> If your artwork is 'software that does something' (such as Mongrel's
> 'Linker' software) then what issues are involved? Do curators get it?
> Is it 'enabling others', or artwork in itself? How do you 'show' or
> distribute it? What about 'user support'?
>
> Invited respondents: Tom Corby (UK), Sarai (Delhi), Mongrel (UK),
> Robert Nideffer (USA), Redundant Technology Initiative (UK).
When consiodering work like this, a certain generative music software comes
to mind. There are many issues here thatwere never quite resolved. These
revolve around authorship, ownership, etc.
For one, in their operating paradigm, if a person creates a permanent
interactive art piece (the software has provisions for external interfacig
with MIDI and Flash), one must buy a 'site licence' which is much more
expensive than the usual price of the software. I turn this around and ask
whether I created a piece with Photoshop, would I then go to Adobe and do
likewise with them? I realize that the metaphor would be better with
something like nato, but nn does not require further copensation after the
purchase of the initial package.
Also, works more like Auto-illusrator come to the fore. In that one has an
indeterminate outcome with the software, can we say that in a generative
software package, or even ones that utilize extended algorithmic paradigms,
can we cay that the real operational model is that of collaboration? And,
is one compelled to mention the author of the siftware in the delivery of
the content?
I'm curious about this.
|