Re: postmoooooooodernist romanticism

It's a pretty straightforward thing in my world. If I were to hire a
programmer (which I haven't done so far, actually) that person
(paid) will get a credit on the release as a contributing assistant
designer and will not be listed as an author. If the programmer
feels like it, and I feel like it, and we agree to work with me
collaboratively, then it's for no pay all around, and it's a
relationship between peers/ equal: in this instance, it follows that
the programmer gets listed as a collaborative artist just like
everybody else in the collaboration. For example, the live seismic
data project <http://carrizoparkfielddiaries.net> is conceptually
originated by me, and is part of my larger multimedia offline project
CarrizoParkfield Diaries: nevertheless, all three of us — fiction
and new media writer Jeremy Hight and linguist/ programmer Sindee
Nakatani – developed the design program and addressed the conceptual
problems and functional solutions of this live data online project;
thus Sindee and Jeremy are listed as collaborators with me here, and
on the Whitney site, see <http://artport.whitney.org/gatepages/
artists/mcphee/>


I think it's important to acknowledge publicly, that in a
collaboration, everybody contributes in a shared design problem and
solution, and shares in the risks as well as the satisfaction of
achievement. On the other hand, if a programmer hires an artist, or
an artist hires a programmer, then the relationship is unequal
because of the introduction of hierarchy and power through capital.
The person who is getting the grants and paying the bills gets to
decide what the attributions will be. The nice thing for the person
being hired is they get paid and they don't have to deal with the
risks associated with production (financial and otherwise).
Sometimes that can be worth the trouble, and besides, even if you're
paid, you do get listed in the credits as an assistant. That's not
so bad if the project is cool.

It seems kinda sad to be fighting over validation regarding who or in
what way does programming happen and who does whatever else it is
that artists do otherwise — work with sound, work with visuality,
work with time – aren't we all in this together? There's no line
between code and art… is, for example, Casey Reas not a visual
artist and only a software artist, or can we dispense with these
absurd distinctions?
LIke most realities, it's a mix like everything to do with layers of
language. In an era when international leadership attempts to
control language so that dissent is muffiled or otherwise
commodified, it is incumbent upon those of us in communication arts
to hang with one another instead of against. The imperative here is,
in a time that requires resistance against monotony and anodynes, to
deal with the practical realities of how are you going to create new
work – work that matters to somebody besides yourself.


Christina


On Sep 20, 2005, at 6:40 PM, Komninos os wrote:

>
> eduardo kac employed biotechnicians to breed a transgenic glowing
> bunny(in
> the dark under uv light), but claims it as his art.
>
> i know many new media artists who use programmers but don't credit
> them as
> authors.
>
> i suppose it is the difference between collaboration and a model
> akin to
> director of a movie.
>
> komninos
>
> komninos zervos
> lecturer, CyberStudies major
> School of Arts
> Griffith University
> Room 3.25 Multimedia Building G23
> Gold Coast Campus
> Parkwood
> PMB 50 Gold Coast Mail Centre
> Queensland 9726
> Australia
> Phone 07 5552 8872 Fax 07 5552 8141
> http://www.gu.edu.au/ppages/k_zervos
> http://users.bigpond.net.au/mangolegs
> http://spokenword.blog-city.com
> "Our Workplace Rights are NOT for sale."
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> 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.php
>

nicely said.
this is an age old consideration really.
mural painters continue to do major work for artists who cannot be on site to paint (Arturo Herrera) as well as composers for video when music is needed. (I've worked with a composer on many projects rather than struggle with electronic music software - he's the master - and he gets the credit)
All in the spirit of collaboration, ideally.
- M


