Do the Public Own Public Art?

November 12, 2008 nerulean

Entry Filed under: Uncategorized and tagged: presentation

19 Comments Add your own

• 

  1. nerulean&hellip  |  November 12, 2008 at 12:30 pm

  Joanna, presentation order 1

  I intend to open the presentation with a definition of public art that we need to agree on. It doesn’t need to fit perfectly with all our case studies, since arguing against this definition can be a useful standpoint, but it should be generally accurate and encompass most of what we’re talking about. I’ll introduce our general topic of the ownership of public art.

  I’ll continue with the idea that public art has existed since before civilisation itself, with things like cave paintings that were available for anyone who happened to be walking past to see.

  Even early on, public art was a community-centric thing. Listening to oral poetry, for example, would be a large community event that many people would gather in a public space to enjoy, and in examples reaching as far back as Homer we can see the idea of involving the community in the art – the catalogue of ships in the Iliad, for instance, is widely accepted as an early form of ‘name dropping’, sparking the audience’s interests with the names of people and places they might recognise.

  Public art also often had an agenda, though. Despite artists frequently claiming that they practised art for art’s sake, artists had to survive and often relied on wealthy (and thus powerful) patrons to sponsor their work. To keep the support of these patrons, they had to produce art that these patrons liked, and that often meant producing art that matched their views, political and otherwise.
• 

  2. apricotdreams&hellip  |  November 12, 2008 at 10:28 pm

  Thanks for putting this up Jo!This order works well for me as i have some information about sposorhip and funding to do with my case study which can link in to Lara’s section of the presentation as well as points relating to Alex’s x
• 

  3. lara&hellip  |  November 16, 2008 at 11:48 am

  Here is what i plan to say. I have had to cut out issues of funding due to time constraints but will post them on my own blog for you guys to see:) if i talk fast this is around 2 minutes x x x

  Following the statement that public art is by and for the community, new writing at the Royal court can be seen as public art that is owned by the public.
  Public art should: assist in the progress of a community, celebrate and unify said community, encourage the community to be creative, and provide members of the community with a chance to get involved. New writing at the Royal court does all of this.
  This could be as specific as their Writing projects targeting young offenders or their Work with young people with learning and physical disabilities.
  Young Writers PRoject: “The YWP prides itself on bridging the gap between high art and community arts by providing a link that enables young people to make the journey from the locality right through to the stage of the world famous Royal Court Theatre”
  By involving various communities in the writing process and then staging public readings and showcases of work it really becomes by and for the community.
  Wider communities are also targeted with international schemes such as the recent project ‘I come from there’.
  International collaboration with the British Council that developed work with 21 playwrights from the Arab World. When these works have been commissioned by a specific body, it is easy for one to wonder if they can be seen merely as public voices from the Arabic community. In a post show chat, an audience member asked if the writers were aware of their intended audience when creating their plays. They were asked if they consciously represented themselves or their community. The offence taken by some writers to this question showed that they were in no way influenced by the companies enabling their work but were indeed creating an expression of themselves for the public to see. Obviously their various heritages influenced their writing and enables us to access this community in a way we normally wouldn’t be able to. Coupled with the fact that this project brought together artists from so many different countries and their work was workshoped anywhere from Dasmascus to Cairo I see this kind of project as the most public of art.
  It encourages an interest in the GLOBAL COMMUNITY and brings the public together through ART.
• 

  4. Alex&hellip  |  November 16, 2008 at 5:25 pm

  I don’t really have much to say on the idea of public at being ‘owned’ by the public but will try and work it in. Climate change is ‘owned’ by the global community and the situation must be addressed by all of us, with the more affluent countries leading. It seems grossly unfair to me that third world countries undergoing their industrial revolutions now may be asked to cut down their emissions, although I understand the necessity of such an action. I think it was Einstein who said, ‘We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them’ and this seems to be me to be saying that in this new age of man-made catastrophe, the West are not necessarily leaders any more.
  I would like to talk about the possibility that public art doesn’t change anything (even though I truly believe it does). I believe that the case study I am looking at is not accessible enough to alter climate change in any positive way.
  p.s this is not something for the handout but just an argument and clarification!
  xxxx
• 

  5. poetrhi&hellip  |  November 17, 2008 at 8:25 pm

  Okay – have a presentation mapped out. Needs a little bit of editing, but to give you all an idea (and to get any feedback if I can!) will post it now and edit tomorrow. It’s about 2-2.5 mins, so should be okay to fit in!

