[Frameworks] UbuWeb...HACKED!

[David Tetzlaff]

On Oct 14, 2010, at 1:24 PM, Jason Halprin wrote:

> Do the rights and wants of the creator outweigh those of the public?  
> My answer has always been that will the author of a work is still  
> alive, they should maintain as much control as they desire.

I must disagree. Once an artist has presented work to the public, they  
have initiated a conversation. And in any conversation, all parties  
should have a certain say in the matter, some degree of co-ownership.  
(Check with Habermas on this if you want to argue the point ;-) I  
don't know if it's an issue of 'rights', or just decency. And I'm not  
suggesting that all concerns are equal or anything goes.

Once an artist makes a work public, it goes into the heads of people  
who see/read/hear/whatever it. This happens, in effect, at the  
creator's invitation. An author should not have "control" over my  
head, or any part of it. Most artists take reasonable positions about  
their work, consistent to some degree with the idea that they have  
established a kind of trust or relationship by showing it. But not  
all. For example, when an artist withdraws work from view entirely, or  
has it destroyed, IMHO this violates the obligation they established  
with the public by inviting them in in the first place.

I would also argue that people who present artwork in public have an  
obligation not just to the audience, but to the historical practice of  
the form in which they work. They and their work are not isolated  
monads, but part of a thread of things that have come before and  
things that will come after. The past and the future should have a say  
as well.

On the evidence of what's available in the video section of UbuWeb,  
I'd say their present policies strike a reasonable, even fairly  
conservative balance between the legitimate claims of both authors and  
audiences. They don't put up just anything, and they take stuff down  
if there's a complaint.

Beth Capper noted that the online availability of Cpry Doctorow's  
books has not kept them from becoming bestsellers and asks:

> Could it perhaps be a misconception that forcing scarcity (esp. in  
> the case of digital works) is a good business model?


There's no perhaps about it. (And I take Beth's use of 'business' to  
be figurative, referring not just to financial gain, but to broader  
objectives of aesthetic practice). All evidence shows that the value/ 
desirability of cultural products in the form of data/information (as  
distinct from the value of discrete physical objects) tends to  
INCREASE with it's circulation. The code for Mozilla, for example,  
wouldn't have been worth anything if nobody used it. Obviously, this  
is not true in all cases, and where it does apply, it is not a simple  
mechanism. It is especially tricky to know where the balance is with  
something like an experimental film, which is not cheap to make and  
most likely has a relatively limited potential audience (compared to a  
Tom Cruise movie at least).

Unquestionably, UbuWeb generates interest in the artists whose work  
appears on their site, interest that would not exists otherwise,  
interest that provides a variety of opportunities to artists that they  
would not otherwise have. UbuWeb helps us weave different pieces of  
work into meaningful historical threads, and provides a source of  
inspiration for artists of the future. For that reason alone, I feel  
they are fully justified in nudging art into the digital light,  
instead of waiting for volunteers.