This entry [...]

I also read the “Digital Resistance” article left by another poster here (thank you).

This article points out that the ideal of anti-copyright may not be terribly practicle or consoling for those “on the ground” and may result in the garret artist. I agree with that but feel the article doens’t go far enough in exploring alternatives.

For me, there needs to be some negotiation toward a solution which is neither having to work for free or copyrighting madness.

And what if it isn’t about money? Or copyright? Is there a way to acknowledge the reality of intertexuality and influence while at the same time describing some ethical standards? I guess these things are always going to be a little ambiguous.

I felt really ripped off recently and it certainly did not feel flattering. it wasn’t about money and my work wasn’t copyrighted. I just felt burnt, stolen from and miserable. A very nasty vibe it is to be struck by a “taker”.

“The way we treat a thing can change its nature, though.”

I believe gifts can be treated in a way they should not be treated. I believe that even something free can be stolen. Like the land for instance (and Lethem mentions this kind of theft). I would like to be really big/spiritua/postmodern/philosophical when someone tramples my gift and burns me in the process, but I’m just not. Instead I want to protect myself and my gift and show the thief that there are some boundaries – slippery as they may be to situate.

SJ xx

Jonathan Lethem argues for the open source of ideas. Radio Open Source discusses it. Casual discusions about art s [...]

Text has those magical little quotation marks, Perhaps sound and visual art needs something equivalent, besides legal copyright notation printed as a caption.

That thought crossed my mind, but I remembered I really hated Elvis when he first came along – I was wrong.
Who knows what art is or should be – I’m an artist and I don’t know what art is nor do I care to define it.

I would definitely want Mark Hostler on a show about artistic process …..

I got all your references.

If the Lethem article was done to reveal the artistic process, that would have been one show: Doherty, Lethem, various artists.

The copyright issues should have been another show: you, a lawyer, a judge

The show, as produced, was an intellectual travesty – my cynical view precedes from that. No need to take my view personally.

Mark Hosler presented himself as an ignorant, inarticulate buffoon who makes a living by leeching off of other people’s work. The only saving grace is the fact that he will not be remembered in fifty years; his entire wasted life and career will be absolutely and utterly forgotten.

Nevertheless, it was sad and disappointing to hear what little respect most people (including Christopher Lydon) have for the true artists who toil away day and night to make deep and interesting work, only to have it shamelessly and irreverently ripped to shreds with the push of a computer button.

It is as if the world is saying to artists: you can’t make a living at this.

Hope the judge is a good one.

If you know your history, then you will know where I’m coming from. Then you won’t have to ask me who the heck do I think I am.

Mr. Chihuly is in the midst of a hard-edged legal fight in federal court here over the distinctiveness of his creations and, more fundamentally, who owns artistic expression in the glass art world.

Mr. Chihuly has sued two glass blowers, including a longtime collaborator, for copyright infringement, accusing them of imitating his signature lopsided creations, and other designs inspired by the sea.

“About 99 percent of the ocean would be wide open,” Mr. Chihuly said in an interview. “Look, all I’m trying to do is to prevent somebody from copying me directly.”

The glass blowers say that Mr. Chihuly is trying to control entire forms, shapes and colors and that his brand does not extend to ancient and evolving techniques derived from the natural world.

“Just because he was inspired by the sea does not mean that no one else can use the sea to make glass art,” said Bryan Rubino, the former acolyte named in the suit who worked for Mr. Chihuly as a contractor or employee for 14 years. “If anything, Mother Nature should be suing Dale Chihuly.”

Quotes from the Seattle Times article:

As an artist, Chihuly has always been a scavenger of images and ideas. He’s known for translating forms and patterns from nature and other media into glass: the designs of Native American blankets, the undulating shapes of sea creatures, the orbs of Japanese glass floats.

Recently, when asked who wields the brush on the “hand-painted” prints marketed on public television, Chihuly replied: “I start the painting. I figure out how I want it painted, and then there are other people that paint it.”

The documentary “Chihuly Over Venice” on was very interesting , not necesssarily b/c of the works produced, beautiful though they may be, but because of the creative collaborative process; the now handicapped Chihuly ( he cannnot or does not make his own pieces) depends on his apprentices. He is in fact training a school: his future competition!. Was it not reasonable to expect that his gift to them ( in return for ennabling him,), his inspiration, would be manifested in some way and passed on?

I do not for one moment believe that “a Chihuly” can be copied. Even as he is apparently involved in creating his work less and less, and as he gets all the credit. The work really is coming from his studio a joint effort Chihuly, Inc., and a name a brand. He signs it, he says yes or no, a little to the left, a little to the right, or “okay it’s a Chihuly”. This is not new in art either. It’s his organization, his business and he is acting more as a businessman than an artist when he sues. This corrupts him in my view.

How can anyone make a Chihuly? Check out Bryan Rubino’s work. Looks nothing like Chihuly’s work. http://www.rubinoglass.com/

Interesting situation – does not prove creativity is being stifled by copyright – quite the opposite – the only update I see was early 2006
– I would bet Chihuly will lose.

///”A concept is not protectible,” he said. “Anybody else can be inspired by a basket or a textile.”\\\

If he wins it will because intent was proven:

///The lawsuit alleges that a former Chihuly employee, Bryan Rubino, was enlisted by Kaindl to make Chihuly knockoffs.\\\

Chris started the show saying in effect: Lethem gave us a window on the creative process.
Perhaps this was news to some.

But he began this thread with: It’s a passionate salvo in the copyright wars… — there is no “creating.”

That was an alarmist provocation and so far, no one has shown any proof that creativity is declining in this country.

People steal for economic reasons not creativity: the best thing for an artist, is to know, by way of their creation, that they are ALONE in the world.

When I appropriate and idea it is because I think I can do a better job expressing the idea – not b/c I want to make more money.

In the Chihuly case, someone was appropriating to make money but he will be protected b/c an idea will not be copyrighted.

For Chihuly : http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002686721_chihuly16m.html

For “call and response” : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_and_response

I think I heard Chris mention call and response as in jazz, blues, etc, perhaps also referring to “the sacred conversation” or call and response that goes on between artists through time and space. ( btw see “Stomping the Blues” by Albert Murray for a wonderful explanation of call and response in African American music.’).

I know from the beginning of the history of the visual arts, and especially painting, the borrowing or quoting from other works of art was a part of the language of the conversation between artisits. Professor Leo Steinberg’s mantra rings in my fortunate ears from years ago: “art is about art”. And to prove it he fascinated us by going through the masters, the greatest of them, pointing out the quotes that he discovered ( and wrote about). This came with a smile from the excitement of having participated in a great detective game, a treasure hunt. And it was always how this “quote” was incorporated and taken further or reinterpreted. Artists pays homage and then add to their (sacred) conversation. To put one’s ear to this conversation enhances appreciation.

This show was alarmist – it was a way for an author to keep himself in the media eye so that you are paying attention when his next book comes out – not that there is anything wrong with that !

I defy anyone to prove that copyright/patent law is hurting creativity – it is making it inconvenient to the benefit of the artists. If property laws were a creative/idea problem, Communist Russia would have been a hot bed of cool stuff b/c they never had to deal with law or property rights.

(1)-Rodney King, et al.

His most recent album is reviewed here:
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/37357/Girl_Talk_Night_Ripper

http://illegalart.net/

Weird Al Yankovic is a master at re-mastering. I wonder if W and Dick have Saddam Hussein (sung to Chumbawamba’s “I get knocked”) on their ipods.

But I guess that pair has move on from their infatuation with “50 Ways to Get Bin Laden” by Adam Sandler.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TClhxwwW7fI