Re: [Frameworks] UbuWeb...HACKED!

From: jeanne LIOTTA (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Oct 14 2010 - 13:18:33 PDT

And since we're on I would offer a personal observation
that Anthology Film Archives attendance in the post-UbuWeb age seems to have
significantly increased.

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 12:05 PM, David Tetzlaff <email suppressed> wrote:

> On Oct 14, 2010, at 1:24 PM, Jason Halprin wrote:
> > Do the rights and wants of the creator outweigh those of the public?
> > My answer has always been that will the author of a work is still
> > alive, they should maintain as much control as they desire.
> I must disagree. Once an artist has presented work to the public, they
> have initiated a conversation. And in any conversation, all parties
> should have a certain say in the matter, some degree of co-ownership.
> (Check with Habermas on this if you want to argue the point ;-) I
> don't know if it's an issue of 'rights', or just decency. And I'm not
> suggesting that all concerns are equal or anything goes.
> Once an artist makes a work public, it goes into the heads of people
> who see/read/hear/whatever it. This happens, in effect, at the
> creator's invitation. An author should not have "control" over my
> head, or any part of it. Most artists take reasonable positions about
> their work, consistent to some degree with the idea that they have
> established a kind of trust or relationship by showing it. But not
> all. For example, when an artist withdraws work from view entirely, or
> has it destroyed, IMHO this violates the obligation they established
> with the public by inviting them in in the first place.
> I would also argue that people who present artwork in public have an
> obligation not just to the audience, but to the historical practice of
> the form in which they work. They and their work are not isolated
> monads, but part of a thread of things that have come before and
> things that will come after. The past and the future should have a say
> as well.
> On the evidence of what's available in the video section of UbuWeb,
> I'd say their present policies strike a reasonable, even fairly
> conservative balance between the legitimate claims of both authors and
> audiences. They don't put up just anything, and they take stuff down
> if there's a complaint.
> Beth Capper noted that the online availability of Cpry Doctorow's
> books has not kept them from becoming bestsellers and asks:
> > Could it perhaps be a misconception that forcing scarcity (esp. in
> > the case of digital works) is a good business model?
> There's no perhaps about it. (And I take Beth's use of 'business' to
> be figurative, referring not just to financial gain, but to broader
> objectives of aesthetic practice). All evidence shows that the value/
> desirability of cultural products in the form of data/information (as
> distinct from the value of discrete physical objects) tends to
> INCREASE with it's circulation. The code for Mozilla, for example,
> wouldn't have been worth anything if nobody used it. Obviously, this
> is not true in all cases, and where it does apply, it is not a simple
> mechanism. It is especially tricky to know where the balance is with
> something like an experimental film, which is not cheap to make and
> most likely has a relatively limited potential audience (compared to a
> Tom Cruise movie at least).
> Unquestionably, UbuWeb generates interest in the artists whose work
> appears on their site, interest that would not exists otherwise,
> interest that provides a variety of opportunities to artists that they
> would not otherwise have. UbuWeb helps us weave different pieces of
> work into meaningful historical threads, and provides a source of
> inspiration for artists of the future. For that reason alone, I feel
> they are fully justified in nudging art into the digital light,
> instead of waiting for volunteers.
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> email suppressed


FrameWorks mailing list
email suppressed