Thanks for the reply Jon Thomson,
....and I truly hope I didn't seem to be picking on you; rather, as
Bronac said, it's terrific you offered up your sale as a case study
for our discussion.
I think your new model of putting a variant version of the work online
for free, while keeping another version (be it "hi res" or some other
variable) is innovative and one of the benefits of working in
*variable media* :) You mention that this allows you to participate in
sites like ubuweb and get your work exposed to students and scholars.
Ubuweb seems to work better for video works than complex hybrid or
netart works, but nonetheless it's a great resource. I'm glad you
reminded us that getting paid is not always the primary or exclusive
reason for selling a work; so that should not be the exclusive concern
when talking about ideal/new models of purchase or commission.
It's funny that one standard reason that artists wanted to get their
works into institutional collections was to increase that work's
exposure to the public and to scholars (and thus the historic record)
- but with new media works that could sometimes be more widely
distributed via the Internet, getting a work collected by an
institution (with all it's IP and exclusivity concerns) may actually
make the work less exposed than it could be. (I emphatically add
*sometimes* and *may*, because I think institutions *could* have a
positive role to play in all this :)
Richard Rinehart
---------------
Digital Media Director & Adjunct Curator
Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive
bampfa.berkeley.edu
---------------
University of California, Berkeley
---------------
2625 Durant Ave.
Berkeley, CA, 94720-2250
ph.510.642.5240
fx.510.642.5269
On Mar 20, 2010, at 4:04 AM, Jon Thomson wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> I'll try and answer your questions reasonably succinctly:
>
> As you correctly suppose, we limited the work following the rather
> old world model that photography and video tends to also follow in
> the market, and while that wasn't explicitly a condition of the
> sale, it was what naturally emerged as unquestioned terms during the
> conversation -unquestioned I should add by both us and BCC in this
> case.
>
> We agree that the conversation should be opened up in general, and
> one way we are trying to work now is to make works available on our
> website in streaming, embedded forms etc that may also have a
> gallery/installation iteration so that a version of the work is
> freely available online but another version of the work as
> installation can be taken up by the art market at large or not as
> the case may be.
>
> This also allows our website to be a simple visible archive,
> something that we value a lot ourselves when we come across it
> elsewhere (ubuweb etc...) and speaking for a second as a visiting
> lecturer at art school I can report that the availability and
> visibility of work in repositories like ubuweb is really changing
> the way art students are able to access stuff that until then could
> only be little more than hearsay or historical trace...
>
> The modesty of the price (four not five figures) is for a number of
> reasons but ostensibly thinking about the extra cost of maintaining
> the work in the short to medium term (it will have to be remade as
> technology changes). I guess we were quite eager as well for BCC to
> make this acquisition (their first that intrinsically involves the
> internet) and so we were not focussed on pushing for a maximum sale
> price in any case. In general our interest in getting works into
> collections is not primarily financially motivated (although we
> obviously need money to live), it's much more about getting work
> looked after by people/institutions other than ourselves, because we
> have enough trouble maintaining work while making new work as it is.
>
> I would expect this is a common enough problem for artists who make
> works that need ongoing care, and for us it is one of our biggest
> because we can't really afford to employ assistants to maintain our
> archive and are not very willing to take on unpaid interns.
>
> best wishes,
>
> Jon
>
> PS the benjamin anecdote is yet another great example of how history
> misinterprets so much!!
>
>
> --> web
> http://www.thomson-craighead.net
>
> --> now:
> MyWar, Foundation for Art & Creative Technology (FACT), Liverpool
> 12 March - 30 May, 2010 (& Touring)
>
> --> now:
> http://www.animateprojects.org/films/by_date/2010/short_film_about_war
>
> --> coming up:
> Several Interruptions, Urban Video Project, Syracuse, New York
> April 1st 2010 - April 30th 2010
>
>
>
>
> On 19 Mar 2010, at 22:03, Richard Rinehart wrote:
>
>> Jon Thomson,
>>
>> Thanks for offering up your sale of a variable media artwork to the
>> British Council as a case study; I think it's fascinating. If we
>> can indeed use this as a case study for our conversation here, then
>> I have a question about your sale, but also about commissioning and
>> collecting variable work in general...
>>
>>> what we also did, given that the work itself could be reduced to a
>>> series of instructions is make a unique edition (plus artists
>>> copy) of archive prints that contain all the information required
>>> to remake the work in perpetuity.
>>
>>
>> Q. I'm interested in why you chose to make a variable
>> (theoretically infinitely duplicable) work into a fixed unique
>> work? Was it due to pressure from the buyer to hand over something
>> tangible? This is a common strategy for museums currently
>> collecting variable work. They will ask the artist to take a
>> variable/duplicable work and somehow make it fit into the older
>> economic/social model of art (contracts limiting reproduction and
>> guaranteeing exclusivity, or creation of singular objects - even an
>> artist-signed DVD) whereby it becomes a singular object/commodity
>> and then it's easier to deal with. I'll come clean that I have an
>> opinion here; I certainly don't blame the artist who of course must
>> make a living, but I wish that the institutions and the larger art
>> world in general would use this as more of an occasion to open up
>> the conversation (again) and to experiment with new models that
>> didn't subvert the artist's intent of working in open media (as
>> Simon has articulated) and that in fact might open up new cultural
>> practices.
>>
>> Recently, I saw this text from an upcoming talk at UC Berkeley:
>> "Perhaps nothing has damaged digital art's legitimacy so much as
>> Walter Benjamin's accusation that reproducibility destroys the art
>> work's "aura". If the artwork is multiple or can be multiplied it
>> supposedly is existentially inferior."....
>>
>> ....to which I thought that, for Benjamin, that lack of "aura" was
>> not entirely a negative thing! In fact, it opened up new social
>> practices and a new social(ist) role for art (in his case film, but
>> even moreso newer media art).
>>
>>> we agreed a (relatively) modest price for it with the
>>> understanding that it would require updating and maintenance,
>>
>> Q. Do you think you were asked to accept a lower price than you
>> might have gotten because the collector felt it would cost them
>> more to maintain this work? If so, do you felt like that cost
>> should have been passed on to you, the artists, in the form of a
>> lower purchase/commission fee? Or did you feel like the price was
>> modest in part because the work was ephemeral? I don't mean to put
>> words into your mouth, and certainly don't mean to pick on you :)
>> but I'm curious about these implications.