  *link to Sanny’s final point*

  My question is not do the public own public art, but can the public own public art? Flash mobbing is a form that has attempted to move away from any message or agenda to its activities, but society as a whole continues to seek them in the mode of expression. For those who don’t know, flash mobs are:

  “seemingly unplanned gatherings of large groups of people who converge in public places for just brief periods of time. All members of a Flash Mob simultaneously converge to form the mob and then as quickly disperse again at a given time, everyone departing in different directions.”

  Which is what I was told when I signed up to their group. However, what was most interesting was that I was asked to:

  “REMEMBER a flash mob has no “message”, no political or religious aim or view. It simply is a flash mob, if it has to be anything then let it just be art or just plain fun!”

  However, though this may have been the intention when first started in 2003, flash mobs as a concept without an agenda, are then interpreted by society. The BBC have followed some of the British Flash Mob’s activities, and do not see it as art, more as public nuisance, even protest. They use hostile language towards these gatherings of people claiming that they are ‘targeting’ towns, when in reality the mob is built by people in a town being interested in bringing the mob elsewhere, bring artistic expression elsewhere.

  However, earlier this year, attitudes turned more hostile, in March Birmingham’s shopping centre the Bullring stopped a mob from using the centre as a venue, claiming:

  “We couldn’t afford customers not being able to get past. We’ll be looking at 180,000 people coming to shop on a Saturday.”

  At this point it is hard not to interpret the group as having leftist leanings trying to stop corporate capitalism, instead of the reality of a group of people looking to enjoy themselves in a space open to the public. Flash mobbing cannot, and will not stay apolitical forever. In Russia there have already been protests against Putin using the flash mob technique, and in July this year 4 people were arrested in Hyde Park for flash mobbing. Even the corporate world is increasingly looking into ways that it can use a flash mob as a media launch pad. Slowly but surely it will become corrupted; as the corporate gains the access and funding, and political protests gain column inches, the individual’s expression in a flash mob will be taken away.
  The public, then, cannot not singularly own public art, it has to be set into contexts of society in interpreted alongside the makeup of our culture. A flash mob is a personal and individual, not social exercise. The individual who involves themselves in a flash mob cannot then be seen to own it, as the interpretation of public art is not always down to personal views, as with private art, but to a media conception of art. This then, means that no individual can own it, a flash mob, and a lot of other public art has to belong to society as a whole.
• 

  6. ladystrawberry&hellip  |  November 17, 2008 at 9:05 pm

  Hey it’s Helena…this is what I tried to post on Friday but never appeared!

  Hey guys, apologies for recent absence from the blog! Have been a little bit homeless and without technology….anyhoo, just to let you know what I’ll be discussing in the presentation, in case anyone has any last minute suggestions or ways to link in with their own speech, or we’re overlapping at all.

  I’ll be looking at the internet as a public space, including social networking, blogging, online galleries, free downloads. Rhi I think I’ll probably link in to what you’re saying about flashmobs – ‘London’s biggest waterfight’ was arranged a while back on Facebook. Also talking about how myspace has changed the music industry for up and coming bands/musicians by listening to music free on their pages. Then I’m going to refer to an article I found by Cory Doctorow (who also offers free downloads of his books) about how the internet has changed the form in which art is published, eg. Length, format, interaction, including examples of innovative ideas such as this one: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A02E4DF133BF936A3575BC0A9649C8B63
  From there I’ll follow on to the negative points – lack of censorship/accuracy – i.e. Wikipedia and some of the strange analyses of books/poems people come up with on there – the modernising of poetry from its original form on free sites, freedom of thought vs. dangerous ideas. Also that although art is more advertised in the public domain because of the internet, it can also be exclusive – you still have to buy a lot of it.

