Archive for the ‘Links of Interest’ Category

G.R.E.E.D.: Internet Spyware as Art

Tuesday, April 10th, 2012

I found this little tidbit of Internet art very clever. I am curious about the outcome as well as if anyone will really install it?

“G.R.E.E.D.” is a browser extension, a small piece of software, by Greg Leuch that acts as a parasite to its voluntary audience, monitoring the browsing history and identity information of users. Should a user attempt to deactivate it, “G.R.E.E.D.” will publish their stored (and presumably private) data. This is only preventable by paying a licensing fee to Leuch through Art Micro Patronage. It’s aggressive spyware as art, a work that blackmails its own bounty from collectors.

And from the creator of the project, Greg Leuch,

Greed powers our economy through restrictive licensing deals and claims of copyright. What enables this demand is the ability to control access or demand incentives as compensation for their work. The Internet, built without these restrictions, is being threatened to include protections for licensed and copyrighted content.

G.R.E.E.D. (Glom & Restrict Entities on Existing Domains) demonstrates how a web user’s browsing experience and anonymity can be threatened through restrictions, take-downs, censorship, and monetary blackmail if such license and copyright restrictions are imposed on the Internet.

H/T BLOUINARTINFO

Interesting Old Pictures from Detroit

Monday, November 14th, 2011

I happened upon this inexplicably depressing website, These Americans.

(Okay, actually it’s perfectly explicable, the images are all very sad and creepy, at least to me.)

Here are some of the weird, lonely images from Detroit, mostly from the 20th century.

Detroit Hip Hop Artists Capitalize on Social Networks

Monday, January 31st, 2011

You have heard from Hubert Sawyers III on this blog before and this time he is telling the story about a hip hop artist he is working with personally to build a grassroots campaign to fund his debut album via Kickstarter. From “Progress Report: Using Social Capital to Generate Startup Capital,”

When I first met David Allie Strauss aka D. Allie, I was not aware that he would become someone that I would be in constant contact with years down the road. Back then, D. was just another dude that I would share the occasional microphone. I have since retired my dreams of hip hop supremacy, but I am glad to see Dave still at it. He has impressed me with his growing cachet from years of performing, bartending and overall hustle to make his dream a reality. As a former brother-in-the-struggle in the realm of music, I realize music is mainly seen as just entertainment to the end-user and most artists aka entertainers rarely have the end-user in mind. These days, me and D. are on the verge of becoming business partners, mainly because he understands the end-user aka YOU are his boss(es). (Emphasis mine.)

Ah, if only every artist thought like this. It is important to embrace the fact that your audience is your customer, and your customer is your boss. Your job is to make them feel special, wanted, needed, (and if you are Justin Bieber), loved.

I met Dallie a year or two ago at a Tweetup as well as seeing him around town and I remember him distinctly, mostly because he was a nice person. He remembered me and bothered to take time to chat. Maybe he was thinking ahead, maybe he knew, two years ago, the importance of social capital, maybe the fact that he did not blow me off like a lot of cooler-than-though artists do is the reason I donated to his Kickstarter campaign and genuinely want to see him succeed.

Maybe? Absolutely.

A common theme I see creeping up in arts blogs as well as conversations “in the field” is a very us vs. them mentality. From the tone of the writing to the ideas expressed, there is very little that makes me want to be a part of the arts community online, despite the fact that I have every reason in the world to be wholly invested: I consider myself an artist, I come from a family of fine artists, musicians, composers, dancers, and actresses, and uh, I write a blog dedicated to the arts. And to be perfectly honest, most art blogs turn me off. There is so much complaining, so much name-calling, so much blaming for the state of affairs the arts are in, and little responsibility, little genuine community-building, and little problem-solving. (I may be missing something – so please, leave links in the comments.)

So, when I see this project, from someone I’ve met, who was nice to me, who isn’t a complainer…but a doer…I’m all about it, and you should be too.

