Dear list,

I have been asked to launch a discussion concerning the ethics of the 
practice of making a "curatorial mashup". Those who requested that 
CRUMB address this particular issue have done so out of concern about 
the launch of a new mashup project at a large art institution which 
states in its press release that it is about "The participatory 
potential of Web-'curating' in the age of Consumer Generated Content" 
but appears to flounce the traditional etiquette of the web-community's 
engagement and the rules of a mashup 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mashup). I would like to state outright 
that it is CRUMB's intention that this discussion result in a 
consideration of the principles concerning projects which address 
debates of open source, open archives and the like and not a pointed 
critique of a single project (though obviously, constructive criticism 
is useful).

Back in January of 2002 there was a flurry of discussion on this list 
about an un-named museum and an un-named project referred to by Simon 
Biggs which had shown his work online without telling him (he stated: 
"it is not my objective to embarrass or attack the institution in 
question... [but that] the curator's approach to this particular show 
is not atypical and so it is my feeling that the prime concern here is 
a discussion of the principles involved...on a list where both artists 
and curators are present." I concur). To read the discussion, visit the 
list archives at 
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/new-media-curating.html and search for 
the thread 'possible off-topic but relevant'.

The key part of the debate concerned economics. In evidence was a 
museological desire to open out to the web, sated by the creation of 
'platforms' whereby organisations could link to existing art projects, 
but as often as not was the case, neglected to either tell the artists, 
or pay the artists, for showing their work. The discussion morphed and 
addressed in part the Whitney Museum's launch of their ArtPort project 
(still online at http://artport.whitney.org), and I think, if memory 
serves, that the CRUMB list members concluded that we were all in new 
territory, that there was no economic model to follow, and that if an 
institution can't afford the fees, then they can't afford to show the 
work, no matter its medium or location of presentation.

Fast forward to today and it would seem that the issue is less about 
economics as about intellectual property, but the core concern, of 
artists' rights and curatorial responsibility to the space and place of 
showing work remains.

So what are the ethics of the practice of creating a curatorial mashup 
and a web-community driven platform project? It would seem that there 
are a number of ways in which 'mashing up as curating' could cross some 
difficult edge zones.

 > The edge zone of authorship and intellectual property:
Mashups traditionally only include information already available - but 
we all know that it is a small step from cut and paste to reauthor. So 
what are the implications if a web-based publicly accessible mashup, 
promoted and hosted by a well recognised institution includes 
information that has been re-written, data that has been retouched, as 
well as cut and pasted resulting in some of it being fictitious, some 
of it misleading, without the author or artists' permissions? We can 
all think of instances of this in the mainstream media world - the 
music industry for instance - should their rules about the illegality 
of sampling, and integrity of branding apply here?

 > the edge zone of intellectual property and participatory practice:
Open web community database projects, such as Flickr and del.icio.us 
are generally taken at face value to have been populated by their 
users. So what are the ethics of an institution or organisation 
launching a database-driven web community project which gives the 
appearance that the data is submitted by the community members (or 
artists) themselves under their own names, when in fact that is not the 
case? Where is the line between identity fraud and mash-up? What is the 
responsibility of the institution to the 'members' of the 'web 
community' populating database-driven open projects? I'm sure we can 
all think of many examples here, from Rhizome's artbase to the RunMe 
archive to Steve Dietz's Fair Assembly curatorial project. Should all 
members have the possibility to go into the database and edit their own 
content (before or at the point at which it is made public)?

 > the edge zone of content and context in the age of consumer generated 
content:
Museums and art institutions in particular are places which still hang 
on to the idea of makers/authors and unique creations, which is perhaps 
why the ideal of Web 2.0 and its characteristics of openness, 
collaboration and multiplicity are such a challenge (one need only read 
the debates on taxonomies versus folksonomies in cataloguing to have a 
sense of this).
Yet surely it is still important to credit the use of other people's 
materials when they are republished in a different context. Does an 
adherence to the ideals of (the so-called) 'Web 2.0' create a conflict 
as far as a curator or author's responsibility to prior context?

4) the edge zone of the artist as curator as artist:
In this new social web do the words 'curated by' now mean the same 
thing as 'created by'? Is a mashup not a mashup when the curatorial 
activity of selection or the artistic jurisdiction of judgment is 
applied?

As we are working in an emerging field of practice, this is new 
territory for many of us and only through reflection, listening and 
talking can we create new knowledge and move forward in good faith. So 
I would urge you to share your knowledge on how we can create and 
sustain projects which push the boundaries of curatorial practice on 
the web in 'the age of consumer generated content', and that take 
advantage of the participatory potential of the web, ethically.

Any thoughts?

Sarah


P.S.
The project which has generated this concern is at 
http://www.orbit.zkm.de.

And, I would like to remind all CRUMB readers, lurkers, posters, that 
this mailing list is for considered (academic) open discussion about 
the practice of curating media art and, as such, flame wars, 
grandstanding and self-promotion of one's own projects will lead to 
email authors being unsubscribed, and the sad result of a not open 
discussion at all :-/


Dr. Sarah Cook, New Media Curator / Research
School of Arts, Design, Media and Culture, University of Sunderland
CRUMB web resource for new media art curators
http://www.crumbweb.org