  Ok, this is a long post, I’ll shut up now! Helena.x
• 

  7. Butternut Squash&hellip  |  November 17, 2008 at 11:23 pm

  here’s roughly what i’m going to say in the presentation. me and hannah are going to talk it over tomorrow so it may change slightly.

  Creative Industries Presentation – Do the public own public art?
  A main purpose of public art seems to be the inclusion of potentially excluded members of society. Many community arts projects are focussed on bringing individuals together using the power of creativity. The arts council funds many of these projects, but how do we get involved? As a part of applying to the arts council for funding a company or artist must illustrate how they intend to publicise their project. Fundamentally, if it’s to be public art at all, the public must be involved. Channel 4’s Big Art Mob uses the public power of being a television broadcasting station to advertise its project for community creativity. It’s not just a question of communicating to the public, but also getting the public to take notice of community projects that are taking place. A company like Channel 4 are well placed for reaching a large number of people, but they also have instant funding and resources available to them. As a part of the Big Art Mob, Channel 4 have been organising The Big Art Project; which is various works of art in seven specific locations around the UK. The purpose of these projects is to involve communities and budding artists in a collaborative goal, in the spirit of public art. Public art seems to take on a greater purpose when a well-known company endorses it. A large amount of the advertising we see is on the television, and Channel 4 are one of the largest broadcasting corporations in the UK. Not only do they have the resources to effectively publicise art projects, but they also have the gravity to encourage the public to get involved. After all, if the public aren’t involved in public art, it’s not really public art at all.
  The issue does not solely lie with the artists’ responsibility to publicise their project. The public have to have an initial interest to ensure that they’ll take part. Just because the Tate has free entry does not mean that everyone will go to view art there, the people that do go are still a specific audience who would, most likely, have paid to go in anyway. Art made by the community and for the community is a good way of enabling public participation in art projects. When applying for arts council funding a company or artist must detail methods of publicising their work. This is not only beneficial in the sense that the artist has their work seen, but also helps encourage public interest in art. This is also helpful for projects that directly require the participation of the public, for example the work of Blast Theory, a theatre company whose work revolves around the audience participating in virtual games.
  The real problem with publicising art is the general cost of advertising. Television, newspaper or billboard adverts are expensive and would be a huge drain on the little resources most companies have. For Channel 4 this is obviously not a problem because they already have advertising resources, but they still need plenty of members of the public to be involved so that they can market the Big Art Project as a success. For smaller, independent companies, the internet and word of mouth are two of the best forms of advertising they can utilise to let the public know about their work.
  Public art, by definition must have an aspect of public involvement. Even if a very specific group of the public are involved such as a specific community, age group or wealth bracket the project is still public art, it doesn’t have to be accessible to everyone. What must be considered as imperative for public art is an emphasis on advertising and encouraging the public to take an interest in art as a part of their individual cultural identity.

  V
• 

  8. Butternut Squash&hellip  |  November 17, 2008 at 11:28 pm

  having re-read that, like i should have done before i posted. i’ve just realised that in my cutting and pasting i managed to repeat myself. i’m rectifying this problem immediately (just in case you read through it and think i’ve developed amnesia).

  v
• 

  9. Rachael&hellip  |  November 18, 2008 at 9:10 am

  hello, I’m on about two and a half minutes i believe.
  Helena has discussed the use of the internet for displaying public art. I will be looking at a specific case study of this: Harrell Fletcher and Miranda July’s ‘Learning to Love you More’. Learning to Love you More is a website set out as a series of assignments posted on the home page. Assignments can range from take a picture of your parents kissing to hang a wind chime on a tree in a parking lot. Anyone can access the page, although its not very well publicized with most finding it through word of mouth of July’s other work (she’s a novelist). Once you have accessed the site you simply pick any of the tasks that appeal to you, complete it in your own time and send in a photograph, video, sound file or short description of what you did. These are then displayed on the website for anyone else to see.
  We have been discussing the ownership of public art and it’s clear that Learning to Love You More is definitely owned by the public. Without the public participating by undertaking the tasks and sending in their files LTLYM wouldn’t exist. However, it’s important to note that without July and Fletcher setting the assignments it’s unlikely that the public would be doing these activities which is saddening as the tasks set show an appreciation for family, love, encouragement and finding beauty in the everyday. Lara has suggested that Public Art must benefit and celebrate the community it is based in. LTLYM troubles this notion as it isn’t based in any physical community space. Rather than approach community as a group of people held together in a physical place LTLYM relies on a community being made from people with similar beliefs and lifestyles connecting through a virtual space. This understanding of the virtual community is essential in a society where travel and internet discussion are so easy and frequent. However, July and Fletcher also run exhibitions of the work displayed on the website, suggesting that the website alone may not be fulfilling their goals. Perhaps it is important to July and Fletcher that their work is seen by more people – they appear to be recruiting for this community they have created – by publishing books and showing exhibitions. They are using these other more tangible formats to advertise the website.

