--- In [email protected], Adrian Miles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So, are we arguing about a manifesto, the use of some or all of >the > constraints, or someone linking to work on the basis of its use of > some constraints? And if we are clear that the use of 'we' in the > manifesto means the authors and not the creators of the videos, >can > someone state simply what remains a concern? (I mean that >genuinely, > at some point we need to recognise that our work, if out there in >the > public, will be reappropriated in varying ways, this is how we >invent > and create, so I'm trying to understand what the boundary issue is > here.) I know I may be dissmissed as being rediculous again, but....English is a funny langauge and how people percieve things is even funnier (not funny "ha ha") Let me quote the ending of Andreas and Brittany's manifesto "As such, we propose and curate, as inspired by media evangelist Aske Dam and the remoscope collective, a collection of personal videos that adhere to the following principles (arguably the natural limits of the original Lumieres): No zoom No edit No effects 60 seconds max. Fixed camera No audio Works that follow these principlesLumiere videos of todayare not intended to exist in competition with other film movements but seek to complement perspective film and observer documentary. There is no reason to repeat bad history." In some definitions curate means "From the Latin curatus (compare Curator), a curate is a person who is invested with the care, or cure (cura), of souls of a parish. In this sense, it technically means a parish priest" It can also mean "To manage and maintain a collection. A curator is the person in charge of a museum, art collection, zoo, etc." So by definiton a curator is "someone in charge" or "invested with the care of" Taken in context with what is being said before in the manifesto, why is it unreasonable to think that someone may read the manifesto and conclude that Andreas and Brittany are in charge of the videos or have been given the videos to be taken care of. In both cases that can imply consent of the participants. That is why the "we" along with no disclaimer was bothering me. Now Andreas has said that he will remove links (which before he only suggested deleting the video from YOUR site), but at least he is willing to remove links. I will say that his complete dissmissal at people's concerns, is quite frankly counter productive. Andreas is obviously gifted but his people skills could use a lot of work.... Heath http://batmangeek.com > > > Adrian Miles > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > bachelor communication honours coordinator > vogmae.net.au >
