Took me a while to get to this one.
At ANAT we are working with artists who's work is often difficult to show
and even more difficult to sell and we are seeing a more collaborative
(transdisciplinary) working practice developing that suits an
entrepreneurial team approach - as in a tech start up.
I think we will be seeing the commercialising of IP from the process of
creating work as a much more expansive place for revenue than traditional
artworld approaches. I think we need to start talking about IP in general
and moving beyond copyright only. I talk to many artists who don't see the
IP in their work because it doesn't comply with a traditional copyright
approach (there is much more IP value in the processes than the finished
This places artists in a more central place in society, both culturally and
economically. The main issue is that this approach is not really how
artists are taught to see the market.
We have started tackling it with our last Filter issue and some of the
opinion articles. http://filter.anat.org.au/
We are also doing a bit of research with the Entrepreneurship,
Commercialisation and Innovation Centre at the University of Adelaide so we
may have some insights over the year.
Australian Network for Art and Technology (ANAT)
ph: 61 8 8231 9037
ANAT is supported by the Visual Arts and Craft Strategy, an initiative of
the Australian, State and Territory Governments; the Australian Government
through the Australia Council, its arts funding and advisory body, and the
South Australian Government through Arts SA.
On 21/03/10 8:06 PM, "Jon Ippolito" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> A few responses to recent posts:
>> From: Bronac Ferran <[log in to unmask]>
>> The British Council is currently developing a position through consultation
>> with various influencers (hopefuly including some artists) on copyright for
>> the digital age (21st century) and they will publish some material on this
>> in the next few months.
> Then someone should definitely forward them Rick's report on intellectual
> property and artists (Rick can you give a citation for "Nailing Down Bits"?).
> If I recall correctly, immediately after Rick first presented the conclusions
> of his study, he stepped off the podium and checked his email, only to learn
> his museum was being sued by Parker Brothers because one of its Internet art
> commissions used the word Ouija in the title.
> Personally I think traditional copyright for artists is almost always a
> boondoggle, though I wouldn't write off the tiered / patronage approach that
> Jon Thomson has described.
>> From: "Goebel, Johannes E." <[log in to unmask]>
>> (Side note: Imagine you would by your oh say van Gogh for $40 million
>> and you would already then set $12m aside for future "maintenance" -
>> actually an intriguing idea! But maybe then there would be no more money
>> left for living artists, because we can only update the old works? Maybe
>> let the old works go away to allow new works to be purchased, which in
>> turn supports living artists? Maybe that is the bliss of digital media -
>> that they simply vanish on their own? And only living artists get
>> supported - and as they die, their work slowly fades away into the
>> digital nirvana - maybe that is the "new" model - which incidentally
>> does coincide with how things were in the pre-museum and the
>> pre-art-accumulates-value world ... - which in turn leads us back to the
>> economic discussion of how to preserve works, how to sell them - and
>> that maybe indeed following the old paradigms of museums is the wrong
>> approach for "variable media". Variability always included vanishing.
>> Excuse this side note as I think it is inappropriate for this forum - I
>> simply could not resist.)
> On the contrary, I think proposing such new models for supporting contemporary
> artists is central to this forum.
> Except that, as you imply, they aren't new, if we look beyond Euro-ethnic art
> to indigenous practices. Creators of Papua New Guinea, for example, are
> encouraged to re-create Malanggan carvings (also mentioned in the CODE book
> cited previously) in their own fashion with each new generation:
> 'The new image (both original and derivative at the same time) emerges as a
> collaboration among a number of sources--the original owner, the new owner,
> the fabricator, and ultimately the owner in the next generation who will
> similarly modify it. This kind of multiple ownership creates a legal nightmare
> for IP law. But among the craftspeople of Papua New Guinea, it produces a
> dense network of relationships, as well as serving as a metaphor for cultural
> preservation and loss at each generation...As [James] Leach observes,
> ownership in these conditions connects people rather than separating them as
> it does in the West. And these connections are critical to the "preservation
> of the social conditions of creativity itself."'
> --Joline Blais, "Indigenous Domain: Pilgrims, Permaculture, and Perl,"