Antoine Moreau on Sat, 21 Apr 2001 14:04:35 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
[Nettime-bold] [CODE] [Free Art Licence] about Florian Cramer's point of vue &my speech. |
Hello, I'm back in nettime list after leaving it last year. Back because I heard some words about my presentation during CODE http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/CODE/ of Copyleft Attitude, an artistic movement which use a juridic tool based on the GPL and named the Free Art Licence http://antomoro.free.fr/c/lalgb.html. I would like, despite my very bad english, bring some other light than Florian Cramer's. And further down, let you read what I said (oh! what a lovely and exotic accent you had Antoine! ;-) Sorry for being long and late to reply. >Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 15:19:56 +0200 >From: Florian Cramer <paragram@gmx.net> >To: Nettime <nettime-l@bbs.thing.net> [...] >To make matters worse, the artists who spoke on the second day of CODE >echoed these aesthetic conservatisms in perfect symmetry. Michael Century, >co-organiser of the conference and Stallman's respondent, unfortunately >didn't have enough time to speak about the notational complexity of modern >art in any detail. He was the only speaker to address this issue. >Otherwise, artists were happy to be 'artists', and programmers were happy >to be 'programmers'. I am surprised by the way you heard artists here. Nobody say this. And artists know that they are in the heritage of non-art too. But you'll read it in my speech when I point at an art without qualities (in Robert Musil's terms). This is not a kind of zero and bad art, but some creations not definited only by aesthetic rules. May be you don't know, and this makes sens : in France softwares are considered as "litterature work". It is what the law say in order to the Bern convention. "la directive du conseil des communautés de 1991 définit expressément le logiciel comme oeuvre littéraire: "ART 1: les Etats membres protègent les programmes d'ordinateur par le droit d'auteur en tant qu'oeuvres littéraires au sens de la convention de Berne.[...]" But we must see again "droit d'auteur's" questions... I applauded when Linus Torvalds won the first price, net categorie, during Ars Electronica in 99. A kind of reconnaissance of the ready-made in numeric culture. "Non-ar"t is now understanding like a digital art not only pretty images or easthetics effects. (so hacking is really an art) It is not my practice, but I like to appreciate it like a true art. Isn't it? > Stallman's separation of the 'functional' and the >'aesthetic' was also implied in Antoine Moireau's Free Art License ><<http://www.artlibre.org>http://www.artlibre.org>, a copyleft for >artworks which failed to >illuminate why artists shouldn't simply use the GNU copyleft proper. You asked me and I answered you :" because artists are not making some GNU art. We are free of free. Free-free, you know what Arthur Rimbaud said about freedom : "la liberté libre". (may be translated by " the free freedom". Your remark is important and I must say clearly that artists won't do some "GNU realism" pieces of art like some did in other places and times some "socialist realism" art works (or now, some "capitalism realism" creations: I think of Jeff Koons by exemple, heavy publicity, totalitarian trade marks, etc) No. We love the philosophy of the GNU project and Free Software. But we're artists before all. Some are programmers too, most of the artists in the Copyleft Attitude movement are what we call "contemporary artists" (plastics arts, music, video, etc). We are not creating GNU illustrations for "how-to". We can do this, but not only. Because art is not definited by rules, but by what it is discovering. Discovering and loving the GNU it creates a GNUlike, with some space and some breathing. Don't do no more Chinese "Cultural Revolution", but a real cultural revolution without little red book, without blood, just floodlights on the moon, soon, a spoon say :"nothing happens unless the place" (Mallarmé) And the Free Art Licence can operate in intelligence with the GNU project. >This >question is begged all the more since the license is based on the >assumption that the artwork in contrast to the codework is, quote, >'fixed'. While Moireau's project was at least an honest reflection of >Free Software/Open Source, one couldn't help the impression that other >digital artists appropriated the term as a nebulous, buzzword-compatible >analogy. While there are certainly good reasons for not releasing art as >Free Software, it still might be necessary to speak of digital art and >Free Software in a more practical way. Much if not most of digital art is >locked into proprietary formats like Macromedia Director, QuickTime and >RealVideo. It is doomed to obscurity as soon as their respective >manufacturers discontinue the software. > Being honest isn't being integrist (I'm sure you're not). The question is to build bridges between different worlds not to plan to do one day an only and one world. When I talked two years ago with Richard Stallman, when he came in Paris for a conference, about this idea to extend the Free philosophy to Art, he was a little septic, because softwares aren't excately art works. In order that art is a work in progress but there is no progress in art. Coding is a work in progress (when the sources are open;-) AND there is a real progress. It is the litlle difference. Art is not a positive business. It is not enterely negativ of course (but punk's not dead;-). It is a freedom over positive and negative, remember Nietzsche. (all this very rough because of my difficulties with english) Now, When RMS read the Free Art Licence, he does agree with the terms of it (because it is really inspired by the GPL and close) except a detail (clause 3) that we'll change in the next version. Don't forget that the FAL isn't only aimed to digital artists but to every contemporary artists, non-digital and non-artists too. Every creators (like I said in my speech). Sorry having being so long and badly expressed.In a