TeledyN

The uncapturable

in one fell stroke of a stripe of red midst the deep blues, Barnett Newman defeated the entire reprint industry. They can copy his stripe all they wish, duplicate every non-variance of his pigment tone and brushwork, even blow their copies up just as high and mighty, but they cannot usurp his work's position as the Voice of Fire.

[...] Only this ephemerial state of being the uncapturable, the marker of a place in time and space, the now of being here, this is the only option in a digital rebroadcast future, an inevitable convergence path for all art in a digital age.

And that future is here.

I was reminded of this post today in the whole Cory Doctorow vs Nina Paley discussion, which is an excellent read, true, but they still seem to miss the hard fact point how if what you can do can be copied by machines, then look out for your job because the machines will do it! That's true if you fold towels for a living too.

ok, now this has gone beyond hilarious: not only were Marcell's The Fountain urinals not found but meticulously recreated, it now surfaces that the Duchamp estate is pissed about some stray 'copies' magically turning up with a cool $2.5M pricetag.

So now, copyright-fans, do tell: if some unauthorized someone replicates a slyly successful forgery, is it intellectual property theft? Or just hilarious.

most of us in the arts have a completely wrong-headed idea of our true mission. Jim Collins argues that we mistakenly assume our mission is to present our particular and beloved artistic canon, the greatest artworks, old and new. He suggests our core values are exactly not that, that our favorite artworks are the means by which we have try to fulfill the core values of art, and according to his research, that is exactly where we must experiment. To rediscover our purpose, to live long and prosper, we must let go of our focus on programming favorite artworks, old and new, and instead boldly experiment with engaging people in artistic experiences. We must reconnect with the human art instinct.

The arts have been around since at least Day Two of human history (ornamental jewelry goes back 80,000 years, painting almost as far—and that’s not mentioning our impulses to create dance, music and to tell stories, which undoubtedly are even more ancient). Artistic expression is not just the province of artists; it appears spontaneously, irrepressibly, throughout each of our lives, mostly in forms and venues not identified with Art with a capital A. So, how have we let the identity of art get quarantined as an occasional pricey event in a special building?

Art appears in every endeavor raised to its highest level of expression, and more commonly in our conversations, hobbies, homes, as we dance at parties … anywhere people slip into the work and play of art. The core value for those of us in the arts professions—engaging people in the richness of the artistic experience—is to prompt that universal sense of meaning, richness, “specialness,” and satisfaction. It feels good—really good—the kind of good feeling that is hard to find in our overstimulated, materialistic, multitasking lives.

In order to unify our disparate arts, we need to find the quintessential elements of that human experience. We need to identify the fundamental particle or particles at the basis of the attraction, a Higgs boson for the human movement toward the artistic experience. And if we can agree around that unifying principle, I believe we can begin to answer the Jim Collins challenge in a powerful way, by experimenting boldly to bring people into the common, universal, highly-valued human experience of art. Not just those who already value the arts, but also those who aren’t in the club and don’t think about or care about the arts, yet yearn for fullness in their lives. We need to move the experience of art to the center of our intention, and reclaim Homo sapiens’ cultural birthright of artistic engagement.

Precisely. I refer to this all the time as the "Sacred duty" of the performance, be that as a theatre group, as musicians or as a painter, I ask if the performers were aware of their sacred duty to deliver the message.

And I don't mean the story line or the author's politics.

"No wonder the arts have sustained since the beginning of human history—this is the list of the best parts of being alive. They provide unity, attraction, and the reason there is something to being a human instead of being nothing.

"What can we do, as believers in the power of the fundamental act of creation, to align our actions, our creations, our organizations, our intentions and interactions with everyone inside and outside the arts to maximize that power? How can we create environments that effectively, irresistibly support and nurture that power? What events can we devise that are dedicated to that power, not merely to the presentation of artworks that we hope will contain it for those few who pay to attend?"

The answers, say Eric, are in the Unknown, in new collaborations, new artistic environments, new dialogs, in bold and brilliant new ways of retelling old stories. Which is to say, the answers, say Eric, are in the practice of Art.

via keithlim.com

People were asking about what business models are working for musicians, and I started listing out some examples, and a loud gentleman in the front row yelled out that the business model that had to be at the center was selling music. I responded with what I thought was an important question: "Why?" and again people started yelling. Of course, no one answered the question, and then the panel shifted gears to another topic.

But, the reaction from the crowd on that question cemented for me one of the biggest reasons why some in the industry have struggled to grasp new business models. As I discussed in my NARM presentation a few months ago, selling music is just not a good business model, but it doesn't mean there aren't good, very profitable, music business models. It's just that selling music isn't a very good one. Instead, you need to learn to use the music (which still needs to be good, and is still the central reason why these other business models work) to sell something else -- something scarce, which can't easily be copied.

Some of you long-time TeledyN readers will remember all those many posts about the One-Track Universe where music was your vector, your broadcast channel communications wave connector straight to the heart of your fans and how it made no sense whatsoever to charge people to pick up the phone because you wanted to tell them about something important, or because you wanted to heal them, or lead them to dance together in joyeous celebration of their community of inter-life as humans. The vast majority, of course, thought me crazy, a handful did support the idea, some more tentatively than others.

Today the idea is mainstream Rock-Press fodder, the bread and butter of more artists than I can track. More and more have caught on to what I said about Barnett Newman's Voice of Fire and the sure fire way to totally obliterate the DRM issue by stepping beyond the copyright of the copy-able. Today we are on the edge of a world where live music generates more actual in their pocket revenue for artists than does the dead shadow of sound etched in billions of non-recyclable plastic disks.

So while I didn't get to be a direct part of the new music economy, I am delighted to see it playing out precisely to my plan, and delighted to see not only the new young and nothing to lose artists embracing a free-share mp3 business model, but also now among some name acts, even one or two household names, the idea doesn't just make sense, it is simply and factually the way it is.

In a report to be released on Monday the nonprofit Center for Arts Education found that New York City high schools with the highest graduation rates also offered students the most access to arts education.

The report, which analyzed data collected by the city’s Education Department from more than 200 schools over two years, reported that schools ranked in the top third by graduation rates offered students the most access to arts education and resources, while schools in the bottom third offered the least access and fewest resources. Among other findings, schools in the top third typically hired 40 percent more certified arts teachers and offered 40 percent more classrooms dedicated to coursework in the arts than bottom-ranked schools. They were also more likely to offer students a chance to participate in or attend arts activities and performances.

The full report is at caenyc.org.

it could be true that more economically well-todo high schools would have more financial resources to afford more theatre/music programs and also, just coincidentally, host children who are from more privileged sectors of society and therefore more able and expected to graduate; I haven't read it yet, but I would hope they would take care to balance such factors.