Re: nettime Just do it! - Intellectual theft as a curatorial

2005-07-09 Thread Dan S. Wang
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


nettime Re: [TW] Srebrenica

2005-07-09 Thread Ivo Skoric
Dutch government is the one that resigned - you can find a link at 
the balkansnet.org/srebrenica.html - you should get yourself better 
informed before issuing fatwahs like this one.

They are the citizens of Srebrenica, us is the rest of the world.

14,444 people are still missing in BiH according to ICRC (which is 
Red Cross for less educated).

There are audio tapes of phone conversations between Mladic and his 
military subordinates that confirm him issuing the orders. You can 
find a link at balkansnet.org/prostor.html

Bald Eagle


On 9 Jul 2005 at 9:51, Dusan Vukotic wrote:

 What must they think about us?--

Translate this in English. Who are they and who are us?

Western government that resigned in shame...

What a bloody liar! Whose Government resigned? When? 

15,000 people in Bosnia Hercegovina still missing

People? Which one? Orthodox Serbs, Islamized Serbs, Serbs Catholics?

...with most of Srebrenica corpses still unaccounted for...

It took 10 years to uncover 2000 corpses (many of them Orthodox Serbs
victims). Is it possible to execute and bury 8000 people without being
seen by the day and night American satellite surveillance? Albright said
they have satelite pictures of the burial ground. Where are they?
Instead to present the clear evidence, if they have any, Administration
classified it as a military top secret and launched the reburial
story. How many men you need to uncover and rebury 8000 corpses, how
many trucks?

...and the Serbian commander that ordered massacres...

Did Mladic ever issued such orders? Of course not. He offered the
Islamized Serbs to surrender and be protected as POW's according to
Geneva Convention. Why the Islamized Serbs rejected that offer?

 Srebrenica's mayor, along most of its Bosniak citizens, still live
 in exile in Sarajevo.

More than 200.000 Serbs were ethnically cleansed from Sarajevo. Do
they have right to live at all? What about 400.000 Serbs that Serbs
Catholics mercilessly had driven out of their homes in Croatia? Today
Croatia is the ethnically purest country in Europe. On the other side
is Serbia that never had deprived any of its citizens, the only
multiethnic society (beside Macedonia) on the territory of former
Yugoslavia. 

DV 

---Original Message---

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 07/09/05 05:10:02
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [TW] Srebrenica

Tribunal Watch archives since 1995
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/archives/twatch-l.html
==

Today, 10 years after, in the promised land of Dayton Bosnia, with one
Western government that resigned in shame over a simple mistake of one
of their soldiers, with nearly 15,000 people in Bosnia  Hercegovina
still missing, with most of Srebrenica corpses still unaccounted for,
and the Serbian commander that ordered massacres in Srebrenica, Ratko
Mladic, still at large (he even received military pension until two
years ago in Serbia-Montenegro), Srebrenica's mayor, along most of its
Bosniak citizens, still live in exile in Sarajevo. What must they think
about us?

--
--- 
Ivo Skoric 105 Robbins Street Rutland VT
05701 802.775.7257 [EMAIL PROTECTED] balkansnet.org

==
To Unsubscribe:  Send e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   In your message, type in the command:  SIGNOFF TWATCH-L

Questions/Comments: Send e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] EDU


#  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


Re: nettime commercial communism

2005-07-09 Thread brian carroll
  hi Dave, my apologies for being slow in responding
  to your interesting observations. what surprises me
  is that everyone has a different perspective about
  the questions and i had not considered these points
  of view, so it is exciting to consider it further...

  one difference i tend to see between views is that
  of making them tangible in examples which could/can
  be related to everyday experience. whereas it is a
  bit hard for me to realize a literal manifestation,
  as it is still an abstraction for me and it may not
  correspond 1:1 to more developed views of culture
  in which the economics/politics/sociality are more
  clear, or less fuzzy. i don't know so i am going to
  put some more ideas out here in case others have a
  better idea of what this really is as a questioning.

  for me it is not traditional categories of commerce,
  and political organization which bounds the ideas of
  commercial communism or social capitalism. it does
  not seem to be a thing, possibly it is more of some
  kind of process, a manifestation of proceeding in a
  certain way, regardless of mission statements, etc.
  maybe it is a type of organization of effort, work,
  though, and maybe this appraisal is confused as it
  is only a sketch whereas others who know structures
  that relate to these concepts, inside and out, could
  bring greater fidelity to the domain of these ideas.

  i.e. a given corporation can function with a type of
  governance, even to succeed as a model of governing,
  and yet there would still likely be a dynamic which
  could pursue social capital vs 'communal commerce'
  or commercial communism (to me it is close to being
  equivalent and neutral, to this idea).

  i guess what i am trying to get at, as an idea, is
  that it may not be 'traditional', rather conceptual,
  possibly, in relation to superstructural relations
  with these ideas as they are usually contextualized.
  it may be a function of bureaucracy vs individualism,
  or of a type of cultural determinism, which is also
  not one or the other as a static choice and pathway,
  rather a shifting switch for cultural manifestations.

  for instance, if placing the ideas in a traditional
  bureaucratic organization, two examples might show a
  similarity and difference in the way these ideas seem
  to exist in the macro-sense...

