Re: Looking vs. Reading
very cool, Max. i've been thinking about this for awhile. unfortunately, i
don't have an answer but another question. maybe its the same question.
when i experience art ... i am not likely to appreciate it for itself. i
frequently see the [artist] via their work. i try understand them through
their werk ... what they are saying about themselves and their view of the
world. i almost always look for the person ... in their art.
is this a common approach?
i will confess that there are times when a movie/book/art will capture my
mind ... i get caught in the werk and just enjoy the ride. i love it when
this happens but i'm not sure that that is what the artist is trying to do.
i think that the artist/author is more successful when they have given you
something to see ... instead of a means to escape.
judgment, in my opinion, is better than description (if such a comparison
can be made).
david goldschmidt
by Kubrick, 09.18.02 11:12 am
Here's what seems to me to be a discussion worth having. If there is a
battle going on in the art world today, it's the one between looking and
reading. Some questions: are they mutually exclusive? If you're looking, how
then do you talk about art? If you're reading, what is your claim to having
something to say about art and not just something entirely disconnected from
what you're purportedly describing? How important is description when we
talk about art? Is there a way to talk about art without describing the art
object, whether that's a painting, sculpture, video, photograph, etc.? or is
description really the only thing you can do legitimately? That raises the
next question: where do you draw the line between description and judgement?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Re: Looking vs. Reading
by welchsonnyo, 09.18.02 12:08 pm
When a work of art becomes the leading work, a Pollack loss leader, as in
the case of Guggenheim, the two were tandem, and other great artists who
know what the leading edge was about took a stand upon that advanced
knowledge. Guggenheim and other first tier gallery owners have an eye
evolved to see what is beyond, a midas touch maybe not, but an eye with out
reading Greenberg, first, I think that there is a gossip filtering to them
that there are meetings of a ferment, and people breaking into unchartered
waters. People know, and may not dare but they know. It could be just as a
stock market broker, there are a million ways to invest and they all go
broke.
The reason for chaos is a study in the rise and fall of markets, among other
things of interest.
When an artist is committed to the words only he is thinking in linguistics,
the other side of the brain is involved with the images. Some are not
capable of blending the two.
If that is the case is reading necessary for the buyer, and the writer who
think in words that artists see in images? Both are true, the intelligence
of a buyer could and must be evolved and/or genetic.
The example of Dewey and Barnes found their philosophy was harmonious with
the Moderns.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Re: Looking vs. Reading
by maxherman, 09.18.02 12:43 pm
Well poststructualism and Derrida said/say everything is a text, everything
is reading. I don't agree but it's been the doxa ! for many years. As in
bathwater. Either way it's deep scheize.
As to explaining/describing, I was reading Louis Menand's piece in a recent
New Yorker that you can't analyze "America" because it's contradictory and
unclear. A priori I guess. Not a very inspiring piece; he dissed and
dismissed both Chomsky and Arundati Roy as "unpatriotic dissenters," Vidal
made "patriotic dissenter."
Roberta Smith called paintings "good reading" as well, which adds to the
soup. It's no teeny problem. I blame it all on DeMan de Yale.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Re: Looking vs. Reading
by maxherman, 09.18.02 12:46 pm
What about looking v. typing? Said New Yorker had a 2page ad with the Chief
Curator of the Gugg, Carol Allison (?), looking at a painting with a laptop
atop her lap, the ad being for Intel Inside. Like a pieta from Carly
Fiorina-the curator looks basically the same as Carly or Martha or Paula
Zahn.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Re: Looking vs. Reading
by welchsonnyo, 09.18.02 01:08 pm
After I posted I thought you might bring in the Post structuralists and
Derrida, which are being argued against as a philosophical construct. I find
that Derrida has shaped my viewing of things in general, I still find Kant's
Aesthetics of some value but not a priori. It comes to mind that no
scientist uses a priori for judgements. Aren't they judgements of a
deductive manner. Axioms maybe. When Derrida explains everything is
textural, it makes me wonder if he needs to look at the real situation to
know anything. Kant said: "you can never know a thing in itself", Fecte said
"things are all we can know" Derrida said the signponge is the sign
of the signified. How can you know anything only through language or text:
It isn't an argument for the visual arts any way. Derrida argues that the
language users are talking about a certain signafied from a certain stand
point. The popular idea is not in favor of a former Nazi. So IMAGE is
everything in art?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Re: Looking vs. Reading
by Kubrick, 09.18.02 01:24 pm
i've never found much use for luke menand. he's smart, but
ultra-conservative in his liberalism, like a richard rorty without the
southern drawl. thinks that all you need to do is have a smooth writing
style and you can solve the problems of the world. the new york review of
books is behind greenberg as far as i'm concerned intellectually. but then
again wasn't it greenberg who called the new yorker high-brow kitsch? i
think so. well, it hasn't changed much. it doesn't peddle in art, i don't
think. it just peddles "culture." yuck! look at the 10 greatest artists of
the past quarter century....do any of them have any taste for "culture"?
double-yuck!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Re: Looking vs. Reading
by matsonjones, 09.18.02 02:47 pm
A good exhibition currently on display now that shows an artists dealing
with this very subject matter is the Gary Hill installation at Gladstone.
One of the issues that he has explored for many years in his artistic output
is the precise question of looking vs. reading.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Re: Looking vs. Reading
by maxherman, 09.18.02 02:51 pm
I didn't like Menand's piece either. Yes the NYer is kitsch, however
everything is now. The alternative is too depressing so we have cultural
Zoloft, to prevent insanity, anxiety, and suicide. Pills wear off though
unfortunately.
Lisa Dennison, not Carol Allison. The ad's grabline, NYer 9-2-02 pp. 4-5 is
"somewhere between surrealism and cubo-futurism"-great epitaph eh? Count me
in on those corn dog futures.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Re: Looking vs. Reading
by maxherman, 09.18.02 03:00 pm
Hill had a real good piece in SF around '98, a dark room you walk around in
and gradually hear voices and see images as your eyes and ears adjust; takes
about 30 minutes. "Stories" maybe? I saw "Tall Ships" in Buffalo but it was
too Viola-ey (I think Bill ripped "The Crossing" from GH's TS pretty much).
I think that reading and looking should be mixed, also, and well. They're
not so separate in the end or in realtime either-cavemen basically would
narrate the visual on the spot. So do virtually every vocal species, from
whales to cardinals. Another screwed-up departmentalisation of genius
courtesy of modern efficiency.
Plus cruddy textualistic Derridaeans messed up both literature and painting
by getting too excited tearing down the cubicles.
OK CubicleRick? Just kidding, I like anyone who disses Smoothy Menand.
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
+ left sock first, pompe dans le cul afterwards
-> post: list@rhizome.org
-> questions: info@rhizome.org
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
don't have an answer but another question. maybe its the same question.
when i experience art ... i am not likely to appreciate it for itself. i
frequently see the [artist] via their work. i try understand them through
their werk ... what they are saying about themselves and their view of the
world. i almost always look for the person ... in their art.
is this a common approach?
i will confess that there are times when a movie/book/art will capture my
mind ... i get caught in the werk and just enjoy the ride. i love it when
this happens but i'm not sure that that is what the artist is trying to do.
i think that the artist/author is more successful when they have given you
something to see ... instead of a means to escape.
judgment, in my opinion, is better than description (if such a comparison
can be made).
david goldschmidt
by Kubrick, 09.18.02 11:12 am
Here's what seems to me to be a discussion worth having. If there is a
battle going on in the art world today, it's the one between looking and
reading. Some questions: are they mutually exclusive? If you're looking, how
then do you talk about art? If you're reading, what is your claim to having
something to say about art and not just something entirely disconnected from
what you're purportedly describing? How important is description when we
talk about art? Is there a way to talk about art without describing the art
object, whether that's a painting, sculpture, video, photograph, etc.? or is
description really the only thing you can do legitimately? That raises the
next question: where do you draw the line between description and judgement?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Re: Looking vs. Reading
by welchsonnyo, 09.18.02 12:08 pm
When a work of art becomes the leading work, a Pollack loss leader, as in
the case of Guggenheim, the two were tandem, and other great artists who
know what the leading edge was about took a stand upon that advanced
knowledge. Guggenheim and other first tier gallery owners have an eye
evolved to see what is beyond, a midas touch maybe not, but an eye with out
reading Greenberg, first, I think that there is a gossip filtering to them
that there are meetings of a ferment, and people breaking into unchartered
waters. People know, and may not dare but they know. It could be just as a
stock market broker, there are a million ways to invest and they all go
broke.
The reason for chaos is a study in the rise and fall of markets, among other
things of interest.
When an artist is committed to the words only he is thinking in linguistics,
the other side of the brain is involved with the images. Some are not
capable of blending the two.
If that is the case is reading necessary for the buyer, and the writer who
think in words that artists see in images? Both are true, the intelligence
of a buyer could and must be evolved and/or genetic.
The example of Dewey and Barnes found their philosophy was harmonious with
the Moderns.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Re: Looking vs. Reading
by maxherman, 09.18.02 12:43 pm
Well poststructualism and Derrida said/say everything is a text, everything
is reading. I don't agree but it's been the doxa ! for many years. As in
bathwater. Either way it's deep scheize.
As to explaining/describing, I was reading Louis Menand's piece in a recent
New Yorker that you can't analyze "America" because it's contradictory and
unclear. A priori I guess. Not a very inspiring piece; he dissed and
dismissed both Chomsky and Arundati Roy as "unpatriotic dissenters," Vidal
made "patriotic dissenter."
Roberta Smith called paintings "good reading" as well, which adds to the
soup. It's no teeny problem. I blame it all on DeMan de Yale.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Re: Looking vs. Reading
by maxherman, 09.18.02 12:46 pm
What about looking v. typing? Said New Yorker had a 2page ad with the Chief
Curator of the Gugg, Carol Allison (?), looking at a painting with a laptop
atop her lap, the ad being for Intel Inside. Like a pieta from Carly
Fiorina-the curator looks basically the same as Carly or Martha or Paula
Zahn.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Re: Looking vs. Reading
by welchsonnyo, 09.18.02 01:08 pm
After I posted I thought you might bring in the Post structuralists and
Derrida, which are being argued against as a philosophical construct. I find
that Derrida has shaped my viewing of things in general, I still find Kant's
Aesthetics of some value but not a priori. It comes to mind that no
scientist uses a priori for judgements. Aren't they judgements of a
deductive manner. Axioms maybe. When Derrida explains everything is
textural, it makes me wonder if he needs to look at the real situation to
know anything. Kant said: "you can never know a thing in itself", Fecte said
"things are all we can know" Derrida said the signponge is the sign
of the signified. How can you know anything only through language or text:
It isn't an argument for the visual arts any way. Derrida argues that the
language users are talking about a certain signafied from a certain stand
point. The popular idea is not in favor of a former Nazi. So IMAGE is
everything in art?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Re: Looking vs. Reading
by Kubrick, 09.18.02 01:24 pm
i've never found much use for luke menand. he's smart, but
ultra-conservative in his liberalism, like a richard rorty without the
southern drawl. thinks that all you need to do is have a smooth writing
style and you can solve the problems of the world. the new york review of
books is behind greenberg as far as i'm concerned intellectually. but then
again wasn't it greenberg who called the new yorker high-brow kitsch? i
think so. well, it hasn't changed much. it doesn't peddle in art, i don't
think. it just peddles "culture." yuck! look at the 10 greatest artists of
the past quarter century....do any of them have any taste for "culture"?
double-yuck!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Re: Looking vs. Reading
by matsonjones, 09.18.02 02:47 pm
A good exhibition currently on display now that shows an artists dealing
with this very subject matter is the Gary Hill installation at Gladstone.
One of the issues that he has explored for many years in his artistic output
is the precise question of looking vs. reading.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Re: Looking vs. Reading
by maxherman, 09.18.02 02:51 pm
I didn't like Menand's piece either. Yes the NYer is kitsch, however
everything is now. The alternative is too depressing so we have cultural
Zoloft, to prevent insanity, anxiety, and suicide. Pills wear off though
unfortunately.
Lisa Dennison, not Carol Allison. The ad's grabline, NYer 9-2-02 pp. 4-5 is
"somewhere between surrealism and cubo-futurism"-great epitaph eh? Count me
in on those corn dog futures.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Re: Looking vs. Reading
by maxherman, 09.18.02 03:00 pm
Hill had a real good piece in SF around '98, a dark room you walk around in
and gradually hear voices and see images as your eyes and ears adjust; takes
about 30 minutes. "Stories" maybe? I saw "Tall Ships" in Buffalo but it was
too Viola-ey (I think Bill ripped "The Crossing" from GH's TS pretty much).
I think that reading and looking should be mixed, also, and well. They're
not so separate in the end or in realtime either-cavemen basically would
narrate the visual on the spot. So do virtually every vocal species, from
whales to cardinals. Another screwed-up departmentalisation of genius
courtesy of modern efficiency.
Plus cruddy textualistic Derridaeans messed up both literature and painting
by getting too excited tearing down the cubicles.
OK CubicleRick? Just kidding, I like anyone who disses Smoothy Menand.
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
+ left sock first, pompe dans le cul afterwards
-> post: list@rhizome.org
-> questions: info@rhizome.org
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
Re: Copyright: not for you.
my biggest concern is not the law per se (copyright laws are a concern, and
there is a battle to be fought against them but its not my biggest concern).
what worries me most RIGHT NOW is that DRM (digital rights management)
companies will eventually figure out a way to absolutely prevent the use of
anything with a copyright. for example, intel is releasing a chip that will
do this. there will be no code to break ... no encryption to defeat, etc.
... your computer simply won't let you use it.
for those that don't think that images [are a language] then i'm sure you
don't care. but i happen to believe that images are a language and any
device, chip, etc that prevents someone from expressing themselves is
illegal.
i don't have a problem with copyright laws that stop someone from
selling/profiting from the work others have created ... but if an activist
wants to challenge societal paradigms by using the symbols/icons [against]
the institutions that created them then they should be able to do that.
david goldschmidt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]"
<joseph@electrichands.com>
To: "Patrick Lichty" <voyd@voyd.com>
Cc: <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 11:24 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Copyright: not for you.
Quoting Patrick Lichty <voyd@voyd.com>:
> I just keep getting stunned at artists without the kind of capital backing
> like Max, Kinkaide, etc, who actually think they have a chance under
> copyright law, and that it is for THEM. Of course from a legal standpoint
> they do, but the financial component is untenable in most cases.
>
While in general you are correct, most individual cannot compete with the
money
needed to fight law suits, there are organization and even individuals who
will
fund such fights. I know there is a copyright organization for Artists,
just
can't remember the name. I know of individual lawyers who are trying to
create
a law firm where anybody can go to to protect intellectual property rights
(whether they have funds or not).
Additionally, lack of funds can sometimes be replaced with charisma,
dedication, effort, etc that attract something more powerful than money,
which
is people to a cause.
--
Joseph Franklyn McElroy
Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]T
Take the survey they are all talking about...
http://www.electrichands.com/genius2000
Electric Hands, Inc
212.255.4527
www.electrichands.com
joseph@electrichands.com
+ If the reader will keep me company I shall be glad.
-> post: list@rhizome.org
-> questions: info@rhizome.org
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
there is a battle to be fought against them but its not my biggest concern).
what worries me most RIGHT NOW is that DRM (digital rights management)
companies will eventually figure out a way to absolutely prevent the use of
anything with a copyright. for example, intel is releasing a chip that will
do this. there will be no code to break ... no encryption to defeat, etc.
... your computer simply won't let you use it.
for those that don't think that images [are a language] then i'm sure you
don't care. but i happen to believe that images are a language and any
device, chip, etc that prevents someone from expressing themselves is
illegal.
i don't have a problem with copyright laws that stop someone from
selling/profiting from the work others have created ... but if an activist
wants to challenge societal paradigms by using the symbols/icons [against]
the institutions that created them then they should be able to do that.
david goldschmidt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]"
<joseph@electrichands.com>
To: "Patrick Lichty" <voyd@voyd.com>
Cc: <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 11:24 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Copyright: not for you.
Quoting Patrick Lichty <voyd@voyd.com>:
> I just keep getting stunned at artists without the kind of capital backing
> like Max, Kinkaide, etc, who actually think they have a chance under
> copyright law, and that it is for THEM. Of course from a legal standpoint
> they do, but the financial component is untenable in most cases.
>
While in general you are correct, most individual cannot compete with the
money
needed to fight law suits, there are organization and even individuals who
will
fund such fights. I know there is a copyright organization for Artists,
just
can't remember the name. I know of individual lawyers who are trying to
create
a law firm where anybody can go to to protect intellectual property rights
(whether they have funds or not).
Additionally, lack of funds can sometimes be replaced with charisma,
dedication, effort, etc that attract something more powerful than money,
which
is people to a cause.
--
Joseph Franklyn McElroy
Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]T
Take the survey they are all talking about...
http://www.electrichands.com/genius2000
Electric Hands, Inc
212.255.4527
www.electrichands.com
joseph@electrichands.com
+ If the reader will keep me company I shall be glad.
-> post: list@rhizome.org
-> questions: info@rhizome.org
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
Re: problems on Rhizome Raw
Hi Rachel-
I'd have to say that even though I voiced a concern recently ... I hope that
Rhizome dosesn't have to move forward with this idea. I am pretty sure that
Rhizome staffers have better things to do with their time than to moderate
another email list.
As for myself, I haven't blocked anyone ... but there are few people whose
emails I no longer read.
david goldschmidt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rachel Greene" <rachel@rhizome.org>
To: "rhizome" <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 11:03 AM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: problems on Rhizome Raw
>
> Dear Rhizome Raw Subscribers:
>
> There have been some serious problems on the list recently. A number of
> people have been engaging in personal attacks, abusive emails and
> high-volume posting. We have received many emails from raw subscribers who
> feel frustrated and demoralized by what is seen as an abuse of a community
> resource. We are concerned that Rhizome Raw is no longer able to function
> as an inclusive community resource.
>
> We share these feelings of frustration, but find the problem a difficult
> one to address. While rules and limits can help a public sphere function,
> the policing of public speech is not something to be taken lightly. With
> one brief exception, Raw has never been moderated. Until recently, Raw has
> somehow managed to function as a total free-for-all, a funky mix of
serious
> discourse, banter, announcements, identity pranks, ASCII art and other
> things. There have always been off-topic posts, but somehow the community
> managed to function without any interference from Rhizome workers.
>
> Instead of putting Raw into moderated mode, or unsubscribing people who
> abuse the list, we propose to reinstate the Rhizome Rare email list as a
> moderated version of Raw. Previously, Rare consisted of four channels that
> were filtered by an editorial intern. The new Rare would be a single
> channel that consists of texts selected by superusers. Raw would remain an
> unfiltered list. Those who are tired of the current tenor and activity on
> Raw could migrate to Rare. Those who can take the heat can stay in the
fire.
>
> We'd like to get the new Rhizome Rare going by early October.
>
> What do people think about this model?
>
> In the meantime, we encourage you to conserve your Rhizome time and energy
> by using the filtering features of your email software.
>
> Best,
>
> Rachel
>
>
>
> + If the reader will keep me company I shall be glad.
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
I'd have to say that even though I voiced a concern recently ... I hope that
Rhizome dosesn't have to move forward with this idea. I am pretty sure that
Rhizome staffers have better things to do with their time than to moderate
another email list.
As for myself, I haven't blocked anyone ... but there are few people whose
emails I no longer read.
david goldschmidt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rachel Greene" <rachel@rhizome.org>
To: "rhizome" <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 11:03 AM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: problems on Rhizome Raw
>
> Dear Rhizome Raw Subscribers:
>
> There have been some serious problems on the list recently. A number of
> people have been engaging in personal attacks, abusive emails and
> high-volume posting. We have received many emails from raw subscribers who
> feel frustrated and demoralized by what is seen as an abuse of a community
> resource. We are concerned that Rhizome Raw is no longer able to function
> as an inclusive community resource.
>
> We share these feelings of frustration, but find the problem a difficult
> one to address. While rules and limits can help a public sphere function,
> the policing of public speech is not something to be taken lightly. With
> one brief exception, Raw has never been moderated. Until recently, Raw has
> somehow managed to function as a total free-for-all, a funky mix of
serious
> discourse, banter, announcements, identity pranks, ASCII art and other
> things. There have always been off-topic posts, but somehow the community
> managed to function without any interference from Rhizome workers.
>
> Instead of putting Raw into moderated mode, or unsubscribing people who
> abuse the list, we propose to reinstate the Rhizome Rare email list as a
> moderated version of Raw. Previously, Rare consisted of four channels that
> were filtered by an editorial intern. The new Rare would be a single
> channel that consists of texts selected by superusers. Raw would remain an
> unfiltered list. Those who are tired of the current tenor and activity on
> Raw could migrate to Rare. Those who can take the heat can stay in the
fire.
>
> We'd like to get the new Rhizome Rare going by early October.
>
> What do people think about this model?
>
> In the meantime, we encourage you to conserve your Rhizome time and energy
> by using the filtering features of your email software.
>
> Best,
>
> Rachel
>
>
>
> + If the reader will keep me company I shall be glad.
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
Re: Copyright: not for you.
hi neal-
i am not looking for a work-around to this problem ... i am not just looking
for a way to beat/subvert the system ... i'm saying that the system is wrong
... and i think there is a way to change it.
FAIR USE laws won't mean a thing to the millions of people using PCs (like
90% of the population?) ... because they won't even be able to rip/grab the
images.
david goldschmidt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Neal" <nkras@nkras.dsl.visi.com>
To: "David Goldschmidt" <dgoldsch@tampabay.rr.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Copyright: not for you.
>
> ----------
> >From: "David Goldschmidt" <dgoldsch@tampabay.rr.com>
> >Date: Mon, Sep 16, 2002, 11:53 PM
> >
> >my biggest concern is not the law per se (copyright laws are a concern,
and
> >there is a battle to be fought against them but its not my biggest
concern).
> >what worries me most RIGHT NOW is that DRM (digital rights management)
> >companies will eventually figure out a way to absolutely prevent the use
of
> >anything with a copyright. for example, intel is releasing a chip that
will
> >do this. there will be no code to break ... no encryption to defeat,
etc.
> >... your computer simply won't let you use it.
>
> If the Intel platform is rendered useless to you, there's always Sparc and
> PowerPC.
>
i am not looking for a work-around to this problem ... i am not just looking
for a way to beat/subvert the system ... i'm saying that the system is wrong
... and i think there is a way to change it.
FAIR USE laws won't mean a thing to the millions of people using PCs (like
90% of the population?) ... because they won't even be able to rip/grab the
images.
david goldschmidt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Neal" <nkras@nkras.dsl.visi.com>
To: "David Goldschmidt" <dgoldsch@tampabay.rr.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Copyright: not for you.
>
> ----------
> >From: "David Goldschmidt" <dgoldsch@tampabay.rr.com>
> >Date: Mon, Sep 16, 2002, 11:53 PM
> >
> >my biggest concern is not the law per se (copyright laws are a concern,
and
> >there is a battle to be fought against them but its not my biggest
concern).
> >what worries me most RIGHT NOW is that DRM (digital rights management)
> >companies will eventually figure out a way to absolutely prevent the use
of
> >anything with a copyright. for example, intel is releasing a chip that
will
> >do this. there will be no code to break ... no encryption to defeat,
etc.
> >... your computer simply won't let you use it.
>
> If the Intel platform is rendered useless to you, there's always Sparc and
> PowerPC.
>
Re: Copyright: not for you.
i am not a lawyer but I think the problem has to do with the way the courts
recognize images/symbols/etc ... i think they see them as PROPERTY instead
of LANGUAGE ...
if the courts recognize images as a [language] then ... logic would dictate
that any device used to prevent the use of images/symbols would be against
the 1st Amendment (right to free speech) ... and thus illegal
essentially, what i would like to do is bring a classaction lawsuit against
some of these DRM companies to force this issue ... to get the courts to
re-evaluate how images are defined in the legal system.
david goldschmidt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]"
<joseph@electrichands.com>
To: "David Goldschmidt" <dgoldsch@tampabay.rr.com>
Cc: "Patrick Lichty" <voyd@voyd.com>; "unbehagen.com" <chris@unbehagen.com>;
<list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 8:46 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Copyright: not for you.
What do you want to do to stop the DRM? Create competing companies with
open
technologies or create laws to prevent such technologies or educate/convert
existing companies to the dangers of DRM? Once we decide the most likely
option, then we must go about seeing it happen
--
Joseph Franklyn McElroy
Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]T
Take the survey they are all talking about...
http://www.electrichands.com/genius2000
Electric Hands, Inc
212.255.4527
www.electrichands.com
joseph@electrichands.com
Quoting David Goldschmidt <dgoldsch@tampabay.rr.com>:
> my biggest concern is not the law per se (copyright laws are a concern,
and
> there is a battle to be fought against them but its not my biggest
concern).
> what worries me most RIGHT NOW is that DRM (digital rights management)
> companies will eventually figure out a way to absolutely prevent the use
of
> anything with a copyright. for example, intel is releasing a chip that
will
> do this. there will be no code to break ... no encryption to defeat, etc.
> ... your computer simply won't let you use it.
>
> for those that don't think that images [are a language] then i'm sure you
> don't care. but i happen to believe that images are a language and any
> device, chip, etc that prevents someone from expressing themselves is
> illegal.
>
> i don't have a problem with copyright laws that stop someone from
> selling/profiting from the work others have created ... but if an activist
> wants to challenge societal paradigms by using the symbols/icons [against]
> the institutions that created them then they should be able to do that.
>
> david goldschmidt
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]"
> <joseph@electrichands.com>
> To: "Patrick Lichty" <voyd@voyd.com>
> Cc: <list@rhizome.org>
> Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 11:24 PM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Copyright: not for you.
>
>
> Quoting Patrick Lichty <voyd@voyd.com>:
>
> > I just keep getting stunned at artists without the kind of capital
backing
> > like Max, Kinkaide, etc, who actually think they have a chance under
> > copyright law, and that it is for THEM. Of course from a legal
standpoint
> > they do, but the financial component is untenable in most cases.
> >
>
> While in general you are correct, most individual cannot compete with the
> money
> needed to fight law suits, there are organization and even individuals who
> will
> fund such fights. I know there is a copyright organization for Artists,
> just
> can't remember the name. I know of individual lawyers who are trying to
> create
> a law firm where anybody can go to to protect intellectual property rights
> (whether they have funds or not).
>
> Additionally, lack of funds can sometimes be replaced with charisma,
> dedication, effort, etc that attract something more powerful than money,
> which
> is people to a cause.
>
> --
> Joseph Franklyn McElroy
> Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]T
> Take the survey they are all talking about...
> http://www.electrichands.com/genius2000
> Electric Hands, Inc
> 212.255.4527
> www.electrichands.com
> joseph@electrichands.com
>
>
>
>
> + If the reader will keep me company I shall be glad.
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
+ If the reader will keep me company I shall be glad.
-> post: list@rhizome.org
-> questions: info@rhizome.org
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
recognize images/symbols/etc ... i think they see them as PROPERTY instead
of LANGUAGE ...
if the courts recognize images as a [language] then ... logic would dictate
that any device used to prevent the use of images/symbols would be against
the 1st Amendment (right to free speech) ... and thus illegal
essentially, what i would like to do is bring a classaction lawsuit against
some of these DRM companies to force this issue ... to get the courts to
re-evaluate how images are defined in the legal system.
david goldschmidt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]"
<joseph@electrichands.com>
To: "David Goldschmidt" <dgoldsch@tampabay.rr.com>
Cc: "Patrick Lichty" <voyd@voyd.com>; "unbehagen.com" <chris@unbehagen.com>;
<list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 8:46 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Copyright: not for you.
What do you want to do to stop the DRM? Create competing companies with
open
technologies or create laws to prevent such technologies or educate/convert
existing companies to the dangers of DRM? Once we decide the most likely
option, then we must go about seeing it happen
--
Joseph Franklyn McElroy
Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]T
Take the survey they are all talking about...
http://www.electrichands.com/genius2000
Electric Hands, Inc
212.255.4527
www.electrichands.com
joseph@electrichands.com
Quoting David Goldschmidt <dgoldsch@tampabay.rr.com>:
> my biggest concern is not the law per se (copyright laws are a concern,
and
> there is a battle to be fought against them but its not my biggest
concern).
> what worries me most RIGHT NOW is that DRM (digital rights management)
> companies will eventually figure out a way to absolutely prevent the use
of
> anything with a copyright. for example, intel is releasing a chip that
will
> do this. there will be no code to break ... no encryption to defeat, etc.
> ... your computer simply won't let you use it.
>
> for those that don't think that images [are a language] then i'm sure you
> don't care. but i happen to believe that images are a language and any
> device, chip, etc that prevents someone from expressing themselves is
> illegal.
>
> i don't have a problem with copyright laws that stop someone from
> selling/profiting from the work others have created ... but if an activist
> wants to challenge societal paradigms by using the symbols/icons [against]
> the institutions that created them then they should be able to do that.
>
> david goldschmidt
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]"
> <joseph@electrichands.com>
> To: "Patrick Lichty" <voyd@voyd.com>
> Cc: <list@rhizome.org>
> Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 11:24 PM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Copyright: not for you.
>
>
> Quoting Patrick Lichty <voyd@voyd.com>:
>
> > I just keep getting stunned at artists without the kind of capital
backing
> > like Max, Kinkaide, etc, who actually think they have a chance under
> > copyright law, and that it is for THEM. Of course from a legal
standpoint
> > they do, but the financial component is untenable in most cases.
> >
>
> While in general you are correct, most individual cannot compete with the
> money
> needed to fight law suits, there are organization and even individuals who
> will
> fund such fights. I know there is a copyright organization for Artists,
> just
> can't remember the name. I know of individual lawyers who are trying to
> create
> a law firm where anybody can go to to protect intellectual property rights
> (whether they have funds or not).
>
> Additionally, lack of funds can sometimes be replaced with charisma,
> dedication, effort, etc that attract something more powerful than money,
> which
> is people to a cause.
>
> --
> Joseph Franklyn McElroy
> Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]T
> Take the survey they are all talking about...
> http://www.electrichands.com/genius2000
> Electric Hands, Inc
> 212.255.4527
> www.electrichands.com
> joseph@electrichands.com
>
>
>
>
> + If the reader will keep me company I shall be glad.
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
+ If the reader will keep me company I shall be glad.
-> post: list@rhizome.org
-> questions: info@rhizome.org
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php