the struggle continues

Posted by curt cloninger | Fri Jul 19th 2002 1 a.m.

  • Eryk Salvaggio | Fri Jul 19th 2002 1 a.m.
    Hi Curt,

    Concerning the Getty case, devils advocate here, isn't it, in a sense,
    reasonable to assume that
    you shouldn't be allowed to consume their bandwidth for a project using
    their image? I don't
    see why they should pick on you, but I also am not sure what argument
    you are presenting for
    why they shouldn't. Is it entirely fair to pretend you're totally
    innocent- you weren't, for example,
    "linking" to the image; you were calling it up via their server and
    displaying it. Using the word "link"
    is a kind of misrepresentation don't you think? You are giving out
    directions so people can get to
    the aquarium, you are bringing ten gallon tanks to their house. In a
    sense it would be less worthy
    of a case in my mind if you simply stole the image itself- I doubt you
    would have shown up in their
    referrer logs, and you wouldn't have been using their bandwidth. And
    while "bandwidth" is a dead
    word on the pipelines most sites have these days, it's still a valid
    argument that you are taking some
    of their pipeline for your own work.

    It seems to me that you are trying to defend its use via context- "sure,
    I am using the image, but
    its non-profit, I'm a small website, I'm not competing with you, etc
    etc", when really, by law, they
    own the image and if they don't want you using it they have a right to
    ask you not to use it. Does
    it make them jerks and bullies? Sure, but legally they're within their
    rights. I remember when
    my watergun revolution image was used for some chat room for fifteen
    year olds to talk about
    the insane clown posse, and to be honest, I just didn't want the image
    used that way, it was offensive
    because it was a call for alternative culture and they were using it in
    a way that went against that
    images intention. Don't we, as image makers, have a right to control how
    our art is seen and used?
    Fair use is murky, but this doesn't even seem like a murky issue, you
    took their image, unaltered,
    and inserted it wholly into another work, and it seems your defense is
    that it is okay because you
    were also taking their bandwidth away from them at the same time?

    I don't mean to be a jerk here, really I don't, I just think you are
    misrepresenting this issue by
    pretending that an "img src=" tag is the same as an "a href=" tag, and
    they aren't, and you know they
    aren't, don't you? This doesn't feel like a case of big business
    limiting one's freedoms on the web,
    this feels like a case of copyright infringement pretending it is a case
    of big business on the web ruining
    our freedoms as artists. It just worries me because crying wolf can be
    harmful when and if a legitimate
    challenge to the rights of artists came up.

    With Utmost Respect,
    -e.

    Curt Cloninger wrote:

    > http://www.playdamage.org/getty/15.html
    >
    > _
    > _
    > + i am not my favorite person
    > -> Rhizome.org
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php3
    >
  • Ivan Pope | Fri Jul 19th 2002 1 a.m.
    > From: Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com>

    > Hi Curt,
    >
    > Concerning the Getty case, devils advocate here, isn't it, in a sense,
    > reasonable to assume that
    > you shouldn't be allowed to consume their bandwidth for a project using
    > their image?
    > It seems to me that you are trying to defend its use via context- "sure,
    > I am using the image, but
    > its non-profit, I'm a small website, I'm not competing with you, etc
    > etc", when really, by law, they
    > own the image and if they don't want you using it they have a right to
    > ask you not to use it.
    > Fair use is murky, but this doesn't even seem like a murky issue, you
    > took their image, unaltered,
    > and inserted it wholly into another work, and it seems your defense is
    > that it is okay because you
    > were also taking their bandwidth away from them at the same time?

    I think that Eryk makes an intelligent and brave point here. I cant help but
    agree with him. I always thought the 'I'm small and insignificant and don't
    make any money out of this work' argument was really lame. As Eryk says, if
    you just copied the image into your work, i.e. appropriated it, and then
    told them to take a flying fuck, there might be a point. If some nazis took
    my work and used it in a non profit way I'd still feel that I had the right
    to control use of my images. At the end of the day, the person who created
    that image is just like you, and artist. And if they gave Getty some control
    over their image, that control comes with strings, i.e. that Getty protect
    the image. I would expect the same for my work. Cheers, Ivan
  • marc garrett | Sat Jul 20th 2002 1 a.m.
    I think that it's a hoax anyway....

    marc

    >
    > > From: Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com>
    >
    > > Hi Curt,
    > >
    > > Concerning the Getty case, devils advocate here, isn't it, in a sense,
    > > reasonable to assume that
    > > you shouldn't be allowed to consume their bandwidth for a project using
    > > their image?
    > > It seems to me that you are trying to defend its use via context- "sure,
    > > I am using the image, but
    > > its non-profit, I'm a small website, I'm not competing with you, etc
    > > etc", when really, by law, they
    > > own the image and if they don't want you using it they have a right to
    > > ask you not to use it.
    > > Fair use is murky, but this doesn't even seem like a murky issue, you
    > > took their image, unaltered,
    > > and inserted it wholly into another work, and it seems your defense is
    > > that it is okay because you
    > > were also taking their bandwidth away from them at the same time?
    >
    > I think that Eryk makes an intelligent and brave point here. I cant help
    but
    > agree with him. I always thought the 'I'm small and insignificant and
    don't
    > make any money out of this work' argument was really lame. As Eryk says,
    if
    > you just copied the image into your work, i.e. appropriated it, and then
    > told them to take a flying fuck, there might be a point. If some nazis
    took
    > my work and used it in a non profit way I'd still feel that I had the
    right
    > to control use of my images. At the end of the day, the person who created
    > that image is just like you, and artist. And if they gave Getty some
    control
    > over their image, that control comes with strings, i.e. that Getty protect
    > the image. I would expect the same for my work. Cheers, Ivan
    >
    > + i am not my favorite person
    > -> Rhizome.org
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php3
    >
  • joseph mcelroy | Mon Jul 22nd 2002 1 a.m.
    You guys are making the same logical dollars/sense arguments that allowing
    corporations to fine individuals service charges while not allowing individuals
    to charge the corporations for wasting their time.

