From: Warren Cockerham (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Oct 14 2010 - 14:01:45 PDT
The idea that someone wouldn't rent a print from Canon or attend a screening
because they saw a low-res version of the work on Ubu (or any other website)
is ridiculous. I'm glad to hear attendance at Anthology has risen in the
post-Ubu era -- as I'm sure it has at other venues -- access to work tends
to operate as a natural advertisement for the work. Of course, that's not
what interests most of us; it's just a fortunate by-product of the real
issue --- availability.
For those 'artists' not willing to accept that their work will inevitably be
available to the public for free (one way or another); they're going spend a
lot of time and resources stopping access to it instead of producing more of
it. Maybe they're in the wrong "business"...
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 3:18 PM, jeanne LIOTTA <email suppressed> wrote:
> And since we're on jonasmekasfilms.com 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
FrameWorks mailing list