[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> There is not _nearly_ enough openess in the art world at the moment.
>Totally.
>There are a lot of old premises about authorship, revision,
>presentation, and what constitutes a final work which just aren't
>valid anymore, imho. I can see why they remain -- when a thing is new
>or hasn't yet diffused beyond its earliest adopters or field of
>introduction, it's difficult to envision how it can work. I think the
>openness will come once these things change and the fear is gone.
I worry a bit about net distribution of my work. I think there is
a tendancy for things that get passed around on the net to lose
the credits that should be attached to them.
For example - I was very active on usenet back in the early 90s,
and I had a few quotes that got kinda famous. Searching the net for
them now shows them all over, some with attributes, some without,
some with *incorrect* attributes.
Hopefully people will treat images/sound-clips/etc with more respect
than snappy one-liners.
Also - this is just talking about people who enjoy reading/listening/
whatever things they come accross on the net. As far as the "Art World"
in the pretensious sense goes, that completely revolves around collectors,
and freely-copyable digital files have no value whatsoever to a
collector. I'm not sure how that massive culture-shock problem will
settle out. It would be really nice if the collectors became less
important to the art world & art critics.
-------- David Fischer -------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------- www.cca.org --------
"Beauty is only skin-deep. It's what's underneath that really matters."
- traditional cannibal saying