    It is not such a simple little world. Yet republicans and children want it to
    be. Corporations use A LOT of public resources - yet have very little
    expectation of delivering public good (other than supposed economic engine -
    jobs) The Getty uses A LOT of public resources - to have little bit syphoned
    off for fair use purposes is a gray area I would like to see approved,
    applauded, and no longer an argument for repression.

    And BTW - an artist created the image...a businessperson gave control to the
    Getty. Two seperate activities.

    --
    Joseph Franklyn McElroy
    Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]
  • Michael Szpakowski | Mon Jul 22nd 2002 1 a.m.
    yes.
    absolutely.
    It's not that the problem is acknowledging or even
    requesting permission to use another individual's
    work.
    It's the cash pert of the equation and the fact that
    some fat cat (or their gofer) is purring 'defence of
    the artists' interests' when of course what they mean
    is defence of their slice of the action.
    The argument that 20 years ago home taping or nowadays
    peer to peer was and is 'killing music' was and is
    bullshit and hypocrisy.
    What it did do was to nibble at the outrageous profits
    of the corporations.
    I think Curt's defence that it's a not for profit
    piece is a sound one - if some money making machine
    can't understand the difference between art and
    commerce then that just illustrates beautifully the
    vacuum of feeling that is necessarily at the heart of
    capital.
    best
    Michael

    --- "Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e
    [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]" <joseph@electrichands.com>
    wrote:
    > You guys are making the same logical dollars/sense
    > arguments that allowing
    > corporations to fine individuals service charges
    > while not allowing individuals
    > to charge the corporations for wasting their time.
    >
    > It is not such a simple little world. Yet
    > republicans and children want it to
    > be. Corporations use A LOT of public resources -
    > yet have very little
    > expectation of delivering public good (other than
    > supposed economic engine -
    > jobs) The Getty uses A LOT of public resources - to
    > have little bit syphoned
    > off for fair use purposes is a gray area I would
    > like to see approved,
    > applauded, and no longer an argument for repression.
    >
    >
    > And BTW - an artist created the image...a
    > businessperson gave control to the
    > Getty. Two seperate activities.
    >
    > --
    > Joseph Franklyn McElroy
    > Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]
  • Ivan Pope | Mon Jul 22nd 2002 1 a.m.
    > yes.
    > absolutely.

    > I think Curt's defence that it's a not for profit
    > piece is a sound one - if some money making machine
    > can't understand the difference between art and
    > commerce then that just illustrates beautifully the
    > vacuum of feeling that is necessarily at the heart of
    > capital.

    Well, not absolute at all actually. I mean, I know its lovely and easy
    response. All personal human activity is more or less not for profit. And we
    do want a world in which the give and take of human experience exists. But
    it does. My point is that there is more to it than 'you're a fat pig
    corporation and I'm not making any money out of this, therefore I'm right
    and you have no case'. I might have bought that line around 1977, but I have
    tried to bring a little, ahem, layering to my worldview since then.

    I find your line above both beautiful and pathetic in an original sense. I
    mean, surely a money making machine de facto exists to practise commerce, I
    don't see why you think this means it can't recognise art. Just that it
    doesn't practise it.

    Cor, its a bit tricky, innit? Cheers, Ivan
  • Eryk Salvaggio | Mon Jul 22nd 2002 1 a.m.
    Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist] wrote:

    >You guys are making the same logical dollars/sense arguments that allowing
    >corporations to fine individuals service charges while not allowing individuals
    >to charge the corporations for wasting their time.
    >

    Property should be abolished and all of us should work towards
    generating a pool that gets divided
    between every citizen evenly at the end of the week; sure. I'm for it
    100%, let's abolish the concepts
    of family and religion while we're at it. But we aren't going to
    convince the Getty corporation, and when
    dealing with an image that is protected by said corporation one might
    expect that corporation to protect
    its own interests. Furthermore, misrepresenting the case of "linking to"
    and "bringing up in the body of
    my own work" is unfair and hurts Curt's case. The better argument is
    that the piece is being used in a
    collage; which might constitute fair use, but I frankly doubt it would
    hold up in court if "Deconstructing
    Beck" [a cd on illegal art records consisting of electro-noise remixes
    of Beck CD's] wouldn't. [And I
    don't know if that ever even went to court.]

    But collage is a solid argument; whereas claiming to link to an image
    when you are img src'ing it is really a
    blatant misrepresentation of what Curt was doing. My argument is that
    Curt was violating the rules,
    not that the rules were good. On one hand there is a need for an artist
    to control how his work is
    presented [and if that means handing his work over to Getty to do it for
    them, then that's one more
    sad alternative to the pressures of independance that plague the entire
    planet] but on the other hand
    there is the right for a free flowing evolution and development of work
    into new directions. But
    individual rights to ones work should be protected, and how ones work is
    used and in what context
    they are placed is extremely important to how an entire body of work is
    potentially recieved- whether
    it makes money or not is irrelevant.

    > And BTW - an artist created the image...a businessperson gave control to the
    > Getty. Two seperate activities.

    Why is this two seperate activities? The artist is the buisiness person
    in this case, I presume, same guy.
    To claim otherwise is to buy into the same schizophrenia that allows
    corporations to have the rights of
    individuals but none of the responsibility. The Getty has the rights to
    that image; they are in charge of
    protecting how that image will be used; they have no responsibility to
    Curt Cloninger. Fair? No. Legal?
    Of course. Sensical? Legally yes. In the grand scheme of the ongoing
    struggle for all corporations to be
    completely unquestioning patrons of the arts, probably not...

