Christophe Bruno
Since the beginning
Works in Paris France

PORTFOLIO (6)
BIO
Christophe Bruno lives and works in Paris. Awarded with an Honorary Mention at the Prix Ars Electronica 2003 for his piece The Google Adwords Happening, his work has been shown internationaly: FIAC Paris, Palais de Tokyo in Paris, Transmediale in Berlin, galerie Sollertis in Toulouse, ICC in Tokyo, Nuit Blanche de Paris, File Festival in Sao Paulo, Modern Art Museum of the city of Paris, Tirana Biennale of Contemporary Art, f.2004@shangai, ReJoyce Festival in Dublin, Ichim in Paris, P0es1s.net in Berlin, Microwave Media Art Festival in Honk-Kong, Read_Me Festival in Dortmund and Aarhus, Vidarte in Mexico City... He divides his time between his artistic activity, teaching, lectures and publications.

More information on

http://www.christophebruno.com

Websites where you can find his work:

http://www.iterature.com
http://www.cosmolalia.com
http://www.unbehagen.com
http://www.christophebruno.com
Discussions (20) Opportunities (0) Events (4) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

YOU CAN'T COPY ME!


Hi
here is a short text I wrote yesterday

http://www.unbehagen.com/texts/copy/

YOU CAN'T COPY ME!

Christophe Bruno - February 2003

Like many people, I like the idea that www is a place where duplication has=
no limit. Anybody can download a media and re-use it. Sometimes you are fa=
ced with legal problems, this is part of the game.

But also, I like the idea that there are things you can't copy.

One of the first things I'm thinking about is conceptual art. It may seem s=
trange, since concepts are at first glance the easiest thing to copy. But i=
n the field of art, this is not true, because when you copy, you generally =
slightly modify the piece, for many reasons. And conceptual pieces have ver=
y little latitude to be modified: if you "add" something, then, following t=
he "less is more" principle, the piece is worse. And if you "substract " so=
mething, then the piece can be even better and you were right to do it. So =
it's not copying anymore, it's the way art evolves. (of course "adding" and=
"substracting" are not easy-to-deal-with concepts...)

The closer you are to the concept, the less you will be copied, or at least=
, if you get copied, the other pieces will probably be weaker, in the sense=
that extra considerations (as more design or more typo games or whatever) =
will perturbate the concept.

For those who don't get what conceptual art is, just think about it the oth=
er way round: if your piece can't be easily copied and re-used without any =
depreciation, then it might well be conceptual art.

An example : selfportrait by Valery Grancher. I take this piece as an e=
xample because there has been a controversy about it. There is a very simil=
ar and very interesting piece, which had been done before by alundale (the =
piece does not seem to be online anymore), but which was not presented as a=
selfportrait. The piece by Valery, even though it looks very much like t=
he other one, points out the concept of self in a new way, and by an infini=
tely thin move, it opens new horizons. This piece was a new start and it wa=
s the first piece of the search art project.
Now there is a second way not to be copied, which could be considered as co=
nceptual art as well, but in another manner. If your piece involves so gene=
ral a field that it can't be more general (this is not "minimal conceptual"=
art as before, but "maximal conceptual" art ;-), then, following the princ=
iple "you can't have more than more", there is no way to copy your piece.

An example : gogolchat by Jimpunk and Christophe Bruno. Gogol is a fictic=
ious character whose speech tends to the sum of all speeches of mankind. Th=
ere is no way to improve Gogol and you can't plagiarize this ultimate plagi=
arist. He is unique. He just exists (well you can still try to find another=
mankind...).
The third way is quite funny to me. It would be to produce pieces so stupid=
and contingent that nobody would be interested in copying them.

An example : I can't think of any right now (actually I do think of a cou=
ple of things but I'd rather not mention them as I don't know whether the a=
uthors would appreciate to be listed in this category) but I will try to ma=
ke such a piece one day.
Finally, the best way of all is not to show your work. If you can't find me=
, you can't copy me! I heard that jimpunk has done such a piece, but of cou=
rse I have never seen it. If you find it, send me an email.

