This is a hactivist group Alvin Gregorio's friend, Ed Giardia, who I got to meet last summer in LA, is a part of....
Finishing School
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Thoughts on Debord, Bourriaud and Remix
Has the art world metaphorically hopped on the “going green” wagon? Rather than striving for something new and before unseen, the new quest, as Bourriaud puts it, is “how we can make do with what we have.” We are left to wonder, then if the only option for art is quotation of what we’ve seen before. But, isn’t the act of creating something out of another preexisting object or idea, inherently creating something new?
It seems that what Debord and Bourriaud are both suggesting is breaking down barriers. Borders between created image and real experience, production and consumption, making and thinking, high and low culture are all challenged in the works they discuss. In many of these works, choosing the material, whether it’s video clips or objects, has the same merit as creating this material from scratch. While some might argue that this takes away the originality or authenticity of the piece, I would argue that this technique actually enhances the authenticity, and even poignancy of the work.
I almost feel as though I’m contradicting myself in writing this, because so much of what I do is based on the hand and evidence of its work. While this notion is not as apparent in the choosing of things to work with, it is there, and perhaps speaks even more about the person who chose these things than making them would. The act of choosing, rather than relying on talent, relies on experience—viewers can experience with the “maker” by seeing what he or she likes, looks at, and is interested in.
In this way, I think that remix work does break down barriers between high and low and removes a sense of elitism. Even if you can’t sculpt something, you can choose. Everyone can choose. But what does this democratization do to the art world? Does enabling anyone to rely on his/her thoughts rather than process or manual talent inundate us with too much to look at? Ironically, could this evolution of art create even more overproduction, which is the very problem it was trying to fight against?
It seems that what Debord and Bourriaud are both suggesting is breaking down barriers. Borders between created image and real experience, production and consumption, making and thinking, high and low culture are all challenged in the works they discuss. In many of these works, choosing the material, whether it’s video clips or objects, has the same merit as creating this material from scratch. While some might argue that this takes away the originality or authenticity of the piece, I would argue that this technique actually enhances the authenticity, and even poignancy of the work.
I almost feel as though I’m contradicting myself in writing this, because so much of what I do is based on the hand and evidence of its work. While this notion is not as apparent in the choosing of things to work with, it is there, and perhaps speaks even more about the person who chose these things than making them would. The act of choosing, rather than relying on talent, relies on experience—viewers can experience with the “maker” by seeing what he or she likes, looks at, and is interested in.
In this way, I think that remix work does break down barriers between high and low and removes a sense of elitism. Even if you can’t sculpt something, you can choose. Everyone can choose. But what does this democratization do to the art world? Does enabling anyone to rely on his/her thoughts rather than process or manual talent inundate us with too much to look at? Ironically, could this evolution of art create even more overproduction, which is the very problem it was trying to fight against?
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Copyright: The Outsiders
“Open source” liberates remix culture from the superfluous restrictions of copyright, which seem to only serve the interests of huge corporations. While this notion is necessary for the democratization of knowledge, I can’t help but wonder about cultures that are consistently left out of this debate. Is it ethical to apply these notions to those outside of contemporary western culture?
As the varying degrees and venues of manipulation are dictated by “copyleft” licenses, these open source works embody Umberto Eco’s notion of the “open work.” Although the user of the original material remixes and mashes the original, in the end, they still play the game dictated by the author. Although these open sources provide less restricted use and more realistic regulations, they are still restrictions, begging the question of whether it is even possible to have “free culture.”
The economic result of open source seems two-fold. It enables people to engage more freely in remix culture, directing funds toward purchasing electronic equipment and away from huge corporations in legal rights fees. However, what about emerging artists? When their work is remixed, they do serve to potentially benefit through notoriety, but does this notoriety come at the expense of lost income?
Notions of intellectual property and copyright seem to become obsolete in networking culture, because the basic premise of this culture is the sharing of knowledge and experience. In posting something on the internet, you inherently participate in sharing culture and make this information public. Thus, notions of public versus private arise, as it is assumed that anything on the internet is public domain and part of the collective experience. Furthermore, with the ubiquity of websites like wikipedia, it seems that the notion of authorship has even disappeared, as anyone can authenticate information—it is the ultimate democratization of knowledge—the viewer has ultimate control. The paradox is that as information in our culture becomes more transparent and easy to access, restrictions grow through copyright. The notion of any kind of property seems even antithetical to the internet, which is based upon sharing and free culture.
It seems that the same restrictions should not be placed on the internet as exist for tangible, material things. Regardless of whether or not this should be so, there seems to be something more sacred about material things, a sense of touch and care that is perhaps invisible in internet culture. In networking culture, as very name suggests, there is implied consent for people to share material, a quality not frequently found in material culture.