    -e.
  • joseph mcelroy | Tue Jul 23rd 2002 1 a.m.
    Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com>:
    >
    > Property should be abolished and all of us should work towards
    > generating a pool that gets divided
    > between every citizen evenly at the end of the week; sure. I'm for it
    > 100%, let's abolish the concepts
    > of family and religion while we're at it.

    Well, religion can be abolished as well. Fine by me (another story). However,
    property is simply violent (yes, state sponsored) protection of whatever a
    particular group of people have decided should be protected. When taken very
    far, becomes pretty repressive - small group "owns" most everything. Fighting
    to abolish property, not a bad diversion, helps counterweight those trying to
    own everything. It's like being one of the few sighted in a land of blind
    people - are you going to rob or protect?

    But we aren't going to
    > convince the Getty corporation, and when
    > dealing with an image that is protected by said corporation one might
    > expect that corporation to protect
    > its own interests. Furthermore, misrepresenting the case of "linking to"
    > and "bringing up in the body of
    > my own work" is unfair and hurts Curt's case. The better argument is
    > that the piece is being used in a
    > collage; which might constitute fair use, but I frankly doubt it would
    > hold up in court if "Deconstructing
    > Beck" [a cd on illegal art records consisting of electro-noise remixes
    > of Beck CD's] wouldn't. [And I
    > don't know if that ever even went to court.]

    Laws are opinions given weight over time - they can be changed by opinions
    changing over time. The Free Software Foundation is settling all cases
    instead of going to court because want to get a mountain of economic dependency
    on the Open Source/Gnu licenses such that any judge that overturned the license
    would create such a financial catastrophy they would be too scared to do it.

    So instead of arguing what is the practical now (which we would need a court of
    law to decide) lets decide what the rational should be, and then go about
    courting opinion until rational becomes actual.

    >
    > But collage is a solid argument; whereas claiming to link to an image
    > when you are img src'ing it is really a
    > blatant misrepresentation of what Curt was doing. My argument is that
    > Curt was violating the rules,
    > not that the rules were good.

    Something we would need to try in a court, with legal experts. Posing such a
    legal question here is like asking priests to judge a beauty contest.

    On one hand there is a need for an artist
    > to control how his work is
    > presented [and if that means handing his work over to Getty to do it for
    > them, then that's one more
    > sad alternative to the pressures of independance that plague the entire
    > planet] but on the other hand
    > there is the right for a free flowing evolution and development of work
    > into new directions. But
    > individual rights to ones work should be protected, and how ones work is
    > used and in what context
    > they are placed is extremely important to how an entire body of work is
    > potentially recieved- whether
    > it makes money or not is irrelevant.

    Well, if you are an extreme control freak, you can always just never show the
    work at all, have it buried with you. There might be the need to control
    someone from making a million dollars from mass producing posters of your work,
    but fighting every extreme and minor use to prevent the latter is repressive
    and suffocating.

    By becoming TOO efficient at protecting rights, we will create a society that
    will explode at the seams.

    >
    > Why is this two seperate activities? The artist is the buisiness person
    > in this case, I presume, same guy.

    Because as you have pointed out, a businessman is not an artist. But beside
    that point, determining the best way to profit from an endeavor is not the same
    thing as performing the endeavor.

    > To claim otherwise is to buy into the same schizophrenia that allows
    > corporations to have the rights of
    > individuals but none of the responsibility.

    No - two different activities - I can be both a pianist and a politician, but
    being a politician does not make me a pianist.

    Public opinion needs to be LEAD to require that corporations bear the
    responsibilities of individuals...from artists to the press, from politicians
    to ministers - an obligation.

    --
    Joseph Franklyn McElroy
    Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]
  • Ivan Pope | Tue Jul 23rd 2002 1 a.m.
    > Well, religion can be abolished as well. Fine by me (another story).
    However,
    > property is simply violent (yes, state sponsored) protection of whatever a
    > particular group of people have decided should be protected. When taken
    very
    > far, becomes pretty repressive - small group "owns" most everything.
    Fighting
    > to abolish property, not a bad diversion, helps counterweight those trying
    to
    > own everything. It's like being one of the few sighted in a land of blind
    > people - are you going to rob or protect?

    All power comes from the barrel of a gun.

    The arguments as above can and will go on forever. But the laws that big bad
    corporations use to abuse poor starving artists are also of use to the poor
    starving artists. If you take the laws away and it becomes a free for all,
    who do you think is going to win. Personally, I accept that the world is
    imperfect and that there is no right or wrong, just interpretation of the
    situation. That's what I do as an artist. If people steal my work, I might
    shrug and accept it or I might fight them. Depends on how I feel and what I
    think I might to next. But I gave up thinking that there was a right
    worldview and a wrong worldview.

    Man is alone in a godless universe. He has made himself what he is and has
    to be what he is.

    Cheers,
    Ivan
  • joseph mcelroy | Tue Jul 23rd 2002 1 a.m.
    Quoting Ivan Pope <ivan@ivanpope.com>:

    >All power comes from the barrel of a gun.

    Actually, power can also be from various energies - sexual, religious,
    charisma, public opinion etc...however the long term prospects for these are
    not as good as violence (energy runs out, guns last a long time)

    > The arguments as above can and will go on forever. But the laws that big
    > bad
    > corporations use to abuse poor starving artists are also of use to the poor
    > starving artists.

    You are kidding aren't you? Do you know how much it costs to protect your
    rights in a court of law? A poor starving artist cannot afford to use the laws
    to their advantage, thus are forced to give up their rights to corporations,
    who give them a miniscule renumeration.

    >If you take the laws away and it becomes a free for all,
    > who do you think is going to win.

