From: Anna Biller (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Oct 14 2010 - 17:07:45 PDT
Having ownership over an "experience" is not what is being questioned
here!
The statement that "viewing a work is as creative as making a work" is
interesting though. It's what I suspected that people were beginning
to feel, through the way they use YouTube and Facebook to select works
and share them, almost as if their selection of the work is the same
as making the work - or even, as if they "had" made it just by picking
it. If this is the case, why bother making anything, when consuming
things is so meaningful and creative in itself? It's like someone
feeling that they made a dinner that someone else prepared in order to
validate the experience of eating it, and denying agency to the cook
on the basis of the reality of their digestion. I was musing about
this phenomenon just a week ago with friends, that all the time people
spend online changes our consciousness and the way we view not only
ownership but even reality.
On Oct 14, 2010, at 2:43 PM, Joseph Curran wrote:
> I'm a student and I use UBU web occasionally to investigate artists
> I am unfamiliar with and I find it incredibly useful, the problem I
> suppose is not really to do with the UBU web but whether or not the
> people using the site are engaged enough with the art work to
> realize that in most cases what you are getting is at best a preview/
> incomplete experience. For example I have not had the privilege to
> be able to see one of Stan Brakhage's films shown projected but I
> have the digital copy of those films, which I consider to be like
> seeing photographs of paintings, previews that contain an essence of
> the actual work but not wholly.
>
> This considered it seems more a case of whether or not you are
> willing to trust a persons understanding of various art works, to
> understand that it is a resource re-presenting works of art. I don't
> know, maybe its a dangerous thing to suggest, but I have a sense
> that there is a fear of indifference, that certain works loose
> something through being so readily available.
>
> We are all creative beings, viewing a work is as creative an act as
> making a work, and so we do have ownership over that experience and
> therefore it can be as revelatory or as indifferent as that creative
> will within us is/isn't, and I would think most artists would not
> object to their work being involved in that process, isn't that
> really one of the core elements of why we do what we do?
>
> joseph
> london
> On 14 Oct 2010, at 22:04, Warren Cockerham wrote:
>
>> The person that's created the work, doesn't have any ownership
>> either. Especially, to work that can be mass-replicated. Again,
>> they're working in the wrong medium. Maybe live performance is the
>> thing for them?
>>
>> Warren
>>
>> Chicago
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Matt Helme <email suppressed>
>> wrote:
>> People who did not create a work have no ownership.
>> Matt
>>
>> From: David Tetzlaff <email suppressed>
>>
>> To: Experimental Film Discussion List
>> <email suppressed>
>> Sent: Thu, October 14, 2010 12:05:18 PM
>>
>> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] UbuWeb...HACKED!
>>
>> On Oct 14, 2010, at 1:24 PM, Jason Halprin wrote:
>>
>> > Do the rights and wants of the creator outweigh those of the
>> public?
>> > My answer has always been that will the author of a work is still
>> > alive, they should maintain as much control as they desire.
>>
>> I must disagree. Once an artist has presented work to the public,
>> they
>> have initiated a conversation. And in any conversation, all parties
>> should have a certain say in the matter, some degree of co-ownership.
>> (Check with Habermas on this if you want to argue the point ;-) I
>> don't know if it's an issue of 'rights', or just decency. And I'm not
>> suggesting that all concerns are equal or anything goes.
>>
>> Once an artist makes a work public, it goes into the heads of people
>> who see/read/hear/whatever it. This happens, in effect, at the
>> creator's invitation. An author should not have "control" over my
>> head, or any part of it. Most artists take reasonable positions about
>> their work, consistent to some degree with the idea that they have
>> established a kind of trust or relationship by showing it. But not
>> all. For example, when an artist withdraws work from view entirely,
>> or
>> has it destroyed, IMHO this violates the obligation they established
>> with the public by inviting them in in the first place.
>>
>> I would also argue that people who present artwork in public have an
>> obligation not just to the audience, but to the historical practice
>> of
>> the form in which they work. They and their work are not isolated
>> monads, but part of a thread of things that have come before and
>> things that will come after. The past and the future should have a
>> say
>> as well.
>>
>> On the evidence of what's available in the video section of UbuWeb,
>> I'd say their present policies strike a reasonable, even fairly
>> conservative balance between the legitimate claims of both authors
>> and
>> audiences. They don't put up just anything, and they take stuff down
>> if there's a complaint.
>>
>> Beth Capper noted that the online availability of Cpry Doctorow's
>> books has not kept them from becoming bestsellers and asks:
>>
>> > Could it perhaps be a misconception that forcing scarcity (esp. in
>> > the case of digital works) is a good business model?
>>
>>
>> There's no perhaps about it. (And I take Beth's use of 'business' to
>> be figurative, referring not just to financial gain, but to broader
>> objectives of aesthetic practice). All evidence shows that the value/
>> desirability of cultural products in the form of data/information (as
>> distinct from the value of discrete physical objects) tends to
>> INCREASE with it's circulation. The code for Mozilla, for example,
>> wouldn't have been worth anything if nobody used it. Obviously, this
>> is not true in all cases, and where it does apply, it is not a simple
>> mechanism. It is especially tricky to know where the balance is with
>> something like an experimental film, which is not cheap to make and
>> most likely has a relatively limited potential audience (compared
>> to a
>> Tom Cruise movie at least).
>>
>> Unquestionably, UbuWeb generates interest in the artists whose work
>> appears on their site, interest that would not exists otherwise,
>> interest that provides a variety of opportunities to artists that
>> they
>> would not otherwise have. UbuWeb helps us weave different pieces of
>> work into meaningful historical threads, and provides a source of
>> inspiration for artists of the future. For that reason alone, I feel
>> they are fully justified in nudging art into the digital light,
>> instead of waiting for volunteers.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FrameWorks mailing list
>> email suppressed
>> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FrameWorks mailing list
>> email suppressed
>> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FrameWorks mailing list
>> email suppressed
>> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> email suppressed
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
email suppressed
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks