Patrick et al,
I completely agree with you and I hope that we can continue to discuss
the implications of curating in a web 2.0 environment and the bigger
picture of mash-up ethics, the issues of attribution over authorship on
the internet, and institutional risk-taking -- all aside from this
particular example. I think it is curious the way this thread seems to
be taking place alongside another thread about curators quitting and
walking out and canceling project because they felt their work was
being undermined or manipulated beyond their own control.
On 16 Jun 2006, at 11:47 pm, Murphy wrote:
> There have been other examples of work -- Net-o-Mat and MoMA comes to
> mind -- where the institution balked at allowing use of material from
> outside their domain. Again, though, if the curator of an exhibition
> about hacktivism feels it is her obligation to the artists to defend
> their methods and goals in the exhibition, isn't she being ethical
> about it?
I concur with Rob here too and think this point could be unpacked
further. museums have been hesitant to even file share information
about artworks in other museums' collections. i.e. if museum A owns a
Fontana painting, is museum B, who also owns a later Fontana,
responsible for sharing with their audience scholarship around museum
A's Fontana painting? Historically, this has been frowned upon - surely
the curator at museum A is the only one who knows about the particular
Fontana in their collection. (That of which one does not know, one
should not speak?) But now, as curators move around from museum to
museum a lot more, and are 'caretaking' collections that previous
curators built up, and as museums put their collections on the web
(digitising information about them), and educational initiatives exist
to join together slide collections from different museums for
educators, students and researchers to use.... then, phew, it all gets
a lot more complicated. it might even get more complicated when neither
museum A nor museum B can afford a Fontana painting, so they join
forces and buy it together and share it between their two collections.
I know this is a complete detour to the debate, but I suppose what I am
wondering is what are some of the longer term implications of mashing
up information on the web for museum curators and the practice of
curatorship.
And yes, I know, this particular ZKM example is a different one to the
ramble above, simply because they are not just mashing up and altering
interpretations of static singular works of art, but actual works of
art, and ones that exist virtually in an infinite number of 'copies' in
the digital realm.
Sarah
On 17 Jun 2006, at 4:44 pm, Patrick Lichty wrote:
> Just as an aside,
>
> I feel that some of the conversation has gotten beyond my ability to
> comment. For the most part, my question has to do with the
> establishment of
> precedents in dealing with these matters. I do agree that the
> discussion
> has gotten to a point where the curators of the ZKM show really should
> address current commentary.
>
> On the other hand, I feel that frontally 'pushing back' is a
> last-position
> option, but one that is not qithout exception. Thinking about the
> form of
> the exhibition, one could engage tactically - e.g. if it is a WIKI,
> then go
> and change it, and let the histories change ofver the next few months.
> Create a critical counter-site, etc. It could actually be much
> stonger, and
> actually more fun, if there were a counter-satire.
>
> Lastly, I just want to ask a couple questions in regard to precedence.
> In
> many ways, the arts community is usually under- , and often under
> siege.
> This may be an American viewpoint, but I'm usually loath to promote
> conflict
> within our community unless absolutely necessary. Also, this relates
> to the
> value of optimum relations between all our colleagues, organizations,
> etc,
> like LEONARDO/OLATS * ZKM so that we can help promote our genres the
> best we
> can.
>
> I hope you can appreciate my viewpoint, as I understand the harm that
> can be
> inflicted by anger and misunderstandings all too well. I hope that
> this can
> be worked out through negotiation or maybe even a little satirical
> counter-
> commentary in good fun.
>
|