[NetBehaviour] "Open Source Culture"
am-netbehaviour at kuri.mu
Wed Apr 6 12:39:28 CEST 2011
Rob Myers said :
> On 04/04/11 20:19, Aymeric Mansoux wrote:
> > But what I was more thinking of is in the case where people have a
> > fairly good understanding of Free Culture, would you say it is possible,
> > desirable, or even a necessity, to make a distinction between the
> > technical and legal infrastructure that allow Free Culture, its usage
> > and what is produced? And why?
> We can certainly identify legal tools, their community of users, and
> their artistic products by the same name. But they are all there to
> support the objective of free-as-in-free-speech (or -expression)
> culture. It's useful to be able to tell them apart so that when people
> start talking about inhuman concepts like commons, gifts, reputations
> and anything else that looks like people's freedom of speech should be
> curtailed to support Free Culture, we can explain why this is
> What is produced ("free cultural works" differentiates them better than
> "free culture", although it's an unappealing phrase) has an interesting
> art theoretical status. It's art that we are identifying because of a
> non-aesthetic property, but that non-aesthetic property is one that
> enables aesthetics:
Looks like you're reading my mind, as my question was driven by a
broader interest in the way art and politics are being mixed up, and of
course remixed, for the best and the worst in copyleft art.
I'm starting a PhD at Goldsmiths that is quite focussed on this issue and
my approach is to see the license as if it was an art manifesto. I am
doing so in order to "reverse engineer" the artistic intention behind
copyleft art and see why, how and under which circumstances it can or
I hope to be able to share some early texts about that in a few months.
> I made the licence an aesthetic property of the work with "CC Ironies" -
This is a hidden gem, love it.
More information about the NetBehaviour