P.S. As I write these lines, and related to the very topic of this text, th=
ere is some legal fuss about another piece by Valery Grancher: Jerusalem.=
The organization which owns the Israelian webcam is threatening Computerfi=
nearts.com to demand their ISP to cancel the hosting account because they w=
ould violate The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. There is a long =
list now of such affairs involving net artists and private companies, but i=
t seems they are more and more frequent.

In 2000, the British artist Donna Rawlinson Maclean tried to patent herself=
. Well, I'm going to do the same: everything I do, every single thought I h=
ave, I will copyright, and I will forbid you to use them. You can't copy me!

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: when Google has achieved the net art masterpiece, what are the artists to do?


deal

Christophe Bruno
http://www.iterature.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "clement Thomas" <ctgr@free.fr>
To: <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: when Google has achieved the net art
masterpiece, what are the artists to do?

> I hire these two lame ass windCuivres for my Lame Songs rythmic section
>
> --
> OG
> -/ dansez sur moi ! /-
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "unbehagen.com" <chris@unbehagen.com>
> To: "curt cloninger" <curt@lab404.com>; <list@rhizome.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 11:53 AM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: when Google has achieved the net art
> masterpiece, what are the artists to do?
>
>
> >
> > > Then you've got Valery Grancher's lame ass "search art" (
> > http://www.nomemory.org/search/index2.html ), which is just a thin
> > conceptual gimmick added to somebody else's tech. It brings very little
> to
> > what you can already do at google and represents all I loathe about
> > conceptual net art.
> >
> > Valery Grancher AND Christophe Bruno's lame ass "search art"
> > cos i'm a lame ass as well
> >
> > thanks for the "thin" , I would have prefer "infra thin"
> >
> > Christophe Bruno
> > >>> chat with me on http://www.iterature.com/gogolchat
> > http://www.unbehagen.com
> > http://www.iterature.com/adwords
> >
> >
> >
> > + the internet is not your life.
> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
>
> + the internet is not your life.
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: when Google has achieved the net art masterpiece, what are the artists to do?


> Then you've got Valery Grancher's lame ass "search art" (
http://www.nomemory.org/search/index2.html ), which is just a thin
conceptual gimmick added to somebody else's tech. It brings very little to
what you can already do at google and represents all I loathe about
conceptual net art.

Valery Grancher AND Christophe Bruno's lame ass "search art"
cos i'm a lame ass as well

thanks for the "thin" , I would have prefer "infra thin"

Christophe Bruno
>>> chat with me on http://www.iterature.com/gogolchat
http://www.unbehagen.com
http://www.iterature.com/adwords

DISCUSSION

Re: when Google has achieved the net art masterpiece, what are the artists to do?


>>> "Whatever it is (art or engineering) it's more interesting than all the
net art i've ever witnessed (including my own)."

I almost agree with Tim .. but just try to let your thoughts freely flow out
(if you can ever do that), and if you are lucky you may be surprised and
fascinated as well, as if they did come from somebody else, from an Other
place.

THIS is "more interesting than all the net art i've ever witnessed "

You don't need Google for that. But of course with Google it's easier and
absolutely fascinating.

An other good one is

http://www.metaspy.com

last year I discovered this and I stayed one whole day watching

Christophe Bruno
http://www.unbehagen.com
http://www.iterature.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "t.whid" <twhid@mteww.com>
To: <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 9:24 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: when Google has achieved the net art masterpiece,
what are the artists to do?

