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