Music Fix: Stevie Wonder, Live in Brazil 1971

Thursday, July 29th, 2010

Today I decided to import my entire CD collection to iTunes, and it is proving to be quite the musical trip down memory lane. I have also been YouTubing my favorites to see if I could find any gems and I came across this great version of Stevie Wonder’s “Never Dreamed You’d Leave in Summer” performed live in Brazil in 1971. Just have a listen.

Making a Profit in Music: The Mick Jagger Meme and More

Friday, May 28th, 2010
Mick Jagger - The Rolling Stones live at San S...
Image via Wikipedia

I saw this quote from Mick Jagger at least 5 times in different blogs in my Google Reader,

…people only made money out of records for a very, very small time. When The Rolling Stones started out, we didn’t make any money out of records because record companies wouldn’t pay you! They didn’t pay anyone!

Then, there was a small period from 1970 to 1997, where people did get paid, and they got paid very handsomely and everyone made money. But now that period has gone.

So if you look at the history of recorded music from 1900 to now, there was a 25 year period where artists did very well, but the rest of the time they didn’t.

I think people are fascinated about what Jagger has to say since he is one of the most wildly successful and no doubt wealthy recording musicians of all time with career longevity most artists envy. Plus, he’s rich, right? Is he saying it was just good timing? (Nah, I’m certain some of that musical genius and epic charisma had something to do with it.) However, despite Tyler Cowen’s friendly rib that Jagger is no economist, the phenomenon Jagger is talking about is no less true and is explained further by Daniel Wolf of Renewable Music,

That date [Jagger is referring to] in the late 90′s coincides rather precisely with the mass introduction of cheap digital recording equipment and media as well as the widespread use of portable digital players.  The old model of radio advertising paying royalties for recorded music which was licensed cheaply for broadcast with the idea that randomly-heard broadcasts of songs were advertisements for the purchase of albums — which allowed the listener to select particular songs on their own — pretty much collapsed at that point in time.  The technological innovations leading to ever-cheaper and ever-more accurate recording and storage capacity were inevitable but the whole thing gets ugly when one considers that the firms selling the new recording technologies were, in many cases, also publishers of the music that was inevitably going to be recorded.

The “gets ugly” Wolf is referring to is the loss of revenue to individual artists. (Check out this scary graphic re: distribution of profits in the music world via NewsObserver TechJunkie.) This is admittedly a problem for most artists aiming to have a recording and performing career. Wolf further notes, and correctly in my opinion,

Although recordings and webcasts may have some advertising function, in the end, the grand experiment [of commodifying music] may leave us back where we started, with live performance the most important — and in many cases, only — opportunity for a musician to earn money.

While I will only mention the can of worms that is the issue of Baumol’s cost disease in live performance, I think Wolf is correct in that performance is likely to be the most lucrative way to make money. It is undeniable that the business model for artists is subject to rapid change, in particular when technology is introduced and dramatically alters the landscape artists have to work with.

However, I find it curious that despite the fact that individual artists are likely to have low(er?) chances of making it big financially in music, introduction of technology has helped achieve what has long been considered one of the most troubling aspects of becoming and artist and disseminating work: access to distribution channels. Never before in history have so many people been able to access A) ways to make and distribute their own music cheaply B) ways to hear music of all kinds cheaply. This is an undoubted improvement, as far as egalitarian ideals of access to the arts are concerned.

So, are we dealing with trade-offs (sacrifices) between access and profitability? Are there other business models that could evolve to put even more control of revenues into individual artist’s hands? Is what is “wrong” with the music industry the big labels in charge promoting watered down music, or the poor tastes (and thus, demands) of mass consumer culture?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Links of Interest

Friday, May 28th, 2010

Terrorists target a dance performance in Russia.

Detroit’s first deaf rapper.

Big art in a small space.

Public policy education via Broadway show tunes?

“No matter what the content, all these pictures are political, because in each of them a woman was behind the camera…”

On the Specialness of Art

Wednesday, May 12th, 2010

This is a huge topic that deserves its own blog, so I offer few answers, but hopefully some fodder. Via Edward_Winkleman, an open thread about “whether or not art should be special.” Winkleman quotes a commenter who is fed up with the US art collector scene, ostensibly having found “better opportunities” outside the US,

On a personal level I feel that the object-based model (artist makes object, collector buys object), leaves something away from the experience. Art needs to re-enter life and to affect people at large as gestures, as life choices, NOT just as objects. “Art” is too concentrated in the small confines of the artworld and let’s face it, not everyone will fit that mold. “Art” needs to step out of its specialness and to re-enter the world as something more mundane.

Winkleman captures my ambivalence about this oft-repeated argument: art needs to be accessible, less elite, more inclusive, etc.

I’ve been hearing sentiments like this for some time…But somehow, I resist it. Not sure why. One knee-jerk (meaning, taking no time to consider seriously) answer would be that it’s not profitable, but very little about many of the projects we support are profitable, so I sincerely don’t think that’s it.

But the part of that statement I keep coming back to when thinking about it (and I do appreciate the commenter’s sharing it) is this:

“Art” needs to step out of its specialness and to re-enter the world as something more mundane.I’m truthfully not sure what that means.

If I can put words in his mouth, Winkleman goes on to describe how art is not, almost by definition, mundane. I’m inclined to agree with him. Art is distinct from mundane things and experiences,” or in other words “stuff that we take for granted”. I mean, who ever gushes to their friends about how they must go see the latest opera or gallery opening because of how “mundane and accessible” it was?

Of course mundane and accessible are two different things, and depending on how are we defining accessible – the issue is confused further. Do we mean accessible in the most literal sense of more people having more access to the arts in general? Then, congratulations! Never before in history have so many people had so much access to so much art via the wonders of reproductive technology. See Tyler Cowen’s “In Praise of Commercial Culture” for a thorough exploration of this topic.

Despite Walter Benjamin’s famous assertion that reproduction destroys the soul of art – I’d argue one would have to make a strong case against what I consider the clear advantage of technological advancement as far as accessibility is concerned. For example – what is being able to hear a high quality recording of a music performance, in the event that price, time, or location does not allow one access to the live performance  if not, accessibility?

If we mean accessibility as in “widespread comprehension and appreciation of art for art’s sake such that the majority of people can effectively commune with art,” then good luck, and I have more questions than answers there.

Winkleman continues,

And yet, I hear echoes…all the time. “Art is too elite. Art needs to be accessible to more people. Art should be something everyone can afford.” But that sounds like previous calls for wider television or internet access to my ear. That sounds like we’re attempting to reduce art to just another channel for information distribution, rather than some vessel for a hard-fought battle to transcend the mundane.

I don’t know…I guess I have enough mundaneness in my life already. Consider this an open thread on whether or not art should be special.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

The Art of Transformation: Economical and Inspired

Sunday, May 2nd, 2010

I was absolutely floored by this incredible transforming apartment featured on “World’s Greenest Homes

I think this video of architect Gary Chang’s home is not only a wonderfully executed exercise in economizing and what could be considered “green” living, it reveals how solving a problem with design has resulted in a visually appealing and artistically inspired minimalist space.

If you are a regular reader of home and design magazines like Dwell, or a hilarious favorite blog of mine “Unhappy Hipsters” you might be as shocked as I am how frequently so-called “green” designers are praised for what appears to be wasted space and resources on sprawling homes, estates, or abandoned-car-washes-cum-trendy-boutiques replete with sustainably raised, scavenged, and/or otherwise fair-traded everything-under-the-sun. (Don’t forget, they are wearing the latest and greatest organic fashions.)

Many of the 10 page photo spreads read more like, “How to Buy/Sell Tons of Designerly Stuff No One Really Needs While Living in Expensive Cities Yet Still Be Able to Justify to Yourself and Fool Everyone Else Into Thinking You Care Deeply About the Earth and the Plight of Those Less Privileged.” Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind anyone living any way they like or buying whatever they desire. What I don’t appreciate is the holier-than-thou attitude of many of today’s Green Elite. You’ll have to forgive me if I don’t see their fashionable excesses as rather un- “green” myself. It is designers like Chang, who live out their principles while utilizing inspired design that really impress me.

Artists: Do You Feel Compelled to Work for Free or Barter?

Monday, April 12th, 2010
A newspaper illustration depicting a man engag...
Image via Wikipedia

I found this conversation-starter on ArtsBizBlog to be a good one and enjoyed reading the comments that rolled in. The dilemma:

Sometimes it’s great to trade your art for a service or other product.

Then there are the times when you don’t really want what the other person is offering.

Matthew Kowalski wants to know: “What is the polite, friendly way of saying you would prefer to be paid with money?”

I particularly liked commenter “Carla’s” approach:

I have a barter policy written, and I can refer to it for these conversations. It is not posted for the public, but it reminds me of my boundaries.
The high points include:
Barter agreements are for no more than 50% of the price of the work.
I will discuss barter only if I am in profit that month.
I have a limited number of barter sales I will consider in the calendar year.
If I do not want what the other person is offering, I suggest a payment plan. In fact, that option is part of any barter discussion.

She’s one smart cookie. An unofficial or official barter and sales policy could go a long way to making those awkward “So, how much do you charge for something like this?” or “Would you be willing to reduce your price/barter/do this for free?” conversations go much more smoothly.

I barter my voice teaching services (in fact, that is how I scored this lovely web design as well as some incredible martial arts lessons from an Olympic athlete!) – so I think barter is appropriate in many situations where you really feel the value received meets or exceeds what you are offering (the definition of free and fair trade, actually).

However, I find truly valuable barter propositions are few and far between, especially when they are framed as “exposure.” Commenter “Erika” shares my annoyance at being asked to perform at events for mere exposure,

I get this all the time with the exchange being use of my art for ‘exposure’. I don’t want any more exposure – I want money! But they always seem to find an artist willing to do the freebie (I used to do that too, until I learned better).

Don’t get me wrong, exposure is great and incredibly important for artists who have no resume and are trying to build a reputation – but I’m not. I’m no superstar, but I have reached a level of involvement in teaching and performing where I’m satisfied and I do not need to do a bunch of free gigs to get my name out.

Furthermore, I already do a lot of free singing for things I think are important based on principle (part of my unofficial policy I suppose) – from volunteering my services for arts organizations trying to raise money, to celebrate and/or represent my ethnic heritage at a music festival, or for funerals and memorial services in particular – I often don’t feel right accepting money when I am  asked to sing for these types of events.

However, I feel that all too often, artists are undervaluing themselves and are afraid to put a high enough price tag on their talents, even though the competition can be fierce – with so many other artists willing to gig for free – at a certain point you need to start charging adequate prices for your services, especially if you are a proven talent.

A friend who is an accompanist quoted his rate to me once and I know he saw my eyes turn into giant saucers. He responded with, “Look, I’m not charging to put on a tux and show up for the 2 hour gig. I’m charging for the years I’ve spent practicing, the uniqueness of my repertoire, and the debt I’ve amassed educating myself – I am charging for my expertise, not just my body on the piano bench. That’s what doctors do!” All artists should have that kind of confidence to assess their skills and charge adequate prices for their services.

But pricing can be a confounding thing and there is no one-size-fits-all-artists solution, so if you are interested in more advice about pricing, I highly recommend some pages out of my favorite micro-business and entrepreneurism blogger’s playbook, Naomi Dunsford of IttyBiz, who writes about pricing strategies:

How Do I Figure Out Pricing?

Goldilocks on Pricing, or Why You Might Not Want to Charge $5 for your Ebook

Remember, as an artist, you are also an entrepreneur as you are often a one man or one woman show trying to prove yourself and your art/talent as a product in a mass market. You need to not only learn business skills but have the guts to implement them by assessing, then asserting your worth to potential buyers in the marketplace.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Arts and Economics Links of Interest

Sunday, April 11th, 2010

With today’s dysfunctional families you need to do things different,” Xvala stated, “so instead of making useful furniture and meaningless art, I made meaningless furniture and useful art.”

One of the artist’s most well-known works is the recent construction of “The Brangelina,” a 4,000 sq. ft. house, covered in graffiti and hosts the ceiling piece, “Brangelina Forever” by sculptor Daniel Edwards.

 
© Powerered by Wordpress | Custom Template Design by NBurman Design