Thanks for some of the communications off-line. I think that as Roger has
mentioned, all points are well taken, and progression of the conversation is
best.
> So is it ok to rework scientific data files but not artistic data files ?
Now this is extremely interesting, and I think the issues are in two areas -
IP and the objective/subjective. If anyone wants to take on the IP issues,
I think that many of us are familiar with copyright issues, tactical
engagements, appropriation, remixing, sampling, and so on. A sociocultural
matrix relating to IP and methods of engagement is pretty well established,
starting from the '10s to the current day.
But the 'interpretive' aspect of the interface between art and science is
something that hasn't been seen for its thorns. For much of the artistic
endeavor is the interpretation of information of different kinds and
communicating that interpretation/remapping through various schema (rational
, non-, or otherwise).
Science, on the other hand, (from my understanding from my background in the
Applied Sciences) is more about the disernment of truth from the
interpretation of as 'objective' data as possible.
Perhaps we're looking at the border between subject and object?
Now, the problem is when or the other takes precedence - when the subjective
takes over, it can be a hall of mirrors. When there is only fact,
possibilities are limited. So, I hope from my very reductive interpretation
of the sciences and humanities that you get the feel for the discursive
continuum I'm trying to construct.
For science and art, neither one, are wholly built on fact or fancy. I
think that this is the permeable membrane between the subjective and
objective worlds. This actually gets back to Plato, Bacon, and a lot of
others who created the Western tradition. I know there are others with
other frameworks, but when going this close to foundations of society, I
have to get back to what I know.
> So I guess my question is what is the 'status' of the digital
> files of a digital artist ? In the case of the scientists the
> digital file is "public' and "appropriatable" = however of
> course a second scientist who not republish the modified
> data under the first scientists name !
This is a tough one - mainly because a lot of the information is released
through public institutions. I think it would be different if NASA were a
private entity. In this way, NASA information would be part of the 'public
commons', and artworks tend to be possessions unless copylefted.
If I'm wrong here, please correct me.
> And
> again often artists projects are funded by goverments- so maybe
> their digital files should be made public too ?
But frequently the rights remain with the artist. If this agreement were
implicit, I'd agree wholeheartedly. Regardless, I know most of my work is
copylefted, mainly because I feel that if someone feels that they can go to
all of the work to rifle through mine, then they've done more work than
doing it themselves, or appropriation is often flattery, and sometimes if i
were to be able to afford a lawyer, I'd be committing the same ills as those
I criticize.
And I suspect that
> inevitably text, sound and image have equivalent status
> in the emerging context. This gets back to the
> long standing art as object versus art as process discussion.
> Who cares about Marko Peljham Makrolab qua installation,
> its impact has been not the data itself it has collected but
> in the point of view it has propagated.
Good point.
> So then another question becomes about the difference between
> an artist and a curator. Clearly there is a continuum of
> function as many curators are basically co creating with
> the artists through commission etc. But still "mis representation"
> an identity theft still sticks in my craw
Actually, I think that this is an evolving issue, as many curators currently
frame their works as works in themselves. So, it becomes a series of
Russian dolls - works within works within works.
On one hand, I realize that I might be saying to give people a break because
we're still working this thing out. But on the other hand, in the artistic
tradition, there is the responsibility of INTENT, or to willfully abdicate
it and risk a misfire or aim for a great accident. I salute risk-taking,
but one also has to manage the fallout.
|