  Link to Han – advertising.

  xx see you tonight xx
• 

  10. Sanny&hellip  |  November 18, 2008 at 11:22 am

  Further to what Joanna was saying about `art for art’s sake’, I’ll be talking about public art in relation to politics and culture, starting off with the example of The Angel of the North.
  The sculpture has had a huge impact on the surrounding area of Gateshead; tourism has led to large sums of investment and new jobs. This has improved the reputation of the Gateshead Council, showing how art can be used for political gain, and in particular, public art, since it is often accessible to a greater number of people.

  Despite its size, how many of us would have guessed its initial meaning? Antony Gormley, the creator of The Angel of the North says:

  “The angel has three functions – firstly a historic one to remind us that below this site coal miners worked in the dark for two hundred years, secondly to grasp hold of the future, expressing our transition from the industrial to the information age and lastly to be a focus for our hopes and fears.”

  The message is intended to be positive but to what extent could the sculpture be viewed as scary rather than hopeful? A large attraction of art is that it can be interpreted in different ways but this leads to potential problems when the original message is lost through various interpretations. Antony Gormley says: “You make things because they cannot be said.”

  This can be seen in how public art has been employed to improve political relations.
  One example is the Louise Blouin Foundation, which is raising money for international exhibitions, its first project being an exhibition entitled Cold War Aesthetics. This is intended to complement the $70 million injected by the Chinese government on projects aimed to promote Chinese culture and encourage dialogue between China and the West. Art is being used as a form of communication where political discussions may have caused tension between countries.

  The Louise Blouin Institute also states on its website that as part of the exhibition it will be:
  “hosting a series of public lectures, panel discussions and educational workshops aimed at exploring and investigating contemporary Chinese art, culture and society.”

  Instead of being a recreational activity, art has been transformed into a type of political education for the public. Adorno stated that `Everything, including war, has its own poetry.’ Political and historical events have been interpreted into an art form in order to make the public aware of past events and in some cases, change people’s perceptions.
• 

  11. Alex&hellip  |  November 18, 2008 at 11:57 am

  Hello ladies,
  Hope this is ok. It’s 2.25 I think although might be a bit faster because I speed up my words when I’m a bit nervous!

