Fwd: [gmonthly] A Byte About Eldred v Ashcroft
>Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:05:26 -0500 (EST)
>From: Michael Hart <hart@beryl.ils.unc.edu>
>X-X-Sender: hart@beryl
>Reply-To: Michael Hart <hart@beryl.ils.unc.edu>
>To: "Project Gutenberg Monthly Newsletter" <gmonthly@listserv.unc.edu>
>Subject: [gmonthly] A Byte About Eldred v Ashcroft
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:leave-gmonthly-1252166F@listserv.unc.edu>
>List-Subscribe: <mailto:subscribe-gmonthly@listserv.unc.edu>
>List-Owner: <mailto:owner-gmonthly@listserv.unc.edu>
>X-URL: <http://promo.net/pg>
>X-Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0211211401380.9526-100000@beryl>
>Sender: bounce-gmonthly-1252166@listserv.unc.edu
>Status:
>
>
>If the New York Times' estimates of 7 years for information doubling
>may be considered at all correct, then this is what will happen in a
>United States under the new copyright law, EVEN IF we considered 100
>percent of current information now be entered into the Public Domain
>as an incentive to let this law stand:
>
> 0 years 1/1 of today's information in the Public Domain 100% !!!
> 7 years 1/2 of today's information in the Public Domain 50%
>14 years 1/4 of today's information in the Public Domain 25%
>21 years 1/8 of today's information in the Public Domain 12.5%
>28 years 1/16 of today's information in the Public Domain 6.25%
>35 years 1/32 of today's information in the Public Domain 3.125%
>42 years 1/64 of today's information in the Public Domain 1.5625%
>49 years 1/128 of today's information in the Public Domain 0.78125%
>56 years 1/256 of today's information in the Public Domain 0.390625%
>63 years 1/512 of today's information in the Public Domain 0.1953125%
>70 years 1/1024 of today's information in the Public Domain 0.09765625%
>77 years 1/2048 of today's information in the Public Domain 0.048828125%
>84 years 1/4096 of today's information in the Public Domain 0.0244140625%
>91 years 1/8192 of today's information in the Public Domain 0.01220703125%
>98 years 1/16384 of today's information in the Public Domain 0.006103515625%
>Plus a small fraction if any of this year's copyrights are allowed to expire.
>
>Obviously the goal is to have virtually no public domain left at all. . . .
>
>Of course, there are people who will try to make this very NOT obvious!
>
>
>Michael S. Hart
><hart@pobox.com>
>Project Gutenberg
>Principal Instigator
>"*Internet User ~#100*"
>
>
>
>---
>Personalized unsubscribe instructions for: liza@culturekitchen.com
>To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-gmonthly-1252166F@listserv.unc.edu
>From: Michael Hart <hart@beryl.ils.unc.edu>
>X-X-Sender: hart@beryl
>Reply-To: Michael Hart <hart@beryl.ils.unc.edu>
>To: "Project Gutenberg Monthly Newsletter" <gmonthly@listserv.unc.edu>
>Subject: [gmonthly] A Byte About Eldred v Ashcroft
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:leave-gmonthly-1252166F@listserv.unc.edu>
>List-Subscribe: <mailto:subscribe-gmonthly@listserv.unc.edu>
>List-Owner: <mailto:owner-gmonthly@listserv.unc.edu>
>X-URL: <http://promo.net/pg>
>X-Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0211211401380.9526-100000@beryl>
>Sender: bounce-gmonthly-1252166@listserv.unc.edu
>Status:
>
>
>If the New York Times' estimates of 7 years for information doubling
>may be considered at all correct, then this is what will happen in a
>United States under the new copyright law, EVEN IF we considered 100
>percent of current information now be entered into the Public Domain
>as an incentive to let this law stand:
>
> 0 years 1/1 of today's information in the Public Domain 100% !!!
> 7 years 1/2 of today's information in the Public Domain 50%
>14 years 1/4 of today's information in the Public Domain 25%
>21 years 1/8 of today's information in the Public Domain 12.5%
>28 years 1/16 of today's information in the Public Domain 6.25%
>35 years 1/32 of today's information in the Public Domain 3.125%
>42 years 1/64 of today's information in the Public Domain 1.5625%
>49 years 1/128 of today's information in the Public Domain 0.78125%
>56 years 1/256 of today's information in the Public Domain 0.390625%
>63 years 1/512 of today's information in the Public Domain 0.1953125%
>70 years 1/1024 of today's information in the Public Domain 0.09765625%
>77 years 1/2048 of today's information in the Public Domain 0.048828125%
>84 years 1/4096 of today's information in the Public Domain 0.0244140625%
>91 years 1/8192 of today's information in the Public Domain 0.01220703125%
>98 years 1/16384 of today's information in the Public Domain 0.006103515625%
>Plus a small fraction if any of this year's copyrights are allowed to expire.
>
>Obviously the goal is to have virtually no public domain left at all. . . .
>
>Of course, there are people who will try to make this very NOT obvious!
>
>
>Michael S. Hart
><hart@pobox.com>
>Project Gutenberg
>Principal Instigator
>"*Internet User ~#100*"
>
>
>
>---
>Personalized unsubscribe instructions for: liza@culturekitchen.com
>To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-gmonthly-1252166F@listserv.unc.edu
ART vs art (was : Pondering the social sculpture, P1)
At 4:10 AM -0800 11/18/02, Jim Andrews wrote:
I am trying to figure out who said what but I do want to clarify a
point. I definitely was not using the word Art to describe a personal
search. I was using Art to mean "ART, Inc".
I do not only personally think but, given that I help write the
grants, that the "ART, Inc." is not conducive to creating Art. Let
me put it another way: I have seen the dark side and I don't like it.
When Curt or Mark asked, "If art falls in the forest, does it make a
sound?" I answered, YES for the forest and NO for the world or ART,
Inc. Artists have always had to make a decision between making a
sound in the forest versus making a sound in the art world. That's
the way things have always been. But nowadays it is even more
pressing because there are curators, foundation directors and gallery
owners who are weighing this decision as well.
What is exciting and yet overwhelming is that there is a real shift
happening out there. More and more people are pondering the forest
because what they see in the art "world" is way passed saving. This
mean that more and more people have not a clue as to where things are
heading to but they know they are going somewhere.
I guess the forest has always been the place for art but many are
just starting to reckon with this.
Liza
I am trying to figure out who said what but I do want to clarify a
point. I definitely was not using the word Art to describe a personal
search. I was using Art to mean "ART, Inc".
I do not only personally think but, given that I help write the
grants, that the "ART, Inc." is not conducive to creating Art. Let
me put it another way: I have seen the dark side and I don't like it.
When Curt or Mark asked, "If art falls in the forest, does it make a
sound?" I answered, YES for the forest and NO for the world or ART,
Inc. Artists have always had to make a decision between making a
sound in the forest versus making a sound in the art world. That's
the way things have always been. But nowadays it is even more
pressing because there are curators, foundation directors and gallery
owners who are weighing this decision as well.
What is exciting and yet overwhelming is that there is a real shift
happening out there. More and more people are pondering the forest
because what they see in the art "world" is way passed saving. This
mean that more and more people have not a clue as to where things are
heading to but they know they are going somewhere.
I guess the forest has always been the place for art but many are
just starting to reckon with this.
Liza
Pondering the Printer Tree (Was: Endnode Week 7)
At 9:29 AM -0800 11/18/02, Mark River wrote:
>Boy/Beuys and Mom. Yeah, I guess the main problem with
>him is the romantic/utopic version of the world,
>nature and gender that he sets up looks a bit like the
>old german view of the world, nature and gender that
>he was "born out of". At least we have no claim that
>the printer tree has any spiritual vaule and I'm glad
>you think of the tree as "she".
It's funny but, when I wrote that I meant to say that I do not think
that everything is art and that motherhood (or parenting) is
certainly not art. I do now people who believe they have complete
authorship/authority over their children but, heck, whatever --wait
till the kids turn 16. The thing is, that I do not think parenting is
breeding either. Humans do not have to breed anymore. Parenting is
something else --I do not what it is but it is neither art nor
breeding.
Which takes me to the printer tree.
Not being able to walk away from the "what does it means?", I've been
thinking a lot about not only that tree but trees in general. Because
that tree is neither a tree nor a printer.
Trees are synonymous to humanity because we have used them to image
humanity --the body, the family, knowledge, government ... When I
first saw the printer tree I was taken aback by what I immediately
felt, which was at first whimsy but then melancholy. Here is a tree,
made out of pressed wood, loosing leaves made of printed paper. It
seems a funny, odd ode to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. With the
smell of the freshly cut wood, the whirr of the hardware and those
cables constricting the trunk as if they were cyborg vines, it seems
more like an eulogy to the millennia humans have spent imaging
reality.
I do not know much about conceptual art but what I love about this
work is its devious simplicity. It is like an epigram --a jam-packed
statement that explodes with meaning and insight every time you read
it. Given that you claim no spiritual value, I say, bravo because the
will of the tree wins and not yours. It is alive!
Before y'all dismantle it, you should have an wake ---would
definitely seem fitting. Make it an Irish one with lots of beer :-)
Cheers,
Liza
>Boy/Beuys and Mom. Yeah, I guess the main problem with
>him is the romantic/utopic version of the world,
>nature and gender that he sets up looks a bit like the
>old german view of the world, nature and gender that
>he was "born out of". At least we have no claim that
>the printer tree has any spiritual vaule and I'm glad
>you think of the tree as "she".
It's funny but, when I wrote that I meant to say that I do not think
that everything is art and that motherhood (or parenting) is
certainly not art. I do now people who believe they have complete
authorship/authority over their children but, heck, whatever --wait
till the kids turn 16. The thing is, that I do not think parenting is
breeding either. Humans do not have to breed anymore. Parenting is
something else --I do not what it is but it is neither art nor
breeding.
Which takes me to the printer tree.
Not being able to walk away from the "what does it means?", I've been
thinking a lot about not only that tree but trees in general. Because
that tree is neither a tree nor a printer.
Trees are synonymous to humanity because we have used them to image
humanity --the body, the family, knowledge, government ... When I
first saw the printer tree I was taken aback by what I immediately
felt, which was at first whimsy but then melancholy. Here is a tree,
made out of pressed wood, loosing leaves made of printed paper. It
seems a funny, odd ode to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. With the
smell of the freshly cut wood, the whirr of the hardware and those
cables constricting the trunk as if they were cyborg vines, it seems
more like an eulogy to the millennia humans have spent imaging
reality.
I do not know much about conceptual art but what I love about this
work is its devious simplicity. It is like an epigram --a jam-packed
statement that explodes with meaning and insight every time you read
it. Given that you claim no spiritual value, I say, bravo because the
will of the tree wins and not yours. It is alive!
Before y'all dismantle it, you should have an wake ---would
definitely seem fitting. Make it an Irish one with lots of beer :-)
Cheers,
Liza
We have no art (was: Pondering the social sculpture, P1)
At 3:37 PM -0500 11/16/02, curt cloninger wrote:
>"We have no art," say the Balinese: "we do everything as well as possible."
i love this line.
there is a difference between (living) art and (the business of) ART.
my ponderings certainly have more to do with the last definition.
thanks to (the business of) ART, i'd rather call art something else.
i'd rather call it living as well as possible --certainly in the
Balinese sense.
best,
liza
>"We have no art," say the Balinese: "we do everything as well as possible."
i love this line.
there is a difference between (living) art and (the business of) ART.
my ponderings certainly have more to do with the last definition.
thanks to (the business of) ART, i'd rather call art something else.
i'd rather call it living as well as possible --certainly in the
Balinese sense.
best,
liza
Re: Re: Pondering the social sculpture, P1
At 3:37 PM -0500 11/16/02, curt cloninger wrote:
>more interesting to me lately -- if art falls in the forest, does it
>make a sound?
yes to the forest.
no to the gallery.
<snip>
>If following Beuys leads one to make or do cool stuff, wonderful!
>If following Duchamp leads one to make or do cool stuff, wonderful!
>But if following those paths leads one to make or do a bunch of
>contrived, self-referential, scene-dependent, unforgivably
>uninteresting stuff, alas for one.
hear hear
/LS
>more interesting to me lately -- if art falls in the forest, does it
>make a sound?
yes to the forest.
no to the gallery.
<snip>
>If following Beuys leads one to make or do cool stuff, wonderful!
>If following Duchamp leads one to make or do cool stuff, wonderful!
>But if following those paths leads one to make or do a bunch of
>contrived, self-referential, scene-dependent, unforgivably
>uninteresting stuff, alas for one.
hear hear
/LS