[cc-sampling]: Negate-ative-land-land
mark / negativland
markhosler at bellsouth.net
Fri Apr 22 19:51:08 EDT 2005
At 10:45 PM +0100 4/20/05, David Meme wrote:
>I wonder what you think 'art' is.
Not something I worry about defining too much,
actually! I leave that to journalists, academics,
and historians to decide. I actually don't even
like the word "artist" (even though we use it ion
our essays) as it seems to divide people between
being "artist's" and "not artists". At dinner
parties I just say that I'm a guy who likes to
make things! :)
>You seem to have a very well developed sense of
>the romantic artist, both in yourself and the
>band (if indeed they agree with your
>sentiments). I personally thought that what was
>interesting and radical about collage, sampling
>and mashing was the possibility of challenging
>these nineteenth century myths by
>self-consciously reusing other people's work
>(death of the author and all that).
Those are all aspects of this kind of work, and
at this stage I am quite aware of them, but they
are not why I do it. Sounds like for you they are
(?). I've never cared where a sound came from- my
piano, the TV set, out in the street, my guitar,
a movie, a telephone call- as long as I like it,
have a good idea for it, and my use of it is
"transformative", then it's there to be used.
As for that "death of the author" stuff - besides
collage itself bringing up those issues, we
haven't said who is in our group since 1987
(there are 5 or 6 of us at this point), and you
cannot tell what we look like in all our
publicity pictures! We have made great efforts to
*not* cultivate any kind of cult of personality
around our work.
Also don't forget- I've been doing this since I
was 16 years old ( I was born in 1962) and had
no knowledge of art or history or anything when I
began. At that age about all I knew was that war
and cigarettes and racism were bad, the president
was a crook, and the Equal Righst Amendment was
obviously going to become law. But that's about
it. As far as cutting up sound, I just liked
doing it. And I had some sort of intuitive sense
that we were doing something we weren't supposed
to be doing. And that was very energizing. ( I
also had teh intuitive sense that trying to be a
rock star was a sure fire way to making lousy art
and becoming a world class asshole, and thus was
to be avoided at all costs).
Those impulses are still a huge part of how and
why I work this way. I just like it. And it feels
like an effective way to respond to world I live
in, it's been very self-educational, it's good
self-defense, and I like to make creative work
with a multiplicity of perspectives and
interpretations. I don't like black and white
thinking, and dont like it in art much, either.
Collage allows for lost of simultaneous
viewpoints.
>Building on others in a public way that we in
>the 20th and 21st century increasingly seem to
>have forgotten as we still imagine artists and
>musicians sitting in garrets having nervous
>breakdowns to be the somehow 'authentic' artists.
Actually, I kinda think that tired old myth is
long dead! Does anyone really believe that
anymore??
> Indeed linked to the question of copyright,
>which is *still* largely justified and
>legitimated by a claim to an 'author' who needs
>protection - when actually it is a huge faceless
>multinational corporation.
Right. It is. Yet, at this point, many persons
with half a bean brain know that this is the
case, doncha think? It's not too hard to figure
out that this country is an empire in decline and
is run by and for the corporate/military
industrial complex! So we are up against a lot of
power fighting to survive in the face of
collapsing paradigms all around them. They will
not go down quietly! Resistance, lawsuits and
destructive tantrums (like...er ....wars, for
example) are to be expected from these dinosuars.
No surprises there.
>
>I agree with your comment that CC is a safe
>world, although for different reasons. I
>actually think that the CC somehow, rather like
>your argument below, *justifies* the very strong
>IP protections that corporations are so hasty to
>enact and yet have so little evidence to
>support. CC in effect privatises the commons,
>individualises and fragments it into a thousand
>little pieces which perhaps can never be put
>back together again. The commons (note not
>necessarily the 'creative commons') as a project
>is extremely valuable and I think politically
>and socially important in an age where using DRM
>protection we could have the nightmarish world
>where even certain words are technologically
>protected - if you don't believe me check out
>David Bollier's blog where he talks about coke
>cola threatening to sue him for using lower
>case! Type microsoft into word and see it
>autocorrect you in the correct IP protected
>trademark format.
