Review: Illegal Art 146
The reader continues:
The exhibit is of artwork on the legal fringes of intellectual property, litigation clouds loom over many of the pieces. (Buy now! This is a limited time offer! ;-) Even to an artistic ignoramus such as myself, it's clear the exhibit contains classic works of the genre. In this category are such items as the "Disneyland Memorial Orgy" (Poster, 1967) by the Mad Magazine artist Wally Wood, and the trademark certificate which certifies Professor Kembrew McLeod's ownership of the phrase "Freedom of Expression" (Conceptual, 1998). I also particularly enjoyed the finely detailed Spiderman quilt (Untitled) (Commercial fabric and recycled materials, 2002) by Ai Kijima and the counterfeit postage stamps, including "Prozac" (Computer generated laser print, 1996), of Michael Hernandez de Luna. De Luna creates stamps good enough to fool postal workers, as attested to by successfully delivered letters complete with postmarks. (Sorry, I cannot find any contact info for this Chicago artist on the web.)
An exhibition like this is innately political and nowhere is this more apparent than in the exhibition's video accompaniment, much of which is strongly anti-war and anti-corporate. Like the visual artwork, the borderline legality of the video work is due to its appropriation of corporate trademarks and sampling of copyrighted work. What makes it interesting as well as sometimes funny, regardless of your politics, is how the material reveals the manipulative techniques of everyday media and thereby turns the content against its owners. The very strength of the alternative message the videos present is often due to the strength of the original images.
Audio works are also included in the exhibit but I have not had the time to sample the wares.
Those who can't physically visit the exhibition in Chicago can experience many of the works via the Illegal Art web site. Video, audio, and visual art is available for download. A number of works have been added to the exhibit since it has come from New York. Images of the Chicago artists' work should be added to the web site as soon as the organizers get around to it. FWIW, rumor has the exhibit traveling to San Francisco.
No Comments? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:No Comments? (Score:1)
Anyways, does this mean like illegial "art" as in tieing up 3 year olds that were stolen from there in a basement or somthing? I mean, what else is there that is considered illegial? That is just an excuse, the only thing censored from the net is kiddie porn, and there is a really good reason it is.
Re:No Comments? (Score:1)
There should be more holidays about food.
Re:No Comments? (Score:1)
Disagree Completely (Score:2, Insightful)
If I was to create an image, an association, an icon which stood for something, and someone was to twist this creation, twist this idea, without my consent, then my ideas themselves have been taken and twisted, with my own creative efforts.
Satire is a fundemantal tool we have to give freedom to our voices against political/commercial oppression, it gets things noticed.
The whoring of the Starbucks logo is on one hand, an expression of an opinion, which should in no means be suppressed. However, using the device in the satire is the point in question.
Starbucks is associated with this device, and it is only be used because it serves a purpose, that is, if starbucks had a different logo, it would make this work less effective, it is tied to this assocoation, to the feelings it emits.
Should we allow this? On one hand, I like the idea of being able to take the identity of a company, and tear it to shreds publicly. On the other hand, using their work that they developed, their iconic identity, is it more than a mere identity symbol.
Lets not talk about identity theft, but if the starbucks logo was a beautifully crafted work of art, then would it surpass the artistic license of reference?
Would it be theft to make a derivative work of art? I think so. Lets take this to sites such as deviantart.com, which probably has the largest collection of online art that is digitally managed, and attibuted to so many authors. Many works on that site are reworked and, on suggestions from many artists including myself, you can now attribute your sources for this work, and also express a permission on a derivative work, appeasing viewers.
Given that some of the pieces just hijack the aesthetic pleasing qualities of a work available, and use it to convey a message of their own devising, compounds this as not being fruitful to society. This not only associates the artist with this message, but devalues the work, as others hijack it. We cannot stop this, but should we encourage it?
Imagine Microsoft took Slashdots logo, and reworked it to associate them with hacking and insecurity, and everything it stands for is bad. And people believe it. I am not sure on the rights of the
Ownership of work, and the right to protect what it stands for is paramount, for both sides. Remember, artwork is inherently open source, you can see exactly what it composite aspects are, if you can see in the normal colour spectrum (and we are talking about art that can be defined as viewable through the normal human-visible spectrum).
So if you think open-source == free, then forget it. If you agree that you can take any work, no matter what, and make a modified clone version, then forget it, if you think linux == open-source then remeber it is also free, and some open source, accessible works aren't free (not beer).
Even free(beer), open-source software may come under restrictions that you cannot modify it (copyleft)
Yes it is nice, and fitting to twist up a corporate logo, and yes some peoples works can be used to involke the opposite emotion, but like Gary Larson said, their works are like children, they are protective over them.
What if someone kidnapped your kid, and decided to twist it up for their own agenda, especially if it isn't one you subscribe to.
Re:Disagree Completely (Score:1)
Basically Klein's point on this particular issue is that many companies brands have come to represent far more than the company in itself, but rather the an entire cultural group or idea (this is in fact what the company desires to achieve). She suggests that a number of brands have passed from being brands in themselves and have become part of the vocabulary. Of course these bits of the vocabulary tend to be shouted much louder in the marketplace (or society if you so wish). Klein suggests that to voice some kind of dissent and still be heard that it has become necessary touse the use the vocabulary of those who have been given the resources necessary to be heard.