>>
>> What do others think? We do have some examples of experimental
>> practices. Are they working out? How many are there in relation to
>> the older models being put into practice?
>>
>>
>> Richard Rinehart
>> ---------------
>> Digital Media Director & Adjunct Curator
>> Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive
>> bampfa.berkeley.edu
>> ---------------
>> University of California, Berkeley
>> ---------------
>> 2625 Durant Ave.
>> Berkeley, CA, 94720-2250
>> ph.510.642.5240
>> fx.510.642.5269
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 18, 2010, at 2:22 AM, Jon Thomson wrote:
>>
>>> When we sold a work to the British Council a few years ago -- it
>>> was an instruction based work using live data as its material --
>>> we agreed a (relatively) modest price for it with the
>>> understanding that it would require updating and maintenance, but
>>> what we also did, given that the work itself could be reduced to a
>>> series of instructions is make a unique edition (plus artists
>>> copy) of archive prints that contain all the information required
>>> to remake the work in perpetuity. The print edition then
>>> functions as a work itself to some extent but also accommodates
>>> the longer term. In essence the British Council Collection have
>>> entered into ownership of the work but also accept curatorial
>>> responsibility institutionally, which itself includes some measure
>>> of patronage.
>>>
>>> In our opinion, this has been our most successful transaction to
>>> date as we believe it contains a trace of the original intention
>>> of the work less bound by the contemporary technology used to
>>> deliver it just now and with less need for a long term maintenance
>>> strategy. The endowment idea that Jon Ippolito mentions is also a
>>> really interesting one, but does require trust and luck to
>>> maintain it on an ongoing basis, but at least a bunch of archive
>>> prints in an archive box can be lost in a store room and then
>>> unearthed at a future date within two or three generations or so.
>>>
>>> best wishes,
>>>
>>> Jon & Alison
>>>
>>> -> web
>>> http://www.thomson-craighead.net
>>>
>>> --> now:
>>> MyWar, Foundation for Art & Creative Technology (FACT), Liverpool
>>> 12 March - 30 May, 2010 (& Touring)
>>>
>>> --> now:
>>> http://www.animateprojects.org/films/by_date/2010/short_film_about_war
>>>
>>> --> coming up:
>>> Several Interruptions, Urban Video Project, Syracuse, New York
>>> April 1st 2010 - April 30th 2010
>>>
>>> On 17 Mar 2010, at 19:08, Marcia Tanner wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Simon,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree that if your artistic practice is to make work
>>>> deliberately intended" "in part to subvert how value is
>>>> traditionally ascribed to artefacts by ensuring
>>>> it was infinitely reproducible and universally accessible," that
>>>> the notion of selling it IS silly. I'm aware that this ideological
>>>> impetus informs the practice of many artists making work for the
>>>> Internet and applaud you and them for it. In your case, I can
>>>> only imagine that you've
>>>> sold your work precisely in order to demonstrate the absurdity of
>>>> that exchange. Otherwise, since you could easily foresee that
>>>> the "issues" you mention would arise and that engaging in a sale
>>>> would be a self-fulfilling prophecy with predictable
>>>> consequences, why bother?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The artists I engage with do not necessarily have university
>>>> positions to support themselves, do not work exclusively on the
>>>> Internet,
>>>> and need to make a living from their work. So do I.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Marcia
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Marcia Tanner
>>>> Independent Curator / Writer
>>>> 176 Alvarado Road
>>>> Berkeley, CA 94705
>>>> 510.848.0769 [h]
>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Simon Biggs <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Sent: Wed, Mar 17, 2010 4:56 am
>>>> Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] one way to own a work of art on
>>>> the Web
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi all
>>>>
>>>> Hi Ken, Richard. Hope all is well in SF.
>>>>
>>>> The description you have given of how Ken’s piece was collected
>>>> is pretty
>>>> clear. It is a model that has also been applied to my work and
>>>> similarly it
>>>> only worked, in the first insatnce, because the collectors in
>>>> question were
>>>> driven more by an altruistic desire to support the work than to
>>>> own it.
>>>> Nevertheless, even in this instance, I still have issues. One is
>>>> that the
>>>> work was made in part to subvert how value is traditionally
>>>> ascribed to
>>>> artefacts by ensuring it was infinitely reproducible and
>>>> universally
>>>> accessible. Buying and selling such work is therefore not only
>>>> rather silly
>>>> but also at odds with the intent of the work. Secondly, and the
>>>> more
>>>> significant, is the issue of the secondary market. There are
>>>> works of mine
>>>> that have entered that market and which are exchanged at highly
>>>> inflated
>>>> values. This is an even sillier situation as the same works
>>>> remain freely
>>>> reproducible or cheaply available in large editions in the public
>>>> domain and
>>>> it adds injury to insult as others profit from work that I did
>>>> and put into
>>>> the public realm either for free or at or even below the cost of
>>>> production.
>>>> I’d argue that is a form of theft from me and from all those who
>>>> have
>>>> exchanged such work freely. If I ate cornflakes I would choke on
>>>> them...
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>>
>>>> Simon
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Simon Biggs
>>>>
>>>> [log in to unmask] [log in to unmask] Skype: simonbiggsuk
>>>> http://www.littlepig.org.uk/
>>>> Research Professor edinburgh college of art http://www.eca.ac.uk/
>>>> Creative Interdisciplinary Research into CoLlaborative Environments
>>>> http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/
>>>> Electronic Literature as a Model of Creativity and Innovation in
>>>> Practice
>>>> http://www.elmcip.net/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 19:00:32 -0400
>>>> To: Simon Biggs <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Cc: <[log in to unmask]>, <[log in to unmask]>,
>>>> <[log in to unmask]>, <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Subject: one way to own a work of art on the Web
>>>>
>>>> Hello Simon:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your email touching on your dissatisfaction, as a
>>>> digital artist,
>>>> with the various models of ownership you've experienced with your
>>>> work. I'm
>>>> not really equipped to "detail" the ownership model that the
>>>> gallerist
>>>> Catharine (Katie) Clark developed for a specific piece --
>>>> "memento mori" --
>>>> in consultation with the artist, Ken Goldberg and the collector,
>>>> Theo
>>>> Armour. You should ask Katie herself; she has lectured on the
>>>> arrangement
>>>> often, including at the art and law class offered by Prof. John
>>>> Merryman in
>>>> the Law School at Stanford University.