Your points about CC are excellent, and worth
further thought. In some ways CC in effect
re-affirms the existing system that I would
rather see torn down. But, of course, it will not
be torn down ( at least not in my life time) so
CCs approach is more "real politik", and in one
of the parallel univereses we all live in, it's a
good thing. In another idealistic and more
radical parallel universe, at least the silly one
*I* live in much of the time, I am not so sure.
I sure *dont* agree with your view on my
comments though. Sheesh! I was not speaking
about an argument that "justifies" anything(
that's an entirely different discussion), but
simply about creative practice itself. Can you
see the difference? Your comments seem to me to
be lumping them all together.
>
>The commons is important - but not for romantic
>artists to start making claims about muses,
>inspiration and breakdowns for them to create
>'original' art ex nihilo.
To me its simple- I am going to make art if I am
inspired to do so. There is nothing "romantic"
about this. It's just cause and effect! And,
oddly enough, my "original" art is often made up
of others peoples IP. (And I cant think of any
art I've ever made because I had some sort of
"breakdown". That myth doesnt fit me, or anyone
else in Negativland). I am not making art to
change you. That's being didactic in my book. And
better suited to.....an essay! End of
story..........or is it?? Because ,
paradoxically, if it DOES change you, and it very
well might, then that's great. And we *do* write
essays. So our work walks a very slippery slope
on a very tight rope. It's not easy to do, but
for the most part I think we pull it off pretty
well.
>Rather it is important as artists have *always*
>drawn from the past, their peers, their cultural
>environment without having to worry about some
>huge multinational or hot-shot IP lawyer sending
>them a cease or desist letter. Artists and
>musicians create from a cultural sphere that is
>slowly being privatised and locked-down and the
>alternative seems to be copyright and patent
>pools that only the 'signed' employee artists
>will have access to. In effect proletarianising
>artists and musicians at a time when suddenly
>everyone is talking about creative economies,
>information societies and the creative
>industries.
Right. So our day to day reaction to this
ridiculous situation is to ignore those silly IP
laws and rules as much as we can( getting NO
BUSINESS actually manufactured was very hard,
though, because it's filled with lawsuit inducing
bits all over it, and some of the printers we
worked with freaked out), and just get on with
the work making new work. I can't lobby Congress.
DOnt have the time or money. And I dont quite
want to devote my entire life to this "cause",
except for occasional lectures and panels I get
to be on. Last week I got to speak about our work
to COMPUTERS , FREEDOM AND PRIVACY in Seattle,
for example (and of course, our latest release is
a huge effort in this area).
>
>Sorry to go for so long, but I think we have to
>be careful about what we are all doing this for.
>I personally would hope that we seek to
>challenge the crazy out-of-control extension and
>colonisation across all of our everyday lives of
>intellectual property laws, and most importantly
>to make sure that when the corporations start
>playing with language and making private
>property equal to intellectual property *rights*
>they are not allowed to continue unchallenged.
>Claims to a romantic author drawn 'like moths to
>a flame' are playing into their hands and the
>legal justifications they espouse.
I dont agree, but your point is well put. I am
simply discussing what humans do. And some humans
like to be contrary! Just like you are right now!
:) ;)
I've done a ton of interviews over the last 25
years, and met many of our fans, and only RARELY
do I meet anyone who really gets just how complex
and layered our work is. And how full of
contradiction it is ( just like real life). I
think humans like to reduce things into simple
binaries and dualities and put them in boxes.
Which I kinda feel you are doing here.
But heck, ya know we are basically both on the
same side! Lemme buy ya beer! (are you in
Denver? I will be speaking in Boulder on May 12)
> Realising that a shared cultural commons, libre
>culture, is an important, indeed crucial part of
>our lives and needs us to create culture that we
>share and share-alike.