Personally I feel that if brands want to become part of the cultural landscape then they need to begin to accept that culture feeds from what surrounds it. They cannont legitimately say "Hey, we want to be part of your life", then once we accept them begin to impose all sorts of regulations on the way we live our lives.
(Hmmm, sorry if that turned out worse than I had planned....)
Re:Interesting Points (Score:1)
The problem with this view is that there is obviously a large grey area where, if laws are to be made, lines must be drawn somehow. At some point an artist can cross over from using a logo, character or trademark to make soem kind of statement, to blatantly co-opting anothers (individual or copany) work for themselves.
I see your idea for corporate logos, and I hope I made it clear that through my post that I percieved a distinction between the logo, and a genuine artistic creation, one of identity and one of creativity.
Of course, but what do we do when business attempts to pass it's corporate creations off as genuine art? (Or did you mean to say that the works in question are genuine art?)
on my way to crime? (Score:1, Funny)
Re:on my way to crime? (Score:1)
Becoming more rare (Score:4, Insightful)
My favorite (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:My favorite (Score:3, Informative)
Of particular interest.... (Score:5, Funny)
(yeah, I'm one of the above mentioned too...go figure)
Regarding the piece "Disneyland Memorial Orgy" (Score:4, Informative)
(Note: I know the piece I am talking about is from the 60's, not implying it's unoriginal
Re:Regarding the piece "Disneyland Memorial Orgy" (Score:1)
Re:Regarding the piece "Disneyland Memorial Orgy" (Score:4, Insightful)
That may be because it's unfeasible for Disney to hunt down and pursue every last infringer.
Re:Regarding the piece "Disneyland Memorial Orgy" (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Regarding the piece "Disneyland Memorial Orgy" (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, but 99% of it is a bunch of poor-quality cut-and-paste jobs, a bunch of horny prepubescent boys discovering what their warez copies of Photoshop can do. "Disneyland Memorial Orgy," on the other hand, is obviously done by a professional. This guy spent more than five minutes producing it and obviously had something more in mind beyond "heh-heh... they're naked!" This was obviously intended as satire.
Re:Regarding the piece "Disneyland Memorial Orgy" (Score:2)
try putting a print of it on a tee-shirt, then wearing it oin the park... really it would be fun.
I got kicked out for wearing a Mickey Moose shirt.
Re:Regarding the piece "Disneyland Memorial Orgy" (Score:1)
.
Re:Regarding the piece "Disneyland Memorial Orgy" (Score:2)
One of the few companies that are worse than Disney is Mattel, the owners of "Barbie(R)(TM)". They've been known to sue people named "Barbie" who have the audacity to put up personal web sites or own businesses.
Proctor and Gamble has nothing to do with Barbie and Mattel. They are the maker of such brands as Tide, Ivory, Crest, etc. I'm sure they've sued for trademark infringement but aren't exactly in the same league as either Disney or Mattel.
Ilegal? (Score:1)
Re:Extra Orwellian Phrase (Score:2, Funny)
I wonder... (Score:4, Interesting)
Nah... (Score:2)
...They'd probably call it art ;-)
[/end_joke]
Re:I wonder... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Funny)
ELECTRONIC END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR VIEWING ILLEGAL ART EXHIBIT WEBSITE AND FOR USE OF LUMBER AND/OR PET OWNERSHIP
NOTICE TO USER: BY METABOLIZING YOU ACCEPT ALL THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, USE OF YOUR HOME AND CAR BY THE AUTHORS OF THIS AGREEMENT.
This Website End User License Agreement accompanies the Web Pages and related explanatory materials ("Crap"). The term "Crap" also shall include any upgrades, modified versions, or repaintings of the Website licensed to you by either The Prince of Wales, a sentient washing machine, or my old Rabbi (the one who used profanity). Please read this Agreement carefully. At the end, you will be asked to accept this agreement and provide this Website with a warm, lingering, creepy hug. If you do not wish to accept this Agreement, simply click the "I do not accept" button while forcefully shoving your computer off the back of your desk ("Card Table").
Upon your acceptance of this Agreement, this Website grants to you a nonexclusive license to use this Website or your own Shoes ("The Dressy Ones"), provided that you agree to the following:
1. Use of the Website.
1.1 You may use this Website on a hard disk or other storage device. On a scrap of drywall with a Sharpie, install and use the Website on a file server or a tomato server for use on a network or a VHS copy of the motion picture "Network" or for the purposes of (i) permanent installation onto the small of your back at the base of your spine via a tattoo or other storage devices or (ii) for providing the illusion of working while at work (using the following methods of deception: looking intently at the screen, moving the mouse, and typing decisively on the keyboard); and make backup copies of the Website for later printing and spreading out in an alley to make a nice bed.
1.2 You may make and distribute unlimited copies of the Website, including copies for commercial distribution, as long as each copy that you make and distribute contains this Agreement and is created in one of the following media: carved out of ice, as in an ice sculpture centerpiece; smeared in mustard on the side of a white or off-white panel van; or taught to a parrot who is then condemned to fly the earth for eternity, incessantly repeating the mantra of this Website.
2. Copyright and Trademark Rights. The Website is owned by its authors ("the Elks Clubs of America") and its suppliers. Its structure, organization, and code are the valuable trade secrets of the Freemasons, probably. The Website is also protected by United States Copyright Law and a group of big, scary goons who will happily beat you until you're ejecting teeth like a winning slot machine. Use of any trademark does not give you any rights of ownership in that trademark, jackass. Except as stated above, this Agreement does not grant you any intellectual property rights in the Website. Got it, fucko?
3. Restrictions. You agree not to modify, adapt, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble or otherwise attempt to discover the inner motivations, dreams, aspirations, or weird, possibly sexual fantasies of the Website.
4. No Warranty. The Website is being delivered to you AS IS and we make no warranty as to its use or performance. WE DO NOT AND CANNOT WARRANT THE PERFORMANCE OR RESULTS YOU MAY OBTAIN BY USING THE WEBSITE. LOOK, WHEN THIS WEBSITE GOES ALL CRAZY AND DESTROYS YOUR COMPUTER, KILLS YOUR PET, SLEEPS WITH YOUR SIGNIFICANT OTHER, DIGS UP ALL YOUR OLD POETRY AND LAUGHS AND LAUGHS, THEN CALLS UP YOUR FRIENDS AND READS THEM ALL THOSE REALLY EMBARRASING PARTS OUT OF YOUR JOURNAL, LIKE WHEN YOU SAID YOU WERE "DESTINED FOR BEAUTY" OR SOME SHIT LIKE THAT, WE MAKE NO GUARANTEES AND WILL SIMPLY JOIN WITH EVERYONE AND LAUGH AT YOUR SORRY ASS, BECAUSE DAMN, THERE'S NO FREAKING WARRANTY HERE. GET IT? NO WARRANTY. NONE. AT ALL.
6. Notice to Government End Users. The Software and Documentation are "Real Bitchin'," as that term is defined at 48 C.F.R. 2.101, consisting of "Real Bitchin' (formerly 'Radical' items)" and as such terms are used in 48 C.F.R. 12.212 or 48 C.F.R. 227.7202, as applicable. Or maybe 56 C.Fsomething something. 7. Oh, and these things, too: . Consistent with 48 C.F.R. 12.212 or 48 C.F.R. 227.7202-1 through 227.7202-4, as applicable, as well as R2-D2 and JOHNNY 5, locked in a beautiful metallic embrace of everlasting robot love.
PLEASE INDICATE YOUR ACCEPTANCE OR DECLINE OF THE FOREGOING AGREEMENT BY CLICKING ON THE APPROPRIATE BUTTON BELOW.
I Agree | I do not agree
by Jason Torchinsky
"Counterfeit" pound notes (Score:5, Interesting)
What would happen is that the artist, Boggs, would go into a shop and ask to buy something. He would try to convince the person at the checkout to accept a Boggs note rather than a normal one. So, he might offer you a £5 Boggs note in exchange for £5 worth of goods. If you felt that his art was worth £5, you would accept.
If you did accept, you were about to become very rich. He would tip off the people who collected his art that a note had been "spent", and the lucky shop assistant would be offered thousands of pounds for the note.
Of course, Boggs was charged with counterfeiting currency, because the people who govern us don't have a sense of humour. In due course Boggs appeared in court, represented by pro bono counsel. It seems that Boggs offered to paint his fee, but, not wanting to get struck off, his lawyer said that he would rather work for free!
After one of the most wacky trials I can remember, the jury voted to let Boggs off. In the process, the government made Boggs rich; thousands more people heard about his art, and the price went through the roof.
Shortly afterwards, the British currency had one of its periodic redesigns. The banknotes had changed to include a claim of copyright. Presumably the government wants to be able to get an injunction against any future Boggs, rather than taking its chance in front of a jury.
Re:"Counterfeit" pound notes (Score:5, Informative)
Re:"Counterfeit" pound notes (Score:4, Interesting)
There are some examples of his work, interview transcript and whatnot.
Extraordinary! (Score:2)
I've quoted you in full on my web site:
http://www.karljones.com/money/artistic_money.asp [karljones.com]
Re:"Counterfeit" pound notes (Score:4, Interesting)
If I remember right, the long-haired speculation was that the Treasury wasn't keen on this not so much because of the counterfeiting aspect of it but because they're more afraid of people using something other than dollars as a medium of exchange.
I'm not sure what the law is about this. Is it specifically illegal for me to print up a 10,000 Flugelbucks and then convince everyone in my community that they should accept and use my Flugelbucks as a form of payment?
I'm not even sure what the tax ramifications are of this. I suppose you're supposed to keep track of even direct barter (painting for plumbing) transactions above a certain amount -- but what if I start say painting houses and have only *ever* done it for Flugelbucks? If I do all of my other transactions in them, how do I know what the dollar value of the transactions is?
It's kind of surreal path and I can understand where it would give people who like to keep economic transactions in neat and tidy dollar amounts a big headache.
Re:"Counterfeit" pound notes (Score:3, Interesting)
I doubt it, considering that some cities print their own money: Ithaca, NY [lightlink.com] most notably.
I'm not even sure what the tax ramifications are of this... If I do all of my other transactions in them [Flugelbucks], how do I know what the dollar value of the transactions is?
Most likely the "fair market value" in dollars would be applied. If you're painting houses, then you have to ask: what would someone else charge in dollars for this? Now, if you can find a service that no one else can/does provide, then maybe you've found a tax loophole that can be exploited... (but probably not, because IANATA)
Re:"Counterfeit" pound notes (Score:2)
Lol! I hope you can't provide a necessary service that nobody else provides... In a capitalist society that means you charge millions of dollars for it, and I'd hate to see that kind of tax bill showing up on my door if all I had handy were Norton notes [orlingrabbe.com]
-C
Here's another: Devalued currency (Score:2)
Now... on your tax forms, can you claim that you were paid 50000 in currency X. Remember, if the currency is valued lower at the end of the year, you would be paying less tax for that 50,000 - not indicating the fact that you did a turnover to US$.
This would only work if the foreign currency noticably dropped in value between the beginning and end of the tax year, and you'd also have to count the rates for exchanging currency. Anyone know if it would work though?
Re:"Counterfeit" pound notes (Score:2, Insightful)
A lot of college towns do something very similar to this. You can get a card which you basically use like a debit card, but instead of spending dollars, you spend "collegebucks" (or whatever they call it in your town). Various merchants throughout the community agree to honor these collegebucks. Of course, one generally puchases this currency with real national currency.
Re:"Counterfeit" pound notes (Score:2, Funny)
Homer: One adult and four children.
Woman: Would you like to buy some Itchy and Scratchy Money?
Homer: What's that?
Woman: Well it's money that's made just for the park. It works just like regular money, but it's, er..."fun".
Bart: Do it, Dad.
Homer: Well, OK, if it's fun...let's see, uh...I'll take $1100 worth.
[he walks in, sees all the signs: "No I&S Money", "We Don't Take Itchy and Scratchy Money", etc.]
Aw!
-- So much for fun, "Itchy and Scratchy Land"
Courtesy of SNPP.com [snpp.com].
Re:"Counterfeit" pound notes (Score:2, Informative)
You'd just consider the "fair market value" of what you got and gave. If you can't establish the fair market value, come up with a defensible substitute (i.e., if the IRS examines your tax return) and use that. For instance in your case, you don't really know the market value of Flugelbucks, but you know the value of painting houses so you could approximate things.
I think the tax pubs give an example of trading artwork for something, in this case, the artwork would just happen to look a lot like currency!
That's why "art" like this so cool
Re:"Counterfeit" pound notes (Score:3, Informative)
Ithaca Hours [ithacahours.org]
Re:"Counterfeit" pound notes (Score:1)
Apparently the U.S. treasury has a legal monoploly on the printing of U.S. federal bank notes. These are the only recognized 'legal tender for all depts public and private' according to the same U.S. government department (read the fine print on any handy dollar bill.)
It would seem, then, that one would not be in the most legal of situtations to be printing and publishing your own tender. That could be seen as violating the 'monoploy on money.'
And we all no how important government backed monopolies [uspto.gov] are, don't we [riaa.org]?
Re:"Counterfeit" pound notes (Score:1)
I believe you are misinterpreting that line. If I remember correctly, it means that it is the only form of currancy that people are legally required to take to pay off 'all debts public and private'. In other words, it might be legal to take those 'Ithaca Hours', but if someone wants to pay you in cash, you have to take it.
I can't find a referance, though, and I'm off to a meeting, so take with a grain of salt.
Re:"Counterfeit" pound notes (Score:2)
I'd guess this historically dates to an era when someone may have incurred a debt and tried to pay in paper money and the debtee wouldn't accept paper but instead wanted gold or silver coinage instead.
Barterbux (Score:1)
Your own money (Score:1)
On the question of printing your own money, this used to be standard practice in Canada. Since the only "real" currency was coins, banks would print paper bills representing a given amount of coins (always promising to be "redeemable" until sometime in the 20th century). The Bank of Canada was set up to provide a central source of paper currenty, and to provide confidence in the currency after some issuers went bankrupt - and obviously when anyone can print their own money, counterfitting is pretty easy - you don't even need to copy a real bill, just make up a real-sounding bank name. For legitimate banks, it was fairly profitable (due to complex economics I don't fully understand), and there's nothing stopping banks from issuing their own currency if they want to, except that likely nobody will want it.
In French Canada during shortages (such as war), playing cards were used as money (signed by an appropriate authority, such as a colonial governor).
Currently in Canada there are only two widely accepted forms of paper currency - bills from the Bank of Canada (which have iridescent patterns on the surface that can't be recreated from a printer), and Canadian Tire Money, which are really coupons that can be spent at Canadian Tire stores, but can sometimes be spent elsewhere, depending on the retailer. Canadian Tire denominations are limited to something like 50 cents.
Re:"Counterfeit" pound notes - JSG Boggs etc. (Score:3, Funny)
BTW, the engraving of Boggs on the above mentioned book was executed by T. Hipschen - who happens to have done the front and back design of the new US 100 dollar bill - amongst others.
Another artist following in Boggs' footsteps in Tim Prusmark [money-art.com].
Re:"Counterfeit" pound notes (Score:3, Funny)
Without that copyright, the British Government wouldn't have any incentive to print money, and financial catastrophe would result.
Boggs (Score:1)
Slashdot: Tool of Disney? (Score:5, Funny)
Here's some illegal art (Score:3, Funny)
In Soviet Russia... (Score:1, Funny)
Re:In Soviet Russia... (Score:2, Offtopic)
zine with companion articles (Score:4, Interesting)
What are you guys trying to do today? (Score:3, Funny)
Trying to save some bandwidth costs by removing a few readers from the free roaming population?
Well ok ants in space might not get you in trouble. Maybe.
Re:What are you guys trying to do today? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What are you guys trying to do today? (Score:2)
I'd like to remind them that as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.
-KB
Re:What are you guys trying to do today? (Score:1)
For the most part, looks like the exhibit sucks (Score:1, Interesting)
Other than that though, I thought everything else was pretty stupid and didn't really classify as art.
One of the worst exhibits on the page is of some cat that copied his cd collection. Big fuckin w00p, what's so artistic about that? So copying my stuff to CDR suddenly makes me an artist?
Of course, this is all opinion, by which I know some people may disagree with me. So the question bears to mind what is art? I don't think CD duplication is an art, it's just a bunch of mouse clicks or a command line with a few switches. Fuck if that's the case i'm an artist in spades.
Re:For the most part, looks like the exhibit sucks (Score:5, Interesting)
If you copied all your CDs, and called it art, poof! Its art!
Whether is good art, or not, thats for you to decide. You didn't like it, good stuff.
But art is a message (in this case)
I think thats the message there
So who cares if its good or not
Re:For the most part, looks like the exhibit sucks (Score:2)
Art isn't just "sending a message" What makes art is original technique used by the artist. Art can be political yes, but in this case I see no originality. The technique used to create what you are calling "art" took no more effort that clicking a few buttons.
From Dictionary.com
art1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ärt)
n.
Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
The study of these activities.
The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.
A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.
A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.
A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.
A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer.
Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art.
Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: "Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice" (Joyce Carol Oates).
arts Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks.
Artful contrivance; cunning.
Printing. Illustrative material.
[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin ars, art-. See ar- in Indo-European Roots.]
Synonyms: art, 1craft, expertise, knack, know-how, technique
These nouns denote skill in doing or performing that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of rhetoric; pottery that reveals an artist's craft; political expertise; a knack for teaching; mechanical know-how; a precise diving technique.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Clearly by definition, art is defined by "technique" what it doesn't mention is what is the measure of great art?
Personally, I think art is only as good as the effort put into it. Look at the classics like Monet, or architectual/artistic achievements such as the Sistine Chapel. These took tremoundous amounts of effort on the part of the artist to create them, which is why they are "timeless peices of art"
And I just don't limit art to the old school either, I think the visual effect team for LOTR are genuinely artists. It took a tremendous amount of effort and artistic technique to produce the first 2 films. Not to mention I see some coders as artist.
But a guy that could have just used a Pioneer standalone CD copier and pressed the button 20 times, Sorry, despite the political statement I KNOW he's trying to make, it just doesn't muster much effort on his part. Sort of reminds me of a 6th grade project I had to do 2nd day of school.
Our 6th grade teacher had given each of her students a 4"x8" peice of wood with the instructions, "Take it home, turn it into whatever you want and bring it back to class" I don't know what her motive was..
I went home trying to think of something cool I could do, that year I had discovered the miricles of baking soda and vinagar so I thought "Volcano!" I cut a 1" diameter plastic hair spray bottle down to about 3 inches. I glued it to the board and went out back. I made some mud, then started piling it around the board and the tube in the center.
The next day I came to class with a small bottle of vinagar, a bag of baking soda, and my mud pie on a stick. The kids were definetly split into a few seperate categories, some came back with keyhooks carved in the shape of the word "Keys" (I bet $20 daddy did it for them) Others had nails in them and wrapped glitter sting in spirograph patterns. 2 had mini jigsaw puzzles. Here I was with my mud pie on a stick.
The mud was good and dry, I had left it to dry overnight next to the water heater. By the look on my teachers face (Yes Mrs Dunworth you scarred me for life) and her words "What (straining not to say "the fuck" is that?"
"It an erupting volcano!"
The oohs and ahhs came across the classroom. The clicks stopped their little group chats and stared at the center of the room in silence as I unvieled my mudly mess of volcanic eruption.
"WATCH THIS MRS DUNWORTH!"
I mixed the baking soda and vinagar just as I had planned, what I hadn't counted on was the surface of my volcano was extremely pourus and started collecting the solution as it started running over the side. The whole thing melted back into mud and I could tell the teach was doing her best to maintain as the class erupted into laughter.
"TAKE THAT MESS OUTSIDE NOW" She snapped as I cleaned up my mess and left the laughing classroom behind me.
For a while, I heald it against them all, thinking, gee what was it that didn't make that art? I pondered the question over and over untill I came up with the answer...
It was my lack of effort that made it art. Sure my technique of making it into a scientific diorama with a chemical reaction was cool, but simply piling mud on top of a board was not enough, I should have at least used crepe paper and chicken wire.
And that's how I tie this back into my "opinionated critique" of this art exhibit. I just don't see any effort in copying cd's and labeling them with a sharpie. I'm sorry if you mods don't agree with me but I know I make a very valid point, so fuck you.
Re:For the most part, looks like the exhibit sucks (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:For the most part, looks like the exhibit sucks (Score:3, Interesting)
Feel free to make your own, work as hard as you like on it, but dont expect people to honestly critique your work based on the effort you put into it. By your measure, you should be the most famous artist in the world, regardless of artistic ability, so long as you work 20 hours more than the next best artist.
The asthetic, the message,
And how you can spin a 6th grade project into a case for what is art - uh
I think your reaction is natural tho; imagine how many people should feel upset at whoever wrote the song "Happy Birthday"
Art isnt a meritocracy - in line with the definition, by working against nature, art is made to escape any value judgement you can place on it by quantitative analysis (how big is it, how long did it take to make) alone.
I think your questions are valid, but you'd have a very difficult time convincing anybody remotely affiliated with the artistic community that art can be discounted as being such based soley on the effort that went into it. More effort goes into producing , in terms of how many people worked on it, for how long, etc. So now is some shitty blockbuster that took 500 people 3 years to make better than, the mona lisa, which only took one guy a few months to make in the comfort of his own home? Of course not.
(I should point out that I didnt agree with the troll mod.)
Re:For the most part, looks like the exhibit sucks (Score:1)
a. Glue the CD's together to form a pyramid or some other object. Simply displaying these in a case gives it no form.
b. Extracted the bits from a cd (Let's say mettallica) and then go through bolding, italisizing the 1's and 0's in a text editor to form a mosaic picture (I would do a hand with the middle finger extended)
What this guy did was the minimal effort to make a political statement, his motive was just to make a statement, not to create art.
Re:For the most part, looks like the exhibit sucks (Score:2)
It is ironic that you choose "Happy Birthday" to illustrate your example, as it has been a very hotly contested copyright. Do you really think the schoolteacher that put those seven notes together in 1893 deserves 2 million dollars per year? Not that she saw any of the actual money, she was dead long before the song actually paid any royalties. Only other people have profited off of "Happy Birthday", the original author got nothing for her (limited amount of) work. In fact, that $2M/year is going to AOL-Time Warner [snopes.com], who else? Like the majority of copyrights-it only goes to benefit the large media corporations, not the starving artist. Extending copyright terms well past the death of the artist does no good for the creator, as they will only see money until they die. It doesn't seem to me like this is promoting more art (which is the aim of the copyright principle), as the actual artist sees no added benefit. Life+x terms are simply to benefit the corporations that bought the laws in the first place.
Re:For the most part, looks like the exhibit sucks (Score:2)
My preference is for 50 years or life, whichever is longer. I think an artist should have the chance to pass their earnings to their children either in cash earned from work that they did early in their life (the stuff that is caught by "life" in the above formula) or in the form of copyright in material they created near the end of their life (the "50 years" bit). Just "life" seems unfair on people that snuff it just after doing something which goes on to being really popular and just "x years" leaves people in the position of losing control of their work and possibly seeing it totally ripped off (like Robert Crumb and "Keep on Truckin'") in their lifetime which must be a source of real bitterness in some cases.
On the other hand, I'd really like to have seen Tolkien and Milne's works passed into the public domain as soon as they died because their children frankly abused their inheritance. Disney should not be in control of Winnie The Pooh and a talentless hack like Jackson should not be left as the definitive LotR director for the forseeable future.
TWW
Re:For the most part, looks like the exhibit sucks (Score:2)
I was speaking purely about art and effort - often the simplest, most seemingly 'obvious' works
The opening was off the hook (Score:5, Interesting)
The show is off the hook. There is some video pastiche and collage from the first gulf war that was on GNN (www.gnn.tv?) that is amazing and oddly precient for what is going on now, what is about to happen yet again.
They were asking for donations for the wine, but weren't pushy about it. Thusly, the wine ended up being resonably priced and quite good. It started to snow around 7pm or so, and I didn't get there till after six, so I didn't hear the opening speach (which was quite good, I heard).
I'm so glad this came to Chicago, I'd seen the NY announcement and thought it bad ass. This show rules, and the SF MOMA should definitely try to scope it (it plays to the SF Moma strength of design) for a west coast engagement.
But mostly, this stuff should be on-line. Somebody should take a good ditital camera and make some higer-res photos of the show and do a real on-line catalog, the low-res shit on the current site doesn't do it justice.
They were giving out this CD of music that looked good (and soon to be MP3'd) that says: "Not for Sale: Stay FREE! 003"
Ha. Right on. Also, it has an Invisibl Skratch Piklz track on it (also in CDDB as Various Artist Illegal Art): finally a free giveaway cd that doesn't suck. De La Soul track, Beasties, ubiquitous Negativeland "U2" track, hopefully some punk: tracks like "the JAMS - the Queen and I" sound kind of punk-rock, don't they?