>>>>
>>>> Here's a link to the press release for a panel discussion on this
>>>> topic at
>>>> the gallery. Rick Rinehart was on the panel.
>>>>
>>>> www.cclarkgallery.com/Press_Release_Sanchez-Goldberg_2009.pdf
>>>>
>>>> As the work is time-based and continually evolving yet self-
>>>> contained (i.e.,
>>>> it can't be modified online by human intervention; it responds in
>>>> real time
>>>> to seismic activity around the SF Bay Area and translates that
>>>> activity
>>>> algorithmically into an ever-changing sound composition) what the
>>>> collector
>>>> gets is a CD that records the sounds produced on a specific day
>>>> for a
>>>> specific duration, and a certificate of ownership. I believe Theo
>>>> is listed
>>>> as the owner of the piece on its website but it's a conceptual
>>>> kind of
>>>> ownership that to me is more like patronage. Not every collector
>>>> would be
>>>> satisfied by this but Theo is a generous, imaginative man and he
>>>> is happy
>>>> with it. Ken seems pretty happy with it too. You should ask Ken
>>>> if he feels
>>>> the piece has been compromised aesthetically as a result.
>>>>
>>>> The account above may be inaccurate so I urge you to go to the
>>>> sources.
>>>> I've copied them on this email so you'll have their contact
>>>> information. I
>>>> hope this is helpful but it may not be generalizable to the kind
>>>> of work you
>>>> make, or to the collectors who seek to "own" it.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Marcia
>>>>
>>>> Marcia Tanner
>>>> Independent Curator / Writer
>>>> 176 Alvarado Road
>>>> Berkeley, CA 94705
>>>> 510.848.0769 [h]
>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Simon Biggs <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Sent: Tue, Mar 16, 2010 4:35 am
>>>> Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] OPEN MUSEUMS
>>>>
>>>> Hi Marcia
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you want to detail this a bit more? I am an artist who works
>>>> with digital
>>>>
>>>> media and my work has been collected in various forms and under
>>>> various
>>>>
>>>> models of ownership. To date, whilst these solutions have
>>>> apparently
>>>>
>>>> sufficed for the collector they have never been satisfying from
>>>> an artistic
>>>>
>>>> point of view. In fact, they have left a bad taste in the mouth
>>>> as such
>>>>
>>>> models fail to comprehend the ontology of the work/process; once
>>>> the work is
>>>>
>>>> out there it comes to be exploited in quite an unethical manner
>>>> which
>>>>
>>>> distorts its intended value (I know, why should the artist¹s
>>>> opinion count
>>>>
>>>> for anything but we are very critical when an indigenous
>>>> artist¹s work is
>>>>
>>>> appropriated inappropriately).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Simon
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Simon Biggs
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [log in to unmask] [log in to unmask] Skype: simonbiggsuk
>>>>
>>>> http://www.littlepig.org.uk/
>>>>
>>>> Research Professor edinburgh college of art http://www.eca.ac.uk/
>>>>
>>>> Creative Interdisciplinary Research into CoLlaborative Environments
>>>>
>>>> http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/
>>>>
>>>> Electronic Literature as a Model of Creativity and Innovation in
>>>> Practice
>>>>
>>>> http://www.elmcip.net/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Marcia Tanner <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>
>>>> Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>
>>>> Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 22:22:17 -0400
>>>>
>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>
>>>> Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] OPEN MUSEUMS
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Rick, Roger, Bronac, Oliver et. al.,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As someone transitioning from curating new media art to art
>>>> consulting,
>>>>
>>>> specializing in helping private collectors acquire new media
>>>> work, I find
>>>>
>>>> this discussion germane. But I wonder how strategies designed for
>>>> museum
>>>>
>>>> collections might also apply to individual collectors?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The San Francisco gallerist Catharine Clark (of Catharine Clark
>>>> Gallery) has
>>>>
>>>> for instance worked out a legal and viable strategy for a
>>>> collector >> to
>>>>
>>>> acquire an artist's work that exists only on the Internet, so
>>>> that he (the
>>>>
>>>> collector) does actually own the work but it is is still
>>>> available to anyone
>>>>
>>>> to access online. It's complicated and the collector is
>>>> exceptionally
>>>>
>>>> altruistic so this may not be a universal solution. Also, I'm not
>>>> sure how
>>>>
>>>> this particular strategy will function if/when the Internet
>>>> becomes obsolete
>>>>
>>>> and the piece either disappears or must be translated into a
>>>> different
>>>>
>>>> form/medium. There are also questions of appraisal -- how is
>>>> value assessed
>>>>
>>>> for works like this?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The point is: the challenges of collecting new media art are not
>>>> just for
>>>>
>>>> museums any more. Any thoughts?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Marcia Tanner
>>>>
>>>> Independent Curator / Writer
>>>>
>>>> 176 Alvarado Road
>>>>
>>>> Berkeley, CA 94705
>>>>
>>>> 415.314.5087 [m]
>>>>
>>>> 510.848.0769 [h]
>>>>
>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>
>>>> From: Richard Rinehart <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>
>>>> Sent: Mon, Mar 15, 2010 1:40 pm
>>>>
>>>> Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] OPEN MUSEUMS
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Roger, Oliver, Bronac, et al,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes indeed, interesting discussion and hopefully seed of
>>>>
>>>> action/collaboration! Roger, that a truly "open museum" may take
>>>> 30 years is
>>>>
>>>> either a disheartening prospect or a supreme challenge (guess
>>>> which I
>>>>
>>>> choose?)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oliver, you could not be more right of course in that so many of
>>>> the early
>>>>
>>>> efforts to document/preserve/provide access to new media art
>>>> forms have
>>>>
>>>> fallen by the wayside and the entire genre is in danger of being
>>>> lost to
>>>>
>>>> history. I also agree that the big funders that could help turn
>>>> this around
>>>>
>>>> so far seem disinterested or unaware (despite my repeated
>>>> advances; ahem!
>>>>
>>>> :). Many government funders are still focussing on preservation/
>>>> access
>>>>
>>>> projects around *representations* of traditional art collections
>>>> (image
>>>>
>>>> banks of paintings, etc.) and most museums with mixed collections
>>>> are
>>>>
>>>> similarly focussed. To be fair, this is in part because the
>>>> overwhelming
>>>>
>>>> majority of cultural collections (and research) is still
>>>> comprised of these
>>>>
>>>> collections.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> However, as Oliver points out, new media art is in danger of
>>>> being utterly
>>>>
>>>> eclipsed and this period of history and ongoing artistic practice
>>>> made
>>>>
>>>> unavailable to research (which will only compound the problem).
