[syndicate] Re: Re: Re: No Flesh Guaranteed - Internet net cult hit...

[Eduardo Navas]

Hello Eryk,

Below is my response:

> Why should I be forced to contend with the limitations of "mechanical
> objects"? I did not create an object mechanically. I put up a piece of
> net.art, on a server that I pay for myself, and I happen to have the
ability
> to take it down. I decided to make use of that power- some of us would
call
> it "freedom". Why, oh why, should I limit the degree of freedom afforded
to
> me by creating the work in a digital medium, which I refused to sell
and/or
> donate just for this reason? Because that's how we "used to do it" and
doing
> otherwise is somehow "fascist"? Oh brother.

Your work is mechanically reproduced -- the machine you used is based on
mechanical reproduction.  Although for entertaining this issue it might be
interesting to look over what Douglas Davis wrote about Digital Reproduction
in relation to Benjamin's Mechanical reproduction:
http://cristine.org/borders/Davis_Essay.html
http://www.student.math.uwaterloo.ca/~cs492/Benjamin.html
(the links might be dead at the moment due to the blackouts in the
northeast, but check them later if you can.)

In essence, the reproductive aspects work the same; now the computer screen
has raised the ante, and we no longer completely rely on printed or
broadcasted material to communicate, but also networks as well.

>Benjamin was *forced* to live in
> a world of mechanically produced dissemination. Now, we have the
technology
> that leaves it up to an issue of luck. Perhaps someone made an archive,
and
> they can use my work to further their agenda against my will- the freedom
> exercised by thieves.

Benjamin's position was no different than ours.  We are forced to live in a
world of 'mechanically reproduced dissemination' as you say.  As we all
know, our position is becoming even more controlled due to the culture's
dependency on networks.

>
> When an artist is afforded total control over what he or she does, it is
the
> opposite of fascism, except in the world of knee jerk academics with their
> free-floating fascism label, forced onto anyone who dares confront that
> sphere with either a) self confidence b) self control c) advocacy.

The right of the artist to do as she pleases with the work is something
anyone advocating free-will endorses (I think it is safe to say). -- I agree
with you.  However, I was just pointing out the responsibility that comes
with being part of a community.  If one offers something up for discourse,
the material should not be taken away simply because one disagrees with
diverse point of views.  Instead one must push one's point of view within
the community to strengthen the possibilities of communicating the idea.  Of
course the artists should have the right to do as she pleases with the work,
but like I said, once the work is part of culture, even mythologically, it
is impossible to take it away.  An example of this would be for me to say
""Mona Lisa;" chances are people immediately get an acoustic image of the
painting.  Da Vinci can not fight that, and neither can artists today.  So
we should be careful about what we put on our servers, because even if the
files are taken down, chances are if something is written about it, the work
is no longer under your control.

Exercise the right, I am down with you.  Unfortunately, it is limited, and
this is the price one pays for mass production and consumption. Look at an
overly appropriated image by Che Guevara, how would Che feel? he stood in
front of a terrace in Cuba for only a few seconds, and now we have a whole
industry of graphic prints around this one image:

http://www.thepostergallery.com/POSTER_STORES/topic_Education/Che_Guevara_Pi
cs_-0212-1019-4034-pgc.html

What he did is to become active and fight whatever image was developed of
him by doing what he did best, activism.  But he could not take away his
public image.  Artworks function in the same way.  One can take it down, but
if it develops enough attention, it is not up to you anymore how the work is
disseminated.  And because of this, like I said before, I consider it best
to invest in making sure the work has the opportunity of being
contextualized the way the artist originally envisioned.

Best,

Eduardo Navas