Click here to see the project.

Continue reading “Final Project – Matthew Ballou”

Video Project

Click here to see the project. It was made by Winnie, Ploy, and I.

Continue reading “Video Project – Matthew Ballou”

What I find particularly interesting about the net art movement, as described in Web Work: A History of Net Art, is its feminist, leftist, and subversive elements, which particularly flourished in Eastern Europe.

Eastern Europe, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, was “characterized by media openness and pluralistic politics” (161). Coupled with the lack of internet monopolies (at the time), this new wave of openness and pluralism  paved way for a grassroots artistic movement defined by challenging the status quo of long-lasting artistic organisations, political bodies, and social norms.

Indeed, skepticism of these institutions drives all of the feminist, leftist, and otherwise subversive net art works, such as VNS’s “Cyberfemninist Manifesto” (165), on the internet. The internet, as a newly emerging, open platform, was highly conducive to artists that would otherwise receive minimal institutional support, such as feminists, leftists, and other radical critics of the status quo. This digital instability of the internet as a platform and the political instability of the fall of the Soviet Union led to a unique movement that gained substantial popularity in Eastern Europe.

In this text, with sections written by Joy Garnett and Susan Meiselas, discusses intellectual property and contextualisation. Meiselas, owner to the rights of the photograph used in Garnett’s “Molotov” painting, argues that photos and other works of art should be represented in their proper context: furthermore, she states that decontextualisation removes part of the meaning of the original work. Garnett, on the other hand, believes that nobody should be able to control the specific context of the work or content. This, he concludes, would be akin to censorship and limiting artistic freedom.

However, are these two views so polar that no agreement can be reached whatsoever? It is very possible to give proper context to certain works while allowing room for creative liberties and freedoms. In my opinion, it is the responsibility of the artist, to the best of their ability, to properly contextualise works they draw inspiration from. While no person is ever truly objective and absolutely contextual, deliberate recontextualisation is malicious and does not serve the audience whatsoever. To tie this to the previous reading, “The Ecstasy of Influence,” the recontextualised work would give the audience no meaning: it wouldn’t be art. Instead, it would purely be misleading propaganda. This is not to say that authors cannot have agendas while making art, but purposefully using misdirection, misattribution, and malintent is not art.

“Ecstasy of Influence,” a plagiarism, by Jonathan Lethem is about the idea of intellectual property and inspiration. He states that all inspiration is plagiarism in some form or another. That is to say, art is fundamentally built upon the foundation of some other work or thing. For instance, he himself demonstrates this idea through writing “Ecstasy of Influence” as a collage of texts: a plagiarism. Every single paragraph and its contents had its inspiration sourced from another work!

However, he still believes that the creators of art deserve some level of recognition of credit; hence, he included a “key” after the collage to show where he drew inspiration for each paragraph, phrase, and word. He only has an issue with what has been coined as “imperial plagiarism:” a ‘colonial’ form of plagiarism, where powerful entities, such as corporations, pillage and sack culture and maintain a monopoly on many works of art (7). This imbalance in authority stifles innovation, creativity, and progression of the Sciences and Arts.

Indeed, this inherent flaw on the current design is very detrimental to society. Lethem sees is a flaw in intellectual property; however, he did not explicitly state its inherent connection to capitalism. His only reason for some level of intellectual property is to ensure the livelihood and compensation of the creator. Furthermore, he saw this as a necessarily evil (5). If one could guarantee the livelihoods of innovators, would intellectual property matter insofar as it does? Would it not simply be necessary to attribute credit and inspiration? The current status of intellectual property and gaining inspiration through other work leaves us with many unanswered questions.