    Nobody is suggesting this, I am suggesting the temporary accumulation of the
    various energies to create power for change.

    Personally, I accept that the world is
    > imperfect and that there is no right or wrong, just interpretation of the
    > situation. That's what I do as an artist. If people steal my work, I might
    > shrug and accept it or I might fight them.

    If you could afford to fight them.

    >Depends on how I feel and what I
    > think I might to next. But I gave up thinking that there was a right
    > worldview and a wrong worldview.

    There might not be a right or wrong, but there is freedom/repression. Does
    someone hold a gun to your head or not? Being ambiguously amoral does not have
    to translate into inactive political stances. It is in your long term self-
    interest and that of your progeny to maintain and enhance your freedoms. You
    can choose to do this by sucking up to a repressive regime and becoming one of
    the repressive powers, or you can stand firm with others and contribute to
    freedom building enterprises for everybody.

    >
    > Man is alone in a godless universe. He has made himself what he is and has
    > to be what he is.

    We are talking to each other aren't we? We exist as a community, not alone,
    and in that community we can find the richness for life and afterlife for which
    we are looking. The community sustains us and allows us to operate
    independently or with others as we see fit - providing that the community is
    healthy and flexible enough to allow individual freedom. It is part of our
    responsibility to contribute to the health of our community. Why there is this
    responsibility is a subject of debate (is there a god), however, almost
    everybody has an inate sense (perhaps constructed - but if so - from what
    origin?) of this - sometimes rejected, sometimes ignored, sometimes accepted.

    --
    Joseph Franklyn McElroy
    Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]
  • Ivan Pope | Tue Jul 23rd 2002 1 a.m.
    > >All power comes from the barrel of a gun.
    >
    > Actually, power can also be from various energies - sexual, religious,
    > charisma, public opinion etc...

    Yeah, right ... but only in California.

    Cheers,
    Ivan
  • Ivan Pope | Tue Jul 23rd 2002 1 a.m.
    Ivan said:
    > > Man is alone in a godless universe. He has made himself what he is and
    has
    > > to be what he is.

    and Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist] replied:

    > We are talking to each other aren't we? We exist as a community, not
    alone,
    > and in that community we can find the richness for life and afterlife for
    which
    > we are looking. The community sustains us and allows us to operate
    > independently or with others as we see fit - providing that the community
    is
    > healthy and flexible enough to allow individual freedom. It is part of
    our
    > responsibility to contribute to the health of our community. Why there is
    this
    > responsibility is a subject of debate (is there a god), however, almost
    > everybody has an inate sense (perhaps constructed - but if so - from what
    > origin?) of this - sometimes rejected, sometimes ignored, sometimes
    accepted.

    I don't deny any of the above. My line above is about an existentialist
    worldview. I don't want to get into my worldview at this point (or I'd be
    here for days), but effectively if there is no god, and we are what we have
    made ourselves over millenia, then there is no per se 'right' or 'wrong' .
    Just a human striving to affect and alter our world (and as you hint, to
    leave a better one for our genetic offspring maybe). You can't just change
    the world, because we are what we have made ourselves. But the option of
    change is not precluded. This doesn't make me a bad person or a good
    person - it just allows me to have some touchstones so that I can keep my
    view of the world and my art in perspective.

    BTW, more interestingly, when writing the line above I wrote ... there is
    no per se 'truth' or ... and then I spent a while looking for the word that
    is the opposite of truth. And after a while I decided there wasn't one, as
    in 'right' and 'wrong'. I mean, you could say 'lies', but lies is not a
    state as truth can be ... or whatever. Or did I miss something?

    Cheers, Ivan
  • joseph mcelroy | Tue Jul 23rd 2002 1 a.m.
    >
    > I don't deny any of the above. My line above is about an existentialist
    > worldview. I don't want to get into my worldview at this point (or I'd be
    > here for days), but effectively if there is no god, and we are what we have
    > made ourselves over millenia, then there is no per se 'right' or 'wrong' .
    > Just a human striving to affect and alter our world (and as you hint, to
    > leave a better one for our genetic offspring maybe). You can't just change
    > the world, because we are what we have made ourselves. But the option of
    > change is not precluded. This doesn't make me a bad person or a good
    > person - it just allows me to have some touchstones so that I can keep my
    > view of the world and my art in perspective.

    But then why castigate those operating for change? Even if impractical, they
    are neither right or wrong. For change to occur, there always has to be the
    early adopters - testing the waters for the folks to follow. I am a big
    believer (yes) in operating in the sphere of impracticality. You always feel
    like you are on a quest, never settled to die a comfortable death over years of
    complacency. You have to be reasonably clever to survive without an established
    niche, to not get trapped by insolvancy or an abundance of resources to be
    protected.

    >
    > BTW, more interestingly, when writing the line above I wrote ... there is
    > no per se 'truth' or ... and then I spent a while looking for the word that
    > is the opposite of truth. And after a while I decided there wasn't one, as
    > in 'right' and 'wrong'. I mean, you could say 'lies', but lies is not a
    > state as truth can be ... or whatever. Or did I miss something?

    Truth with a big T or little t? I like the first definition in dicitionary.com
    "Conformity to fact or actuality." Perhaps the opposite of truth is non-
    conformity.

    --
    Joseph Franklyn McElroy
    Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]
  • Ivan Pope | Tue Jul 23rd 2002 1 a.m.
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]
    <joseph@electrichands.com>

    > But then why castigate those operating for change? Even if impractical,
    they
    > are neither right or wrong.

    I don't think I castigated anyone. Just responded to a response that pointed
    out that maybe being disingenuous about your relationship to someone elses's
    (image) property might be a tad, well, disingenuous. And said I sort of
    agreed, because this is a very complicated world we live in and that it was
    simplistic to claim that you could do what you wanted so long as you were a)
    an artist and b)not making money from it. And I thought this sort of
    attitude could rebound against you.
    Anyway, I don't think anyone in the thread was operating for change - they
    were just trying to work out how to handle a tricky situation.
    And as you say, fair enough, we are all neither right nor wrong.