>>>> There are
>>>>
>>>> more museums dealing with new media art in their regular
>>>> operations, but
>>>>
>>>> usually without any special collaborative effort and thus it gets
>>>> subsumed
>>>>
>>>> into traditional practices or treated as any other multimedia
>>>> objects. There
>>>>
>>>> are valiant efforts, and Roger, you described many of them from
>>>> libraries
>>>>
>>>> and elsewhere focussed on access to new born-digital culture, and
>>>> many of
>>>>
>>>> them are focussed on the broader realm of "digital culture and
>>>> knowledge"
>>>>
>>>> where often new media art in particular gets lost in the shuffle.
>>>> New media
>>>>
>>>> art is certainly part of the bigger puzzle, but it also has its
>>>> special
>>>>
>>>> needs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To that end, and toward performing my duties as one of our invited
>>>>
>>>> discussants this month on commissions - let me ask you all; how
>>>> might
>>>>
>>>> commissions help this situation? Beryl has brought up the Lab
>>>> model; how is
>>>>
>>>> this model different? Back in the day at the Guggenheim, Jon
>>>> Ippolito was
>>>>
>>>> thinking of how to build in preservation and access as part of the
>>>>
>>>> commission/purchase/exhibition of new media art (Jon smartly knew
>>>> where
>>>>
>>>> museums place their efforts). Jon, do you want to describe that
>>>> model for
>>>>
>>>> us? At BAM, we were similarly able to slip in even the tiniest
>>>> notion of an
>>>>
>>>> open museum inside a curatorial/exhibition program.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do others know of innovative commissioning models that also have
>>>> the
>>>>
>>>> long-term in mind?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Richard Rinehart
>>>>
>>>> ---------------
>>>>
>>>> Digital Media Director & Adjunct Curator
>>>>
>>>> Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive
>>>>
>>>> bampfa.berkeley.edu
>>>>
>>>> ---------------
>>>>
>>>> University of California, Berkeley
>>>>
>>>> ---------------
>>>>
>>>> 2625 Durant Ave.
>>>>
>>>> Berkeley, CA, 94720-2250
>>>>
>>>> ph.510.642.5240
>>>>
>>>> fx.510.642.5269
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 14, 2010, at 4:09 AM, Bronac Ferran wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hallo everyone- thanks, this is an interesting discussion.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Roger said: many of these issues were discussed at the CODE >
>>>>> conference some
>>>>
>>>>> years
>>>>
>>>>> back. Good news: there is still a webcast of the conference
>>>>> available
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/CODE/
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> In terms of some of the other points I recently wrote an essay >
>>>>> commissioned
>>>>
>>>>> by Arts Council England called Rethinking Ownership and in this
>>>>> I > suggest
>>>>
>>>>> that if a national collection of digital art was to be created
>>>>> it > should not
>>>>
>>>>> be a selected one (such as the ACE Film and Video, Poetry and
>>>>> Visual > Arts
>>>>
>>>>> collections which were spawned some decades ago) but it could be
>>>>> > created in
>>>>
>>>>> another way which for eg could see funded works (and initiatives
>>>>> > such as
>>>>
>>>>> CODE which took place in 2001) and many earlier seminal works
>>>>> from > the mid
>>>>
>>>>> 90s onwards elected by the generators of the projects to be
>>>>> included > in a
>>>>
>>>>> distributed collection where the key thing is that the learning
>>>>> and
>>>>
>>>>> documentation of process (which is often housed within summary >
>>>>> reports only
>>>>
>>>>> seen by the funder then filed) is shared openly and available
>>>>> and > accessible
>>>>
>>>>> through an easy mapping process and one might of course add to
>>>>> this > open
>>>>
>>>>> sourced code or other redistributable aspects. So what is
>>>>> preserved > is not
>>>>
>>>>> only the work but the context, which is vital for so called new
>>>>> media
>>>>
>>>>> projects (and interdisciplinary projects in general)....
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It was suggested as a provocation in an independent essay but
>>>>> there > may be
>>>>
>>>>> the germ of something here worth exploring
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> cheers
>>>>
>>>>> Bronc
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 14 March 2010 10:20, roger malina <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Oliver
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with your point:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> "What is needed in the (Digital) Humanities isan institutional
>>>>>> >> support
>>>>
>>>>>> equivalent to that in Astronomy, Biology or ClimateResearch, in
>>>>>> >> order to
>>>>
>>>>>> create enough momentum and adhesion the main
>>>>>> fundingorganizations >> like
>>>>
>>>>>> NSF, NEH, the European Research Council, DFG,
>>>>>> VolkswagenFoundation >> etc.
>>>>
>>>>>> have to support on an international level the necessaryresearch
>>>>
>>>>>> structure for research in Media Art and the Digital Humanities
>>>>>> >> ingeneral
>>>>
>>>>>> needed in the 21st century."
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> What broke things open in astronomy was the fact that inter >>
>>>>>> governmental
>>>>
>>>>>> and institutional agencies created a funding climate that
>>>>>> enabled >> virtual
>>>>
>>>>>> observatories with public access. Data by itself is usually
>>>>>> useless >> unless
>>>>
>>>>>> you have the accompanying metadata, analysis software,
>>>>>> international
>>>>
>>>>>> protocols and standards, middleware etc ( and that means time
>>>>>> and >> money).
>>>>
>>>>>> Plus the realisation by
>>>>
>>>>>> astronomers about the new kinds of science that could be done
>>>>>> by >>>> >> combining
>>>>
>>>>>> databases from different
>>>>
>>>>>> observatories ( and different time periods)- which is what you
>>>>>> are >> arguing
>>>>
>>>>>> in the humanities is also the case.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Some of the new kinds of art scholarship and art that can come
>>>>>> out >> of open
>>>>
>>>>>> networked
>>>>
>>>>>> systems are being discussed at several conferences this spring
>>>>>> and >> summer
>>>>
>>>>>> including
>>>>
>>>>>> the Leonardo Day at the NETSCI 2010 conference in Boston :
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> http://artshumanities.netsci2010.net/
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> and also the the High Throughput Humanities conference in
>>>>
>>>>>> Portugal:(deadline
>>>>
>>>>>> April 30)
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> http://hth.eccs2010.eu/
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> goal: The High Throughput Humanities satellite event at ECCS'10
>>>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>> establishes
>>>>
>>>>>> a forum for high throughput approaches in the humanities and
>>>>>> social
>>>>
>>>>>> sciences, within the framework of complex systems science. The
>>>>>> >> symposium
>>>>
>>>>>> aims to go beyond massive data aquisition and to present
>>>>>> results >> beyond
>>>>
>>>>>> what
>>>>
>>>>>> can be manually achieved by a single person or a small group.
>>>>>> >> Bringing
>>>>
>>>>>> together scientists, researchers, and practitioners from
>>>>>> relevant >> fields,
>>>>
>>>>>> the event will stimulate and facilitate discussion, spark >>
>>>>>> collaboration,
>>>>
>>>> as
>>>>
>>>>>> well as connect approaches, methods, and ideas.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> This makes the strong argument that cross coupling humanities
>>>>>> and >> art data
>>>>
>>>>>> bases new kinds of research
>>>>
>>>>>> and art are enabled.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> There are a number of initiatives that are relevant to >>
>>>>>> methodologies
>>>>
>>>> coming
>>>>
>>>>>> out of the
>>>>
>>>>>> cybernetics community- such as for example:
>>>>
>>>>>> *Cybernetics: Art, Design, Mathematics < A Meta-Disciplinary >>
>>>>>> Conversation
>>>>
>>>>>> (C:ADM2010)*
>>>>
>>>>>> *http://www.asc-cybernetics.org/2010/*
>>>>
>>>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Finally of course HASTAC in the usa has been working hard on
>>>>>> many >> of these
>>>>
>>>>>> issues:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.hastac.org/
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> <http://www.hastac.org/>HASTAC <http://www.hastac.org/%3EHASTAC>
>>>> ("haystack") is a network of >> individuals
>>>>
>>>>>> and
>>>>
>>>>>> institutions inspired by the possibilities that new
>>>>>> technologies >> offer us
>>>>
>>>>>> for shaping how we learn, teach, communicate, create, and
>>>>>> organize >> our
>>>>
>>>>>> local
>>>>
>>>>>> and global communities. We are motivated by the conviction
>>>>>> that the
>>>>
>>>>>> digital
>>>>
>>>>>> era provides rich opportunities for informal and formal
>>>>>> learning >> and for
>>>>
>>>>>> collaborative, networked research that extends across traditional
>>>>
>>>>>> disciplines, across the boundaries of academe and community,
>>>>>> across >> the
>>>>
>>>>>> "two
>>>>
>>>>>> cultures" of humanism and technology, across the divide of
>>>>>> thinking >> versus
>>>>
>>>>>> making, and across social strata and national borders.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Leonardo and Siggraph are cosponsoring at SIGGRAPH in LA a full
>>>>>> day >> on
>>>>
>>>>>> 20XX.EDU the future
>>>>
>>>>>> of learning in the digital age that builds on the macarthur
>>>>>> funded >> report
>>>>
>>>>>> on
>>>>
>>>>>> the future of learning
>>>>
>>>>>> institutions in the digital age=this report make a number of
>>>>>> relevant
>>>>
>>>>>> points
>>>>
>>>>>> to an OPEN MUSEUM movement.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/chapters/Future_of_Learning.pdf
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> (yes its available under a creative commons license)
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> I dont think we have any equivalent international efforts of
>>>>>> the kind
>>>>
>>>>>> oliver
>>>>
>>>>>> is suggesting yet.( maybe crumb
>>>>
>>>>>> readers know of some) ,and the
>>>>
>>>>>> kinds of actions in the museum world that Rick is arguing for
>>>>>> have >> been
>>>>
>>>>>> generally driven by intellectual property
>>>>
>>>>>> control and monetarising issues ( the Louvre in Dubai..) rather
>>>>>> than
>>>>
>>>>>> enabling new kinds of scholarship and art.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Rick Rinehart's call for an OPEN MUSEUM movement that provides:
>>>>
>>>>>> "In the Open Museum, the source code and other files
>>>>
>>>>>> for digital artworks from the collection are free for users to
>>>>>> >> download,
>>>>
>>>>>> study, use, and re-mix into new works " i suspect is at least a
>>>>>> >> thirty
>>>>
>>>> year
>>>>
>>>>>> project
>>>>
>>>>>> (thats how long it took in astronomy)
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> roger
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Oliver Grau <[log in to unmask]
>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank youRoger for this. You made a very important point for
>>>>>>> all >>> of us
>>>>
>>>>>>> here and Istrongly like to support your thought by adding my
>>>>>>> five >>> cents.
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Comparablewith natural sciences, digital media and new >>>
>>>>>>> opportunities of
>>>>
>>>>>>> networkedresearch catapult the cultural sciences within reach
>>>>>>> of >>> new and
>>>>
>>>>>>> essentialresearch, like appropriate documentation and
>>>>>>> preservation >>> of
>>>>
>>>>>>> media art, or evenbetter, an entire history of visual media
>>>>>>> and >>> their
>>>>
>>>>>>> human cognition by means ofthousands of sources. These themes
>>>>>>> >>> express in
>>>>
>>>>>>> regard to image revolutioncurrent key questions. In order to
>>>>>>> push
>>>>
>>>>>>> humanities and cultural sciences intheir development, it is
>>>>>>> >>> necessary to
>>>>
>>>>>>> use the new technologies globally and create a research >>>
>>>>>>> infrastructure
>>>>
>>>>>>> which is organisided much more intercontinental than now.
