Naked Code

I see it as very positive. They ensure that the fruits of their
funding will potentially benefit many artists (and others) rather
than just the grant recipient.

Can you tell us what grant it is?

Pall

On 22.2.2006, at 08:03, Jason Van Anden wrote:

> Does anyone else get a bit creeped out by being required to expose
> their code in order to receive financial support?
>
> I recently decided against applying for a few new media grants
> because of they required that the code/technology be open sourced.
> Please don't assume that I am suggesting that open source is a bad
> thing. Its the requirement that I find a strange and upsetting trend.
>
> Jason Van Anden
> http://www.smileproject.com



–
Pall Thayer
[email protected]
http://www.this.is/pallit

Great subject.

I'm curious what grants made this a requirement… I think Eyebeam
does for their residencies, are there others?

I think it's a great thing. I've never been a funder of art, but I
would guess that folks that run organizations that fund art see their
mission as a sort of way to make a gift to the culture at large. They
fund artists, dancers, writers and etc so that works get made and
enter the culture. If one is funding new media, one way to have this
gift make even more of an impact is to require that any software
developed for the project becomes open source.

There is a downside however. New media artists are a crafty lot.
Sometimes their work has multiple purposes; software developed under a
grant from a cultural institution could be a seed to build a business
venture or vice versa. Perhaps this business venture would require
that the code be closed, if that is the case then you could exclude
some very talented programmers and artists from the grant procedure.

It's good that some new media funders are requiring it, but it
shouldn't be everyone. Creative Capital doesn't require it and I don't
think the Rockefeller new media grant requires it either.

On 2/22/06, Jason Van Anden <[email protected]> wrote:
> Does anyone else get a bit creeped out by being required to expose their
> code in order to receive financial support?
>
> I recently decided against applying for a few new media grants because of
> they required that the code/technology be open sourced. Please don't assume
> that I am suggesting that open source is a bad thing. Its the requirement
> that I find a strange and upsetting trend.
>
> Jason Van Anden
> http://www.smileproject.com


–
<twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
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Quoting Jason Van Anden <[email protected]>:

> Does anyone else get a bit creeped out by being required to expose their
> code in order to receive financial support?

No, I think it's a very good thing. Now we just need to get traditional media
grants to require that preparatory work for applications be copylefted and
we're almost there. ;-)

- Rob.

Does anyone else get a bit creeped out by being required to expose their =
code in order to receive financial support?

I recently decided against applying for a few new media grants because of=
they required that the code/technology be open sourced. Please don't assu=
me that I am suggesting that open source is a bad thing. Its the requireme=
nt that I find a strange and upsetting trend.

Jason Van Anden
http://www.smileproject.com

Hi Jason,

There are various reasons why one might not want to make ALL of a project=
open source. One might want to use code that's proprietary. Or one might f=
eel that some of the code is neither of any use to anyone and/or it's spag=
etti or not readable or whatever.

But to make some part of a project open source, perhaps even a relatively=
small part, seems like it could be interesting and hopefully useful also.

I'm not interested in perusing a 300 page code project that's unreadable =
(or even one that *is* readable), but reading something short, sweet, and u=
seful, I'd like that. Something I wouldn't mind stealing. Something with in=
teresting code ideas.

An insistence that the whole thing be open source, erm, that'd be kind of=
constrictive.

ja
http://vispo.com

>
> I thought you would see it that way ~ here are a few questions:
>
It's my 'thang' :-)
>
> How do you see this benefiting other artists? Examples?
I think that anything that reveals the processes and methods employed
by artists can potentially benefit other artists. You don't have to
keep re-inventing the wheel.
>
> Does this mean that you think that all funded work should require
> its code be open?
We should never say that "everything should be this way". Diversity
is always a good thing. But I definitely don't see this as a negative
requirement. Of course, ideally, funding wouldn't come with any
strings attached.

Pall

>
> I would prefer not to discuss which grant - but there have been
> more than one - all have been listed here on Rhizome over the last
> year.
>
> jason van anden
> smileproject.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2/22/06, Pall Thayer <[email protected]> wrote: I see it
> as very positive. They ensure that the fruits of their
> funding will potentially benefit many artists (and others) rather
> than just the grant recipient.
>
> Can you tell us what grant it is?
>
> Pall
>
> On 22.2.2006, at 08:03, Jason Van Anden wrote:
>
> > Does anyone else get a bit creeped out by being required to expose
> > their code in order to receive financial support?
> >
> > I recently decided against applying for a few new media grants
> > because of they required that the code/technology be open sourced.
> > Please don't assume that I am suggesting that open source is a bad
> > thing. Its the requirement that I find a strange and upsetting
> trend.
> >
> > Jason Van Anden
> > http://www.smileproject.com
>
>
>
> –
> Pall Thayer
> [email protected]
> http://www.this.is/pallit
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> –
> Jason Van Anden
> http://www.smileproject.com



–
Pall Thayer
[email protected]
http://www.this.is/pallit
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SGVyZSBhcmUgc29tZSBjb3N0L2JlbmVmaXQgYW5hbHlzaXMgdGhvdWdodHMg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Quoting Jason Van Anden <[email protected]>:

> Here are some cost/benefit analysis thoughts on the subject:
>
> 1.) Overhead: aka documenting the code. As Jim Andrews points out, open
> source is only useful to others if the code is legible and well documented -
> which requires extra effort on its creator's behalf. This is work. Perhaps
> its selfish - but golly, what a drag.

If your code is unreadable to others it will be unreadable to you soon,
and this
will be more work for you if you ever want to show the work again for another
grant.

> 2.) What is the benefit to the artist? Is it a good thing to enable others
> to easily create derivative works based upon your labors? Am I being funded
> to be a teacher or an artist?

You are being paid to contribute to the cultural wealth of the community.

> 3.) My code is my code. I love my code - I mean love it. I like to tinker
> with it, play with it, do whatever I please with it. What if I don't want
> to share it?

Don't apply for public funding then.

> Its mine.

Hardly. If scientists or painters took this view we'd be stuck with medicinal
leeches and cave art.

> As far as I am concerned - I share the output - the
> process belongs to me. (For the record, I have made some of my code publicly
> available - not that anyone was really that interested).
>
> These are mostly personal - but so is making art. Why is new media
> different? I am not sure that because we create using a readable language
> it should be a requirement that we share it.
>
> Is the art not enough?

Only part of the art is not enough, and paying for a romantic creative
genius to
deign to share a few leftovers from the feast we provide is not a good use of
funding.

- Rob.

Quoting Jason Van Anden <[email protected]>:

> So in a perfect world, funders would require painters to document how they
> applied the strokes and mixed the paint, so that others can create
> derivative works from this?

You've heard of preparatory work. The details of a work's preparation
are vital
for scholarship, renovation, and yes derivation. Cartoons, sketchbooks, rough
work, notebooks (some artists do keep them) are all useful.

This isn't alchemy.

- Rob.
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> Is the art not enough?

That's my point. The art isn't enough. If I find the work truly
compelling. I want to see how it's done. What's involved. I don't
want to be mystified. Of course, often I can more or less see what
processes and methods are involved, but not always and in those
cases, secrecy is a big turn-off. To me, it's just like when I see an
interesting painting. What I do after admiring it a bit, is go closer
to see how it's painted. I'm sure there are people who enjoy being
mystified. Imagining that the artist is a magician capable of
performing unexplainable acts. But as a fellow artist, I want to know
what's going on. If I were a painter, I would go visit other
painter's studios, grabbing glimpses of their work and methods along
the way. It's not that easy in our online community of netartists. So
I propose sharing source code as an alternative. I personally fail to
see the benefits of NOT sharing code.

Pall
>
> jason van anden
> www.smileproject.com
>
>
> On 2/22/06, T.Whid <[email protected]> wrote:
> Great subject.
>
> I'm curious what grants made this a requirement… I think Eyebeam
> does for their residencies, are there others?
>
> I think it's a great thing. I've never been a funder of art, but I
> would guess that folks that run organizations that fund art see their
> mission as a sort of way to make a gift to the culture at large. They
> fund artists, dancers, writers and etc so that works get made and
> enter the culture. If one is funding new media, one way to have this
> gift make even more of an impact is to require that any software
> developed for the project becomes open source.
>
> There is a downside however. New media artists are a crafty lot.
> Sometimes their work has multiple purposes; software developed under a
> grant from a cultural institution could be a seed to build a business
> venture or vice versa. Perhaps this business venture would require
> that the code be closed, if that is the case then you could exclude
> some very talented programmers and artists from the grant procedure.
>
> It's good that some new media funders are requiring it, but it
> shouldn't be everyone. Creative Capital doesn't require it and I don't
> think the Rockefeller new media grant requires it either.
>
> On 2/22/06, Jason Van Anden < [email protected] > wrote:
> > Does anyone else get a bit creeped out by being required to
> expose their
> > code in order to receive financial support?
> >
> > I recently decided against applying for a few new media grants
> because of
> > they required that the code/technology be open sourced. Please
> don't assume
> > that I am suggesting that open source is a bad thing. Its the
> requirement
> > that I find a strange and upsetting trend.
> >
> > Jason Van Anden
> > http://www.smileproject.com
>
>
> –
> <twhid> www.mteww.com</twhid>
>
> +
> -> 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



–
Pall Thayer
[email protected]
http://www.this.is/pallit

Sometimes they make you give them some of the art.


On 2/22/06 10:21 AM, "Jason Van Anden" <[email protected]> wrote:

> So in a perfect world, funders would require painters to document how they
> applied the strokes and mixed the paint, so that others can create derivative
> works from this?
>
> jason van anden
> smileproject.com <http://smileproject.com/>
>
> On 2/22/06, [email protected] < [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >
> wrote:
>> Quoting Jason Van Anden < [email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]> >:
>>
>>> > Does anyone else get a bit creeped out by being required to expose their
>>> > code in order to receive financial support?
>>
>> No, I think it's a very good thing. Now we just need to get traditional media
>> grants to require that preparatory work for applications be copylefted and
>> we're almost there. ;-)
>>
>> - Rob.
>>
>> +
>> -> 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
>
>


–
Lee Wells
Brooklyn, NY 11222

http://www.leewells.org
http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
917 723 2524

I think that drawing analogies btw sketchbooks or whatever and source
code is deeply flawed.

I can't think of any analogies that would work btw traditional art
making… except perhaps, a mold for a sculpture? original template
for a print?

That may work but most artists working in those mediums wouldn't dream
of allowing those things to be let loose in the wild since forgeries
would be produced.

Forgeries don't seem to be what Jason is weary of.

On 2/22/06, Jason Van Anden <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> The tone of your email sounds like you are a little disturbed with my tone -
> hopefully this will clear things up:
>
> > jva> 1.) Overhead: aka documenting the code. As Jim Andrews points out,
> open
> > jva> source is only useful to others if the code is legible and well
> documented -
> > jva> which requires extra effort on its creator's behalf. This is work.
> Perhaps
> > jva> its selfish - but golly, what a drag.
> >
> > rm> If your code is unreadable to others it will be unreadable to you
> soon, and this
> > rm> will be more work for you if you ever want to show the work again for
> another grant.
>
>
> I don't agree with you that if my code is unreadable to the public that it
> will eventually be unreadable to me. I have the benefit of accumulated
> experience and an intimate understanding of my own process.
>
> jva> 2.) What is the benefit to the artist? Is it a good thing to enable
> others
> jva> to easily create derivative works based upon your labors? Am I being
> funded
> jva> to be a teacher or an artist?
>
> rm> You are being paid to contribute to the cultural wealth of the
> community.
>
> Am I not already doing this by creating the work of art?
>
> jva> 3.) My code is my code. I love my code - I mean love it. I like to
> tinker
> jva> with it, play with it, do whatever I please with it. What if I don't
> want to share it?
>
> rm> Don't apply for public funding then.
>
> I didn't - which was partly my reason for bringing up this topic.
>
> jva> Its mine.
>
> rm> Hardly. If scientists or painters took this view we'd be stuck with
> medicinal
> rm> leeches and cave art.
>
> No question I have personally benefited from looking at the sketchbooks of
> Picasso, Leonardo and Van Gogh, or watching film of Pollack painting, or
> listening to numerous interviews with artists. None of these artifacts of
> process require the amount of effort that deliberately documenting source
> code for public consumption requires. It is not as if I do not contribute -
> I regularly exhibit art work publicly that I rarely get financially
> compensated for, I have published articles I do not get paid to write, and I
> invest time in public discussions such as this to encourage thought about an
> art form I am devoted to.
>
> jva> As far as I am concerned - I share the output - the
> jva> process belongs to me. (For the record, I have made some of my code
> publicly
> jva> available - not that anyone was really that interested).
> jva>
> jva> These are mostly personal - but so is making art. Why is new media
> jva> different? I am not sure that because we create using a readable
> language
> jva> it should be a requirement that we share it.
> jva>
> jva> Is the art not enough?
>
> rm> Only part of the art is not enough, and paying for a romantic creative
> rm> genius to deign to share a few leftovers from the feast we provide is
> not a good use of
> rm> funding.
>
> I think my response to leeches and cave art above covers this.
>
> Jason Van Anden
> http://www.smileproject.com


–
<twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>

I think that once you liberate the code, you put yourself in a place
where you are forced to become more creative and move beyond the
original idea.
There are 2 ways to think about this: you can hold on to your idea, and
it will only grow out of your own experiences with it. Or you can let it
go, and be inspired by how other are using your creation.

At the root, it comes down to respecting the idea. If it is not ready to
be shared, then it should not be shared. Once it is ready, I think you
have to let it go, and enjoy it's effects on the world around you. This
is true for any medium. It is about having respect for your idea. I
agree, it is a very hard switch to make, especially with code, because
it feels like people can copy what you have done much more easily than a
painting. You can always get a Creative Commons License on it that
specifies that the person interested in using part of, or all of your
code, contact you first - but that it is open to use.

The greatest thing about technology is that it fosters collaboration of
ideas…. and to think that collaboration is not part of your process,
then you had better not look at the source code of a nice site/piece
ever again, or for that matter, stop thinking about process altogether.
Code is about copying & pasting - it is remixing what the person before
you has done with what you have done. This is also true across all mediums.

How well have you taken the ideas of the past, remixed them, and made
them new again?

I think it is also important to look at why your piece is successful.
Does your piece rely on you knowing something about programming to fully
enjoy the piece? If your piece relies on the fact that you made some
genius little script to 'wow' the viewer, then that leads me to think
that your code could be considered part of the art.

these are just a few ideas…

-jeremy





Pall Thayer wrote:
>
>> Is the art not enough?
>
> That's my point. The art isn't enough. If I find the work truly
> compelling. I want to see how it's done. What's involved. I don't want
> to be mystified. Of course, often I can more or less see what
> processes and methods are involved, but not always and in those cases,
> secrecy is a big turn-off. To me, it's just like when I see an
> interesting painting. What I do after admiring it a bit, is go closer
> to see how it's painted. I'm sure there are people who enjoy being
> mystified. Imagining that the artist is a magician capable of
> performing unexplainable acts. But as a fellow artist, I want to know
> what's going on. If I were a painter, I would go visit other painter's
> studios, grabbing glimpses of their work and methods along the way.
> It's not that easy in our online community of netartists. So I propose
> sharing source code as an alternative. I personally fail to see the
> benefits of NOT sharing code.
>
> Pall
>>
>> jason van anden
>> www.smileproject.com
>>
>>
>> On 2/22/06, T.Whid <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Great subject.
>>
>> I'm curious what grants made this a requirement… I think Eyebeam
>> does for their residencies, are there others?
>>
>> I think it's a great thing. I've never been a funder of art, but I
>> would guess that folks that run organizations that fund art see their
>> mission as a sort of way to make a gift to the culture at large. They
>> fund artists, dancers, writers and etc so that works get made and
>> enter the culture. If one is funding new media, one way to have this
>> gift make even more of an impact is to require that any software
>> developed for the project becomes open source.
>>
>> There is a downside however. New media artists are a crafty lot.
>> Sometimes their work has multiple purposes; software developed under a
>> grant from a cultural institution could be a seed to build a business
>> venture or vice versa. Perhaps this business venture would require
>> that the code be closed, if that is the case then you could exclude
>> some very talented programmers and artists from the grant procedure.
>>
>> It's good that some new media funders are requiring it, but it
>> shouldn't be everyone. Creative Capital doesn't require it and I don't
>> think the Rockefeller new media grant requires it either.
>>
>> On 2/22/06, Jason Van Anden < [email protected] > wrote:
>> > Does anyone else get a bit creeped out by being required to expose
>> their
>> > code in order to receive financial support?
>> >
>> > I recently decided against applying for a few new media grants
>> because of
>> > they required that the code/technology be open sourced. Please
>> don't assume
>> > that I am suggesting that open source is a bad thing. Its the
>> requirement
>> > that I find a strange and upsetting trend.
>> >
>> > Jason Van Anden
>> > http://www.smileproject.com
>>
>>
>> –
>> <twhid> www.mteww.com</twhid>
>>
>> +
>> -> 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
>
>
>
> –
> Pall Thayer
> [email protected]
> http://www.this.is/pallit
>
>
>
>
> +
> -> 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
>

Quoting Jason Van Anden <[email protected]>:

> Here are some cost/benefit analysis thoughts on the subject:
>
> 1.) Overhead: aka documenting the code. As Jim Andrews points out, open
> source is only useful to others if the code is legible and well documented -
> which requires extra effort on its creator's behalf. This is work. Perhaps
> its selfish - but golly, what a drag.

n.credibly disappointing.orientation.

[u.r.discoun.ting(le): slip.pages+uberness.of.the _accident[all.code]]

> 2.) What is the benefit to the artist? Is it a good thing to enable others
> to easily create derivative works based upon your labors? Am I being funded
> to be a teacher or an artist?

ur.share.share.ethic:OFF.

[such.high.individualisationism.is.unattractive+des.truc(k.in.acollaborative.china.shoppe)tive]
[artistic.n.deavours.may.be.n.structive//share_trajectoried]
[cultural.stances.rn't.formed.thru.the.cult.of.the."i"]

> 3.) My code is my code. I love my code - I mean love it. I like to tinker
> with it, play with it, do whatever I please with it. What if I don't want
> to share it? Its mine. As far as I am concerned - I share the output - the
> process belongs to me. (For the record, I have made some of my code publicly
> available - not that anyone was really that interested).

"I" "I" "I"

_such.ego.manifestering.reduces.collaborative.input+any.adjusting.2.non-capitalistick-tocking_

how.do.u.learn.thru.such.self.glorification.parameters?

> These are mostly personal - but so is making art.

+ the output of making.art? is it just for u alone?

>Why is new media
> different? I am not sure that because we create using a readable language
> it should be a requirement that we share it.

so sad this obsession with ownership. cutting of the collective
hands.2.smite.the.code.face.

hi-lights.political.fascistic.ends.seeded.in.greedy.liberalism.

just…..*sigh*

> Is the art not enough?

Is ur ego just.2.much?

non-I'ingly,
][mez][
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Is there a bug in message board? Jason's posting text is readable when I (or rather, my project emailerosion) receives it, but is gobbly-gook here on the rhizome website.

My two-bits worth:

I don't have a particular problem with a grant requiring any resulting code to be open-source. It's their money, and if I don't want to open-source the code on the project I don't have to apply.

However, I also agree with Jason sentiment that it shouldn't be a general expectation that artists who program should be automatically expected to publish their code. That seems to be confusing (as Jason suggests) the process with the result (i.e., the art).

I don't think this is ungenerous. Frankly, if anyone wants to know how I programmed a particular project, I'm happy to give pointers, sample code, etc. But would feel more hesitant about turning over my entire source code… I certainly respect artists who feel differently, I guess it's just a matter of where one's boundaries lie.

Hi Jason,
You're doing a lot of generalizing to make other's comments sound
absurd when they really aren't.

Are you really afraid of derivative work? Can you honestly say that
your own work isn't in some way derivative? That's just the way the
artworld works and has always worked, and it's a good thing.

Sure you love your code. I love my code, but when I release it, I
hope that it will be of use to someone. I hope that someone will
create derivative work. I can't imagine that someone will end up
using it to create projects identical to anything I'm working on and
haven't made public yet because, as you said, art creation is a very
personal process. I just can't imagine that someone will just happen
to be considering all of the same things that I am at the same time.

Let's say you think your code may have some market potential. If
that's the case, then perhaps you should be looking for investors
rather than art grants.

Art grants always come with strings attached. That's why you apply
for some and not others. But it looks to me like most of us consider
the open-source string, a noble one rather than an inhibiting one.

I think that deep down, this really touches on the questions of why
we make art and who for (did someone already mention this?). Aren't
we all perpetual teachers and students? Isn't that the whole idea
behind maintaining a community such as we have on Rhizome? We feed
off each others ideas. We learn from each other, we teach each other
and we influence each other. This has been going on for several
years, yet there's still a lot of diversity in the work being created
by our community. If I generalize on your comments the way you've
been doing with other's, then by now, we should all be caught up in
such a tight circle of derivative work that it should be nearing the
point of being identical. But that's not the case.

Pall

On 22.2.2006, at 17:35, Jason Van Anden wrote:

> I think I was just scolded but somehow I feel honored by the mez post.
>
> From mez and jeremy's posts I gather that if I prefer not to expose
> my code I am either incredibly selfish or insecure. That the
> artist who chooses to create art that requires programming has the
> added responsibility to the community of sharing your code - and
> that if you are unwilling to comply you should be disqualified from
> receiving funding.
>
> Doesn't this give more value to the code than the resultant art?
>
> Jason Van Anden
> www.smileproject.com



–
Pall Thayer
[email protected]
http://www.this.is/pallit

> From mez and jeremy's posts I gather that if I prefer not to expose my code
> I am either incredibly selfish or insecure. That the artist who chooses to
> create art that requires programming has the added responsibility to the
> community of sharing your code - and that if you are unwilling to comply you
> should be disqualified from receiving funding.

–qs break.down–re:guard.ing.my."assessment":

Q: how du u n.tegrate the use of communally.disseminated.n.structive.data [ie
using a programming language not constructed.by.u with functions not.structured
by u] with ur need 2 own.ur.own.code?

A: <n.sert here pls>
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QTogIEFtIEkgdG8gYXNzdW1lIHRoaXMgc2FtZSBsb2dpYyBpcyB3aGF0IGNv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Mez Breeze asked:

> Q: how du u n.tegrate the use of
> communally.disseminated.n.structive.data [ie
> using a programming language not constructed.by.u
> with functions not.structured
> by u] with ur need 2 own.ur.own.code?

> A: <n.sert here pls>

I think making art is giving back to the programming community whose waters I swim in. It was mentioned once or twice that some New Media projects transformed into commercial ventures. That must be a huge exception (and I'd love to hear any gossip about such occurances). Making art seems a pretty bad route to take if you're interested in making money.

For my own part, the money I spend on projects is probably twice what I bring in via grants, etc… and that's aside from the fact I left the lucrative software industry to take a teaching job in order to have more time to make art. (I'm certainly not whining about that–I love my life).

Aside from that, I think I'm contributing to programming language, etc. On my current project I submitted several bug reports as well as added to Flash Action Script's live documentation. Plus the project uses a nifty little (Windows) utility for communicating via the serial port that I'm going to put into the public domain once I have a moment. And of course anyone who uses a .swf decompiler can see the client code on project.

I think the public domain, creative commons, open source, etc. communities are great… and in the right situations I contribute towards those ends. My wish, however, would be to be considered generous when I contribute rather than stingy when I don't.

Quoting Jason Van Anden <[email protected]>:

> A: Am I to assume this same logic is what compels you to use your "own"
> language to express your "self"? Does an author who uses words created
> communally by his culture not have the right to own his story? Am I
> generalizing again?
>
> j
>


j,

….am more.than.happy.2.chat. re:_self_x.pression.motivators + logic _after_ an
actual response 2 my ini.

Mez Breeze wrote:
> Q…..am x.tremely curious as 2 how u
> n.ternalise ur code.ownership claim
> whilst m.ploying programming languages
> not.developed.by.ur.own.self.

Hope I'm not being too persumptuous to answer questions you're posing to Jason, not me, but I'm finding this a very thought-provoking discussion.

I think there's a difference between tools & applications. People who write programmings tools want them to be used to write programs… that's there intention. However, the applications created using those tools aren't necessarily meant to be used as a programming source. I really don't see a conflict there.

And frankly, allowing for proprietary uses of programming languages, etc. is a benefit to the language. It would be easy enough for a language to come with a licensing requirement that all uses of it be open-source–but that would greatly hinder the life of the language.

In my current project's case, my project would be very vulnerable to hacker-vandals if I had to make my server-side code available.

Ethan
www.emailerosion.org
www.ethanham.com

If I develop a web service, which keeps the code online, but invisible from the client, I would not make the code available. Even though that code is an essential part of the web work.
There would be obvious risk factors involved (port addresses and IP numbers, database usernames, passwords and directory and file permissions, for instance in an online java xmlrpc web server I am working on will not be given openly to the public)
So I agree with Jason, some code can be made *open source* but for many running apps, there are good reasons to keep the code safe and secret. Not everything can be exposed to the wild.
Eric

I can add that I believe, most of the institutions and well intentioned organizations are deeply out of touch with current technologies.
For most of them they are used to dealing with stand alone apps that don't require networked elements, and if they do , they are simple action scripts or basic cgi programs.
The art technologies have evolved past the technical knowledge of the granting institutions, and the pace is accelerating.
Comment your code well, but keep it to yourself.
Maybe a pseudo-code model, UML diagrams would be enough for them.
Eric

Heya Jason. Thank you for your considered response.

Quoting Jason Van Anden <[email protected]>:

> I don't agree with you that if my code is unreadable to the public that it
> will eventually be unreadable to me. I have the benefit of accumulated
> experience and an intimate understanding of my own process.

This goes against current wisdom on code archaeology, and my personal
experience. If you do not suffer this problem then you are very lucky. :-)

> rm> You are being paid to contribute to the cultural wealth of the
> community.
>
> Am I not already doing this by creating the work of art?

What is the work of art? And what is its role and responsibilities? If
it is to
be more than a consumer fashion item there are issues of its maintenance and
its position and use within the artworld and society that do not stop at the
compiled binary.

> rm> Don't apply for public funding then.
>
> I didn't - which was partly my reason for bringing up this topic.

That's reasonable. :-)

> No question I have personally benefited from looking at the sketchbooks of
> Picasso, Leonardo and Van Gogh, or watching film of Pollack painting, or
> listening to numerous interviews with artists. None of these artifacts of
> process require the amount of effort that deliberately documenting source
> code for public consumption requires.

Leonardo's written note books must have required some effort. For
artists today,
it is at least as much his notebooks as his few surviving finished works that
make Leonardo such a towering figure.

During our inevitable yearly debate on whether code is art, I usually bring up
the comparison source code == sketchbooks. :-)

Imagine if Leonardo had destroyed his notebooks. This would not just
have denied
us their amazing cultural wealth, it would have seriously reduced his own
reputation.

This, self-interested, reason is another argument in favor of releasing source
IMHO.

> It is not as if I do not contribute -
> I regularly exhibit art work publicly that I rarely get financially
> compensated for, I have published articles I do not get paid to write, and I
> invest time in public discussions such as this to encourage thought about an
> art form I am devoted to.

Car manufacturers advertise their wares as well, and they spend millions of
dollars to do so. This doesn't excuse them from their environmental
responsibilities (which have very little to do with the immediate
experience of
driving a car).

- Rob.

Quoting "T.Whid" <[email protected]>:

> I think that drawing analogies btw sketchbooks or whatever and source
> code is deeply flawed.

Leonardo's notebooks. More comments than code. :-)

> I can't think of any analogies that would work btw traditional art
> making… except perhaps, a mold for a sculpture? original template
> for a print?

Notebooks. Preparatory sketches. All the stuff you were meant to show at art
school to illustrate your thinking processes.

> That may work but most artists working in those mediums wouldn't dream
> of allowing those things to be let loose in the wild since forgeries
> would be produced.
>
> Forgeries don't seem to be what Jason is weary of.

You haven't made it in the art world until you're popular enough to be forged.
That's what authentication committees are for. :-)

- Rob.

Quoting "T.Whid" <[email protected]>:

> I think that drawing analogies btw sketchbooks or whatever and source
> code is deeply flawed.

Leonardo's notebooks. More comments than code. :-)

> I can't think of any analogies that would work btw traditional art
> making… except perhaps, a mold for a sculpture? original template
> for a print?

Notebooks. Preparatory sketches. All the stuff you were meant to show at art
school to illustrate your thinking processes.

> That may work but most artists working in those mediums wouldn't dream
> of allowing those things to be let loose in the wild since forgeries
> would be produced.
>
> Forgeries don't seem to be what Jason is weary of.

You haven't made it in the art world until you're popular enough to be forged.
That's what authentication committees are for. :-)

- Rob.
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SGkgUm9iLAoKRnVubnkgdGhvdWdodCBhYm91dCBMZW9uYXJkbyAuLi4gZGlk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I'm going to attempt to reel this in a tad, i think it's gotten a bit
off track with folks implying some communist intent to OSS and
whatnot. Replying to the original question from Jason:

On 2/22/06, Jason Van Anden <[email protected]> wrote:
> Does anyone else get a bit creeped out by being required to expose their
> code in order to receive financial support?