  The Cape Farewell Project is funded by public donations which are increased by the endorsements of Gordon Brown- whose wife Sarah attended the Tokyo exhibition- and BBC 6 radio, which hosted a programme by Jarvis Cocker featuring Martha Wainwright and David Buckland, both voyagers. It is based around sending artists and musicians as well as geologists to the Arctic to respond creatively to climate change. It documents the journey and the response both in blogs on the central website, http://www.capefarewell.com, and at the Southbank centre where it has a residency for three years. The art is made public through its availability to view, but also through its many forms- from sculpture to a song played at a gig. However, in looking at the project, I found myself asking questions about whether its noble ideals are reflected in the end result.
  Firstly, it is important to note that the project is not exhibited anywhere immediately affected by climate change. It seems that only more affluent populations are able to view the exhibitions, as wide-travelling as they are. From London to Toyko and Madrid, it seems that the project is not reflecting back the impacts of climate change to the people directly affected by it in an immediate sense. It seems as if they are targeting more affluent nations because this is where they perceive the roots of the problem to be based- however, the project already seems limited in its scope.
  It even avoids affluent countries suffering the effects, such as Australia, where desert-land is growing constantly, or Venice, which is slowly sinking into its canals. However, it does offer a youth programme that aims to educate young people in secondary schools about creativity and climate change which seems to be one of the most beneficial aspects of the project.
  It is certainly ambitious and idealistic. One particularly telling quote from the website notes that ‘one salient image, sculpture or event can speak louder than volumes of scientific data and engage the public’s imagination in an immediate way.’ But if the work is so geographically limited, one wonders how effective a sculpture can be. The art is clearly politicised, and this is certainly reflected in the locations of the exhibitions, but they are not shown in countries undergoing their own industrial revolutions at the moment. There is no mention of a visit to India, or, along the same lines, any ideology other than that of ‘the cultural response to climate change’. The project ties itself into the idea of a new global community united by disaster and reactions. Yet despite drawing on ideas of Marxism, which can be described essentially as a political response to the industrial revolution, the project never fully explores this and it is reflected in the work produced. In aiming to reach solely the affluent masses, Cape Farewell fails to make a bold enough statement.
  In this example, the people do not own the public art exhibited. Cape Farewell would like to believe that the ‘people’ are the aforementioned global community they want to target, and help, through their responses. But by excluding so many from engaging with the art, and by pandering to the very institutions they seek to change, the project fails in its aims.

  See you at 6 xxxxxx
• 

  12. Rosie&hellip  |  November 18, 2008 at 12:02 pm

  okay,so i’m nearly done, it just isn’t quite long enough and i need to link it into lara’s, i’m on it though, don’t panic. x
• 

  13. nerulean&hellip  |  November 18, 2008 at 12:13 pm

  Here’s my presentation, the wonderful Joanna Reading nice and slowly, it clocks in at just under three minutes.

  For this presentation, our group has decided to ask the question, “Do the public own public art?” To start with that means that we have to define public art and, as a basis for our discussion, we’ve chosen a definition from that inherently public site, Wikipedia, which calls public art “works of art in any media that have been planned and executed with the specific intention of being sited or staged in the public domain.” I could go on defining things all day, but you’ll hear from the rest of the group about a wide variety of different media that have been used in public art, and a lot of different takes on the idea of the ‘public domain’.

  Public art has existed for an incredibly long time: in fact, paintings like those from the Lascaux Caves in France that date back over thirty thousand years are widely considered to mark the beginning of what we know about civilised human society and, like the cave paintings, most early art was public by necessity. Even as civilisation developed to the point where it was possible for such a thing as private art to exist, public art continued to play a massive part in people’s lives.

  The advent of writing five thousand years ago showed us just how widespread the storytelling culture was before people even had a means of recording these stories – until then, every tale that was told was memorised and spoken aloud to an audience that was often comprised whoever happened to be nearby at the time. Even with the introduction of writing, this tradition of oral storytelling didn’t die down, and ancient epics like the Iliad and the Odyssey that we see today in books that are hundreds of pages long were memorised and recited in enormous public performances long before they were recorded in writing.

  From its very origins, though, public art has never seemed to exist for art’s sake. The earliest examples show a heavily religious influence, acting as prayers for plentiful hunts and harvests, and later depicting rituals and forming part of a much more complex system of beliefs. Just as religion has influenced society heavily throughout its history, it has influenced art as well, with those individuals who held power through religion having influence over those who produced art and shaping what they could and could not produce. As we developed ever more complicated systems of government, politics came to play a part as well, wielding much the same power over artists as religion.

  And then, of course, there was the question of money: if the eventual piece of art was to exist in the public domain, who was going to foot the bill? Some projects that would seem to be perfect candidates for the term ‘public art’ decided that there was nothing for it but to charge a fee to those who wished to participate or partake of the art, edging them out of the public domain. Others looked for funding or sponsorship from outside sources, but soon found that being given money by someone makes you beholden to their ideals and principles, whether it be the government’s heavy focus on community when handing out Arts Council grants or the political leanings and personal preferences of a private sponsor.

