It occurred to me that the difference between the intent of Aymeric's
question and the way Janet looked at it is a difference between makers
or making and institutions. Aymeric in effect answers his own
question. He doesn't appear to believe that the OS model is
transferable outside of software development, beyond some generalized
goals that many organizations might share. That is, because he sees
software as a particular kind of entity, as a 'medium', and the
implication is that one would no more expect the 'medium' of software to
apply to other kinds of organizations than one would, say, the medium of
painting.
I have a good deal of sympathy for looking at software as a medium, but
I find it difficult to separate it from its contexts. To use a popular
60's sociological distinction, and at the expense of grossly
over-simplifying: software is outer-directed, art is inner-directed.
There have been some notable art-making collectives (Gilbert and George
in the UK, General Idea in Canada); moreover, the Internet encourages
art collectives. But art is still largely individual. Software, on the
other hand, is like a tool or an appliance and is defined in terms of
its utility. The more it is seen as 'medium', the more like art it
becomes. Software, in corporate development, is always a group
project, individuals working on parts and pieces. It lends itself to
collective production and therefore to Open Source. There is no doubt
that there is beauty in software, and one can derive a great deal of
'aesthetic' pleasure from its development. But in its functioning, much
if not all of that beauty is hidden.
I have participated in a number of OS projects. But I have to confess
that my motives have always been a bit mixed. First there is the
'aesthetic' motive, software as a medium. Then there is the communal
motive, the satisfaction of working towards a common good. And finally
there is the 'selfish' motive--that is, I have never worked on a project
which has not ultimately had a place in my own art work. I'm not
saying that I would not work on such a project, but only that I have not.
I was particularly interested in Janet's link to Beth's blog. Beth's
examples are institutions which use Web 2.0 and so have a
participatory/communal element. Many are large institutions like the
Walker or Brooklyn Museum; or they are arts organizations with
substantial memberships. All of the sites involve social networking and
facilities like Facebook, Flickr, Youtube, which might benefit
artists--exhibition opportunities, sales of work, online displays. But
they do not address themselves to the artist as maker. They don't
involve the kinds of structures for artists that OS provides for
software makers.
When I look at Beth's examples, I can't help thinking about where the
artist as maker fits in. That is, the artist as maker often requires
some form of collective or community of users to participate in a
project. One of the hurdles for artists working in such forms is
developing such a community, and this is extremely difficult, unless the
community exists at least partly in advance. The individual artist
doesn't have the advantage of publicity and prominence that the large
institution has, when seeking users.
Myron
aymeric mansoux wrote:
> I personnaly think that FLOSS, art and cultural organisations,
> while being in some circumstances connected, are three distinct things,
> and I'm not convinced that FLOSS is something that can be applied
> litteraly to non digital matter. In other words, software is a medium in
> itself, people are producing software, but people are not software.
>
> I would be interested if anyone on this list has concrete examples where
> FLOSS has been used to model a non digital project/community/organisation,
> beyond the simple inspiration that can provide the openness suggested by
> FLOSS models and the simple use of FLOSS for production/admin tasks.
>
>
>
> Best Regards
> Aymeric Mansoux.
>
>
>
--
_____________________
Myron Turner
http://www.room535.org
http://www.mturner.org
http://net18reaching.org/cityscapes
|