Re: [ox-en] Re: Oekonux workshop at KLab9
- From: "Raoul" <raoulv club-internet.fr>
- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:12:59 +0200
In order to prepare the Oekonux workshop at KLab9 (6-7 October in Lancaster)
on "Free Software and Art - Differences and similarities"
(http://en.wiki.oekonux.org/StefanMerten/KLab9Worksheet)
Stefan Merten and I (Gregers won't be able to come) started to exchange some
correspondence.
Stefan proposed to continue the discussion on the list. So, here is my last
mail.
- - - - - - - -
Hi Stefan!
Wednesday, August 22, 2007, you wrote:
Today I at least checked what we have so far. Fortunately it is not so
bad. I'd say I'll try to prepare a presentation of 20-30 minutes
meaning 7-10 slides. I'd probably prepare one half for
"Selbstentfaltung" and the other half for "Authorship in Free
Software". Hmm... may be a one or two fundamental slides about Oekonux
would also be useful.
Well, did you change your mind since your initial proposal ?
You had said:
"For this I'd think it would make sense to have two parts: In the first
part we explain some central Oekonux ideas. I think this is necessary
because only then we can assume some common understanding among the
participants. In a second part we then discuss how these ideas can relate to
art."
(http://en.wiki.oekonux.org/StefanMerten/KLab9Worksheet)
You seem to see reduced the part dedicated to Oekonux (a third small half?)
I thought that your idea to begin by taking the necessary time to introduce
Oekonux central ideas was good... and I still think it is. KLab is supposed
to be a place gathering people looking for ways and means to overcome
capitalism. They should be naturally interested by the Oekonux idea that the
free software spirit/practices are germs (also active germs) of a
non-capitalist society. I think it would be useful, for example, to use the
Stefan Meretz's image of the three "shells" of the onion: software, culture
and societal material production, where the new (non capitalist) forms of
production, after developing within the first shell (software), are
developing into the second one, culture.
Art is part of culture, and indeed, in some domains of art (music, videos,
photos, literature, etc) we see clear and accelerated expansion of
non-market practices (creating art products for own and others pleasure and
not for wage and sell/profit). This reality concerns, for the moment, mostly
digital goods produced mostly with digital means. ("Internet art", "Software
art", "Browser out", game design, etc.) But it may expand (partially) into
material goods since Free Software may be used to drive tools, machines. If
designing cars can be considered as containing some artistic aspects, the
case of Oscar is an example.
In any case, I think it would be worth to take sufficient time for the
presentation of Oekonux's dynamic way to see things and situate art in this
dynamic. But, after all, maybe this can be done with one or two slides...
On [ox-de] some time ago we had some debates on that topic - also with
artists. I should check the archive for these threads. What I remember
was a strong wish to keep the work "untouched". I know this feeling
from programming, too, though nowadays something like code ownership
vanishes more and more - especially as it seems to me in Free Software
projects.
For digital goods, you can always keep an "untouched" version of the
original product. This may not be the case for material products... But we
know that all the possibilities with digital goods cannot be found with
material goods. Nevertheless, the irreversible process of introduction of
"digital substance" into almost all forms of artistic creation should also
have an influence in the way "artists" see their activity and the
"untouchability" of their products...
When comparing it to Free Software it is important to be precise on what
we
are talking about, especially concerning the question of "fine arts" and
"useful" arts...
Though I guess the expectable audience will have a rather unified
notion here this is certainly a useful clarification. Also it
highlights a nice connection between fine arts and - as
says - crafts.
The question of the definition of art has so many subjective aspects that I
would not be surprised if the expectable unified notion of the audience
proves not to be.
In that context, preparing us to answer the question: "Is writing software
an artistic activity?" may be relevant.
One of the main watersheds about the notion of art is "usefulness": pure art
is not practically useful; another is "rationality": pure art communicates
by emotions, intuitions and aesthetic feelings, not through rational
approaches. The limits of usefulness and rationality are difficult to draw
up. Religious art, for example, (probably the most prevalent form of art
before capitalism), (which is undoubtedly "art" since dealing with
emotions/feelings - one of the foundations of religions), has also very
"practical" goals: giving protection from bad spirits or devils, attracting
rains, fertilizing the land, trading with gods, etc. In addition, many very
practical goods may have an important artistic aspect, especially in the
riches' practical world: houses, furniture, clothes, cars...
In any case, we need a definition, and for the sake of simplicity IMHO we
could stick to: the most specific characteristic of artistic activity is the
research of producing aesthetic/emotional feelings.
From that point of view one could say, in an almost tautological way, that
writing software is an artistic activity as far as the purpose of the
software is artistic. Programming is not "per se" art, but it can be.
Two remarks about that.
In the case of Free Software, the fact that the users (and the creators) may
have the feeling/emotion of escaping capitalist logic (even if for a while
and in a very small measure) may give to programming an artistic aspect.
There is another dimension which makes writing software and art close. The
word art comes from Latin "ars" which related essentially to the skill to
produce something, material or not, but requiring special skills. An
artisan, a craftsman is first of all somebody who has and develops skills to
produce something. The development of these skills may some times become a
goal "per se" and the source of goods inducing aesthetic/emotional feelings
as witnesses of human capacities/potential. Artists are first of all
artisans, craftsmen. (Only few modern and provocative notions of art deny
the use and development of specific skill as a characteristic of art.)
The programmer is also, first of all, an artisan, a craftsman, and he often
feels so. "In fact many programmers perceived themselves as craftspeople",
says Steven Weber in his "Success of open source" (chapter on "The early
story of open source"). In that sense, writing software, "elegant" software
may be a source of aesthetic feelings for other programmers, and, as such,
contain, by itself, an artistic aspect, in the specific world of people able
to understand programs.
Of course, I don't think we should enter into all these aspects in the
introduction, but it may help for the discussions.
---
An idea that IMHO might be present in the presentation (but I don't know
exactly where: Authorship or Selbsentfaltung? since we abandoned the
Ownership topic) is that Free Software spirit/practices, together with the
ITC, are allowing artists, for the first time in history, to begin to
emancipate from wizards/sorcerers/priests', riches' (sponsors) or state
bureaucrats power, in order to spread and disseminate their works.
---
On the topic on Authorship, we could say that FS spirit should bring into
art a new capacity to create art in a much more collective way. But that
seems implicit in what you say about that topic in your mails.
Some thoughts. Hope they help.
...
Greetings
Raoul
24 aug 07
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de