Introduction: http://www.saij-copyleft.net All the works, creations shown on this website are placed under a copyleft license. The terms of the license can be read in english, french, german and spanish on the website: http://artlibre.org In this case, placing my works and creations under a copyleft license means the possibility for everyone to get access to my works without to have to pay or to ask for an authorization. So enjoy the creations without the restrictions of a „right“ or a „patent“. The idea is an extension to art and culture of the „open source“ movement which is now widely spread through free softwares. Only condition to use a work for a website for instance: to mention the name(s) of the author(s) Why I choose to create a complete website under the copyleft license: Two ideas lead me to make this website : -a political/economical one -a philosophical/aesthetical one 1-General situation: „Art and culture“ are now a business like another one. The rules which apply are those of the „liberal“ culture, ie just to make as much money as possible in order to satisfy the shareholders and/or the managing staff. It‘s a pure nonsense to believe that the system in art and culture is promoting an interesting content. Though many of the managing people are cultivated and can rely on a high academic level, to develop content is not their game. Besides money they are promoting their own careers. The real goal is to get as close as possible of a monopolistic position for their company or themselves. One efficient solution to insure that goal is the use of patents and rights, exclusivity,... Just 2 instances to illustrate this situation: 1-the trial(s) against users of p2p downloads for music. The majors are using a 2 level mechanism: a)they claim that they are the owners of the rights and try to intimidate users by suing them. Not to forget: the same companies were gently sleeping as the digital format was enjoying a growing success, parallel to the steadily development of internet. b)to protect the access to a large business, the companies are practicing an intensive lobbying to get new laws to reinforce „their rights“ see DRM (digital right management). 2-contemporary art, visual art is determined by a handful of galerists, curators, art collectors and museum directors. Following a good marketing strategy they claim every 2 years a renewal of painting, they discover some new talents... They are placing money on some artists and they just expect a ROI (return on investment). The Art Basel 2004 was the clear confirmation of this commercial strategy formally explained by Marc Spiegler (in Art + Auction). Here no question about the artist: a really good one? just a mediocre one? It doesn‘t matter! They focus just on one point: to reach the situation where the "production" of the artist becomes (very) expensive. Last step: to sell the works in quantity. They have made a "star", they control the market and make money of their power. Interesting is that the „stars“ in contemporary art often know the destiny of other stars: those of the show business or of the reality tv. After 2 or 3 years, the end of the career has come. Others develop a kind of autism worsened by self-destruction in reaction against the relentless requirement of a systematic production. If you know privately a galerist he will just complain about the lack of sales. The comments on the work of an artist are reserved to... the potential buyers. Now we have to consider the digital practice in art with a special emphasis on the creation in a broad sens (literature, new media theory, music, activism, netart, webart, blogs, software art...) which is made for -and published in- internet. What represents this form of digital art today (july 2004): -economically: nothing (there is no market for that creation) -politically: something dangerous The first point is clear: digital art is not exposed in museums, galleries or art fairs. The artists are unknown. It's an exception when they get some money for a work, or a very small amount!- . The reasons often given for this situation: it's ephemeral, difficult to exhibit, impossible to sale... Well, just look at so many installations in museums or galleries (many of these installations are more than questionable): in that case... no question: exhibitions and sales are possible! Conclusion: digital practice (as here defined) is excluded from the field of contemoprary art. The question is: why? I see here 2 reasons which are in my opinion a "political" one, linked moreover to a kind of fear: -as previously described the system for art and culture is now only based on a commercial mode. The small group of people managing this system doesn't want to see any change. It's true that the situation is confortable for them: they have the power (in fact through the discourse on art) and money. Digital art is for them a "terra incognita" (unknown field). They have no idea about what is technically possible with a computer, and they don’t master the theory (once again discourse) on the subject. In one word: they don't want to promote a digital art which means the end of their leading positions. -digital artists are dangerous. They are aware of what is happening in the world, they are dealing with the last technologies, they are critical about their environment, about the political/economical world, they are organizing exhibitions, conferences,... and they have developped theoritical writings, they have their own magazines, mailing lists and blogs to discuss about art and politic... A series of examples to underline this idea: -the legal action engaged by the American Governement against the artist Steve Kurtz (Critical Art Ensemble). The first charge of bioterrorism has been abandoned, but Steve Kurtz and Robert Ferrell are now charged for a minor offence (mail fraud), and they still risk going to jail -a new french law (voted in 2004) explain that emails are not a private correspondence. Official explanation: to get rid of spams! It’s impossible to believe in that goal: the servers of the spammers are neither in France nor in the USA. What other reasons there if not to spy? -the large manufacturers of hardwares and softwares are not sponsoring digital art (once again in relation with the definition given above). Artists are critical, they are not welcomed. -public fundings in culture is always the first to be cut by governement when time to save money has come. The austrian governement is of course following this precept. The funding for „basis wien“ will not be renewed. Activity of „basis wien“: digital archiving of contemporary art! 2-Personal considerations: To dedicate a website to a set of creations under a copyleft license represents an asnwer to the situation described above. To protest against the political/economical system is not an end in itself. It is necessary to bring a credible alternative for the „cultural goods“, hoping that this alternative will be as successful as the open source movement. Finally a copyleft website is also a contribution, a new resource for the spreading and sharing of knowledge and culture. Some other motivations should be added: -I’ve been a visual artist in the „traditional“ sense (my material paintings, objects and installations were presented in solo or group exhibitions). The limitations imposed by this activity stand to reason. The location of the exhibition and the space available have a simple effect: just few visitors can see a limited number of works. My change to computer generated art drastically modified the situation. The key points were to create works designed for internet and to make my own websites. My works were from that instant accessible not only worldwide but also 24 hours a day and 7 days a week (only restriction: to have a computer and an internet access). Looking at the statistics gave a clear confirmation of that fact. Furthermore came online exhibitions, reviews, interviews,... No comparison with the former situation. -It seems reasonable to think that among the visitors of the websites some of them are not familiar with the visits of galeries, museums and art fairs. Art collector among the visitors can be almost excluded. Why should this persons not have access to „cultural goods“? When 2 conditions are fulfilled, new „consumers“ of „cultural goods“ can be gained: 1-the creations have to be available free of charge (but in the framework of a license) 2-the creations must be esthetically and technically at the level of creations for sale -using and experimenting as artist the free licenses. The number of conferences having „free“ as theme is increasing, but they are mainly concentrated on technical or legal aspects. Art in these conferences is nowadays an exception. It’s absolutely necessary for artists to comment their choice (works under free license) and to communicate their good and bad experiences. That’s the best way to weigh up a system which is still not mature. -the idea of „free“ dedicated to art and culture is a relatively new phenomenon. It is necessary to make it known and to develop it. Then the best promotion comes from satisfied users. The success of some films, musics,...come by word of mouth. In our digital time it can be replaced by an email (with cc) to the friends or a short note on the blog like „good and free of charge“. If the process works, I would be happy to know it was right contributing to. Now, participate and spread! Isabel Saij – September 2004 http://www.saij-copyleft.net
		home