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Since the foundation of the pioneering Databaseof Virtual Art
>>>>>>> >>> anumber of
>>>>
>>>>>>> online archives for digitization and documentation arose:
>>>>
>>>>>>> LangloisFoundation inMontreal, Netzspannung at the Frauenhofer
>>>>>>> >>> Institut
>>>>
>>>>>>> or MedienKunstNetz at ZKM * most of these projectsterminated,
>>>>>>> their
>>>>
>>>>>>> funding expired, or they lost key researchers like V2
>>>>>>> inRotterdam. >>> Even
>>>>
>>>>>>> the Boltzmann Institut for Media Art Research in Linz, faced
>>>>>>> >>> recently
>>>>
>>>>>>> itsclose-down after an evaluation. In this way the originated
>>>>>>> >>> scientific
>>>>
>>>>>>> archiveswhich more and more often represent the only remaining
>>>>>>> image
>>>>
>>>>>>> source of the art works,do not only lose step by step their
>>>>>>> >>> significance
>>>>
>>>>>>> for research and preservationbut in the meantime partly
>>>>>>> disappear >>> from
>>>>
>>>>>>> the web. Not only the media artitself, but also its
>>>>>>> documentation >>> fads
>>>>
>>>>>>> that future generations of researchersand public will not be
>>>>>>> able >>> to get
>>>>
>>>>>>> an idea of the past and the art of our time.To put it another
>>>>>>> way, >>> till
>>>>
>>>>>>> now no sustainable strategy exits. What we need isa
>>>>>>> concentrated and
>>>>
>>>>>>> compact expansion of ability. There is/was
>>>>>>> increasingcollaboration >>> with
>>>>
>>>>>>> these projects in a variety of areas and in
>>>>>>> changingcoalitions. >>> But in
>>>>
>>>>>>> the field of documentation projects - real
>>>>>>> preservationprojects do >>> not
>>>>
>>>>>>> exist yet (beside fantastic case studies) - the focus is >>>
>>>>>>> stilldirected
>>>>
>>>>>>> too much towards particularisation, instead of concentrating
>>>>>>> >>> forces,what
>>>>
>>>>>>> is essential strategy in most other fields (as Roger pointed
>>>>>>> out).
>>>>
>>>>>>> Manyindividual projects are definitely innovative but too
>>>>>>> small and
>>>>
>>>>>>> without clearlarger scientific strategy and safe financing,
>>>>>>> which >>> is not
>>>>
>>>>>>> their fault. Someprojects are already expired and not carried
>>>>>>> >>> further.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Lots of competence and culturalwealth, but too much
>>>>>>> separationism.
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Especially the university based researchprojects and partly
>>>>>>> also >>>>> the
>>>>
>>>>>>> ones which are linked to museums have developedexpertise that
>>>>>>> >>> needs to
>>>>
>>>>>>> be included in cultural circulation, not only in orderto pass
>>>>>>> it >>> on to
>>>>
>>>>>>> future generations of scientists and archivists but also
>>>>>>> togive it a
>>>>
>>>>>>> chance to flow into future university education in the fields of
>>>>
>>>>>>> art,engineering, and media history. Clearly, the goal must be
>>>>>>> to >>> develop
>>>>
>>>>>>> a policyand strategy for collecting the art of our latest
>>>>>>> history >>> under
>>>>
>>>>>>> the umbrella ofa strong, let¹s say ³Library of Congress like²
>>>>
>>>>>>> institution. Ultimately, however, this can onlybe organized by
>>>>>>> a >>> network
>>>>
>>>>>>> of artists, computer and science centers, galleries,technology
>>>>>>> >>> producers
>>>>
>>>>>>> and museums. Those projects which collected culturallyimportant
>>>>
>>>>>>> documents in the past and which often expired, were not further
>>>>
>>>>>>> supportedor even lost their base must be supported and
>>>>>>> reanimated. >>> They
>>>>
>>>>>>> should beorganized like a corona around an institution which
>>>>>>> >>> receives
>>>>
>>>>>>> the duty ofdocumentation and may be even the collection of >>>
>>>>>>> contemporary
>>>>
>>>>>>> media art, such aninstitution could be in the USA, the Library
>>>>>>> of
>>>>
>>>>>>> Congress; in Europe, besidesthe new European digital libraries
>>>>>>> >>> database
>>>>
>>>>>>> Europeana, it could be the BibliothequeNational, the >>>
>>>>>>> BritishLibrary, the
>>>>
>>>>>>> V&A or in Germany beside the ZKM for example the >>>
>>>>>>> DeutscheBibliothek or
>>>>
>>>>>>> even better a Max Planck Institute.Interestingly the libraries
>>>>>>> show
>>>>
>>>>>>> increasingly interest to archive multimediaworks and their
>>>>
>>>>>>> documentation; however, the usually complex cultural
>>>>>>> andtechnical >>> know
>>>>
>>>>>>> how is lacking in order to preserve principal works of the >>>
>>>>>>> mostimportant
>>>>
>>>>>>> media art genres of the last decades. Not only can the
>>>>
>>>>>>> internationalstate of Media Art be a hinderance in creating
>>>>>>> common
>>>>
>>>>>>> projects, also the FUNDINGINFRASTRUCTURE of media art >>>
>>>>>>> documentation so
>>>>
>>>>>>> far, has normally promotedprojects for 2, 3, or more years,
>>>>>>> >>> neglecting
>>>>
>>>>>>> sustainability. A structure whichupdates, extends and
>>>>>>> contextualizes
>>>>
>>>>>>> research * whether in historical orcontemporary contexts is
>>>>>>> >>> required.
>>>>
>>>>>>> The funding and support infrastructureswhich have been built
>>>>>>> in >>> the end
>>>>
>>>>>>> of the last century are not suitable forscientific and
>>>>>>> cultural >>> tasks in
>>>>
>>>>>>> the Humanities of the 21st Century.
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> What is needed in the (Digital) Humanities isan institutional
>>>>>>> >>> support
>>>>
>>>>>>> equivalent to that in Astronomy, Biology or ClimateResearch,
>>>>>>> in >>> order to
>>>>
>>>>>>> create enough momentum and adhesion the main
>>>>>>> fundingorganizations >>> like
>>>>
>>>>>>> NSF, NEH, the European Research Council, DFG,
>>>>>>> VolkswagenFoundation >>> etc.
>>>>
>>>>>>> have to support on an international level the necessaryresearch
>>>>
>>>>>>> structure for research in Media Art and the Digital Humanities
>>>>>>> >>> ingeneral
>>>>
>>>>>>> needed in the 21st century.
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> oliver
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> roger malina 13.03.10 13.45 Uhr >>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Rick
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Look forward to seeing the book. Re the Open Museum discussion,
>>>>
>>>>>>> i recently posted my Open Observatory manifesto
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.leoalmanac.org/index.php/lea/entry/an_open_observatory_manifesto/
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> I am heavily influenced here by my work as an astronomer over
>>>>>>> the >>> last
>>>>
>>>>>>> thirty
>>>>
>>>>>>> years. Thirty years ago astronomers viewed the data they took
>>>>>>> ( in >>> those
>>>>
>>>>>>> days
>>>>
>>>>>>> photographic plates) as their personal property and their
>>>>>>> careers >>> hinged
>>>>
>>>>>>> on
>>>>
>>>>>>> their
>>>>
>>>>>>> controlling this data ( and their students careers depended on
>>>>>>> their
>>>>
>>>>>>> access
>>>>
>>>>>>> to their
>>>>
>>>>>>> professors data). Today NASA and NSF now have a contractual
>>>>>>> >>> stipulation
>>>>
>>>>>>> that
>>>>
>>>>>>> all data
>>>>
>>>>>>> funded by NASA must be made publically available= its funded
>>>>>>> by >>> public
>>>>
>>>>>>> money
>>>>
>>>>>>> so the public has a right to access it. This has led to a
>>>>>>> scientific
>>>>
>>>>>>> revolution in
>>>>
>>>>>>> astronomy= more science is now done on the hubble data
>>>>>>> archive, than
>>>>
>>>>>>> with
>>>>
>>>>>>> new observations= and more science is done by other people
>>>>>>> than by >>> the
>>>>
>>>>>>> astronomers who took the data. The international virtual
>>>>>>> observatory
>>>>
>>>>>>> movement
>>>>
>>>>>>> has generalised this and there are now shared data analysis
>>>>>>> tools >>> that
>>>>
>>>>>>> are
>>>>
>>>>>>> open sourced.
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> This open data is still not the case in many fields of science
>>>>>>> even
>>>>
>>>>>>> though
>>>>
>>>>>>> the data was funded by public monies, but its a growing trend
>>>>>>> >>> (even in
>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>
>>>>>>> genome project). And indeed
>>>>
>>>>>>> the model is that the scientist is funded up front to take the
>>>>>>> >>> data, and
>>>>
>>>>>>> then
>>>>
>>>>>>> its open sourced. In the humanities its still not the case
>>>>>>> often= >>> and
>>>>
>>>>>>> access
>>>>
>>>>>>> to collections is tightly controlled ( cf the ongoing debate
>>>>>>> about >>> the
>>>>
>>>>>>> dead
>>>>
>>>>>>> sea
>>>>
>>>>>>> scrolls..)
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> So a first piece of your open museum proposal could simply be
>>>>>>> that
>>>>
>>>>>>> any work commissioned using public monies must be open sourced
>>>>
>>>>>>> on the ideological basis that the public paid for it so they
>>>>>>> have a
>>>>
>>>>>>> right
>>>>
>>>>>>> to it. And indeed the artist is paid up front ( just as the
>>>>>>> >>> scientist is
>>>>
>>>>>>> paid
>>>>
>>>>>>> up front)
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> This approach obviously ignores the fact that in art ( as
>>>>>>> opposed to
>>>>
>>>>>>> science)
>>>>
>>>>>>> a lot of the art economy depends on speculation and that a
>>>>>>> small >>> tiny
>>>>
>>>>>>> fraction
>>>>
>>>>>>> of artists get very rich because the intellectual property can
>>>>>>> be
>>>>
>>>>>>> controlled
>>>>
>>>>>>> and
>>>>
>>>>>>> monetarised in speculation. I guess in science the equivalent
>>>>>>> is >>> that a
>>>>
>>>>>>> few
>>>>
>>>>>>> scientists have benefited from very lucrative patents that
>>>>>>> they have
>>>>
>>>>>>> filed-
>>>>
>>>>>>> which are not so much speculative but are market driven.
>>>>>>> Patents >>> that
>>>>
>>>>>>> result
>>>>
>>>>>>> from government funding are tightly regulated, with the
>>>>>>> inventor >>> and the
>>>>
>>>>>>> institutions
>>>>
>>>>>>> getting their share.
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> nd in the book edited by Ghosh in the leonardo book series
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> http://leonardo.info/isast/leobooks/books/ghosh.html
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Open source software is considered by many to be a novelty and
>>>>>>> the >>> open
>>>>
>>>>>>> source movement a revolution. Yet the collaborative creation of
>>>>
>>>>>>> knowledge
>>>>
>>>>>>> has gone on for as long as humans have been able to
>>>>>>> communicate. >>> CODE
>>>>
>>>>>>> looks
>>>>
>>>>>>> at the collaborative model of creativity -- with examples
>>>>>>> ranging >>> from
>>>>
>>>>>>> collective ownership in indigenous societies to free software,
>>>>>>> >>> academic
>>>>
>>>>>>> science, and the human genome project -- and finds it an >>>
>>>>>>> alternative to
>>>>
>>>>>>> proprietary frameworks for creativity based on strong
>>>>>>> intellectual
>>>>
>>>>>>> property
>>>>
>>>>>>> rights.
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> the museum issue is tangentially addressed
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> roger
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 11:59 PM, Richard Rinehart wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello again New-Media-Curating,
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> In addition to the other mischief we like to cause
>>>>>>>> individually, >>>> Jon
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ippolito and I are co-authoring a book for MIT Press, due out
>>>>>>>> >>>> Spring
>>>>
>>>>>>> '11 on
>>>>
>>>>>>>> collecting and preserving new media art .
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> I include below a brief excerpt from the book relevant to our
>>>>
>>>>>>> discussion
>>>>
>>>>>>>> this month on commissioning variable media art. In it, I'm
>>>>>>>> >>>> proposing a
>>>>
>>>>>>> new
>>>>
>>>>>>>> model for an archive of new media art I call "the Open
>>>>>>>> Museum" and
>>>>
>>>>>>>> describing perhaps a new way that commissioning could be seen
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>
>>>>>>> function in
>>>>
>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was originally inspired along these lines by the V2 arts
>>>>
>>>>>>> organization in
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rotterdam that had a stipulation in which new media works
>>>>>>>> >>>> commissioned
>>>>
>>>>>>> for
>>>>
>>>>>>>> their lab space must remain open-source within the lab space
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>
>>>>>>> future
>>>>
>>>>>>>> commissioned artists. It got me thinking, why not take that
>>>>>>>> great >>>> idea
>>>>
>>>>>>> a
>>>>
>>>>>>>> couple steps further.....
