From: Ret. Irement (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Oct 14 2010 - 14:50:12 PDT
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Matt Helme <email suppressed> wrote:
People who did not create a work have no ownership.
Matt
Matt Helme, your incoherence consistently enrages me.
Donald Johnson
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Joseph Curran <email suppressed>wrote:
> I'm a student and I use UBU web occasionally to investigate artists I am
> unfamiliar with and I find it incredibly useful, the problem I suppose is
> not really to do with the UBU web but whether or not the people using the
> site are engaged enough with the art work to realize that in most cases what
> you are getting is at best a preview/incomplete experience. For example I
> have not had the privilege to be able to see one of Stan Brakhage's films
> shown projected but I have the digital copy of those films, which I consider
> to be like seeing photographs of paintings, previews that contain an essence
> of the actual work but not wholly.
>
> This considered it seems more a case of whether or not you are willing to
> trust a persons understanding of various art works, to understand that it is
> a resource re-presenting works of art. I don't know, maybe its a dangerous
> thing to suggest, but I have a sense that there is a fear of indifference,
> that certain works loose something through being so readily available.
>
> We are all creative beings, viewing a work is as creative an act as making
> a work, and so we do have ownership over that experience and therefore it
> can be as revelatory or as indifferent as that creative will within us
> is/isn't, and I would think most artists would not object to their work
> being involved in that process, isn't that really one of the core elements
> of why we do what we do?
>
> joseph
> london
> On 14 Oct 2010, at 22:04, Warren Cockerham wrote:
>
> The person that's created the work, doesn't have any ownership either.
> Especially, to work that can be mass-replicated. Again, they're working in
> the wrong medium. Maybe live performance is the thing for them?
>
> Warren
>
> Chicago
>
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Matt Helme <email suppressed> wrote:
>
>> People who did not create a work have no ownership.
>> Matt
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* David Tetzlaff <email suppressed>
>>
>> *To:* Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
>> *Sent:* Thu, October 14, 2010 12:05:18 PM
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Frameworks] UbuWeb...HACKED!
>>
>> 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
>> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FrameWorks mailing list
>> email suppressed
>> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> email suppressed
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> email suppressed
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
email suppressed
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks