On 06/04/11 12:10, xDxD.vs.xDxD wrote: > > this is why, for example (but there are loads of them, luckily, around > the net and the art world), we decided to make an "institution" as an > artwork. A liberating fake (fake as a tool to create new reals) > institution that does just this: create a brand, open source it, and use > it to activate and enact processes. It is emblematic how everything > starts from a struggle on "intellectual property", it goes on by > addressing the idea of "remixing the world to reinvent reality", and > ends up (and continues) by creating an institution whose main job is to > "create a youth program on the issues of the methodological reinvention > of reality through the practices of fake, remix, mash-up, re-enactment, > recontextualization" and to promote an "augmented reality drug" which is > actually a free software platform that anyone can use to enact their own > processes of fake and remix/reinvention of the world. :)
One point of tension between the idea of Open Source and the realisation of the project is that the licence of the REFF book is a non-commercial one and so doesn't fit the Open Source Definition (OSD). Although I disagree with this *ideologically*, with my art critic's hat on I do see how this is part of the complex way that this stack of ideas is used aesthetically and politically in your work. I think my favourite example of this is using Augmented reality both as a point-your-camera-at-the-marker superimposition of the virtual onto the real using technology, and as -er- a superimposition of the virtual onto the real using fake brands and coloured liquids. What exactly was that I drank at the private view at Furtherfield? ;-) - Rob.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