> It's a pretty straightforward thing in my world. If I were to hire a
> programmer (which I haven't done so far, actually) that person
> (paid) will get a credit on the release as a contributing assistant
> designer and will not be listed as an author. If the programmer
> feels like it, and I feel like it, and we agree to work with me
> collaboratively, then it's for no pay all around, and it's a
> relationship between peers/ equal: in this instance, it follows that
> the programmer gets listed as a collaborative artist just like
> everybody else in the collaboration. For example, the live seismic
> data project <http://carrizoparkfielddiaries.net> is conceptually
> originated by me, and is part of my larger multimedia offline project
> CarrizoParkfield Diaries: nevertheless, all three of us — fiction
> and new media writer Jeremy Hight and linguist/ programmer Sindee
> Nakatani – developed the design program and addressed the conceptual
> problems and functional solutions of this live data online project;
> thus Sindee and Jeremy are listed as collaborators with me here, and
> on the Whitney site, see <http://artport.whitney.org/gatepages/
> artists/mcphee/>
>
>
> I think it's important to acknowledge publicly, that in a
> collaboration, everybody contributes in a shared design problem and
> solution, and shares in the risks as well as the satisfaction of
> achievement. On the other hand, if a programmer hires an artist, or
> an artist hires a programmer, then the relationship is unequal
> because of the introduction of hierarchy and power through capital.
> The person who is getting the grants and paying the bills gets to
> decide what the attributions will be. The nice thing for the person
> being hired is they get paid and they don't have to deal with the
> risks associated with production (financial and otherwise).
> Sometimes that can be worth the trouble, and besides, even if you're
> paid, you do get listed in the credits as an assistant. That's not
> so bad if the project is cool.
>
> It seems kinda sad to be fighting over validation regarding who or in
> what way does programming happen and who does whatever else it is
> that artists do otherwise — work with sound, work with visuality,
> work with time – aren't we all in this together? There's no line
> between code and art… is, for example, Casey Reas not a visual
> artist and only a software artist, or can we dispense with these
> absurd distinctions?
> LIke most realities, it's a mix like everything to do with layers of
> language. In an era when international leadership attempts to
> control language so that dissent is muffiled or otherwise
> commodified, it is incumbent upon those of us in communication arts
> to hang with one another instead of against. The imperative here is,
> in a time that requires resistance against monotony and anodynes, to
> deal with the practical realities of how are you going to create new
> work – work that matters to somebody besides yourself.
>
>
> Christina
>
>
> On Sep 20, 2005, at 6:40 PM, Komninos os wrote:
>
> >
> > eduardo kac employed biotechnicians to breed a transgenic glowing
> > bunny(in
> > the dark under uv light), but claims it as his art.
> >
> > i know many new media artists who use programmers but don't credit
> > them as
> > authors.
> >
> > i suppose it is the difference between collaboration and a model
> > akin to
> > director of a movie.
> >
> > komninos
> >
> > komninos zervos
> > lecturer, CyberStudies major
> > School of Arts
> > Griffith University
> > Room 3.25 Multimedia Building G23
> > Gold Coast Campus
> > Parkwood
> > PMB 50 Gold Coast Mail Centre
> > Queensland 9726
> > Australia
> > Phone 07 5552 8872 Fax 07 5552 8141
> > http://www.gu.edu.au/ppages/k_zervos
> > http://users.bigpond.net.au/mangolegs
> > http://spokenword.blog-city.com
> > "Our Workplace Rights are NOT for sale."
> >
> > +
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> 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.php
> >
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> 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.php

> eduardo kac employed biotechnicians to breed a transgenic glowing bunny(in
> the dark under uv light), but claims it as his art.
>
> i know many new media artists who use programmers but don't credit them as
> authors.
>
> i suppose it is the difference between collaboration and a model akin to
> director of a movie.

there's generally quite a long roster of people who work on a movie. usually
new media projects have a lot shorter roster. whoever signs the cheques is
the artist; when nobody signs cheques, it's a collaboration.

whoever really does something other than just what they're told to do in the
interest of the work of art, whoever cares enough to put not just their time
but their whole beast into it, they're the artists. and they know who they
are.

ja