couple of weeks we'll have a new site php and I hope translated in english too. All my best. antoine moreau ---- This is my speech for CODE you can find here too http://antomoro.free.fr/c/cc/code/speechgb.html CODE "The Free Art Licence: for art not to be stopped". First of all, I would like to thank Tina Horne, Antoine Schmitt and Pierre Amadio for the translation of my text. And also Nicolas Malevé and Laurence Rassel from Constant association for their help. And thank too Bronac Ferran for inviting me and of course, thanks to my mother and father. I will start by talking about the birth, in France, of the "copyleft attitude" movement, and will follow up by giving the reasons for the creation of the Free Art Licence, and explain its usefulness. I will end with a few reflexions related to contemporary art, and to creation in general in the digital age. * It is the widespread use of the Internet, and the observations of the community of programmers who make and use free software, which is at the origin of the artistic movement "CopyLeft Attitude". When I first grasped the notion of copyleft, I realized that it could also be applied to artistic creation. To authorize the copying, distribution and transformation of objects : this echoed much of the research carried out in contemporary art over the last 20 years. But it had never been formulated in such a real and relevant way by the artists as it had been by the programmers with the GNU project. I immediately discussed it with artist friends involved in a magazine called "Allotopie" (its name is a pun on "everywhere" and "utopia") and we started work. Before going on, I have to render unto Caesar, not what belongs to him, but what he deserves: as you probably know, "copyleft" is a word invented by Richard Stallman to designate the free software created under the General Public Licence. I think I've heard somewhere that it wasn't actually him who was the source of this pun, but a friend of his... As you see, one can never be sure of paternity... There may even be a strange, cloven-hoofed animal behind all this ? ... Anyway - In Paris, in January 2000, we organized a series of meetings and debates between artists, programmers, lawyers and various members of the art world, to spread information about the notion of "copyleft" and of free software. The idea was to see how relevant this notion could be to artists and to creative work in general. For the first time, free software programmers and contemporary artists got to know each other and realized that they had much in common - So much so that, for example, Eric S. Raymond's "How to be a hacker" could easily be transformed into "How to be an artist". Which I did, with the permission of the author, by exchanging certain words specific to programming for words relating to art. In March 2000, we set up a workshop-exhibition-meeting to experiment with open artworks, and to draft a licence inspired by the GPL. I must say we were not able to do this very quickly nor very easily, and we only finalized it in July 2000, with the help of the two first lawyers in France to be interested by the GPL: Mélanie Clément-Fontaine and David Géraud. What _is_ the Free Art licence ? It's very simple: the Free Art Licence is a licence designed for use by artists, that permits the copying, distribution and transformation of work. It prevents any proprietory control of the work: which means leaving your work of art open-ended and free. It can be applied to any kind of art work, digital or otherwise, music, sculpture, text, etc... It's a tool: it enables work to pass through the hands of various artists without being stopped, or fixed. In this way, the creation may nourish other artists and authors. As André Malraux was fond of saying, 'Art is fed by art'. Art is not only a finished product, it's also a raw material that can be re-used in other creations. Thus, a collective creation may happen. It's open, free, egalitarian, fraternal. It's about sharing. This tool, the Free Art Licence, aims to encourage collective creation by abolishing definitive authoritarian control. In France, we have the 'droit d'auteur' (author's right) which is slightly different from the anglo-saxon copyright; but as time passes, the French 'droit d'auteur' is coming to resemble copyright more and more, to the benefit of the producer and the middleman. The artists and the public are the losers. The notions of public service and the public good are being co-opted by marketing imperatives. Creation itself becomes merchandise in the hands of the 'cultural engineers' (yes, that's what we call the middlemen in France) who work for a culture dominated by greed. It is generally acknowledged that the time has come to redefine author's rights and copyright, and copyleft seems like an idea in tune with the current economic and artistic situation. * Now I would like to get a bit more specific and explain how the powerful combination of free software, the internet and artistic creation will have repercussions not only for artists, but also for contemporary culture. Don't get me wrong, when I say 'artist', I mean any type of creator, however far from the Art-Academy tradition. To accompany the 'Man without Qualities" defined by Robert Musil we can now joyfully announce an "art without qualities" - Art which is both banal and extra-ordinary in terms of its original definition. When we think 'art', let's also think cooking, walking, talking, even idling (which is a more complex art than most people would believe). Those we call "artists" have no monopoly on art. Just as politicans have no monopoly on politics. We all are creators. All of us, authors of multiple creations, we are all creators of the society in which we live and of the life we lead. Each one with the others, each one against the others. Our creations are both political and artistic. The difference between those two is beginning to blur. Because Culture has become a prime value, claimed by both art and politics; a value discussed and disputed. In this post-democratic era, politics and art are made by Everyone. The