Re:The opening was off the hook (Score:4, Interesting)
Invisbl Skratch Piklz - turntablist group that uses presumably copywritten recordings, deconstructing and reconstructing COMPLETETLY original music from prerecorded vinyl records.
De La Soul - first rap group involved in sample-litigation for a sample they used from some Turtles (I think) song. Top 40 R&B Rap today is very canned, and rarely self-referential
Negativeland - I _think_ they coined the term "Culture Jamming"
Just felt like I should point out why these groups would be involved in an exhibit like this.
Re:The opening was off the hook (Score:1)
Sweet. I knew they had to be cool when I saw them on the Apple Switch ads, but I didnt know they were copyrightninjas as well as macninjas. I'll have to check them out.
This sums it up for me. (Score:3, Insightful)
There's modern day society for you.
Re:This sums it up for me. (Score:5, Informative)
McLeod, who was at the opening (I met him, chatted for a brief sec), trademarked the term and then named a zine "Freedom of Expression". He then got a buddy of his to start a punk zine also called "Freedom of Expression" and then sued his friend, hiring a lawyer whom he didn't let in on the gag. The whole point of the exercise was to show the ridiculousness of trademark. As McLeod said himself, "Freedom of Expression is not for sale." The entire suit was an exercise in analyzing culture and property rights.
He's also suing AT&T over the use of the phrase in an ad campaign they're running.
Amazingly enough, all of this information was readily available from the links in the story. Who knew?
Don't they EVER spellcheck? (Score:1)
It's warez! Really! Isn't that the point?
Re:Don't they EVER spellcheck? (Score:1)
Definitions of Illegal Art (incomplete list) (Score:1)
They have a EULA! Beware (Score:3, Funny)
NOTICE TO USER: BY METABOLIZING YOU ACCEPT ALL THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, USE OF YOUR HOME AND CAR BY THE AUTHORS OF THIS AGREEMENT.
This Website End User License Agreement accompanies the Web Pages and related explanatory materials ("Crap"). The term "Crap" also shall include any upgrades, modified versions, or repaintings of the Website licensed to you by either The Prince of Wales, a sentient washing machine, or my old Rabbi (the one who used profanity). Please read this Agreement carefully. At the end, you will be asked to accept this agreement and provide this Website with a warm, lingering, creepy hug. If you do not wish to accept this Agreement, simply click the "I do not accept" button while forcefully shoving your computer off the back of your desk ("Card Table").
Upon your acceptance of this Agreement, this Website grants to you a nonexclusive license to use this Website or your own Shoes ("The Dressy Ones"), provided that you agree to the following:
1. Use of the Website.
1.1 You may use this Website on a hard disk or other storage device. On a scrap of drywall with a Sharpie, install and use the Website on a file server or a tomato server for use on a network or a VHS copy of the motion picture "Network" or for the purposes of (i) permanent installation onto the small of your back at the base of your spine via a tattoo or other storage devices or (ii) for providing the illusion of working while at work (using the following methods of deception: looking intently at the screen, moving the mouse, and typing decisively on the keyboard); and make backup copies of the Website for later printing and spreading out in an alley to make a nice bed.
1.2 You may make and distribute unlimited copies of the Website, including copies for commercial distribution, as long as each copy that you make and distribute contains this Agreement and is created in one of the following media: carved out of ice, as in an ice sculpture centerpiece; smeared in mustard on the side of a white or off-white panel van; or taught to a parrot who is then condemned to fly the earth for eternity, incessantly repeating the mantra of this Website.
2. Copyright and Trademark Rights. The Website is owned by its authors ("the Elks Clubs of America") and its suppliers. Its structure, organization, and code are the valuable trade secrets of the Freemasons, probably. The Website is also protected by United States Copyright Law and a group of big, scary goons who will happily beat you until you're ejecting teeth like a winning slot machine. Use of any trademark does not give you any rights of ownership in that trademark, jackass. Except as stated above, this Agreement does not grant you any intellectual property rights in the Website. Got it, fucko?
3. Restrictions. You agree not to modify, adapt, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble or otherwise attempt to discover the inner motivations, dreams, aspirations, or weird, possibly sexual fantasies of the Website.
4. No Warranty. The Website is being delivered to you AS IS and we make no warranty as to its use or performance. WE DO NOT AND CANNOT WARRANT THE PERFORMANCE OR RESULTS YOU MAY OBTAIN BY USING THE WEBSITE. LOOK, WHEN THIS WEBSITE GOES ALL CRAZY AND DESTROYS YOUR COMPUTER, KILLS YOUR PET, SLEEPS WITH YOUR SIGNIFICANT OTHER, DIGS UP ALL YOUR OLD POETRY AND LAUGHS AND LAUGHS, THEN CALLS UP YOUR FRIENDS AND READS THEM ALL THOSE REALLY EMBARRASING PARTS OUT OF YOUR JOURNAL, LIKE WHEN YOU SAID YOU WERE "DESTINED FOR BEAUTY" OR SOME SHIT LIKE THAT, WE MAKE NO GUARANTEES AND WILL SIMPLY JOIN WITH EVERYONE AND LAUGH AT YOUR SORRY ASS, BECAUSE DAMN, THERE'S NO FREAKING WARRANTY HERE. GET IT? NO WARRANTY. NONE. AT ALL.
6. Notice to Government End Users. The Software and Documentation are "Real Bitchin'," as that term is defined at 48 C.F.R. 2.101, consisting of "Real Bitchin' (formerly 'Radical' items)" and as such terms are used in 48 C.F.R. 12.212 or 48 C.F.R. 227.7202, as applicable. Or maybe 56 C.Fsomething something. 7. Oh, and these things, too: . Consistent with 48 C.F.R. 12.212 or 48 C.F.R. 227.7202-1 through 227.7202-4, as applicable, as well as R2-D2 and JOHNNY 5, locked in a beautiful metallic embrace of everlasting robot love.
PLEASE INDICATE YOUR ACCEPTANCE OR DECLINE OF THE FOREGOING AGREEMENT BY CLICKING ON THE APPROPRIATE BUTTON BELOW
Isnt this Yew-la thing bad?
Re:They have a EULA! Beware (Score:2)
Re:They have a EULA! Beware (Score:3)
FUCK ME HARDER. I am extremely pissed off that Mozilla blocked this EULA from me, shouldn't there be a setting to "Allow scripts to open only requested or funny windows"?
Re:They have a EULA! Beware (Score:1)
*Terms*
Illegal music (Score:1, Interesting)
My sweet lord (Score:1)
more articles from the show... (Score:4, Informative)
AN UPHILL BATTLE: INTERVIEW WITH LAWRENCE LESSIG [inthesetimes.com]
Stanford Law School professor Lawrence Lessig is the nation's leading advocate for intellectual property law reform; we interview him about the state of the movement.
THE PIRATES OF HOLLYWOOD [inthesetimes.com]
The language of film may be universal, but don't tell that to the Motion Picture Association of America--you might end up in court.
MUSIC FOR THE MASSES [inthesetimes.com]
When Lester Chambers stepped onto the stage to galvanize the audience with "People Get Ready," his band included one guy who looked like he might be from the IRS. But he wasn't. He was there from the Federal Communications Commission.
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION [inthesetimes.com]
The power of corporations to censor was greatly expanded by the passage in 1998 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which was written by and for the lobbies that paid to push it through Congress--the software, entertainment, pharmaceutical and other intellectual property industries.
Here's an "illegal" web site (Score:3, Interesting)
The logo is clearly not an infringement of copyright or trademark. First, it is protected under the First Amendment because it is a parody. Also, it's being used in non-commerical way to criticize a company, which of course is also protected speech. Third, no one would ever confuse our site with Labor Ready's so it does not infringe on their trademark. What's more, the parody logo only vaguely resembles the company's official logo.
This is just another way corporations get to push around the little guy. They have the resources at their disposal to try to scare and intimidate this organization into shutting up or else face the prospect financial ruin trying to put a fight.
Exhibit travelling abroad? (Score:1)
the best part is the location (slightly off topic) (Score:1)
The exhibit is at 2040 N Milwaukee Ave. in Chicago, les than two Blocks from Margie's candies (1960 N Western Ave.). Margie's is a local Business that has been making some of the best homemade ice cream and homemade candy since 1921.
I was thinking of dropping by the art show but after seeing the location on the website, this is a must see :)
Re:Oh, image appropriation (Score:2)
Re:Hooray (Score:1)
Considering it goes on for almost another four weeks, probably not too many, so quit your whining.
Re:Hooray (Score:1)
Yeah, just everybody in the New York area.
Re:wonders if... (Score:1)
Well, I preferr personally to not care about some of the stuff on
But like anyone cares what I think. Hell I don't most of the time...
Re:Um, guys? (Score:1)
who says we want to be?
Re:unpublished CD (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, the U2 song that negativland sampled, or whatever, was recalled and all copies they could find were destroyed. It isn't about art, it is about how much money can you afford to pay to copy other works. It is a little nutty, if you really think about it."
well, now I know what happens when you moderate and then post, even as AC...
What I was trying to say is, has anyone else heard of this CD, knows any more information, and/or where it can be bought?
Re:unpublished CD (Score:1)
Re:unpublished CD (Score:2)
Highly recomended sample-heavy mix-tape from one of the originators of the style. See also the classic Lessons 1, 2 and 3, "And the motorcade sped on", and "It's up to you".
More here [steinski.com] here [counterpunch.org] and here [boomkat.com].
Re:unpublished CD (Score:1)
Ah, blessed are the Slashdotters (and Slashsons) for they will remember the oddest (and most useful) things.
Re:unpublished CD (Score:1)
The music is also freely available on the website: www.droplift.org [droplift.org]
Re:unpublished CD (Score:1, Informative)
Steinski is perhaps better known for another piece of illegal art, his remixes of "Hey Mr. DJ, Play That Beat" aka "The Payoff Mix" aka Lesson 1, followed by two further Lessons, as well as "The Motorcade Sped On", an exposition on the Kennedy assassination.
The U2 song is readily available from Negativland's website [negativland.com].
Ill asumtion (Score:1)