  With all these factors affecting public art, then, can it really be considered to belong to the public at all?
• 

  14. apricotdreams&hellip  |  November 18, 2008 at 12:18 pm

  okay, so when i read this comfortable it’s two and a half minutes, i’ll edit it a bit but i’ve been in a bit of a kerfuffle over the whole thing so bear with me!

  Alex talks about a public art project which, in her eyes, doesn’t seem to benefit the community in a practical way. However in Australia, the Jesuswalks project in Sydney was arguably one of the most successful examples of public art being by and for the community. The project was set up in response to World Youth Day, a huge Catholic Pilgrimage, which was held in Sydney in 2008. Thirty-Three statues of Jesus were placed at locations around the city, and local artists were invited to decorate them in whatever manner they chose. Although inspired by a religious event, it was not intended as religious propaganda, nor did it stop people from other religions from participating, in fact, it encouraged them. The organisers’ aim was to “build on the harmonious basis of Christianity and encourage artists from diverse cultural and religious backgrounds to participate in an interactive and unmediated dialogue with a global audience.” The statues were then auctioned off in order to raise money for “Youth Off The Streets” a charity which helps young Australians “dealing with issues of substance abuse, alienation from their communities and homelessness”. In this way, not only did it benefit the global community aesthetically and culturally, but it also helped the community who created it in a tangible, practical way. An enormous variety of artists were involved in the work, using a vast range of media, and styles, as can be seen on your handout. The decision to invite local graffiti artists, such as the OhReally collaborative, to participate in the project also shows the organisers’ willingness to involve all members of the community, even those who are often marginalised and whose work is frequently dismissed as vandalism rather than true art. Prior to the arrival of the Pilgrims in Sydney, the media had been almost entirely opposed to the pilgrimage, and there was a lot of anti-Catholic sentiment amongst the Australian public. Projects such as this one served not only to welcome the pilgrims, but also to show the Australian public that something positive could be achieved from the pilgrimage, even for those who were not Catholic. They promoted an atmosphere of tolerance and acceptance, and also directly contributed to young people who have also been marginalised and dismissed by society, enabling them to become more involved in their own communities. This is public art which benefits just about everyone involved.
• 

  15. apricotdreams&hellip  |  November 18, 2008 at 12:19 pm

  see you guys later too! xxx (i feel mean not signing off properly)
• 

  16. Helena&hellip  |  November 18, 2008 at 4:56 pm

  It’s a bit sketchy but this is what I’ll be bringing to the meeting tonight:
  I have been looking at the internet as a public space, and the relationship between art and the online community. An important development which has come about over the last few years is the emergence of social networking sites, and I am referring in particular here to Facebook and Myspace. Facebook has allowed artists to communicate with each other, alert each other to events. For example, I have joined the Barbican Theatre group and receive regular updates about what is going on there, which I wouldn’t otherwise have known about. On a less formal scale, and in reference to Rhiannon’s earlier discussion, ‘London’s biggest waterfight,’ a flashmobbing event, was organised on Facebook in 2007. Myspace has become a crucial publicity tool for newcomers to the music industry. Artists are able to put their music out in the public domain for free, whereas before they would have been dependant on a record company or public performance, whaich can be difficult to arrange, in terms of funding and finding a venue. The internet is available to more people, and therefore many new bands and songwriters have been able to reach success where they might otherwise have struggled.
  Funding is an important issue in art, and one that many struggle with. I have already mentioned Myspace as free publicity for musicians, and writers too have been given many more options to publish their work for free as a result of internet technology. There is, of course, the blog, in which writers can share their work, political ideas, articles, without having to find a publisher or publication to print their own work in. Many writers have also set up their own websites in order to publicise work which is available outside the internet community. Cory Doctorow, children’s sci-fi writer, actually makes his entire book available for download on the internet.
  So far I have mainly talked about how artists have used the internet to publicise their work, or as a tool for a different type of publishing, and this is all very well, but what if you don’t go lookng for internet art? Is internet art restricted to an online artistic community, and if so, do the public really own it? NY times journalist Matthew Mirapaul argues that initially the internet has been a private space. He says: “Internet art often explores the digital medium’s unchartered regions, but it does so from within the confines of the personal-computer screen. Internet artworks are wildly conceived, not conceived for the urban wilds.” He also says that “Public art often has the potential to reach a big audience, but the audience rarely has an opportunity to be shown.” But in 2002 Brazilian artist Giselle Beigulman and the British art group Greyworlds changed all that:

