Open licensing would of course offer an excellent framework for this and
other forms of knowledge exchange. However, my email was about the local
context, which is very specific. It concerns a situation where artistsı jobs
in art schools are justified not only by their ability to teach the next
generation of artists but to an even greater extent their capacity to
attract direct government research funding as a function of their
independent artistic practice (art school staff have lost their jobs because
they didnıt have enough of the right sort of exhibitions). Ken Friedman
proposed, within this context, that artists could employ a similar model to
how scientists working within UK academia divide up the profits from their
research with their host institutions, the university. I was arguing that
this model would not work for artists as the practice we are discussing is
undertaken without the institution, even though the institution directly
profits from it, and participates in a different economy where authorship is
regarded as key to value (regardless of what we might think of this).
That this economy exists (within the UK) isnıt necessarily a bad thing.
University administrators and faculty have learned how to make this system
work for them. Since art and design were recognised as research active the
amounts of money being directed to art departments has grown astronomically,
to levels far above any other revenue stream the arts have previously
enjoyed in the UK, and many artists have directly benefited within this new
economy. However, there are certain anomolies that lead to manipulation of
the system which can have very negative effects. The question is how the
system can be adjusted to ensure it functions transparently and is not open
to cynical manipulation? That might not be possible...
Professor Simon Biggs
edinburgh college of art
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
From: Janet Hawtin <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 15:13:35 +0930
To: Simon Biggs <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] Models of author/owner-ship
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Simon Biggs <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I think the above scenario is not one that anybody would plan to bring about
> but things have been moving in this direction, over time. Rogerıs proposals
> would, in my opinion, likely accelerate this process. Kenıs suggestion that
> we ³should use IP models as
> they (the sciences) do² would also lead to this eventuality. Unless artists
> are willing to give up their authorial and IP rights the outcome of this
> would see almost every professional artist working in academia leaving it.
Doesn't open licensing provide the opportunity for the artist to retain
moral rights and choice of licence while also making terms which are
explicit about wider participation in that work?
Open licences are a way for an artist to retain attirbution and reputation
around their work while also participating in a context where the work has a
life beyond single authorship?
This could make it less of a priority for institutions to claim the
copyright to a collective entity?
Perhaps I am missing something in the local context sorry.