    Cheers,
    Ivan
  • Max Herman | Tue Jul 23rd 2002 1 a.m.
    In a message dated 7/22/2002 3:22:17 PM Central Daylight Time,
    szpako@yahoo.com writes:

    > of course what they mean
    > is defence of their slice of the action.

    Exactly right. These are anticompetitive practices in essence and effect;
    they are serious legal matters for artists to be informed about.

    Say nothing and carry a huge compliance department. Yuk.

    www.geocities.com/genius-2000/getty.JPG

    ++
  • Michael Szpakowski | Tue Jul 23rd 2002 1 a.m.
    Ivan et al.
    this a bit late because I've been up to my neck, but I
    have been following the discussion.
    (1)
    I think in my heart of hearts I've probably always
    wanted someone to describe something I wrote as
    < both beautiful and pathetic
    in the original sense> so I experienced a feeling of
    deep joy on reading that.
    (2) Ivan -you should consider the possibility that the
    world is simpler than you think.
    I'm quite happy to stick with the slogans from the
    seventies.
    If anything they seem to me to becoming more
    demonstrably true.
    ( I found myself chanting the sublime
    "Unemployment and inflation are not caused by
    immigration- bullshit, come off it, the enemy is
    profit", a slogan of mid seventies vintage, only the
    other week alongside a load of people who looked about
    16)
    The truth is that capital cannot deliver a decent
    life, never mind a rich culture, for the majority
    citizens of even the wealthiest nation in the world.
    Why? - because profit, the bottom line, is all. So of
    course individual members of the bourgeoisie can
    appreciate art ( and often because of their
    educational privileges are well placed to do so) and
    can often make or sponsor great art. Nevertheless
    commerce ,which reduces everything down to 'Will it
    sell? What's my slice?' and genuine art, which
    celebrates what it is to be a human being in it's
    broadest sense, are ultimately antithetical.
    So at one end of the spectrum Curt gets hassled about
    the nature image and at the other children in Africa
    starve whilst shipments of grain rot on docksides.
    It's not that there is not enough food in the world
    but the world's poor don't have the cash to buy it at
    the market determined rate.
    As for existentialism ,well in its 1950's incarnation
    it seems to me to have been a retreat into
    individualism by people who once had believed that
    collective action could change the world but who
    lacked the political analysis to cope with the
    beginnings of the long boom and the horrors of Hitler
    and Stalin and got frightened.
    ( and it had an artistic analogue in the retreat from
    politics of Pollock ,Guston, Rothko etc)
    It depresses me a little when someone who obviously
    and rightly is enraged big time by many of the things
    that deface our world ends up muttering in a corner
    'that's the way it is ...you can't change things
    ....&c.'
    warmest wishes
    michael

    --- Ivan Pope <ivan@ivanpope.com> wrote:
    > > yes.
    > > absolutely.
    >
    > > I think Curt's defence that it's a not for profit
    > > piece is a sound one - if some money making
    > machine
    > > can't understand the difference between art and
    > > commerce then that just illustrates beautifully
    > the
    > > vacuum of feeling that is necessarily at the heart
    > of
    > > capital.
    >
    >
    > Well, not absolute at all actually. I mean, I know
    > its lovely and easy
    > response. All personal human activity is more or
    > less not for profit. And we
    > do want a world in which the give and take of human
    > experience exists. But
    > it does. My point is that there is more to it than
    > 'you're a fat pig
    > corporation and I'm not making any money out of
    > this, therefore I'm right
    > and you have no case'. I might have bought that line
    > around 1977, but I have
    > tried to bring a little, ahem, layering to my
    > worldview since then.
    >
    > I find your line above both beautiful and pathetic
    > in an original sense. I
    > mean, surely a money making machine de facto exists
    > to practise commerce, I
    > don't see why you think this means it can't
    > recognise art. Just that it
    > doesn't practise it.
    >
    > Cor, its a bit tricky, innit? Cheers, Ivan
    >
    > + i am not my favorite person
    > -> Rhizome.org
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
    > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
    > out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at
    http://rhizome.org/info/29.php3

    __________________________________________________
    Do You Yahoo!?
    Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
    http://health.yahoo.com
  • Max Herman | Tue Jul 23rd 2002 1 a.m.
    In a message dated 7/22/2002 5:00:54 PM Central Daylight Time,
    ivan@ivanpope.com writes:

    > Cor, its a bit tricky, innit? Cheers, Ivan

    Gor' blimee she's the direst prank ever a man was played on.

    Max Herman
    www.iambic.net

    ++
  • Max Herman | Tue Jul 23rd 2002 1 a.m.
    In a message dated 7/22/2002 9:52:27 PM Central Daylight Time,
    eryk@maine.rr.com writes:

    > But
    > individual rights to ones work should be protected, and how ones work is
    > used and in what context
    > they are placed is extremely important to how an entire body of work is
    > potentially recieved- whether
    > it makes money or not is irrelevant.

    I agree here with Eryk however would like to addenda.

    Number one, the nature of content on the web is inclined to be freely
    copyable. As peer-to-peer networks based on more or less free content
    increase, the prospect of people pirating or even altering your work are
    high, unless you can afford to use some kind of Cassandra chip or Universal
    Hard Security that only big corporate art entities will want or need. I know
    people can screen-cap my site and switch it around. If someone was selling
    printouts of the Video Transcripts for a tuppence in Brixton, I wouldn't
    care. I'd consider it fair use. If Sony on the other ever wants to sell the
    video for me and keep all the money themselves, well I'd open a can of
    angry-ass. So yes it's a mix. I don't begrudge NN in her legal action
    against Zicarelli for example. I supported her on that and still would. He
    was stealing her code, her labor, and needed to get to steppin'.

    Maybe stuff like "Deconstructing Beck" isn't necessarily meant to win in
    court, but to draw awareness to the idea of money and how it works on art.
    It's a way of testing one's rights I guess. Will they come to your house and
    disappear you for it? If they might, I advise to take down the site and wait
    until help arrives.

    That is near-future stuff however, and there's no crime in letting it play
    out some more while we all try to figure how to live in the new XP OS.

    In the immediate term, as in the hot now, in some cases using copyright is
    necessary and desirable for artists. In my case, the more important issue is
    whether my own original content is even legal, or can be made legal and
    remain legal.

    Personally, there's a good vibe I remember from Bruce Sterling--give it all
    away for free. Accept the risk of someone benefitting from it without paying
    you. Do it anyway. That's charity or altruism. If someone comes at you
    with a law and you go to court with them, that's protest--legal protest.
    Hence very important, even if we can't have a just paradise by next Friday.

    On another point, corporations are sort of like mushrooms; they look fair and
    clean but if you kick them over (or they fall over) they're all wormy inside.
    Corporations that are publicly traded, for example, suffer greatly if they
    have been lying to federal regulators and stealing from investors, then break
    open or get kicked over or poked into.

    The suffering of corporations in such cases is a PR one. The PR is who they
    hire to squelch this type of worminess or corruption from damaging their
    brand value and/or investment rating at Standard & Poors. (There's a whole
    letter-grading system for some stocks and bonds, AAA being the best, Aaa not
    so good, Baa probably not good at all, in fact sell on activity. No lie.)
    If suing Curt makes the Getty look bad, well that's our right as free humans
    in a public sphere. We are allowed to watch the Getty make itself look bad.
    I even have a legal right to get a permit and march around outside a Getty
    (say in Malibu) chanting "The Getty sues artists! The Getty sues artists!
    Getty wipe up! Getty wipe up!."

    In the putative case of me making such a kind of legal art about the Getty,
    they might get pissed off, and their compliance department could sue me on
    the basis that my little art-picket-lines or
    www.geocities.com/genius-2000/getty.JPG are illegal because they defame the
    Getty's brand value and have no artistic merit. In court, I would have to
    prove the pieces have artistic merit. Then the Getty would lose, and suffer
    punitive damages for attacking a small independent arts group unfairly, to
    stifle competition, and using state money to do it.

    So it's partly a brand thing, part intellectual property thing, you name it.
    PR wise the Getty might suffer from this, by no fault of Curt's. If they sue
    him for having been sued by them, well that would just be topping.

    Fanshawe
    genius2000.net

    ++
  • Ivan Pope | Tue Jul 23rd 2002 1 a.m.
    > Ivan et al.
    > this a bit late because I've been up to my neck, but I
    > have been following the discussion.
    >
    > (1)
    > I think in my heart of hearts I've probably always
    > wanted someone to describe something I wrote as
    > < both beautiful and pathetic
    > in the original sense> so I experienced a feeling of
    > deep joy on reading that.

    You are too kind :)

    > (2) Ivan -you should consider the possibility that the
    > world is simpler than you think.

    > Nevertheless
    > commerce ,which reduces everything down to 'Will it
    > sell? What's my slice?' and genuine art, which
    > celebrates what it is to be a human being in it's
    > broadest sense, are ultimately antithetical.

    Look, I don't want to end up here being the aunt sally who is defending
    capitalism, because I'm not, I'm not defending anything. But surely in the
    above sentence you don't mean to use the word 'commerce', which is surely a
    fairly innocuous term for the exchange trading between humans. Surely
    commerce in the end reduces everything down to 'what do I need and who is
    producing it'. I would go so far as to suggest that the production of art is
    fundamentally driven by the same creative urge as most other producers, and
    while it may be deformed by capitalist (e.g. mechanised, mass production
    designed to produce surplus, i.e. profit) endeavour.
    Actually I think the world is much more complex than you allow, but that
    doesnt make it very easy to assert a simple antithesis between art and
    commerce. Surely art by its nature cannot be antithetical to anything?

    > It depresses me a little when someone who obviously
    > and rightly is enraged big time by many of the things
    > that deface our world ends up muttering in a corner
    > 'that's the way it is ...you can't change things
    Please don't get depressed on my behalf, I can assure you that I am not
    conciously muttering in a corner (though that is generally what engaging in
    Rhizome feels like - where did all the people go?). And I'm not sure where
    this canard that I believe nothing can be changed so nothing should be
    attempted came from. All I'm trying to do is open up the discussion a bit,
    provoke a little, point us in some maybe more difficult yet ultimately more
    useful directions. I mean, if we get stuck at 'commerce and genuine art are
    ultimately antithetical' then we really are muttering in a corner.

    To me existentialism is at least partly liberating in making me look to see
    what it really essentially means to be human. If you cast off god and all
    pre-existing notions of essence, then you really aren't left with very much
    to go on. So you have to work hard to come up with some reason for being (or
    you have to kill yourself). It's easy to characterise this as negative or
    grey, but it really isn't. And, it isn't a recipe for political (in)action
    or for changing the world - its just a personal reference point to help me
    steer a steady path through a very complex world. Cheers and goodnight, Ivan
  • Liza Sabater | Tue Jul 23rd 2002 1 a.m.
    >So of
    >course individual members of the bourgeoisie can
    >appreciate art ( and often because of their
    >educational privileges are well placed to do so) and
    >can often make or sponsor great art.

    Not even that my friend. These days the buzz word is 'Architecture'.
    I even got that before the NY Times huge article about the Guggs
    change of heart about art. Both the Gugg and Whitney seem to be
    enamored these days about Architecture because, as I heard a 'super
    donor' of the Whitney say during a Biennial party, "NetArt? Pst!
    Architecture, honey. Real estate never goes down in value".

    /Liza
  • Max Herman | Tue Jul 23rd 2002 1 a.m.
    In a message dated 7/23/2002 8:30:07 PM Central Daylight Time,
    liza@potatoland.org writes:

    > I heard a 'super
    > donor' of the Whitney say during a Biennial party, "NetArt? Pst!
    > Architecture, honey. Real estate never goes down in value".

    Way back in the way back 90's, I read about how these super-artsy rich dildos
    build these huge houses, and that's where Gehry and many, many other lovely
    architects get the fatty coin. Residential architecture was big, big art
    money in the 90's, when almost everybody had a chance to splurge.

    Seems to me these chaps are mainly concerned with preventing the art they
    build from going down in value. Going down in value. Going down in value.
    Going down in value. Go go Guggenheim Hong Kong. Cognitive branding in an
    expansionist market.

    Genius 2000 WILL save the world.

    Max Herman
    genius2000.net

    ++
  • Max Herman | Tue Jul 23rd 2002 1 a.m.
    In a message dated 7/23/2002 8:30:07 PM Central Daylight Time,
    liza@potatoland.org writes:

    > the Gugg and Whitney seem to be
    > enamored these days about Architecture because

    Max Herman is enamored of Architecture.

    Max Herman
    genius2000.net/sfmoma

    ++
  • Neal | Wed Jul 24th 2002 1 a.m.
    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
    <html>
    <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
    <title></title>
    </head>
    <body>

    <div class="moz-text-html" lang="x-western"> Joseph Franklyn McElroy
    Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist] wrote:<br>

    <blockquote type="cite"
    cite="mid1027398351.3d3cdacf0d01a@webmail.electrichands.com">
    <pre wrap="">Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
    href="mailto:eryk@maine.rr.com">&lt;eryk@maine.rr.com&gt;</a>:
    </pre>

    <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">Property should be abolished and all of us should work towards
    generating a pool that gets divided
    between every citizen evenly at the end of the week; sure. I'm for it
    100%, let's abolish the concepts
    of family and religion while we're at it.
    </pre>
    </blockquote>

    <pre wrap=""><!---->
    Well, religion can be abolished as well. Fine by me (another story). However,
    property is simply violent (yes, state sponsored) protection of whatever a
    particular group of people have decided should be protected. </pre>
    </blockquote>
    The State may or may not protect the property of its subjects or citizens.
    It's not the State that you would ultimately have to worry about, it's the
    individual owners of property that you'll have to walk through. And a 12 gauge
    pattern.<br>
    <br>
    And since personal property should be abolished, send me all your Artwork.
    I'll give it out to people walking down the street. Your name would be erased,
    of course: else that would signify the retrograde concept of possession.<br>
    <br>
    Your apartment and salary will be the next subject of discussion at the
    Ministry of Plenty.<br>
    <br>
    </div>
    </body>
    </html>
  • Max Herman | Wed Jul 24th 2002 1 a.m.
    In a message dated 7/24/2002 2:31:07 AM Central Daylight Time,
    nkras@nkras.dsl.visi.com writes:

    > And a 12 gauge pattern.
    >

    I think you're looking for the Lyndon Larouche list nkras.

    You a mole? Some kinda commie-baiter? Or just all bound-up like?

    After G2K, the means of production will be controlled by and in behalf of the
    workers, via capitalism at its most lovely: enlightened consumerism. No need
    for any soviets. Agree or disagree?

    Also, do you support the right to vote? You from USA?

    Sincerely,

    Max Herman
    genius2000.net

    ++
  • Neal | Wed Jul 24th 2002 1 a.m.
    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
    <html>
    <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
    <title></title>
    </head>
    <body>
    <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Nmherman@aol.com">Nmherman@aol.com</a> wrote:<br>
    <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid126.140fd1fe.2a6fb5e7@aol.com"><font
    face="arial,helvetica"><font size="2">In a message dated 7/24/2002 2:31:07
    AM Central Daylight Time, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:nkras@nkras.dsl.visi.com">nkras@nkras.dsl.visi.com</a> writes:<br>
    <br>
    <br>

    <blockquote type="CITE"
    style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(0,0,255); margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px; padding-left: 5px;">And
    a 12 gauge pattern.<br>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    <br>
    I think you're looking for the Lyndon Larouche list nkras.</font></font></blockquote>
    No. Just making a point. No sarcasm is needed.<br>
    <br>
    It is not the duty of the State to protect individuals, only to keep the
    public peace and maintain the sovereignty of the State. <br>
    <br>
    People will get &lt;very&gt; angry if someone would say all they've worked
    for all their lives is no longer theirs. And &lt;lots&gt; of those people
    &lt;will&gt; defend their property. <br>
    <br>
    Since there would be no military or police, nor any government to issue edicts
    enforcing this proposed propertyless condition in this wonderful and happy
    collective, the point is moot, and your Art is safe.<br>
    </body>
    </html>
  • Max Herman | Wed Jul 24th 2002 1 a.m.
    In a message dated 7/24/2002 7:20:09 AM Central Daylight Time,
    nkras@nkras.dsl.visi.com writes:

    > People will get <very> angry if someone would say all they've worked for all
    > their lives is no longer theirs. And <lots> of those people <will> defend
    > their property.
    >
    >

    What bugs me is not so much Farmer Joe with a heater of rock salt, but the
    Big Boys who steal at will with impunity and then blame someone else and pull
    like Rollo Tomasi in L.A. Confidential.

    Maybe people will defend their already lost 401k's by voting for a better US
    government. Then again, the real stealing is when they don't know it's
    stolen till it's gone, and the robbers take the fifth, like in say taxation
    without representation.