While notions of open source are important for creative output, so too are ethics, and respecting the rights of those who are frequently left out of this debate. The weakness I see in open source material is that it assumes a certain amount of success, acclaim, or presupposed inclusion in remix culture. What about those who are marginalized? Colonialism has made us think it’s okay to poach anything—technique, source material, imagery—as long as it behooves society.
Prime examples of this are Liza Lou’s beaded sculptures, which, although transcendent and beautiful, are also exploitative and colonialist. Lou methodically covers surfaces, from an entire kitchen to security fences, in tiny glass beads. Links to the Zulu tradition of beading are undeniable, for she moved her studio to South Africa, where she employs over thirty African assistants who bead for her. The complexities of this situation are vast. On the one hand, she is providing employment and opportunity for the villagers, as well as crediting them in her exhibitions. On the other hand, she is exerting white imperialism over the Zulu craft and using their skills to her ends, having African villagers place genuine gold beads on her sculptures.
She is, in essence, remixing a technique. This cross-cultural exchange of information provides an undeniable democratization of knowledge, on both ends, but at whose expense? Can a technique be copywritten?
This complex notion of colonialism is not unfamiliar territory for my artistic practice. In a recent piece, I used footage of insects from nature documentaries and acted them out, in essence remixing the actions of insects. Imposing my own agenda on creatures which are independent of contemporary western culture made me wonder about the ethics and applicability of copyright/left to cultures that lie outside of our concept of remix culture.
While open source is necessary to some degree for the advancement of knowledge, what about those who do not have a notion of these rights to begin with? When does appropriation become exploitation?
As the varying degrees and venues of manipulation are dictated by “copyleft” licenses, these open source works embody Umberto Eco’s notion of the “open work.” Although the user of the original material remixes and mashes the original, in the end, they still play the game dictated by the author. Although these open sources provide less restricted use and more realistic regulations, they are still restrictions, begging the question of whether it is even possible to have “free culture.”
The economic result of open source seems two-fold. It enables people to engage more freely in remix culture, directing funds toward purchasing electronic equipment and away from huge corporations in legal rights fees. However, what about emerging artists? When their work is remixed, they do serve to potentially benefit through notoriety, but does this notoriety come at the expense of lost income?
Notions of intellectual property and copyright seem to become obsolete in networking culture, because the basic premise of this culture is the sharing of knowledge and experience. In posting something on the internet, you inherently participate in sharing culture and make this information public. Thus, notions of public versus private arise, as it is assumed that anything on the internet is public domain and part of the collective experience. Furthermore, with the ubiquity of websites like wikipedia, it seems that the notion of authorship has even disappeared, as anyone can authenticate information—it is the ultimate democratization of knowledge—the viewer has ultimate control. The paradox is that as information in our culture becomes more transparent and easy to access, restrictions grow through copyright. The notion of any kind of property seems even antithetical to the internet, which is based upon sharing and free culture.
It seems that the same restrictions should not be placed on the internet as exist for tangible, material things. Regardless of whether or not this should be so, there seems to be something more sacred about material things, a sense of touch and care that is perhaps invisible in internet culture. In networking culture, as very name suggests, there is implied consent for people to share material, a quality not frequently found in material culture.
While notions of open source are important for creative output, so too are ethics, and respecting the rights of those who are frequently left out of this debate. The weakness I see in open source material is that it assumes a certain amount of success, acclaim, or presupposed inclusion in remix culture. What about those who are marginalized? Colonialism has made us think it’s okay to poach anything—technique, source material, imagery—as long as it behooves society.
Prime examples of this are Liza Lou’s beaded sculptures, which, although transcendent and beautiful, are also exploitative and colonialist. Lou methodically covers surfaces, from an entire kitchen to security fences, in tiny glass beads. Links to the Zulu tradition of beading are undeniable, for she moved her studio to South Africa, where she employs over thirty African assistants who bead for her. The complexities of this situation are vast. On the one hand, she is providing employment and opportunity for the villagers, as well as crediting them in her exhibitions. On the other hand, she is exerting white imperialism over the Zulu craft and using their skills to her ends, having African villagers place genuine gold beads on her sculptures.
She is, in essence, remixing a technique. This cross-cultural exchange of information provides an undeniable democratization of knowledge, on both ends, but at whose expense? Can a technique be copywritten?
This complex notion of colonialism is not unfamiliar territory for my artistic practice. In a recent piece, I used footage of insects from nature documentaries and acted them out, in essence remixing the actions of insects. Imposing my own agenda on creatures which are independent of contemporary western culture made me wonder about the ethics and applicability of copyright/left to cultures that lie outside of our concept of remix culture.
While open source is necessary to some degree for the advancement of knowledge, what about those who do not have a notion of these rights to begin with? When does appropriation become exploitation?
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)