snafu on Tue, 9 Nov 1999 03:48:29 +0100 (CET)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

<nettime> Re: olia lialina: Re:art.hacktivism

>> > > OL: Are you really familiar with net art or net in general? if yes you
>> > > should know that copying is not a big deal. You can make hundreds of
>> > > Art.Teleportacia galleries, but next day they will be only hundreds of
>> > > outdated pages with not actual information and broken links, because I
>> > > will update only .. The same with all on
>> > > art and not art works. What is done on the net is not a book or cd
or tape
>> > > kind of product. It is not complete, not frosen, but can be changed
>> > > moment. And this moment is a difference between copies and originals.
>> in another interview that you gave, you were affirming that what makes the
>> difference between the original and the copy on the net is given by the
>> domain:  an original net artwork would be recognizable, according to you,
>> from the name of the server on which the project was uploaded for the
>> first time.
>not nessessary the first time, it is more complicated, but in general you
>understood me right
>also look at
>> Next time we will hear you saying that the originality of the net is based
>> on interactivity so that all the origninal artworks are the ones based on
>> streaming and real time interaction...
>hmm, this i never said, sorry
>> i don't understand why you are so obsessed in defending this concept,
>i dont think that i defend a concept, i deal with nowadays reality and
>perception of copyright subject on the net
>> that
>> after all, exist only since the advent of borghesy, but it was unknown to
>> the Romans for istance, for which a copy was identical to the original...
>> originality is the concept on the base of which has been possible over the
>> last 200 years steal and extrapolate artworks from their native context to
>> transfer them in the western museum and galleries: the genius of the
>> creator is always there, trapped in the artwork... you buy the artwork,
>> you get a piece of geniality, right?
>> after all, why the universities continue to teach hystory of art -- that
>> has been almost entirely revolutionary over the last century?
>> beacuse they need critics that are able to draw a line between original
>> and fake, real art and unsellable trash...  they need critics that
>> establish, directly or inderectly, a prize for a form of commodity that
>> has always been difficult to categorize and, therefore, to quantify...
>sounds convincing, but i never studied at art academy, i dont know their

it's not a subjective motivation, art academy, universities, galleries are
such a deep part of this system... 

since art has always been a peculiar kind of commodity, impossible to
categorize, like other products, in terms of social time necessary to
produce it -- capitalistic system had to create a character, a technician
able to 
establish this value...

this technician, the critic, absolves to multiple functions: it
commercializes the artwork, reassure the buyer -- guaranting the
originality of the artwork -- explain to the pubblic, legitimate the artist
discovering h/er...

that's what you are basically doing with art.teleportacia which is, from my
point of view, a conservative project because it doesn't change of a comma
in this discourse... 

i don't think that you establish the price of what you sell on the base of
time necessary to produce the artwork... it seems  that this price is much
more based on notoriety of artists, on social time necessary to produce an

an artist mirrored or linked from several web-sites, invited to several
conferences, is surely more worth than an unkwon one... in this way we go
back the origin of this discourse, the function of the gallery and museum:
yesterday we had exihibition, catalogues, conferences, auctions, all parts
of a  system that was selecting artists and assigning them a different
level of a stairway, the money's stairway...   

today we have art websites, net galleries, mailing lists, web auctions and
so on... i don't see any innovation if we consider 
these circuits -- more or less indipendent -- as the new institutions of under this perspective, teleportacia is surely one of the first
to show the naked king...       

>> if these are the premises, i think that we have to find the potential
>> differences that the net introduce, in the production of communication and
>> art...
>> we have to
>> go for a non mimetic process and to push on mutation, not to reintroduce
>> from the window what we could trash from the main door.
>dont trash anything, dont announce anything to be trash. it is not

i destroy the eXistent not for debris love but to let the life passing
through this debris... i definitely believe in the creative power of

>it is loosers ideology

sorry, but /~loosers ideology wasn't found on this server

>> plagiarism don't aim necessary to destruction, but it shows how it's easy
>> to replicate... great plagiarist always had to learn the techniques of the
>> masters before replicating them at an accetable level...
>> now we can
>> replicate complex system in few minutes, just using a software...
>but it is not a big deal and this is what i say in the paragraph u qouted
>> it means that the machines and the codes had accumulated such a quantity
>> of human kwnoledge that, sharing it, we can progress much faster on a
>> collective level than we did in the past...
>faster is only faster, nothing more

nothing more! going faster is not only a matter of quantity, but of
multiple elaborations, synthesis of time... all the development of
photography, cinema, video, informatic technologies is the development of
an engine that accumulates and produces duration and time... new
technologies basically works like our memory, zipping and unzipping,
folding and unfolding different crystals of time (text, sound, images)...   

any of these crystals can be trapped by the work chain and finalised to
profit or liberated to create new pleasureable, non finalised associations
and connections...     

... any applet, script, game that we playfully create, it's a powerful
means of mutation, because it keeps the aware signs of  of a
multiple/singular concatenation of body/minds, where the limits between me
and the collective you are more and more blurred...

but when you start to sell, you necessarly end up limitating circulation
and access 
(why someone should pay for a pubblic artwork, if you don't guarantee to
the potential buyer an exclusive access?) and suggesting weird ideas to
those that can't really stand the existence of this gift economy... 

look at the etoys vs etoy case, it tells us clearly what is the real
attitude of the companies towards small actors... etoy created its domain
at least 3 years before etoys: if now it's sued is because corporations
finally obtained laws to do it... 
can you imagine what will happen as soon as they make laws to protect
original artworks on the net? 
defending the originality of the DNS as a certificate of autenticity, you
move in the same conceptual framework of Microsoft... 

Plagiarism is necessary. Progress implies it.
Copyright protects the rich. I'd rather give it away. That way I never feel
ripped off.

the only original server is the dead server
dead servers tell no lies
>> any time that i look at the
>> source code of an html page i learn something that i could never get from
>> a manual...and copy and paste it, it's the easiest way to understand how
>> it works for my pourposes...
>> but we have to fight to keep this openess, and not to continue to defend
>> the same old impossible castles...
>i personally dont defend "old impossible castles", you do idealising Romans

even if i'm roman, i prefer to leave the idealisation of the roman empire
to nostalgic fascists...

>> there's nothing wrong if you get paid to make art, but this is not the
>> best way to do it...
>:) it is

i'm glad for you :)



ps none of the words written in this message are mine -- language is a
virus -- i feel original only when i'm silent...

for any copyright fee snafu is at disposition of Karl Marx, Maurizio
Lazzarato, Walter Benjamin, Gash Girl, Barbie Liberation Organisation,
Antonio Rocca, I/O/D, William Burroughs, Tiziano Scarpa and all the other
authors that will be so kind to sue me not to have quoted the original

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: contact: