I have seen neither the show nor the catalogue, so I of course I cannot offer an evaluation of those.
But it seemed to me that Inke Arns's comments were more about courtesy (and the lack thereof) than a diatribe against rip-offs. John Young's response veer more closely toward the platitudinous than Inke Arns's "diatribe." For example, the following, which was posted as its own paragraph: > No artist deserves anything except what they can beg, borrow and steal. Sure, but that doesn't seem to address Inke Arns's main point. The issue at hand, as described in the original post, is the fact that the curators--who as members of a profession supposedly in the business of giving credit--didn't share the wealth of attention, not as convention or justice dictates, but rather as simple courtesy. Rip offs happen, but you can do it nicely by passing on the rewards of that which you freely used, or you can be a dink about it. If one decides that the latter is the case, then a little reputation-bashing (very different than belly-aching) may be in order. That is part of the game, too, you know--ie the way things are. To me, the more substantive question is what evidence of intention exists. As described, the catalogue's failings might not even be attributable to the curators, but rather to a book designer who, for example, took liberties by separating texts from author's names. Also, as grounds for criticism, the fact that the book is being commercially distributed means little. When was the last time an exhibition catalogue made money? To sum it up, while I can agree that there are problems with Inke Arns's post, and that publicly calling out a curatorial team and the host institution in fact may be premature in this case, none of that has anything to do with complaints about appropriation being a standard practice. Part of the reason I took an interest in the original post is because it turns out that I will be in Linz at the museum next week, and perhaps will see the catalogue. Maybe I'll change my mind.... Dan w. # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