  Giselle Beiguelman rented time on two commercial billboards in front of a shopping center in the center of São Paulo’. The 16-by-13-foot electronic panels are seen by an estimated 120,000 daily pedestrians. From 10 a.m. to 3 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time, visitors to the online version of ”Egoscopio” could submit the address of a Web page and within moments have that page appear on the large outdoor screens. The pages were displayed for 30 seconds every 3 minutes, alternating with advertisements for a bank, baked goods and television shows. A Webcam that was focused on the screens transmitted images back to online viewers, while a second camera monitored reactions of passers-by. Beiguelman said of the project, ”It is an invasion of somebody else’s property, a kind of hacking of the city structure.”
  This project challenged participants on how they expressed themselves – with the screens available to such a large audience would they use the opportunity to express creative ideas, or to advertise.

  ”Telescape” is was part of a display by creative time in Brooklyn, and involved a pair of telescopes. As viewers swivelled the telescope to survey the scenery, the coordinates were sent to a computer embedded in the base. When the lens was trained on certain architectural features, the computer triggered sound files that were played through the telescope’s stereo speakers.
  The Greyworld team attached its own audio clips to some coordinates, so that looking at a fire hydrant might produce a music snippet, while peering at an apartment window might yield a snatch of dramatic conversation from its imaginary inhabitants. Visitors to the site, creativetime.org, were also able to send e-mail messages to specific coordinates, and software that converts the e-mail text into audible speech allowed Water Street viewers to hear the messages at each telescope. There was also a phone number so callers could add their own voices to the street scene.

  Both these projects required contributions from the public, but more than that, they were internet projects placed outside the virtual world, which had a more dramatic effect than art which exists only on the internet. If you go looking for art sites on the internet, you are expecting it to be there. Nobody expects personalised billboards in Brazil or musical fire hydrants in Brooklyn!

  The internet, as with all forms of artistic publication, is subject to copyright, perhaps even more than other media. Cory Doctorow explains:

  Internet transactions are more apt to commit a copyright offense than their offline equivalents. That’s because every transaction on the Internet involves copies. The Internet is a system for efficiently making copies between computers. Whereas a conversation in your kitchen involves mere perturbations of air by noise, the same conversation on the net involves making thousands of copies. Every time you press a key, the keypress is copied several times on your computer, then copied into your modem, then copied onto a series of routers, thence (often) to a server, which may make hundreds of copies both ephemeral and long-term, and then to the other party(ies) to the conversation, where dozens more copies might be made.

  Yet in his article ‘Why I copyfight’ Doctorow’s main argument is that
  There’s a word for all the stuff we do with creative works — all the conversing, retelling, singing, acting out, drawing, and thinking: we call it culture.
  Culture’s imperative is to share information: culture is shared information.

  So how far has the sharing of some artworks on the internet – illegal downloads for example, affected the opportunity for others to share their creative works and ideas?

  Another issue which arises in the internet domain is that of censorship. When talking about her project egoscopia, Giselle Beigulman said that she would filter submissions to exclude images of discrimination and child violence. Anything else is fair game, she says…she is not concerned with shocking people. But how do we define these boundries? What might seem acceptable to one group might be deemed discriminative to another – one person’s idea of nudity might seem like degrading pornography to another. Beigulman emphasises that her art is based on public contribution, yet it must all pass through her first. She defines it, the public don’t.
• 

  17. nerulean&hellip  |  November 18, 2008 at 7:25 pm

  You guys are all awesome.
• 

  18. Rachael&hellip  |  November 18, 2008 at 8:17 pm

  just saying a quick well done everyone!!! we’ve done such fab work and we’ll rock tomoro woop woop xx
• 

  19. lara&hellip  |  November 18, 2008 at 10:06 pm

  woop woop! beautiful! vikki and I have JUST gotten home but i will email the photo ASAP and hope it can still be used x x x

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to comments via RSS Feed