Jason is 'creeped out' but in the discussion that followed admitted
that, of course, no one's forcing him to apply for grants that require
source code to be open. (Of course one could argue that in the US
where the funding for arts is extremely paltry, one is almost forced
to try to get any grants that are available and one could also argue
that in the new media art world, where the market for the work is so
small, grant awards are one very important way to polish one's resume,
but I wont)

I still don't get why he's creeped out… the only reason I am
reluctant to os my code sometimes is because I'm a shitty self-taught
programmer and I don't think anyone could really glean anything from
my pathetic meat-cleaver code anyway… but nonetheless I try to do
it. Who knows who it will help? Perhaps it will provide at least some
amusement for someone…

>
> I recently decided against applying for a few new media grants because of
> they required that the code/technology be open sourced. Please don't assume
> that I am suggesting that open source is a bad thing. Its the requirement
> that I find a strange and upsetting trend.
>

I don't think it's fair that Jason says this trend exists but fails to
make the case for a trend. I think I know a bit about funding for new
media and I can think of only one that requires this: Eyebeam's
fellowship program. If this is a *trend* then there must be more than
ONE. What are they? Two of the biggest new media grants, Creative
Capital and the Rockefeller new media grant (can't remember it's new
name) don't require this.

But even if it were a trend, which I'm not sure it is, I'm curious to
know what'st upsetting about it? You really haven't voiced why it
makes you so uncomfortable, except that it's yours and you don't want
to and alluding to the notion that there could be some commercial
applications for it. (There could be ways around it by closing off
some of the source and using it as a component or something: black box
it.. but that would be extra work obviousely.)

But to be fair to Jason, he's worked on some of his code for years. It
does seem somewhat unfair that he be forced to give up all that
intellectual property for what could amount to a relatively measly
amount of money. Perhaps you should look into these (mystery) grants
more closely. Most funding agencies MTAA has worked with have been
extremely open and liberal. They might only want you to os the code
that was created exclusively for the project they're funding…
–
<twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
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I think it's fair. Especially if the grants are for research projects
as opposed to production projects.

They two grants that I know of that require this are both research
grants. They are funding the development of IP and being charitable
non-profit types of orgs, want to share that IP. This seems completely
reasonable to me.

Other granters that fund production don't have these requirements.
They understand that they are funding an artist to create a work and
it would be unreasonable to require this if that would diminish
significantly the value of the final work.

On 2/23/06, Jason Van Anden <[email protected]> wrote:
> Let's reel it in even more - eliminate the word "trend" from the discussion
> as well as any personal feelings an artist may have that might make him
> uninterested in exposing his code.
>
> By initiating this discussion I was hoping to get feedback about the logic
> (and fairness) of requiring an artist who is applying for funding to make
> art (that uses technology) to abide by the terms described here
> http://www.opensource.org/ simply because the material they use (code)
> allows this to happen.
>
> It sounds to me like some of us feel its fair and good - and some do not.
>
>
> Jason Van Anden
> www.smileproject.com
>


–
<twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>

At 02:01 PM 23/02/2006, you wrote:
>Mez Breeze wrote:
> > Q…..am x.tremely curious as 2 how u
> > n.ternalise ur code.ownership claim
> > whilst m.ploying programming languages
> > not.developed.by.ur.own.self.
>
>Hope I'm not being too persumptuous to answer questions you're
>posing to Jason, not me, but I'm finding this a very
>thought-provoking discussion.

x.cellent + re/ply.away.

>I think there's a difference between tools & applications. People
>who write programmings tools want them to be used to write
>programs… that's there intention. However, the applications
>created using those tools aren't necessarily meant to be used as a
>programming source. I really don't see a conflict there.


a.purrr.sonal.n.tention.may.point.2wards.ego.projection.[read:discounting/red.ucing.tha.likelihood.of.discovery.jags.or.inventiveness.beyond.(firing.static)canon[z]…………..

am.more.n.terested.in.fragments.+/or.occulsions……………………………….
mash.mixers+re.appropos.of.|n.tentions|.2wards/against.the/an.other……..
id.folding+persona.wandering.



_thick.memoir.cableing.nost[||neur]algia.bloody_
http://www.hotkey.net.au/~netwurker/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/netwurker/


.

>> No question I have personally benefited from looking at the sketchbooks
>> of
>> Picasso, Leonardo and Van Gogh, or watching film of Pollack painting, or
>> listening to numerous interviews with artists. None of these artifacts of
>> process require the amount of effort that deliberately documenting source
>> code for public consumption requires.
>
> Leonardo's written note books must have required some effort. For artists
> today,
> it is at least as much his notebooks as his few surviving finished works
> that
> make Leonardo such a towering figure.

to expand on this point, for Leonardo et al, there was a studio system in
place where artists would go from the age of about 11 or 12 for a very
rigourous training into the techniques of making art. They would know the
technique inside and out, working with, for and beside their masters. Both
the master and the student knew that technique, while necessary, didn't in
itself make an work of art good. both Leonardo and Michelangelo surpassed
their master while very young but neither they nor Picasso nor Van Gogh
could have done what they did without access to the code, as it were.

I'm not sure how far you can take the analogy, since one can copy and paste
and tweak code in a way you can't with a painting. It has to do with a lot
of other issues, whatever one's stance on them is, such as control,
ownership, copyright, reproduction, and the ego of the artist, and sometimes
money.

it is worthwhile remembering that there was much more than technique/code to
Leonardo's, or Picasso's or Van Gogh's art.

Zev

Zev Robinson
www.artafterscience.com
www.zrdesign.co.uk
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when people want to make at least some of the code of an art project public,
they might do so out of various motives.

one of the more interesting possible motives would be out of curiosity about
how the code (or part of the code) of a project could contribute to the
piece as a work of art.

there are various ways how this might happen.

i suspect that we might be able to divide these ways into two groups (not
mutually exclusive).

the first way concerns the poetry of natural language, the poemy poetry of
natural language, however un-poemy or tortured it might be as natural
language. for the most part, this would be in comments and perhaps in the
naming of the variables.

the second way concerns the poetry of mathematics, engineering, and code
ideas. for instance, the code idea in 'oeil complex,' discussed in
http://turbulence.org/curators/Paris/durieuenglish.htm , is crucial to the
poetry of the piece at all levels, but the beauty of the code idea is not
expressed or expressable in the poetry of natural language.

to appreciate the code idea, you do not have to understand the mathematics
of the geometry, but if you do, there is considerably more to appreciate.

i think it would be unfortunate were it *necessary* to expose *all* the code
of a project, but to need to expose *some* of it may further inquiry into
the question of how the public portion of the code of an art project might
contribute to it as a work of art.

ja
http://vispo.com

Analogies are good ways of understanding things, and there are always diffe=
rences in the things compared.

as I understand it, there is an offer for some funding being made that one =
can take or leave, no one is saying that one *has* to give all their hard w=
ork up to the public domain. if anyone doesn't want to, or has a better off=
er on the table.

I'm not a coder, so I can't share anything in that realm with you, but I'll=
share my video editing technique - I cut everything up, and then put it ba=
ck together again.

my point is that there is a difference between the technology and the art w=
ith which it's produced.

Zev

Zev Robinson
www.artafterscience.com
www.zrdesign.co.uk


—– Original Message —–
From: Jason Van Anden
To: Zev Robinson
Cc: [email protected] ; RHIZOME
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 1:00 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Naked Code


Hi Zev,

If I was smarter I would probably take T.Whid's earlier advice and lay of=
f analogies since the mediums are so different.

That being said … I have taken on art and programming interns (nothing =
like the apprentice system, but the closest experience I have had). There =
is a big difference between publicly releasing source code and sharing it w=
ith interns in a teacher/student relationship. The intern relationship is =
personal - built on trust and respect. i might add that during Leonardo's =
time, there was a transaction taking place, the apprentice's labor was in e=
xchange for food, clothing, shelter and the modern day equivalent of an MFA.

As T.Whid also pointed out (in so many words), this discussion may be mak=
ing a mountain out of a mole hill since at this point, most funders do not =
require open sourcing of technology in exchange for support.

It seems to me it has evolved into what are the actual costs/benefits to =
the artist and public of OSS code created to make art. I expressed some of =
my misgivings in earlier:

1.) the added burden proper documentation requires
2.) questionable return for the artist
3.) personal need to maintain a feeling of privacy

This does not mean I cannot see the positive that can come of it. This t=
hread has me considering how I might go about this in the future. I liked =
the idea of posting snippets that would be useful to others. I recently wr=
ote a very cool sound mixer in java that I would happily share if it did no=
t require I sit down and translate it for others to be able to use (be it a=
n API, or comments) - since I have a lot on my plate right now. Perhaps I =
should enlist an intern to do code documentation.

Jason Van Anden
www.smileproject.com
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This is an interesting thread.
What's so disturbing?
I guess the requirement for disclosure is something to be concerned
about.
But then, I wonder what's the concern. Is it the concern of the code to
be appropriated by the sponsoring institution without compensation, or
possible appropriation by colleagues? If it's a grant, compensation is
given. In many ways, the New Media community of the 90's, of which I
come from, more or less were pretty open with their tech - fairly open
source.

Maybe I'm missing something here - I don't see much art code as being
particularly 'useful' to the private sector.

Patrick Lichty
Editor-In-Chief
Intelligent Agent Magazine
http://www.intelligentagent.com
1556 Clough Street, #28
Bowling Green, OH 43402
225 288 5813
[email protected]

"It is better to die on your feet
than to live on your knees."

—–Original Message—–
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Jim Andrews
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 9:47 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: Naked Code


Does anyone else get a bit creeped out by being required to expose their
code in order to receive financial support?

I recently decided against applying for a few new media grants because
of they required that the code/technology be open sourced. Please don't
assume that I am suggesting that open source is a bad thing. Its the
requirement that I find a strange and upsetting trend.

Jason Van Anden
http://www.smileproject.com

Hi Jason,

There are various reasons why one might not want to make ALL of a
project open source. One might want to use code that's proprietary. Or
one might feel that some of the code is neither of any use to anyone
and/or it's spagetti or not readable or whatever.

But to make some part of a project open source, perhaps even a
relatively small part, seems like it could be interesting and hopefully
useful also.

I'm not interested in perusing a 300 page code project that's unreadable
(or even one that *is* readable), but reading something short, sweet,
and useful, I'd like that. Something I wouldn't mind stealing. Something
with interesting code ideas.

An insistence that the whole thing be open source, erm, that'd be kind
of constrictive.

ja
http://vispo.com