implicit art

I’m not sure Paddy’s post on the panel represents my position very well, and moreover seems to fall in line with the (de-contextualized – David is actually saying something else) claim that my attention to try and make a little money for my art is exploitative (see the comments here). I think Tom Chance does a better job explaining what the vast majority of my presentation was about; and in light of MTAA’s response, I thought there’d be nothing wrong with my doing some clarification as well.

Most of my presentation was about the artist in residence program. I explained why it began (to bring more fine artists into the fold), ventured into the diversity of artists we invited (what they do, how they are – directly or indirectly – involved with CC, and what the two can offer to each other), explained what the residency was encouraging artists to look at (1. Differing modes of production that move beyond re-mixing; and 2. How we as artists can sustain ourselves — this was at the request of the iCommons), showed some of my own work and where my interests lie, and finally, I gave one potential example of each of these (production and money-making). Only one of these, the final bit, one slide, gave a bit on how to use CC to make money. Most of my presentation was just contextualizing for the rest of the artists.

I think, when talking about my own interpreatation, the far more interesting point was the one about context and site-specificity, and how CC might allow for or encourage international collaboration (something that may create a minor tension with Tim’s point about CC having little to do with the value of a work, but the argument could go either way). Read Tom Chance’s post or take a look at the CC description for Sentimental Construction #1 for more on what I was trying to say here.

update: paddy makes the point that she did not say there was anything wrong with my marketing my work (in my comments), and she’s right: she didn’t say that. So, I wanted to add that I only felt misrepresented because “marketing” was the only part of my talk that warranted a mention in her post, not that she “got it wrong” on any level, but that I wanted to give mention to some of the other things I talked about. That, coupled with David’s crit (which does kind of allude to “bad-ness”), above, inspired this post.