From Golan Levin, forwarded with permission:
>
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Jon Ippolito <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > You might also be interested in Golan Levin's argument (which I can't find a citation for at the moment) arguing that it's more important to tell artists how you did something than to give them the source code.
>
> Hi Jon,
>
> I recall speaking about this idea in a panel somewhere, but I don't think I've put it to paper. In any case my thinking has evolved on this point. To wit:
>
> IMHO,
>
> -- When the objective is to share/educate, the best way to do so is to publish or provide source code in fragments which are well-isolated and easily repurposable. "Here's a piece of code which does X", rather than "feel free to dig around in my big hairy project in an attempt to dis-entwine any useful nuggets".
> -- When the objective is to promote the longevity of an artwork, or provide insight into the artists' mind, the best way to do so is to provide the source of the artwork itself. Preferably linked exclusively to other open-source libraries. If someone cares, they'll find a way to rebuild it. Here I am encountering the same issues as you, with sourceless older works failing unrecoverably.
>
> I heard a well-substantiated rumor that Rafael Lozano Hemmer is engaging in a fancy experiment with some British museum, in which developers are attempting to recreate his works purely from his verbal descriptions.
>
> Best
> g
|