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.
> 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
> > > From: Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]> > > > 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: [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.php3 >
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…
> 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.
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]
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]" <[email protected]> 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]
—– Original Message —– From: Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist] <[email protected]>
> 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.
In a message dated 7/22/2002 9:52:27 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] 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.
> 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
>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".
In a message dated 7/23/2002 8:30:07 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] 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.
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 <[email protected]> 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: [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.php3
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com
Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]>: > > 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]
> 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.
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]
> >All power comes from the barrel of a gun. > > Actually, power can also be from various energies - sexual, religious, > charisma, public opinion etc…
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?
> > 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]
In a message dated 7/24/2002 7:20:09 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] 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.
<!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"> <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>
In a message dated 7/24/2002 2:31:07 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] 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?
<!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:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> wrote:<br> <blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]"><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:[email protected]">[email protected]</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 <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. <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>
In a message dated 7/24/2002 7:20:09 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] 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.
IMPERIALISM NOW IMPERIALISM NOW ha hahahahhahhahhahhahahhahahhahahahhahahahhahahahahahhahahahahah hahhahhahah jajajjajajjajajajahahahhahahjajajajhahhajhahaha Neal <[email protected]> wrote: ———- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] 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, [email protected] 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
In a message dated 7/24/2002 6:39:54 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] 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.
Comments
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: [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.php3
>
> From: Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]>
> 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 think that it's a hoax anyway….
marc
>
> > From: Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]>
>
> > 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: [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.php3
>
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.
> 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
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]
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]" <[email protected]>
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]
—– Original Message —–
From: Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]
<[email protected]>
> 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
In a message dated 7/22/2002 3:22:17 PM Central Daylight Time,
[email protected] 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
++
In a message dated 7/22/2002 5:00:54 PM Central Daylight Time,
[email protected] 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
++
In a message dated 7/22/2002 9:52:27 PM Central Daylight Time,
[email protected] 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 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
>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
In a message dated 7/23/2002 8:30:07 PM Central Daylight Time,
[email protected] 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
++
In a message dated 7/23/2002 8:30:07 PM Central Daylight Time,
[email protected] 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
++
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 <[email protected]> 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: [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.php3
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com
Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]>:
>
> 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]
> 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
Quoting Ivan Pope <[email protected]>:
>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]
> >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 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
>
> 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]
———-
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
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,
[email protected] 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
<!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="[email protected]">
<pre wrap="">Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:[email protected]"><[email protected]></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>
In a message dated 7/24/2002 2:31:07 AM Central Daylight Time,
[email protected] 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
++
<!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:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="[email protected]"><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:[email protected]">[email protected]</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 <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. <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>
In a message dated 7/24/2002 7:20:09 AM Central Daylight Time,
[email protected] 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
++
IMPERIALISM NOW
IMPERIALISM NOW ha hahahahhahhahhahhahahhahahhahahahhahahahhahahahahahhahahahahah
hahhahhahah
jajajjajajjajajajahahahhahahjajajajhahhajhahaha
Neal <[email protected]> wrote:
———-
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
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, [email protected] 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
———-
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
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,
[email protected] 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.
I have never loved. What do I do, Young Chae Heavy Industries?