Ubicap, Expediency, Open Source... many stimulating perspectives on  
the social organisation of 'surplus value'. Some thoughts/responses.

On ubicap or the market, I think there are two main developments  
which I think are directly relevant to [new media art]* just now:

- Globalised media becoming more omnipresent/ubiquitous. Discussed ad  
infinitum/nauseum on nettime/iDC/NMC/Spectre/your favourite blog. I'm  
assuming over-familiarity for most of you with these concerns, so I  
won't add to this debate at the moment.

- Globalisation of the contemporary art market. Arguably this  
happened some time ago, but what we have seen in recent years is a  
huge expansion in the market, along with a geographical growth away  
from the traditional centres in New York, London, Paris, etc.,  
mimicking the changes in the wider economic sphere. The rise of  
international art fairs is symptomatic of this trend. Potentially  
this gives more artists the possibility to take part in the  
international art market and sell work, including [new media art].  
But participating in this marketplace has implications for the form  
and presentation of the artworks, as I saw for myself at an art fair  
recently, where historic works by Vuk Cosic and Olia Lialina were  
available, but not in the same form as we might remember them from  
their original incarnations.

So perhaps we can say that ubicap is double-edged: it may suffocate  
'independent' or 'radical' arts activity, but on the other hand, [new  
media art] in its current form (and the technologies it relies upon)  
would not exist without it, and the expansion of the art market can  
provide new opportunities.

I'm not at all sure that non-profit organisations are a panacea which  
can cure us of the market. There are some brilliant, pioneering,  
inventive and essential non-profits dotted around the place, and we  
would be worse off without them. Equally there are badly run,  
ineffective, outdated and irrelevant non-profits whose main purpose  
(as Sarah mentioned) seems to be just to just to keep themselves (and  
the careers of those running them) going.

A particular trend in the UK (and many English-speaking countries)  
over the past decade, which both Patrick and Sean referred to, is the  
growing instrumentalisation of 'culture'. In the UK, both government  
funding and that from private foundations have converged agendas to  
promote particular values and objectives, and set targets for them.  
For example in Scotland, the Arts Council replacement Creative  
Scotland has been obliged by government to "increase the number of  
cultural successes by 3%". No doubt tractor production should rise by  
50% and steel output by 200% too. Here's the list they produced to  
demonstrate their meeting of this target:
http://www.scottisharts.org.uk/1/information/publications/1004010.aspx

Not surprisingly, grant-aided non-profits are expected to contribute  
to a number of such targets. While we can perhaps be cynical about  
whether reports and statistics actually deliver against government  
targets, the effect is to turn notionally 'independent' non-profits  
into arms of government policy and the quango state.

So, as Patrick and Sean eloquently surmised, we are caught between  
the precariousness of the global market on the one hand, and the dead  
hand of bureaucracy on the other. Plus ca change! Whither  
'independence' in this situation?

On 29 Jan 2007, at 10:59, Ele Carpenter wrote:
> What about Open Source and Creative Commons?
> For example, many in-house corporate programmers develop open  
> source in
> their 'spare' time.

Here we enter the 'gift' economy: someone donates something,  
expecting reciprocation. In the case of software 'free' labour is  
exchanged, along with (to paraphrase Bourdieu again) "social" or  
"symbolic" capital like peer respect, reputation, status, attention,  
etc. The motivations for involvement in Open Source are many and  
varied: for instance software, once tested and debugged by the  
community, may benefit the developer's own 'mainstream' career. We  
see many examples in Open Source where certain tools, libraries or  
drivers are developed in this way, but other components, applications  
and tools which add value to the freely available code are kept  
proprietary. Or the developer may not charge for the software, but  
instead charge for supporting the software: the so-called Open Source  
business model.

Creative Commons, by protecting the legal concept of fair use of  
copyrighted material, is useful but still relatively marginal in the  
'creative industries'. It will be interesting to see how this  
movement develops beyond the initial 'enthusiast' phase.

> Do curators use Michel de Certeau's tactics of the everyday to find  
> ways
> of reclaiming political and cultural integrity through the  
> loopholes of
> bureaucracy?

As cultural producers we might fit more with de Certeau's definition  
of "strategic", though your own trajectory and that alluded to by  
Sarah** seem to indicate tactical maneuvring through the  
insterstitial spaces of monolithic institutions? But I have to ask:  
how do you define "cultural integrity" in a fragmented, relativistic  
age? Can we derive approaches from Tactical Media practices? (Lovink,  
Garcia, et al)

> Does 'art' or exhibitions provide a 'Temporary Autonomous Zone' (Hakim
> Bey) where these questions can be explored outside of the  
> institutional
> paradigm?

No, probably not. Autonomy is very difficult to achieve, there are  
too many dependencies at work. See the reference to the 'gift'  
economy above. Patrick mentioned Burning Man, node.london as examples  
where self-organising institutions/events/happenings build a kind of  
fuzzy sustainability. I'd mention the Dorkbot movement  
(www.dorkbot.org) as another which operates in a field related to  
[new media art].

I've been involved in helping to found and, until recently organise  
the Edinburgh chapter of Dorkbot (www.dorkbot.org/dorkbotalba), and  
have past involvement in various voluntary/non-profit/organic events/ 
(dis)organisations. Such phenomena can be great fun, benefitting from  
a certain freedom of maneuvre, the enthusiasm of individuals, and a  
relaxed 'contribute what you can' ethos. The flip side is the usual  
familiar issues: 'organisers meetings' where 2 people turn up; lack  
of resources; burn-out; chaos; apathy. Also, when organising events,  
the 'audience' still expects a 'professional' presentation, despite  
the fact people are not being paid, left hand sometimes doesn't know  
what right hand is doing, etc. If you are also having to compete with  
grant-aided organisations for the same audience it raises all kinds  
of difficult questions.

So I think the volunteerism model can be useful, but as Ele seems to  
imply, as a tactic for certain circumstances. Building sustainability  
on such a model requires either dogged perseverance by some  
determined (and time-rich) individuals, or a constant supply of fresh  
recruits to take up the reins on a periodic basis.

Signing off now to get some (paid) work done.



Chris


* I'm parenthesising this phrase because as a category it seems  
inadequate, but I can't think of anything better. I notice certain  
organisations in Scandinavia have started substituting the broader  
term "unstable arts", presumably paraphrasing V2's title. Could be  
good, but not sure yet...

** I think this was a reference to Francis McKee's talk at the Art- 
Place-Technology Conference, Liverpool, March 2006:
www.art-place-technology.org