"James Cameron in the global village"
with Artie Vierkant
me:man i had an intense convo with krist
Artie: oh really?
me: definitely going on the chat thing
Artie: hahaha awesome
this was online after the show then? was it good, or weird?
me: this was like a few hours ago
good and weird
Artie: cool
haha
me: we talked about intellectual property
Artie: heh
me: he is totally against pirating anything
although he doesn't judge people about it
Artie: heh
sounds like he and I would butt heads
me: at the same time, he also has been very involved with 4chan and ytmnd for a long time
Artie: yeah, but I don't think that's necessarily contraditory
me: i don't either
Artie: yeh
me: it's just interesting
i think he has a very practical take on intellectual property
he doesn't want it to hurt people who create content
but he wants fair use for as many people as possible
Artie: yeah that makes sense
I think fair use is the major issue
i used to be a little more reactionary
and want everything to be free
but
if we had that
we would literally have to rewrite how the economy works
to make it so attention or cultural value or whatever directly equaled payment
me: that's a crazy idea
Artie: which I'm actually all for
but
not going to happen.. soon
haha
well I mean, it's the kind of crisis of digital objects, really
I mean our economy is based on precious things that can't be easily recreated
me: you think so?
i don't think it is anymore
Artie: well yeah
I mean like
chairs
food
expensive materials compared to computer memory space
and film for instance used to be super expensive too
me: i mean the stock market in the 20s was an example of the value of businesses being unrelated to their actual productivity
or the dot com boom
Artie: yeah that is true
me: and countries play all kinds of crazy tricks with their currency
Artie: yeah
I guess there is a transition happening then
people do make revenue off of their streaming music
but
not a lot
I dunno
me: advertisement is a good example of cultural work being done that has a monetary value
that is more or less immaterial
Artie: true
and people being paid to stand in shops and have discussions about certain products as though they were just regular guys there having a conversation
getting paid
for performance art
..marketing
'immaterial' as well
me: yea
what messes with me also
is that Krist's principle of fair use vs not harming artists
rules out work that uses other work
as viable for the market
Artie: how do you mean?
me: i guess it doesn't
necessarily
Artie: as in
"you can remix shit, as long as you paid for the original?"
let's say you were interested in selling that as an art object
it uses the movie in its entirety
in a specific formal context
Artie: yeah true
me: and it is itself its own work
but the concept of it depends on the use of the movie for its integrity
Artie: yeah definitely
but I think that's part of the value of the work
because it depends
not just on the film itself
but
on the copy created by an anonymous individual
with a video camera
and actually I am interested in creating a perception of that as a purchasable and collectible artwork
because
for one thing it's a different market
but
if someone controlling distribution rights notices
and doesn't think the same
then
1) that's great, on some level, that the division between art world and pop culture isn't perceived as such a strong divide, even by a IP lawyer somewhere
and 2) it would further continue the appropriation debate
I mean
for instance we all know Richard Prince's Marlboro Men because he was pushing into that grey area
and got sued and slandered for it
me: sure
do you think you could sell that piece
and get away with it
and feel okay about it
Artie: whether I could sell that piece I'm not sure.. I don't think there's much of a market for collecting work like mine really, at the moment. Though I'd love for there to be
and as far as morally
absolutely
me: i mean james cameron being who he is aside
Artie: because
for one thing, I'm not taking an indie film and re-presenting a slightly altered watchable version of it and taking money away from filmmakers who lose money on their creations
I'm deliberately taking a film which made a ton of money and would be distributing a version of it which is basically unwatchable
if
for example
James Cameron decided he wanted to break into the art markey
*market
by making structuralist films out of his major films
and I was stealing his thunder
then I could see him coming after me
but I see it as entirely a fair use
me: so in your eyes
a work that is more or less part of the culture industry
should grant fair use
Artie: ah, that's not exactly what I meant
I think it's about context
like
say I suddenly pressed a few thousand dvds of Avatar and got a deal with an electronics store chain to sell them in their dvd section
that's not exactly defensible
because at that point
me: haha they would never give you that deal though
Artie: even if I called it art (and it would be a bad one-liner project)
I know exactly but
I mean, people sell bootleg dvds all the time
even here in subway stations
and that's what copyright is for, to ensure that the people who made a distinct work can oversee distribution
the ironic thing is that, as far as Avatar in 3D is concerned, my having that project on my site and the fact that my separate version exists, while on the one hand mocking the film, also completely bolsters its cultural value
maybe at a really small scale
but to take the most direct comparison
24 Hour Psycho
(while not mocking like mine is)
helps to bolster psycho's cultural importance
have you seen Oliver Laric's latest Versions vid?
