Hi all

Roger is right to approach an ethics of appropriation that takes into
account the socio-economic nature of how IP is generated. As in science
there are different socio-economic models underpinning why art gets made. A
chemist working for Astra-Zeneca will be required to keep their IP private
so as to protect the means by which a company will make its profit. An
artist who is making work that will accrue social value through how its
"originality" is perceived and, most importantly, owned has similar
concerns. This is a common model for art, with the gallery system based upon
it and much of the museum system also reliant upon it (and therefore this is
a big issue for curators).

However, many artists choose other models for their practice. Personally I
have chosen a model not based on the art market. For me that was a conscious
choice, carefully made. Twenty years ago I showed in galleries and sold my
work. I then decided this functioned to restrict what I wanted to do. The
gallery dealer was asking me to make work that was easier to sell...objects
and pictures and that kind of thing. But I was wishing to make installations
and work with processes. The two things did not marry (at least at that
time).

So, I went the route of the artist who derives much of their turnover from
public funding, surviving on the margins of the budgets involved. This
worked so long as the funders involved were happy to fund the work. When
that model started to break down (after what I guess was a good run, so I am
not complaining) I took the route of having one foot in academic research
that could function to both facilitate my artistic practice and keep a roof
over my head.

Many other artists are working with these or related models - especially in
the UK where art practice is recognised by academia, in and of itself, as
research and the arts funders do still fund large scale arts projects. In
these models the role of money is very particular. Yes, the artist still
gains credit for and trades primarily on how "originality" is perceived in
the work, however the manner in which the work is owned (or, more accurately
perhaps, not owned) differs significantly. In this context one can see how
the model of the astrophysicist that Roger is proposing can work for the
artist too. Their work is being produced with public funds. It is the
people's tax (or hard earned lottery money) that is paying for the research
behind and the production of the artwork and which is also keeping those
involved in jelly beans. In this sense I agree with Roger that in this
context emerging IP should be commonly shared with all as it is created with
public money. I take that attitude with my own practice.

However, it is important to distinguish between IP emerging from research
and the outcome of its application. Scientists (and artists) still have to
trade on the perceived value of "originality" in their work. Scientists will
not get their papers published or be asked to give keynotes at conferences
if they are perceived as not making an original contribution in their
knowledge community. If this happens they will not keep their (very likely
poorly paid) job in academia for long. The same holds true for artists. The
question is whether the contexts in which artist's outcomes are presented
offer a model which marries with the publicly funded research and
development context they are working in? Clearly different artists will find
different solutions to this problem, and this is a big issue better
addressed in another discussion.

However, it is relevant here in the sense that a common means of diffusion
for this sort of artwork is the exhibition and the type of exhibition that
is of most value here is the curated exhibition. This is so because the
notion of peer review functions in the research model of the creative arts,
just as it does in the sciences, and the role of the curator is akin to that
of the peer review college. The private art gallery or even the artist run
space is quite problematic here as it does not offer the "official" stamp of
approval that is required by academia so that it can be sure of the value of
the research (nee artwork) produced by the researcher (artist). This is all
about one institutional framework (academia) recognising value as inscribed
by another (the museum).

How does this fit with the mash up? Well, like most science I think most art
has always been based on the concept of the mash up. How else does one seek
to "stand on the shoulders of giants". Nevertheless, it is in the careful
differentiation of "originality" in the contribution that value will be
established, whatever the socio-economic model employed.

I have to say that I have a real problem with the idea of "originality",
which is why I am using the term in quotation marks. Nevertheless, I cannot
think of an alternative measure of value that would allow either art or
science to justify its social purpose. It seems to me that creativity is
entirely dependent upon this concept. I even wrote a book on this (with
James Leach) and still have problems! Sorry if that all sounds a little
ambivalent and unresolved. I guess that this is how it is (at least for me).

Best

Simon


On 18.06.06 00:00, Roger Malina wrote:

> Two reasons have led to astronomers making their data "public'.
> First since their work is often paid by governments- there is
> a "public goods' argument. Indeed NASA requireds astronomers
> to make their data public. The second reason in my field is that
> there is so much data that it makes incredible sense to share data
> using what are called "virtual observatory" technologies so that
> you can combine different scientists data and as a result get
> huge gains. You can actually do  good science now without
> ever taking new data and just combining other peoples data !
> This has been the case in digital music for some time,
> and is presumably coming to text and image too.


Simon Biggs

[log in to unmask]
http://www.littlepig.org.uk/

Professor of Digital Art, Sheffield Hallam University

[log in to unmask]
http://www.shu.ac.uk/schools/cs/cri/adrc/research2/