-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 02/08/14 07:10 AM, ruth catlow wrote: > > Finally, and to pick up on Rob's comment. I think that Adam Harvey > is attempting to defend the blending of commercial and fine art > contexts in DevArt when he says "There is no inherent difference of > artistic value between art that is made for advertising and art > that is not made for advertising."
I think this blurring between commercial and art was one of the topics of the first few revived CyberSalon meetups. Artists gotta eat. To heinously misquote Saul Albert, in the 90s being able to make good money from CD-ROMs or websites and for that to pay for art-making time seemed like a good deal. That does firewall artistic and commercial intent though. > I think that this is like saying that there is no inherent > difference of political value between politicians whose influence > is bought by lobbyists and those whose are not? I'm not saying that > an artist can't work in advertising, Artists are always paid for by a politics or ideology, be it the Catholic Church, the Soviets, bourgeois industrialists, the A** C******, or the 1%. (To respond to Marco's later comment on this: Google don't have your immortal soul...) > but I don't think that it's interesting or valuable to scrap the > distinction between work that is set to achieve a singular > commercial outcome and work that sets out to generate other forms > of exchange and social relations. +10!!! > From a London/UK perspective we are currently seeing a massive > centralising of public resources and media attention for art and > technology, around Digital Revolution, The Space and Google > DevArt. > > We need an equally massive horizontal mobilization of forces... to > reclaim and expand the space and resources for more diverse, > emancipatory production, encounters and engagement by more people. I've read some bleating about DevArt's heart being in the right place but between its "no net.art before tumblr" erasure of code art and the requirement to use Google APIs post-Snowden I agree absolutely that a mobilization of a different kind of capital is needed here. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJT4Do4AAoJECciMUAZd2dZkqIIAJ1r/54ESS5yhSXCMf2mtDqn b6lkzgxKxFZfKIeHo8nCwCXumbI8inIqkSqD9pheS9rVn8jYE0t++EHnoIG94hWE N6d5kG5qAa+ZWX0lWWzgaciSwyDOtGlpyEdqvQxedNbFWG2Llc+Qn4yCFbe1zw19 0jLbmDtQtGpLq+JSpSXqNes8D8NsxZ+r+KDMNcmp9iPe508QXfhMeiBRIWC37aAn fQHmNeBjgDcZYKRjwYXw9lSO4mkv2AS89iBAumkx9c622UfOFI8EIF7UfTaGKBwg vz1KXw2cn3snbr/OG4APKnsKdLMsYSOcUf7zvUqBZyeaYvP8M/cmpDPuiBq/Xg8= =+Q6A -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
