Ivan Pope
Since the beginning
Works in Brighton United States of America

BIO
In the place where analogue and digital overlap, that's why you will find me in the kitchen at parties.
Everything is at my site, http://blog.ivanpope.com
Discussions (225) Opportunities (0) Events (0) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Re: the struggle continues


----- Original Message -----
From: Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]
<joseph@electrichands.com>

> But then why castigate those operating for change? Even if impractical,
they
> are neither right or wrong.

I don't think I castigated anyone. Just responded to a response that pointed
out that maybe being disingenuous about your relationship to someone elses's
(image) property might be a tad, well, disingenuous. And said I sort of
agreed, because this is a very complicated world we live in and that it was
simplistic to claim that you could do what you wanted so long as you were a)
an artist and b)not making money from it. And I thought this sort of
attitude could rebound against you.
Anyway, I don't think anyone in the thread was operating for change - they
were just trying to work out how to handle a tricky situation.
And as you say, fair enough, we are all neither right nor wrong.

Cheers,
Ivan

DISCUSSION

Re: from wired news


How to Preserve Digital Art

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,53712,00.html

Digital technology is so ephemeral that an artwork created using a G4 Mac,
Flash 4.0 software and C++ coding today may no longer be viewable 10, 20 or
even 200 years from now.

Surely that should read 'may no longer be viewable 200, 20 or even 10 years
from now'?

Anyway, I made the first ever work made specifically for the web using HTML
(Last Words of Dutch Schultz, referenced in Fine Art Forum May 94,
http://www.msstate.edu/Fineart_Online/Backissues/Vol_8/faf805) and its gone
forever, I don't have a copy. It didn't seem important at the time, things
just rushed on and on. I would love to find an archived copy somewhere. I
know so much work has gone.

Ivan

DISCUSSION

Re: the struggle continues


> Ivan et al.
> this a bit late because I've been up to my neck, but I
> have been following the discussion.
>
> (1)
> I think in my heart of hearts I've probably always
> wanted someone to describe something I wrote as
> < both beautiful and pathetic
> in the original sense> so I experienced a feeling of
> deep joy on reading that.

You are too kind :)

> (2) Ivan -you should consider the possibility that the
> world is simpler than you think.

> Nevertheless
> commerce ,which reduces everything down to 'Will it
> sell? What's my slice?' and genuine art, which
> celebrates what it is to be a human being in it's
> broadest sense, are ultimately antithetical.

Look, I don't want to end up here being the aunt sally who is defending
capitalism, because I'm not, I'm not defending anything. But surely in the
above sentence you don't mean to use the word 'commerce', which is surely a
fairly innocuous term for the exchange trading between humans. Surely
commerce in the end reduces everything down to 'what do I need and who is
producing it'. I would go so far as to suggest that the production of art is
fundamentally driven by the same creative urge as most other producers, and
while it may be deformed by capitalist (e.g. mechanised, mass production
designed to produce surplus, i.e. profit) endeavour.
Actually I think the world is much more complex than you allow, but that
doesnt make it very easy to assert a simple antithesis between art and
commerce. Surely art by its nature cannot be antithetical to anything?

> It depresses me a little when someone who obviously
> and rightly is enraged big time by many of the things
> that deface our world ends up muttering in a corner
> 'that's the way it is ...you can't change things
Please don't get depressed on my behalf, I can assure you that I am not
conciously muttering in a corner (though that is generally what engaging in
Rhizome feels like - where did all the people go?). And I'm not sure where
this canard that I believe nothing can be changed so nothing should be
attempted came from. All I'm trying to do is open up the discussion a bit,
provoke a little, point us in some maybe more difficult yet ultimately more
useful directions. I mean, if we get stuck at 'commerce and genuine art are
ultimately antithetical' then we really are muttering in a corner.

To me existentialism is at least partly liberating in making me look to see
what it really essentially means to be human. If you cast off god and all
pre-existing notions of essence, then you really aren't left with very much
to go on. So you have to work hard to come up with some reason for being (or
you have to kill yourself). It's easy to characterise this as negative or
grey, but it really isn't. And, it isn't a recipe for political (in)action
or for changing the world - its just a personal reference point to help me
steer a steady path through a very complex world. Cheers and goodnight, Ivan

DISCUSSION

Re: the struggle continues


> yes.
> absolutely.

> I think Curt's defence that it's a not for profit
> piece is a sound one - if some money making machine
> can't understand the difference between art and
> commerce then that just illustrates beautifully the
> vacuum of feeling that is necessarily at the heart of
> capital.

Well, not absolute at all actually. I mean, I know its lovely and easy
response. All personal human activity is more or less not for profit. And we
do want a world in which the give and take of human experience exists. But
it does. My point is that there is more to it than 'you're a fat pig
corporation and I'm not making any money out of this, therefore I'm right
and you have no case'. I might have bought that line around 1977, but I have
tried to bring a little, ahem, layering to my worldview since then.

I find your line above both beautiful and pathetic in an original sense. I
mean, surely a money making machine de facto exists to practise commerce, I
don't see why you think this means it can't recognise art. Just that it
doesn't practise it.

Cor, its a bit tricky, innit? Cheers, Ivan

DISCUSSION

Re: the struggle continues


> From: Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com>

> Hi Curt,
>
> Concerning the Getty case, devils advocate here, isn't it, in a sense,
> reasonable to assume that
> you shouldn't be allowed to consume their bandwidth for a project using
> their image?
> It seems to me that you are trying to defend its use via context- "sure,
> I am using the image, but
> its non-profit, I'm a small website, I'm not competing with you, etc
> etc", when really, by law, they
> own the image and if they don't want you using it they have a right to
> ask you not to use it.
> Fair use is murky, but this doesn't even seem like a murky issue, you
> took their image, unaltered,
> and inserted it wholly into another work, and it seems your defense is
> that it is okay because you
> were also taking their bandwidth away from them at the same time?

I think that Eryk makes an intelligent and brave point here. I cant help but
agree with him. I always thought the 'I'm small and insignificant and don't
make any money out of this work' argument was really lame. As Eryk says, if
you just copied the image into your work, i.e. appropriated it, and then
told them to take a flying fuck, there might be a point. If some nazis took
my work and used it in a non profit way I'd still feel that I had the right
to control use of my images. At the end of the day, the person who created
that image is just like you, and artist. And if they gave Getty some control
over their image, that control comes with strings, i.e. that Getty protect
the image. I would expect the same for my work. Cheers, Ivan