> hi jim,
>
>
> On Saturday, March 1, 2003, at 02:09 PM, Jim Andrews wrote:
>
> > Part of the problem is in seeing such a thing as a masterpiece of
> > net.art.
> >
> > We end up with 24/7 broadcasts of linux source code being perceived as
> > interesting net.art via
> > this aesthetic also, do we not?
>
> no we do not. a 24/7 stream of source code isn't net art by my
> definition. it's simply using the internet for distribution.
>
> you could argue that the collaboration on the linux source is made
> possible only through internet so it does use the network as a primary
> element. but the linux source isn't an inspiring set of data. it's
> interesting to most people only after it's compiled. it's about as
> interesting as an electrical schematic (which, i suppose can be very
> interesting to an electrician). what's interesting about linux is it's
> license.
>
> >
> > A data stream is not a work of art any more than the Mississipi is.
>
> i agree and disagree. of course raw information isn't art any more the
> a river is. it's simply an invisible cloud that surrounds us. but a
> 'stream' of information implies definition which requires human
> manipulation. once human manipulation has been applied to 'the
> natural', than you can have art.
>
> there is data all around us. defining and capturing the data is the
> art, not the data. just as sculpture and architecture define space and
> air (the space isn't the art, the objects defining the space are the
> art) Google's architecture defines and captures information (in this
> case, human curiosity). someone could divert part of the flow of
> Mississippi and that would be art or engineering or both. Google
> captures information (the information has always been there, Google is
> just diverting it) and it's art or engineering or both. Whatever it is
> (art or engineering) it's more interesting than all the net art i've
> ever witnessed (including my own).
>
> take care, thank you for your thoughts.
>
> >
> > Very interesting writing, though, t.whid.
> >
> > Arteroids and Nio etc cannot compete with 3D gamer stuff and so on as
> > entertainment, but there
> > are those (and I'm one of them) who are rarely entertained by
> > entertainment. I find art more
> > entertaining than entertainment, oddly enough. More 'fun'. We continue
> > to think to continue.
> > Teams of programmers don't scare me. Art operates on mojo. You can
> > even give the code away.
> >
> > ja
>
> + the internet is not your life.
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> + the internet is not your life.
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

DISCUSSION

Re: when Google has achieved the net art masterpiece, what are the artists to do?


Yahoo isn't bad either
http://www.unbehagen.com/fascinum

chris

----- Original Message -----
From: "t.whid" <twhid@mteww.com>
To: <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 5:25 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: when Google has achieved the net art masterpiece, what
are the artists to do?

> preface: this little text started out very casually, then grew a bit
> organically. i attempted to polish, but i'm not a great writer. it now
> seems to be uncomfortably sitting somewhere btw tossed off email and a
> serious attempt at commentary.
>
> Subject: when Google has achieved the net art masterpiece, what are the
> artists to do?
> ++
>
> reading this story in the nytimes recently:
>
> "Postcards From Planet Google"
> http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/28/technology/circuits/28goog.html
>
> from the article:
> "AT Google's squat headquarters off Route 101, visitors sit in the
> lobby, transfixed by the words scrolling by on the wall behind the
> receptionist's desk: animacion japonese Harry Potter pensees et poemes
> associacao brasileira de normas tecnicas.
>
> The projected display, called Live Query, shows updated samples of what
> people around the world are typing into Google's search engine. The
> terms scroll by in English, Chinese, Spanish, Swedish, Japanese,
> Korean, French, Dutch, Italian - any of the 86 languages that Google
> tracks.
>
> Stare at Live Query long enough, and you feel that you are watching the
> collective consciousness of the world stream by. "
>
> this article, like many tech-related articles i read, got me thinking
> about the two worlds in which many of us on this list exist: the worlds
> of art and technology. how they're different. how they're the same. how
> are their functions evolving?
>
> in a world where a technology company can display 'the collective
> consciousness of the world'(1) as a backdrop to their reception desk,
> essentially a marketing ploy for their services; when they can collect
> this data, sit on it and ruminate on how to 'monetize' it; when it
> takes a fully capitalized, profit-driven corporation employing some of
> the brightest engineers around to achieve such fascinating data then
> what is left for the artist to do?
>
> it used to be that it was the artist's job to capture the 'collective
> consciousness' either through intuition, genius, or dumb-luck. the
> artists were the ones who told humans what humans were thinking about,
> obsessing over, loving, hating. we no longer need intuition, genius or
> even dumb-luck. we've got hard data and more is coming in every
> millisecond.
>
> thinking about google's Live Query