares me is the infertility of art.'  can you expand on this ? 

c=
naxsmash
naxsmash at mac.com


christina mcphee

http://christinamcphee.net
http://naxsmash.net





On Jul 10, 2011, at 2:47 PM, Paolo Cirio wrote:

> Hi to all,
> 
> sorry for the delay, i'm struggling for keeping on the track all the new productions, researches and debates. i won't be able to write much more in this list. new media sucks a lot of energy and the payback is not much.
> 
> magnus: sorry for my ignorance, but as i wrote, i barely follow the legislations/technologies about anti-piracy bills and tricks anymore, i can't keep track of all of them since the introduction of mp3s, i just had enough. digital content will be always free by it self, and we still are at the beginning of the pervasive network's age. we are probably waiting for the final P2P app that will help us to share any kind of digital material anonymously and efficiently, so that any attempt to stop and criminalize piracy will be useless and harmless, as somehow it's already. however in this time of transition we should stand together, informing and reclaiming sharing and fair use of digital content  as a civil right. this is my mere personal opinion.
> 
> shu lea: i don't want to start a new union, it's not my job neither! it was just a funny idea! it's just one of thousands of strategies available. my only concern is to engage an audience beyond the new media art gallery/lecture/festival which is very limited to a small amount of enthusiasts, often quite self referential. and this concern makes me think at the mindset of the general people like the housewife or white-collars in the deep countryside. do we have any chance to engage them? on my opinion it's very very hard, but it's also very pivotal. however we should just have visions, i guess that is the ultimate job of artists.
> 
> simon: i don't see nothing of bad about the pirate practices being normalized or assimilated by the empire, if they are innovations and evolutions useful for the society, they just shouldn't be patented. maybe we are too obsessed of being against the system till our last drop of blood, forgetting that the people is the system, the corporations and the authorities (sorry we italian still like Pasolini). furthermore this issue remembers me when some radical hippies went in front of the house of Bob Dylan complaining that he sold his soul to the majors. or some friends of mine who do street art complaining that Banksy sells his art. however both artists are still there with their poetry and messages and probably without such of mainstream idols we couldn't have large consensus in radical culture. so i'm not worry about the assimilation, what really scares me is the infertility of art. 
> 
> cheers
> paolo.
> 
> On 10 Jul 2011, at 16:37, marc garrett wrote:
> 
>> Hi Simon, Shu Lea & others,
>> 
>> Appropriation is a behaviour which holds no favour to any particular group or individual, and perhaps the expectation of 'things not being appropriated' by others whether by capitalism or not - is an unrealistic demand.
>> 
>> This (seemingly) perpetual, push and pull between mainstream and counter-cultural/activist actions, may be more part of an ongoing set of dynamics; as natural as eating or breathing - a reflection of what is bound to be.
>> 
>> Radical practices become mainstream and diluted not necessarily only because capitalism assimilates its essence, but also because of its success to reach a larger group of people acknowledging the spirit of what is being communicated.
>> 
>> And even though, it is deeply sickening watching how our own (media art related) culture and others' creative noises out there, are being sideline by supposed 'gurus', who talk an awful lot of crap about things they have little experience of themselves, whilst top-down 'orientated' organizations get pulled into web.2 myths and similar nonsense. I feel that, by focusing on an argument that gets us caught up in a binary loop of trying to always be 'underground' as the main function of radicalism is a diversion.
>> 
>>> The question is how to short circuit that process?
>> 
>> Any good hacker knows that if you want change, you get to the root - change the defaults - this is where the real battle exists, the rest follows...
>> 
>> Appropriation is a secondary behaviour, messing up/altering the root of things is where the change and empowerment occurs.
>> 
>> By continuously being concerned with what is commoditised, we get diverted into only worrying about the interface alone. And even though the surface of things is a direct connection to millions of others, whether it be through mobile networks, terrestrial TV, official news, it is still important to keep in touch or grounded with what matters beyond the interface of mediation 'the root of things'.
>> 
>> Wishing you well.
>> 
>> marc
>> 
>> The appropriation of radical practices by the mainstream is the first step
>> in normalisation. This process is key to assuring the success of capitalism.
>> We see it with experimental artistic practices being assimilated into the
>> art market. Many artists make work they intend to be beyond the reach of the
>> market - unsalable, uncollectable, literally shit... Nevertheless, it ends
>> up appropriated and commoditised, the subject of speculation.
>> 
>> The question is how to short circuit that process? Vandalism might be part
>> of that - to take away more than you put in, to ensure whatever it is you do
>> its destructive tendency is greater than its creative. However, until now, I
>> cannot think of a single strategy that has worked. That doesn't mean there
>> isn't one...
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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