You bet!! Well, read our 15,000 word essay on
this subject, and then let me know if you still
think we are blowing it! :)
mark
>
>David
>
>http://www.locarecords.com
>
>---
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On 20 Apr 2005, at 20:35, mark / negativland wrote:
>
>>At 7:40 PM +0100 4/20/05, David Meme wrote:
>>>This strikes me as a weird attitude. You are
>>>saying that if it were legal to copy and reuse
>>>stuff you wouldn't want to.
>>
>>
>>I wasn't so black and white. I said "it's less interesting".
>>
>>>Rather than looking for interesting sounds
>>>from all over you seem to be making the odd
>>>point that you'll only do it if it causes a
>>>fuss - which seems somewhat cynical to me.
>>
>>
>>Cynical?? No, we're unrealistic idealists! :)
>>I'd say you sound more like a "realist". And I
>>said nothing whatsoever about intentionally
>>making a fuss, so be careful not to add things
>>into what I actually said.
>>
>>Do you make art yourself?? I am guessing no. If
>>you do, you might understand my comments a bit
>>better. My comments were not so much bout
>>being logical or politically effective in
>>making change ( all good things, and why we
>>agreed to work with CC to create the sampling
>>licence). I am merely expressing the feelings
>>that can lurk behind the choices artists make.
>>It's all about what inspires you to create!
>>
>> Perhaps you think Negativland are activists
>>first and artists second?? If so, you have it
>>all backwards! :) While the activist aspect of
>>our work is very important and clear to us
>>(check out NO BUSINESS, our new IP related
>>CD/book project that comes out in late May),
>>none of us are about to move to DC! Our first
>>and foremost concern is in making good smart
>>art. So, for me, I am not inspired to create
>>anything I would like by taking things from
>>NIN, for example!
>>
>> Do I want to make a "mash-up" of David Bowie's
>>music because he mounts a big add campaign
>>telling me to? No. ( yet I can still see the
>>bigger picture value in having a mainstream
>>artist like Bowie promoting the idea of letting
>>folks re-use his stuff). And while we have on
>>occasion used stuff from public places like the
>>Prelinger Archive, again, it becomes less
>>interesting to use because its so widely
>>accessible. We are trying to have a unique
>>voice in how we appropriate, so, quite often,
>>the more obscure the better. Does this make
>>sense?
>>
>>Our "U2" single, the very thing that ultimately
>>led to us being involved with CC in the first
>>place, would never be made today because, in
>>2005, any out takes of a celebrity guy like
>>Casey Kasem would be all over the web as mp3s.
>>Back in 1991, this was not the case, and hardly
>>anyone had those tapes. So we were inspired to
>>use them.
>>
>>While, from an aesthetic angle, the U2 single
>>was it was it was because we liked how it
>>sounded, we *also* did all the stuff we did
>>on that single *precisely* because they all
>>seemed like things we were not supposed to do.
>>So it was both things. Art, pranks,
>>shit-stirring, activism. Pretty much in that
>>order. It was FUN to do it that way! We were
>>inspired! And we thought it made for some very
>>funny and very smart art. An real all-around
>>spiffy package, if I say so myself.
>>
>>There will always be a small percentage of
>>artists who are dangerously drawn like moths to
>>a flame to do work like that. And,
>>historically, it is what moves art forward. In
>>retrospect, I can see that that role is
>>essential for a healthy culture, both
>>aesthetically and politically. But it also
>>means that once everyone is doing it, and it
>>becomes safe and easy ( the world CC is trying
>>to create) , it is automatically not so
>>exciting or inspiring any more. Does that seem
>>to be a bit juvenile of an attitude to have??
>>Perhaps it is, but I don't really think so- if
>>I ain't inspired, I simply ain't makin' it. So
>>I gotta be inspired! Following rules and
>>joining clubs doesn't inspire me too much.
>>That's just the kind of person I am, and I'd
>>say all the past and present members of
>>Negativland are cut from the same cloth.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Additionally, we might as well just have
>>>full-on copyright and close down any reuse if
>>>we extrapolate your argument.
>>
>>
>>Yes, but lets not be so binary, okay? My
>>argument is what it is, and I wasn't askin' ya
>>to go extrapolatin' it! :)
>>
>>> That way *all* samples would be interesting to you.
>>
>>
>>Hell, yes!!! :) That's been how we have been
>>making music for 25 years!! Hee hee!! :)
>>
>>>I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but I think this
>>>statement of intent is a kind of
>>>pseudo-anti-establishment fight against the
>>>system that needs that very system in order to
>>>have meaning in your art. In other words, you
>>>negate any possibility of radicalism in what
>>>you are doing.
>>>
>>
>>
>>I can't actually follow what you say in this
>>last paragraph. I don't see how we negate
>>anything. Please explain.
>>
>>
>>Negate-ative-landly yours,
>>
>>Mark
>>
>>>
>>>David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On 20 Apr 2005, at 18:55, mark / negativland wrote:
>>>
>>>>FYI- in a kind of reply to some earlier posts
>>>>here, as a long time collage artist, I can
>>>>tell you that any media or art out there
>>>>that has a CC license attached to it is
>>>>automatically less interesting for us to work
>>>>with! :) It's an aesthetic thing. With a few
>>>>notable exceptions ( our "U2" being the
>>>>biggest one), we are more drawn to things
>>>>that are quite obscure and harder to find, so
>>>>that our "found sounds" are more unique to us
>>>>and our work. Anything that is officially up
>>>>for grabs, like with a CC license, is also up
>>>>for grabs to *anybody* out there. So, this
>>>>makes it less unique, and thus, artistically,
>>>>less desirable to work with. And so, while of
>>>>course we support this "re-use" attitude (
>>>>and strongly espouse it in our own work as
>>>>well), it makes the found things less
>>>>appealing. For example, I'd never want to do
>>>>anything in a million years with any NIN
>>>>stuff. *Especially* if he made it available
>>>>for all to use! While we get sampled all
>>>>the time ( and of course don't mind if folks
>>>>do it), it seems like a rather imaginative
>>>>way to go- appropriating from folks who
>>>>appropriate! Kinda boring, if you ask me!
>>>>
>>>> We get asked all the time to make our raw
>>>>samples available to people to use
>>>>themselves, but ( and some of you might be
>>>>surprised by this) we have no interest in
>>>>doing this. Go and find your own cool
>>>>samples, ding dang it! Jeez.... :) :) ;)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Mark
>>
>>
>>--
>>
>>© © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © ©
>>
>>The truly creative people I know all live lousy
>>lives, never have time to see you, don't take
>>care of themselves properly, have weird tastes
>>in men/women and behave badly. They don't wash
>>and they eat disgusting stuff, they are
>>mentally unstable and are absolutely brilliant.
>> - Toke Nygaard
>>
>>
>>© © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © ©
>>
>>"Radical shifts happen, not through the
>>complacent adjustment of the conforming
>>majority, but through the creative
>>maladjustment of the non-conforming few."
>> - Martin Luther King, Jr.
>>
>>
>>© © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © ©
>>
>>A young girl aged six asked her mom to tell her
>>what she did at the university where she went
>>every day. "I am in the art department. I teach
>>people to draw and paint," replied her mother.
>>Astonished, the girl asked, "You mean they
>>forget?"
--
© © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © ©
The truly creative people I know all live lousy
lives, never have time to see you, don't take
care of themselves properly, have weird tastes in
men/women and behave badly. They don't wash and
they eat disgusting stuff, they are mentally
unstable and are absolutely brilliant.
- Toke Nygaard
© © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © ©
"Radical shifts happen, not through the
complacent adjustment of the conforming majority,
but through the creative maladjustment of the
non-conforming few."
- Martin Luther King, Jr.
© © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © ©
A young girl aged six asked her mom to tell her
what she did at the university where she went
every day. "I am in the art department. I teach
people to draw and paint," replied her mother.
Astonished, the girl asked, "You mean they
forget?"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-sampling/attachments/20050422/0b19f4ee/attachment.html
More information about the cc-sampling
mailing list