    Like when Jim Baker said "just be grateful we didn't roll out the tanks to
    steal the election."

    So I'm not agin ye nkras. These matters of wealth and nations are somewhat
    grey, a brain area perhaps.

    Pity the enslaved human brain! It's angry!

    Max

    ++
  • Neal | Wed Jul 24th 2002 1 a.m.
    ----------
    From: Nmherman@aol.com
    To: nkras@nkras.dsl.visi.com, list@rhizome.org
    Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: the struggle continues
    Date: Wed, Jul 24, 2002, 4:54 PM

    In a message dated 7/24/2002 7:20:09 AM Central Daylight Time,
    nkras@nkras.dsl.visi.com writes:

    People will get <very> angry if someone would say all they've worked for all
    their lives is no longer theirs. And <lots> of those people <will> defend
    their property.

    >What bugs me is not so much Farmer Joe with a heater of rock salt, but the
    Big Boys who steal at will

    You won't get <any> disagreement there. What is most amazing is that these
    b**tards think they're not doing anything wrong. With absolute impunity
    (well, hopefully <not>). Amazing.

    >Maybe people will defend their already lost 401k's by voting for a better
    US government. Then again, the
    >real stealing is when they don't know it's stolen till it's gone, and the
    robbers take the fifth, like in say
    >taxation without representation.

    The 401(k)s will not be a total loss if the employees diversify, and the
    company doesn't liquidate, as with the Enron debacle.

    Elections tend go to the highest bidder. That's why I concentrate mostly on
    local races.

    nkras
  • Neal | Thu Jul 25th 2002 1 a.m.
    ----------
    From: Nmherman@aol.com
    To: nkras@nkras.dsl.visi.com
    Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: the struggle continues
    Date: Wed, Jul 24, 2002, 6:57 PM

    In a message dated 7/24/2002 6:39:54 PM Central Daylight Time,
    nkras@nkras.dsl.visi.com writes:

    Elections tend go to the highest bidder. That's why I concentrate mostly on
    local races.

    nkras

    >We've got a sad, sad race here in MN, Bushite Norm Coleman versus
    brainiac/dem Paul Wellstone.

    Coleman should have stayed Mayor. That's what he was good at. He's too much
    of a damned opportunist.

    > It did strike me during all this that the election process in USA is more
    or less in tatters, a fancy statue covered with pigeon shit.
    > I guess that's where artists and writers can make a diff, fill in for the
    pols who are too gutless to speak of reality, raise the bar etc.

    Though I disagree with fringe artists using public funding, fringe artists
    are a check against the Phalange, as the Phalagists are a check against the
    nihilists. That keeps us, for the most part, in balance. That's why I was
    happy to see Ventura elected. That sent a <big> message to both the DFL and
    Republicans. The DFL is still largely clueless. The Greens are completely
    out of their minds, politically speaking. I've read their Platform. Wild
    stuff.

    >Anyway, hope I didn't offend ya, seems like you got thick enough skin
    though, nice to see that.

    If you offend me, you'll be the first to know. :-)

    >Some intellectuals are so rickety and brittle, hysterical, shrieking, etc.

    I know. I once said to a Coffeehouse Socialist that "Socialism is slavery".
    He never spoke to me again.
    Ideologues have an apparent inability to answer a question with a yes or no.
    And forget deconstructionists.
  • portholeaccel | Thu Jul 25th 2002 1 a.m.
    IMPERIALISM NOW
    IMPERIALISM NOW ha hahahahhahhahhahhahahhahahhahahahhahahahhahahahahahhahahahahah
    hahhahhahah
    jajajjajajjajajajahahahhahahjajajajhahhajhahaha
    Neal <nkras@nkras.dsl.visi.com> wrote:
    ----------
    From: Nmherman@aol.com
    To: nkras@nkras.dsl.visi.com
    Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: the struggle continues
    Date: Wed, Jul 24, 2002, 6:57 PM

    In a message dated 7/24/2002 6:39:54 PM Central Daylight Time, nkras@nkras.dsl.visi.com writes:

    Elections tend go to the highest bidder. That's why I concentrate mostly on local races.

    nkras

    >We've got a sad, sad race here in MN, Bushite Norm Coleman versus brainiac/dem Paul Wellstone.

    Coleman should have stayed Mayor. That's what he was good at. He's too much of a damned opportunist.

    > It did strike me during all this that the election process in USA is more or less in tatters, a fancy statue covered with pigeon shit.
    > I guess that's where artists and writers can make a diff, fill in for the pols who are too gutless to speak of reality, raise the bar etc.

    Though I disagree with fringe artists using public funding, fringe artists are a check against the Phalange, as the Phalagists are a check against the nihilists. That keeps us, for the most part, in balance. That's why I was happy to see Ventura elected. That sent a <big> message to both the DFL and Republicans. The DFL is still largely clueless. The Greens are completely out of their minds, politically speaking. I've read their Platform. Wild stuff.

    >Anyway, hope I didn't offend ya, seems like you got thick enough skin though, nice to see that.

    If you offend me, you'll be the first to know. :-)

    >Some intellectuals are so rickety and brittle, hysterical, shrieking, etc.

    I know. I once said to a Coffeehouse Socialist that "Socialism is slavery". He never spoke to me again.
    Ideologues have an apparent inability to answer a question with a yes or no.
    And forget deconstructionists.

    SWEATIN ALL THE BITCHES IN BIKER SHORTS........... GANGSTER GANGSTER

    ---------------------------------
    Do You Yahoo!?
    Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
  • Vijay Pattisapu | Tue Mar 15th 2005 3:51 p.m.
    I have never loved. What do I do, Young Chae Heavy Industries?
Your Reply