Rob Myers
Since 2003
Works in United States of America

ARTBASE (3)
PORTFOLIO (2)
BIO
Rob Myers is an artist and hacker based in the UK.

I have been creating images of the contemporary social and cultural environment through programming, design software and visual remixing since the early 1990s. My work is influenced by popular culture and high art in equal measures. My interest in remixing and sampling has led to my involvement in the Free Culture movement. I have been involved in the public consultation regarding the Creative Commons 2.0 and CC-UK licenses. All my visual art is available under a Creative Commons license.

My interest in programming has led to my involvement with the Free Software movement. I developed the Macintosh version of the Gwydion Dylan programming language compiler. All my software is available under the GNU GPL.
Discussions (509) Opportunities (1) Events (0) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Re: Naked Code


Heya Jason. Thank you for your considered response.

Quoting Jason Van Anden <jason@smileproject.com>:

> I don't agree with you that if my code is unreadable to the public that it
> will eventually be unreadable to me. I have the benefit of accumulated
> experience and an intimate understanding of my own process.

This goes against current wisdom on code archaeology, and my personal
experience. If you do not suffer this problem then you are very lucky. :-)

> rm> You are being paid to contribute to the cultural wealth of the
> community.
>
> Am I not already doing this by creating the work of art?

What is the work of art? And what is its role and responsibilities? If
it is to
be more than a consumer fashion item there are issues of its maintenance and
its position and use within the artworld and society that do not stop at the
compiled binary.

> rm> Don't apply for public funding then.
>
> I didn't - which was partly my reason for bringing up this topic.

That's reasonable. :-)

> No question I have personally benefited from looking at the sketchbooks of
> Picasso, Leonardo and Van Gogh, or watching film of Pollack painting, or
> listening to numerous interviews with artists. None of these artifacts of
> process require the amount of effort that deliberately documenting source
> code for public consumption requires.

Leonardo's written note books must have required some effort. For
artists today,
it is at least as much his notebooks as his few surviving finished works that
make Leonardo such a towering figure.

During our inevitable yearly debate on whether code is art, I usually bring up
the comparison source code == sketchbooks. :-)

Imagine if Leonardo had destroyed his notebooks. This would not just
have denied
us their amazing cultural wealth, it would have seriously reduced his own
reputation.

This, self-interested, reason is another argument in favor of releasing source
IMHO.

> It is not as if I do not contribute -
> I regularly exhibit art work publicly that I rarely get financially
> compensated for, I have published articles I do not get paid to write, and I
> invest time in public discussions such as this to encourage thought about an
> art form I am devoted to.

Car manufacturers advertise their wares as well, and they spend millions of
dollars to do so. This doesn't excuse them from their environmental
responsibilities (which have very little to do with the immediate
experience of
driving a car).

- Rob.

DISCUSSION

Re: Naked Code


Quoting Jason Van Anden <jason@smileproject.com>:

> So in a perfect world, funders would require painters to document how they
> applied the strokes and mixed the paint, so that others can create
> derivative works from this?

You've heard of preparatory work. The details of a work's preparation
are vital
for scholarship, renovation, and yes derivation. Cartoons, sketchbooks, rough
work, notebooks (some artists do keep them) are all useful.

This isn't alchemy.

- Rob.

DISCUSSION

Re: Naked Code


Quoting Jason Van Anden <jason@smileproject.com>:

> Here are some cost/benefit analysis thoughts on the subject:
>
> 1.) Overhead: aka documenting the code. As Jim Andrews points out, open
> source is only useful to others if the code is legible and well documented -
> which requires extra effort on its creator's behalf. This is work. Perhaps
> its selfish - but golly, what a drag.

If your code is unreadable to others it will be unreadable to you soon,
and this
will be more work for you if you ever want to show the work again for another
grant.

> 2.) What is the benefit to the artist? Is it a good thing to enable others
> to easily create derivative works based upon your labors? Am I being funded
> to be a teacher or an artist?

You are being paid to contribute to the cultural wealth of the community.

> 3.) My code is my code. I love my code - I mean love it. I like to tinker
> with it, play with it, do whatever I please with it. What if I don't want
> to share it?

Don't apply for public funding then.

> Its mine.

Hardly. If scientists or painters took this view we'd be stuck with medicinal
leeches and cave art.

> As far as I am concerned - I share the output - the
> process belongs to me. (For the record, I have made some of my code publicly
> available - not that anyone was really that interested).
>
> These are mostly personal - but so is making art. Why is new media
> different? I am not sure that because we create using a readable language
> it should be a requirement that we share it.
>
> Is the art not enough?

Only part of the art is not enough, and paying for a romantic creative
genius to
deign to share a few leftovers from the feast we provide is not a good use of
funding.

- Rob.

DISCUSSION

Re: Naked Code


Quoting Jason Van Anden <jason@smileproject.com>:

> Does anyone else get a bit creeped out by being required to expose their
> code in order to receive financial support?

No, I think it's a very good thing. Now we just need to get traditional media
grants to require that preparatory work for applications be copylefted and
we're almost there. ;-)

- Rob.

DISCUSSION

Re: re re Warhol between Art and Craft


Quoting vijay@indusav.com:

> Another idea. Warhol's paintings
> are often acts of "reading"--"reading" newspaper headlines, "reading"
> the image of Mao, etc.

More "seeing", "looking", "showing" or "presenting" than "reading".

> As such we see consumptive activity coextensive
> with their productive activity.

A flower painter both consumes and produces the cultural image of "a flower"
whether they are Warhol or not. There is no simple division between
consumption
and production for Theory to cast its synthesizing spell over.

- Rob.