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
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...
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.
>> jason van anden
>> On 2/22/06, T.Whid <firstname.lastname@example.org
>> 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@example.com
>> > Does anyone else get a bit creeped out by being required to expose
>> > 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
>> > that I find a strange and upsetting trend.
>> > Jason Van Anden
>> > http://www.smileproject.com
>> <twhid> www.mteww.com</twhid
>> -> post: firstname.lastname@example.org
>> -> questions: email@example.com
>> -> 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
> -> post: firstname.lastname@example.org
> -> questions: email@example.com
> -> 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