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Students, scholars, and the public can currently access
>>>>>>>> images and
>>>>
>>>>>>> records
>>>>
>>>>>>>> *representations - of artworks held in museum collections,
>>>>>>>> but they
>>>>
>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>
>>>>>>>> access the collections themselves. The Open Museum takes >>>>
>>>>>>>> advantage of
>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>
>>>>>>>> unique property of new media that allows one to share the
>>>>>>>> original
>>>>
>>>>>>> without
>>>>
>>>>>>>> diminishing it. In the Open Museum, the source code and other
>>>>>>>> files
>>>>
>>>>>>> for
>>>>
>>>>>>>> digital artworks from the collection are free for users to
>>>>>>>> >>>> download,
>>>>
>>>>>>> study,
>>>>
>>>>>>>> use, and re-mix into new works. In this way, even the casual
>>>>>>>> >>>> student
>>>>
>>>>>>> can
>>>>
>>>>>>>> peer under the hood and examine the inner workings of these
>>>>>>>> >>>> artworks
>>>>
>>>>>>> in the
>>>>
>>>>>>>> way that previously only privileged scholars could with
>>>>>>>> traditional
>>>>
>>>>>>> material
>>>>
>>>>>>>> collections. .......
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Intellectual property law was created to balance the private
>>>>>>>> need >>>> with
>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>
>>>>>>>> public good. It grants authors and artists exclusive rights
>>>>>>>> over >>>> their
>>>>
>>>>>>> work
>>>>
>>>>>>>> for a limited period (not a short period, sometimes 90 years
>>>>>>>> >>>> after the
>>>>
>>>>>>>> artists lifetime) after which the rights in the work move
>>>>>>>> into the
>>>>
>>>>>>> public
>>>>
>>>>>>>> domain. The artist has time to find ways to earn a livelihood
>>>>>>>> from
>>>>
>>>>>>> their
>>>>
>>>>>>>> work and this is seen as an incentive to create in the first
>>>>>>>> place.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Why
>>>>
>>>>>>>> then, could not public museums act as stewards of the public
>>>>>>>> good >>>> and
>>>>
>>>>>>>> compensate the artist earlier rather than later by
>>>>>>>> commissioning >>>> works
>>>>
>>>>>>> for
>>>>
>>>>>>>> the Open Museum, after which they apply Creative Commons
>>>>>>>> licenses >>>> and
>>>>
>>>>>>>> release the work to the public. The museum would earn their
>>>>>>>> >>>> renown not
>>>>
>>>>>>> for
>>>>
>>>>>>>> the quality of art they obtain in exclusivity, but for the
>>>>>>>> art they
>>>>
>>>>>>> obtain
>>>>
>>>>>>>> and then give away. The artist gets money up front and still
>>>>>>>> owns
>>>>
>>>>>>> their
>>>>
>>>>>>>> work. And the public is served by waiting months rather than
>>>>>>>> >>>> decades
>>>>
>>>>>>> to gain
>>>>
>>>>>>>> access and rights to use the work in question."
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Two more items.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Within the Berkeley Art Museum's net art portal, we were able
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>
>>>>>>> include
>>>>
>>>>>>>> *some* of the function of the Open Museum - an open-source
>>>>>>>> net art
>>>>
>>>>>>> archive.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Call it a baby step.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> (see http://netart.bampfa.berkeley.edu and scroll down to
>>>>>>>> >>>> NetArtchive)
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> An earlier post to this list (from Leigh I believe; I lost
>>>>>>>> the >>>> email),
>>>>
>>>>>>>> outlined how public institutions in Scotland are now using
>>>>>>>> their
>>>>
>>>>>>> muscle to
>>>>
>>>>>>>> gain IP rights in works they commission. While public art
>>>>>>>> funding >>>> and
>>>>
>>>>>>> IP are
>>>>
>>>>>>>> quite different between the UK, US, Canada and elsewhere, I
>>>>>>>> >>>> wonder if
>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Open Museum provides a more positive spin on how public >>>>
>>>>>>>> institutions
>>>>
>>>>>>> could
>>>>
>>>>>>>> partner with artists with regard to the disposition of IP in
>>>>
>>>>>>> commissioned
>>>>
>>>>>>>> works - or - is the Open Museum just another step toward big
>>>>>>>> >>>> brother
>>>>
>>>>>>> taking
>>>>
>>>>>>>> everything?
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> What do you all think? What are the ways in which
>>>>>>>> commissioning new
>>>>
>>>>>>> media
>>>>
>>>>>>>> *could* work in addition to how it already works? What are your
>>>>
>>>>>>> dreams?
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Richard Rinehart
>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---------------
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Digital Media Director & Adjunct Curator
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive
>>>>
>>>>>>>> bampfa.berkeley.edu
>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---------------
>>>>
>>>>>>>> University of California, Berkeley
>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---------------
>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2625 Durant Ave.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Berkeley, CA, 94720-2250
>>>>
>>>>>>>> ph.510.642.5240
>>>>
>>>>>>>> fx.510.642.5269
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>>>> Roger Malina is in France at this time
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> I
>>>>
>>>>>>> 011 33 (0) 6 15 79 59 26
>>>>
>>>>>>> or (0) 6 80 45 94 47
>>>>
>>>>>>> Roger Malina is acting Director of the Observatoire
>>>>>>> Astronomique de
>>>>
>>>>>>> Marseille Provence and Executive Editor of the Leonardo >>>
>>>>>>> Publications at
>>>>
>>>>>>> MIT
>>>>
>>>>>>> Press and member of the steering committee of IMERA the >>>
>>>>>>> Mediterranean
>>>>
>>>>>>> Institute for Advanced Studies.
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>>> Roger Malina is in France at this time
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> I
>>>>
>>>>>> 011 33 (0) 6 15 79 59 26
>>>>
>>>>>> or (0) 6 80 45 94 47
>>>>
>>>>>> Roger Malina is acting Director of the Observatoire
>>>>>> Astronomique de
>>>>
>>>>>> Marseille Provence and Executive Editor of the Leonardo >>
>>>>>> Publications at
>>>>
>>>> MIT
>>>>
>>>>>> Press and member of the steering committee of IMERA the
>>>>>> Mediterranean
>>>>
>>>>>> Institute for Advanced Studies.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in
>>>> Scotland, number
>>>>
>>>> SC009201
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in
>>>> Scotland, number
>>>> SC009201
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
|