he actually does a very good job of articulating what I mean by this
me: yea
i have
does that concern you?
that sampling source material promotes it
Artie: I'm interested by it
in most cases no
in most cases I love that
me: why do you love it?
Artie: it's just like how memes can be fascinating.. all the different versions of the same image, completely devoid of a single author at some point. Everyone knows lolcats but no one knows (maybe they could google it if our archaeology on that is great) who posted the first lolcat, and it really doesn't matter
it's fascinating and at the same time the complete antithesis of how an artist's practice works or how art history is written
me: maybe it's not
Artie: although actually no, not the antithesis of an artist's practice.. I mean, we all cull images from anywhere and everywhere, even if we only use them for inspiration and don't directly copy
yeah
but
for instance
in my work
me: i mean in the oldest of school
you have communities creating culture
Artie: I'm playing with that question of whether it's good that the sampling promotes the source material
I mena
*mean
between Avatar and Twilight
these are my two least favorite cultural phenomena
so I'm kind of handling it tongue-in-cheek
me: sure
well i mean the question of whether it's good
only seems to me to exist in a situation of a mass culture industry
i heard somewhere that the american folk music tradition
before recordings
was done by lots of people teaching songs to each other
the same songs
Artie: yeah
me: but everyone had their different version of it
Artie: that's great
so here we are
post-recording
or rather
post-the-preciousness-of-the-recording
and we're back to that
Guthrie gives what's supposed to be a really great talk on the internet as folk art
me: i'd love to hear his talk
Artie: yeah same
me: do you know marshall mcluhan's idea
the global village
Artie: he gave a super-abridged version of one for my students but he didn't launch into it
yeah totally
so I guess I'm interested in whether Fox would try to sue me if I put up Avatar in 3D at a commercial gallery
seeing as
it can't harm them
you know?
one of my goals for the piece actually
(long-term, or maybe short.. one day it will happen)
is to have a screening of it in a gallery in LA
and take out an ad in a local paper that does movie listings
saying 'in case you missed it in theater's __ gallery presents a screening of AVATAR IN 3D' but then labeled as a film from 2010 (while it came out in 2009) and maybe having a very small print above saying "Artie Vierkant's"
to sort of both get attention and potentially draw people into something they wouldn't expect
me: do you think people would stay for that?
it's a funny idea
Artie: it's not really a piece you can sit through (I kind of intentionally create a lot of my long-duration videos almost as stills), but I think people would be interested
for example
when I originally re-released it on bittorrent
it got flagged immediately
as a fake
but
of the maybe 100-200 people who downloaded it, or started downloading it before they saw it flagged
something like 60 people got the joke
and continued to host the torrent for a further 2-3 weeks
this I think was mostly an audience that had never seen my work before, and maybe hasn't since
people who just wanted to watch Avatar
and probably got excited that someone had optimized it for 3d on a laptop
so I'd like to see something like that happen again
people surprised at what they find
some being upset, sure, but some being happy with what they found
me: is that part of your statement for it on your site?
Artie: it isn't
it probably should be
me: that it's a performance/intervention in that way
makes it really interesting to me
Artie: definitely
yeah I should make that more clear
oh and then the other thing of course about the gallery idea
is to have it in LA to be right in the belly of the hollywood beast
so maybe James Cameron hears haha
maybe projected in an empty lot across the street from Fox
haha
me: haha
what do you want from James Cameron?
like what is your fantasy
Artie: I'm not sure exactly
I mean the situation I just outlined is essentially that I want to provoke him
to what end I'm not sure
the thing is, I so thoroughly believe in the piece as fair use that I think I could only benefit from provoking them--in terms of, you know, if I got a cease and desist or something, I could spin that into attention towards my body of work
but we'll see
I'm probably just going to do it and see what happens