  Thomas P. Hughes (STS, science-technology-culture) is
  a historian of technological systems and i believe in
  one of his works he looks into NASA as an innovational
  organization of large systems. to me NASA is emblematic
  of a 'social capital' approach to ideas in which the
  role of the individual and ability to change, question,
  review, adjust and to invest in long-term exploration,
  research and development, and to make it break-even in
  some cultural sense - shows the potential and a unique
  value system which harnesses human goals, imaginations,
  and translates this way. a bureaucracy could not come
  up with the idea of hitting a comet on the 4th of July
  and the social value as an event, and real scientific
  value, etc. there is something about NASA that is in
  some way a counterpoint to most everything else, in
  the corporate world, maybe DARPA too (though possibly
  less altruistic), the national park systems, etc. an
  aspect that ideas have an overriding value and guide
  decision-making and ideas of how profit is evaluated.
  as such it may be how it interacts with the 'frontier'
  and this makes it a necessity, avant-garde bureaucracy.

  the opposite approach could be seen in something like
  the World Trade Center redevelopment efforts where the
  bureaucracy functions as a giant automatized machinery
  which 'develops' by way of a process that is fixed and
  unable to change, to question, as it has an answer of
  its own design that requires that it does not need to
  ask particular questions, or special values, as it is
  a monolithic approach to, say, business-as-usual. it
  may be a functionalism, a pragmatism that this is how
  things get done and all that needs to be done is to
  get out of the way. maybe this is how countries are
  terraformed over time, developed by fixed processes,
  like programming code for a 'suburb' as an idea, in
  which the variables are figured out by earlier tests
  (in social capital ideas/investments) then to later
  become steamrollered as a prefigured solution, which
  may have its profit and economic value in not opening
  up the processes to questioning (as it would lose its
  efficiencies this way, reinventing the wheel at every
  junction, or reinventing the suburb at every city).
  in this way it may be considered the rear-guard and
  may function within a simple uninterrupted agenda.



  the thing about it, is that it would not necessarily
  have to be a judgment (social capital good, commercial
  communism bad), as it could feasibly exist as the same
  time within an organization or approach, in that some
  problems could 

nettime art is langue and life is parole digest [young, cramer, derieg]

2005-07-09 Thread nettime's_sinecurator
Re: nettime Just do it! - Intellectual theft as a curatorial
 John Young [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Florian Cramer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Aileen Derieg [EMAIL PROTECTED]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 07:40:07 -0700
From: John Young [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: nettime Just do it! - Intellectual theft as a curatorial

Too many artists are crippled by the expectation that the riff-raff leeching 
off creative work (beware demeaning that with sleazy art) who will 
promote and valorize their work. 

Honest artists fight for themselves not seek racket-protection of curators,
critics and commercial bandits. Yeah, those exploit their family and friends
but hey it's hard to survive on a self-wrought island.

Copyright (like fame) is a scam of the riff-raff to induce dependency by
creators (like intellectuals) who are forever bitching about being
ripped off by those whose asses they kiss for peanuts of pay and rigged,
evanescent recognition.

Artists who seek recognition have their priorities awry, usually in a
funk about their incapability of creating, and are inclined in their
dried up prunishness to put their neediness before their output. 

Fuck artists on the make and their avid curatorial pimps, instead
eyeball and earwave their pallid art futilely exculpated by their
whinings and machinations in the market.

Hell, artists have no magic capacity to see or exhibit themselves
clearly except by way of their art, so they will remain susceptible to
being conned by flattery, self-flatterty especially (blessed are family
and friends), and promises and dreams of narcotic recognition. 

Pity the poor bastards but don't believe their panhandling signage
institutionalized in copyright, plagiarism harem scarem and vile prizes
of world-class triumphalism.

Full-time artists are just not worth shit. Making art should be a
sideline of dirt farmers and street whores. Displayed along with
backyard-grown fruit and sexual aids. The high-faluting museum hegemon
of gowns and tuxes is no better than its national security underwriters
down on Wall Street.

It is as easy to cultivate young artists for exploitation as it is to
prepare youngsters to war for the nation. Sages and seniors say that's
the way it is: recognition for you, sucker, not our pay to flummox you.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 13:55:19 +0200
From: Florian Cramer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: nettime Just do it! - Intellectual theft as a curatorial

I'm chiming in as another person whose writing, an essay on Open
Content, has been incorporated verbatim and without attribution into
the catalogue, making up a contiguous block of 23 of its 240 pages.

 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.

Exactly. Both Inke and me were never contacted or informed by the
curators, by Lentos Museum Linz or the publisher, Edition Selene. I
coincidentally found out that one of my texts was in the book after I
had bought it for 22 Euro. [Quite some money for a patchwork of entirely
uncredited and unpaid-for texts.] 

 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.

Yeah, but I also see an issue of professionalism and professional ethics
here. It's quite ironical that my text in the book is a historical and
formal explanation of Free Software copylefts and Open Content models.
What's more, the text was released by me under an Open Content License,
the Open Publication License http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/.
This license says:

| All modified versions of documents covered by this license, including
| translations, anthologies, compilations and partial documents, must meet
| the following requirements:
| 
| 1. The modified version must be labeled as such.
| 
| 2. The person making the modifications must be identified and the
| modifications dated.
| 
| 3. Acknowledgement of the original author and publisher if
| applicable must be retained according to normal academic citation
| practices.
| 
| 4. The location of the original unmodified document must be
| identified.
| 
| 5. The original author's (or authors') name(s) may not be used to
| assert or imply endorsement of the resulting document without the
| original author's (or authors') permission.

This is plain language, and the