role of the professional in art and politics today is to demonstrate the validity of the ordinary, and to make sure that daily creation takes place under the right conditions. To create implies being attentive. This attention re-formulates expression and liberates it from an authoritarian autism which lies in wait for those creators who try to avoid observation. Because to observe is already the first step towards creation. So what are we observing today? With the new economy linked to the digital, it is no longer the object itself in which value is concentrated. That which determines the value of an object is that which exceeds it, which surrounds it, which is on its periphery. This is also visible in recent art history: since the end of the Renaissance, materials used in the production of works of art tend to be "poorer" - less and less valuable - and the forms, less and less sophisticated. Artists take such liberties with their creations that they end up dispensing with the objects themselves altogether. Take, for example, the exhibition of Emptiness by Yves Klein in 1958 , or the "Peelings" by Joseph Beuys, considered as an exercise in sculpture, or with the word "Time" by Ian Wilson in 1963, the "Steps of pedestrians on paper" by Stanley Brown, and the work of Lawrence Wiener which does not require the production of the work of art, etc. One finds such examples in all artistic domains. There is, therefore, a veritable "economy" that applies to creative work. An economy peculiar to art which even, sometimes - especially when its definition depends on being grounded in the art-object - becomes highly economical! - dispensing with the art-object altogether. This is why it is important to distinguish between the art-object and the "objective" of art. Artistic creation is not reducible to the object in which it can, for practical and conventional reasons, be manifested. Into the engine that drives art, artists pour an explosive mixture which also contains non-art. The resulting explosion creates sparks and it would be stupid to shield oneself from them. The motor would then be in neutral and all our vehicles at a standstill. I would like to raise a question here which is no stranger to art or politics (we have seen how closely related these two fields are today): Could there possibly be an "economic art" - or should I say an artistic economy? That is to say, an economic practice which, in its technical characteristics, its scientific trappings and its alleged pragmatism, would be a practice concerned not only with liberty, but also with egality and fraternity. These three words, you know, are the three key words of the French Revolution and they are inscribed on every French coin (by the way, talking of coins, I have no idea what we'll find inscribed on the Euro...!). The problem with our liberal economy is that it is content to stop at Liberty, turning that into a smug and complacent Absolute. But it's not enough. Because that Liberty ends up spinning round and round - while being obviously, _not_ well-rounded. Aiming at wholeness, it ends up being totalitarian. Clearly one cannot, in this case, speak of economy as art. The art would only happen if that particular liberty were restrained, thus making room for egality and fraternity. Otherwise, it's a dictatorship, the dictatorship of liberty. This is why liberty must be tempered by a requirement for equality and fraternity. The Free Art Licence, in the field of artistic creation, is attempting to open up this perspective. This is not utopian. Because when we make art, our feet are firmly planted on the ground. We are not dreamers, we are not out of touch with reality. On the contrary, we are inside the reality of reality, in the very stuff of life and living. This reality, it's the floodtide of our desires in relation to matter. Works of the mind run through our bodies. Ideas which float in the air flash through our minds. When an idea finds refuge in a particular body, it can't live if it is blocked: it stays trapped as in a cage. Creativeness traverses us, transports us. It transforms us too, and we discover that it's an infinite development of ourselves and of the world. To stop creation because of an economy that is only concerned with financial questions, is to impoverish. After having been seduced by gold for art, must we abandon art for gold? NO. With the Free Art Licence we are creating conditions that will enable art and economy to function intelligently; so that there is a relationship between the economy proper to Art and a feasible art of the economy. * To finish, I would like to say that today, "Copyleft Attitude" http://artlibre.org represents around 150 people, mostly French, but also Belgian, Swiss and Canadian. Works of art produced under the Free Art Licence are many and varied: music, photographs, drawings, texts, print publications, audio c-d's, cd roms, videos, perfomances, etc. Last month in Paris we held a copyleft party during a Web festival which brought together 8 artists and as many others on-line to create artworks with the public. http://antomoro.free.fr/c/copyparty.html With permission to copy, broadcast, distribute and transform. We had cd recorders, printers and 8 connected computers. It was, at one and the same time, an artists' performance, a public workshop, a show and its opposite, an unending rehearsal. Next month another copyleft party will take place in Paris with musicians. Let's hold more copyleft parties! You, too, should hold copyleft parties! Let's create openings for artistic creation! All kinds of creation! We could hold a copyleft cooking party with free recipes, a conversation party with free ideas, a gardening party with free sowing of seeds on free ground, a rambling party with free circuits..... So that art in all its forms never stops creating... Let's copyleft each other! ---- -- Antoine Moreau Copyleft_Attitude <http://www.artlibre.org> _______________________________________________ Nettime-bold mailing list Nettime-bold@nettime.org http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold