JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives


NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives


NEW-MEDIA-CURATING@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Home

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Home

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING  March 2010

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING March 2010

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Three questions about commissioning variable media

From:

Variant <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Variant <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 2 Mar 2010 12:41:18 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (140 lines)

Hi Jon, and all

Messier still, I'm interested in 'commissioning' in the context of 
unfolding experiences in Scotland and the proposals for Creative 
Scotland, a non-artform specific supersession of the Scottish Arts 
Council and Scottish Screen said to encompass the 'creative 
industries'.

As to a clear division of roles, the commissioning processes you 
describe appear not to address the tectonic shift of public subsidy 
with regard to encouraged IPR retention & exploitation. (Public subsidy 
is already of paramount importance here, but will increasingly be so 
given the recession.)

With the proposals, artists/filmmakers will have to 'pitch' to Creative 
Scotland in what is increasingly looking like a commissioning process, 
with the need to appeal for advocacy within the NDPB. This is a 
significant shift from previous 'arms length' public sector models of 
support (however partial and problematic they continue to be).

It is still very hazy, even at this late date, but the proposals appear 
to include Creative Scotland look to also generate income streams (for 
itself, as well as encouraging other cultural institutions to do so) 
through the exploitation and retention of Intellectual Property Rights 
of the material it will effectively 'commission'. (The proximity of 
Edinburgh's financial/legal sector is palpable.)

NESTA was the outcome of such an exploration of copyright- and 
profit-orientated approaches to ‘investment’ and would seem to be the 
guiding light of Creative Scotland. NESTA advocates its retention of 
patent rights for intellectual property resulting from publicly funded 
work and the wider state exploitation of IPR. One other example we have 
is the Catalan Department of Creative Industries' "refundable 
contribution [credit / loans] system as a way to have financial 
participation in market driven cultural projects and, therefore, be 
subject to enterprise risk." Creative Scotland will also introduce 
loans.

As Nicholas Garnham has written:

“ [T]he cultural industries are seen as complex value chains where 
profit is extracted at key nodes in the chain through control of 
production investment and distribution and the key “creative” labour is 
exploited not, as in the classic Marxist analysis of surplus value, 
through the
wage bargain, but through contracts determining the distribution of 
profits to various rights holders negotiated between parties with 
highly unequal power (Caves 2000). ... [T]he political economy approach 
placed its major emphasis on the technologies of distribution, on the 
ways in which key economic and regulatory debates were to be seen as 
struggles over access to distribution under shifting technological 
conditions without any necessary effect on either the nature of the 
product being distributed or the relation with the audience. In 
particular, this analysis stressed the ways in which the profits of the 
whole process were returned to controllers of technological 
distribution systems rather than to the original producers of the 
cultural products or services.”

(‘From Cultural to Creative Industries: An analysis of the implications 
of the “creative industries” approach to arts and media policy making 
in the United Kingdom’, Nicholas Garnham, International Journal of 
Cultural Policy Vol 11, No. 1 2005)

All best,
Leigh


-------------------------------------------
Variant
...in-depth coverage in the context of
broader social, political & cultural issues.

1/2 189b Maryhill Road
Glasgow G20 7XJ

    t. +44 (0)141 333 9522
    e. [log in to unmask]
    http://www.variant.org.uk

receive events info & online Variant:
[log in to unmask]
-------------------------------------------


On 2 Mar 2010, at 11:16, Jon Ippolito wrote:

> Thanks, Beryl, for inviting Rick Rinehart and me as guests for this 
> month! Later this week I'll be reporting from the DOCAM conference in 
> Montreal, where we'll unveil the third-generation Variable Media 
> Questionnaire developed by John Bell, and where I expect to learn of 
> other exciting developments culminating from the research that Alain 
> Depocas and the Langlois Foundation have nurtured over the past five 
> years. And I'm looking forward to hearing reports from other 
> correspondents on Friday's BALTIC conference.
>
> Rick and I have the distinction, or perhaps more accurately infamy, of 
>  having played both roles of artist and curator in various 
> commissions. As a double agent, I see the process as a bit messier 
> than might be visible from the outside. To see if I'm not alone, I'd 
> like to lob some questions at all of you artists, curators, and others 
> who have been, or will soon be, involved in the commission of a 
> variable media work:
>
> 1. The process of commissioning offers more give-and-take between 
> artist and curator than just buying work out of a gallery, which is 
> tantamount to shopping at a store for art. But the traditional 
> artistic commission still divides responsibilities according to a 
> consumerist model, this time based on freelance labor: the curator 
> defines the job and hires the artist; the artist makes the work; and, 
> depending on the terms of the agreement, either the artist or the 
> curator inherits the work, along with the sole responsibility to 
> maintain it. I'm interested to know whether the experiences of people 
> on this list have echoed or disrupted this clear division of roles. 
> How involved are curators in the production of the work? How involved 
> are artists in its documentation and preservation? And how subversive 
> can an artwork be if it is "work for hire"?
>
> 2. The word "commission" comes from the etymological root "to 
> entrust," which in medieval Latin became "put into custody." So, from 
> those who've been involved in commissions on this list, I want to know 
> who trusted whom with what, and whether that trust was honored or 
> betrayed. Who got custody of the "child" of this unnatural union 
> between artist and curator? Of the hardware? Of the source code? If 
> the work was created collaboratively, how were the rights and credit 
> apportioned? What did you keep, and what did you let go? Who made out 
> better in the end?
>
> 3. How, if at all, did the variability inherent in technological and 
> process-based artwork complicate or enrich your commission? I'm 
> especially interested in any problems you encountered--with an 
> institution, an artist, or a technology--and whether the solution you 
> hit upon was satisfactory.
>
> Cheers,
>
> jon
> ______________________________
> Still Water--what networks need to thrive.
> http://still-water.net/

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager