Look, how can you NOT like it? Really? It's all bouncy and oompah!
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Look, this is the single most brilliant song of the last five years. I don't care if you think otherwise; you are wrong. Look at it. It has a man pretending to be a lady, a glitterball, glasses that make everyone naked, a completely awesome keychange, and ACCORDIONS. It's a work of genius, and there isn't enough gay accordion-based space disco polka in the world. Ever.
So, I'm waiting on a parcel from the US - a Goldtouch keyboard, which was a birthday present from my Mum. Incidentally, they're amazing things if you have RSI, I recommend them thoroughly.
Anyway, I thought I'd have a look see to find out where it was; it's been several days, and it was moving on from Newark last time I looked.
Well - it came in to Stanstead, then was *flown to the East Midlands and back to Heathrow*.
Wow. I mean, that's like the next town if you're in the middle of the US. But on this side of the pond...
Look, here's a cunning line on a map to show you quite how bonkers that was. It makes the cheerful assumption that the package will get to my house from Feltham, by the way, and not be rerouted via Edinburgh, frinstance.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Sunday, May 06, 2007
An interview of Cory Doctorow by David Weinberger. Fascinating stuff about metadata, and the differences between implicit and explicit data, along with the political-cultural constructs in play around classification systems.
I wonder, sometimes, about going off and getting a librarianship or curatorial qualification. I am most certainly one of those people who likes sorting - systematising, tidying, classifying and arranging is something I find incredibly soothing. I have a feeling it's incredily hardwired in to me; back in my wild art student days there was a wonderful incident with some hallucinogens and waking up to discover my room ordered to the Nth degree - even my cupboard shelf contents were tidied, rectinlinearly stacked in size order. Others get messy on drugs, I get tidy. But I digress.
I've written bits and bobs about tax- and folks- onomies before here; I don't have the energy for a retread this evening; frankly, reading the transcript of the interview will tell you everything I've said and more, with greater clarity and intellectual rigour. It's worth reading or listening to.
One interesting point made is about flickr, and the huge mass of CC-licensed photos available on the web:-
If you're a stock photographer trying to sell photos of Capri, even if it can be found, you're probably screwed at Flickr because there's 100, 000 of them there available for free--unlicensed, actually, Creative Commons licensed--yours is going to have to be pretty darn good for somebody to actually shell out money for it.
The interview goes on to talk about copyright, and elision of cultural and commercial constraints in copyright law. The ususal.
But... what does it really mean that there's so much available for free, now? Is the bespoke the final recourse of arts, now? If everyone can micro-produce and micro-sell, what happens to the 'great work' - does it become more valuable, have more of an aura?
In a fully described world, where the overlay of discussion and culture is captured in searchable, semi-machine readable electronic forms, where the map and the territory are completely blurred... what does a creative person do? When there can be no 'underground', no hidden pockets of creative collaboration left to diversify in obscurity, away from the wider culture, do we end up with ... less creative speciation? Or radical, precambrian explosions of diversity?
Flickr is always a good example; it made me want to photograph more, initially, but now makes me not want to photograph at all, because anything I capture will be so like so many other pictures. Interestingness is rarely that; it's more frequently inoffensively pretty and technically pristine; a kind of mass idea of what a good photograph might be, smoothed out by the gentle erosion of traffic flow across the site. It feels a bit like Clement Greenberg's idea of kitsch; it seems to point out that originality is nearly impossible to achieve.
I'm not sure where I'm going with this thought. I think I'm interested to understand what it means to be trying to create something unique in a world where everything-there-is is instantly available and addressable, and any new creation is instantly contextualised by being indexed as 'a bit like this, and this other thing, and maybe 30% similarity to this other thing here'. What gets made? The things that spring to mind are the great renaissance works, painted for super-rich patrons, and elaborately personally codified; the language of art history becoming more obscure and arcane, and personalised to the patron. Commissioning something, collaborating, and encoding undisclosed ideas into the work becomes a way of opposing the same-ness of originality. Or does creativity become private again; something jealously held away from the systematizing gaze of the web? Or do objects become valuable purely because of personal significances - does taste die?
How do we preserve surprise, and grit, and significance? And are these valuable things, or am I pining for mirages?
Friday, May 04, 2007
Thursday, May 03, 2007
A friend just pointed me at this video that went out on US TV. I've tried three or four times to leave a comment on the actual page, but it doesn't seem to be working. Hence, I thought it worth reproducing here, because, well, someone should make a fuss when big media rip off other people's stuff against the specific license it's published under.
I've spent a LOT of my life over the last few years ensuring image use is all within the bounds of license agreements and copyright - even getting release forms for a five year old, once.
I suppose we don't have the benefit of that pesky 'fair use' under UK law.
Anway - the Yentob avatar was created by Siobhan, so she should take the credit.
Comment text would have been as below:-
I notice that you've used one of my screenshots in your piece. Whilst Alan Yentob's (a famous UK TV personality) avatar and the screenshot was created for a BBC TV documentary, I assume you've obtained the shot from my flickr stream.
It's released there under a Creative Commons Deed - Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/
You don't appear to have Attributed me; the adverts at the front of your piece seem to suggests you're a commercial concern, and there's a clear copyright statement at the bottom of the page, suggesting you haven't 'shared alike'.
Just thought you might like to know for future reference, so you can consider complying with the licensing requirements.