vector 2_1.cdr - Universitatea de Arte "George Enescu"

More documents

Recommendations

Info

[16] [Berry 2004], p. 79. [17] [Välimäki 2005], p. 48-49. [18] Apple's lean towards open sources can be explained from two points of view: they were the first to build an operating system for the greater public, based on a userfriendly interface, and now, in competition with Microsoft, want to impose an opposite, subversive trend. The risks Apple takes are low, because it offers integrated systems (hardware-software). [19] Nowadays this term covers more than its original meaning. In the beginning, a hacker was a programmer and a researcher developing free software within an academic community. [20] [Holcombe 2005], p. 3. copyright as natural right. Therefore, the Constitution only allows a system of copyright, but it doesn't prescribe its existence – the idea of a 15 temporary copyright . Due to the fact that the classic forms of protecting intellectual property (copyright, patents) restrict the individuals' natural rights, they shouldn't be accepted. Raymond has another type of argument in favour of copyleft, based on 16 the rational choice theory : it is not altruism that makes programmers offer free software, but the fact that this model allows them to have a good system of benefits. Cooperation is an "accident", not something imposed by ethical standards. This cooperation occurs as a result of the voluntary action of free agents on a competitive market. Open source has been a big part of the software industry from its 17 beginnings . It has developed in parallel in the academic environment and it has continued to provide to the academic communities alternative work instruments, as well as another paradigm from the dominant one. After 1990, once Linus Torvalds managed to write the kernel of Linux, open source became a serious competitor for the mainstream. This can be explained from three perspectives: (1) technical. The rapid development of the Internet, the advent of affordable personal computers and the need for more flexible development methods have encouraged and opened the open source communities. (2) business. Open source has offered businesses the opportunity to change the current market structures and the rules of the game (imported from 18 the real world). Famous cases are Netscape Inc., then IBM and, lately, Apple . (3) social politics. Open source is an instrument for democracy, free access to information and social equality. There isn't just one open source community. Therefore, the discourses are different. We should rather talk about a copyleft framework in which several voices are heard, several "utopias", from the leftist to the libertarian, all 19 deriving from the academic hacker culture of the '70s. Common property / public property It is necessary to briefly define the common/public property the copyleft model is based on. Given the fact that this concept is specific to the libertarian literature (the Marxist literature uses the concept of "collective property" – managed by a collective organisation and supposedly the product of a transfer between individuals and that organisation for "higher purposes", but infringing the individual's rights), we must assume that its existence is possible only there, where government (the state) does not exist. I shall start from some examples of common property in the real world: international roads, oceans and rivers. A good analogy would be space, where any state may send its satellites or spacecraft, but they cannot own “pieces" of it. At the first lunar landing, Neil Armstrong was the representative of the USA. Does the fact that he was the first on the Moon and he planted the American flag there imply that the owners of the Moon are the Americans? No, that space is no-one's private property and anyone may benefit from its existence (may send there scientific expeditions, may perform experiments etc.). In a libertarian setting, in anarcho-capitalism, we can accept both private and common property. Libertarian ethics guarantee that whatever is possessed 20 in common cannot be appropriated privately . The issue here is how to control this common property. The assumption we start from belongs to Nozick: people want to cooperate, and disputes can be settled through protection agencies. Holcombe builds two models for achieving common property: (1) the model of the path to the lake. "Consider a village near a lake. It is common for the villagers to walk down to the lake to go fishing. [...] But over time [...] a path forms – not through any centrally coordinated efforts [...]. The [...] path is the product of labor – not any individual's labor, but of all of them together. If one villager decided to [...] (set up) a gate and (charge) tolls, he would be 21 violating the collective property right that the villagers together have earned." This model also exists in the "global village", being the one that has led to the birth of open source communities. It is the model supported by Eric S. Raymond. (2) the altruism model. On a plot of land that doesn't belong to anyone, someone builds a library, offering it to the community. The land is secured by the protection agency; it cannot belong to any one person. The same is true for the library. In time, other people will want to build parks, buildings etc.. They are entrusted to the community for management, and the community has its own ethics and will not give them as private property to any one person. This model is supported by Richard Stallman. Some people prefer to be altruistic; such is the 22 case with programmers . There are two rules of common property: access is open to anyone and noone has the right to exclude anyone else from the common property. The ocean analogy is not a complete one as far as the virtual environment is concerned. In the case of the commodity "ocean", depreciation occurs following uncoordinated consumption (global warming affects biodiversity, intensive fishing destroys species etc.). Fortunately, the open source does not depreciate, because it resides in an immaterial network. The use of free software produces positive externalities. Oftentimes, public property solves problems that no other institution can solve. Some of them (such as conflicting rights or the minimum access to information – a requirement for democracy) occur precisely out of the wish to assign value to the property outside its use, a static value. Libertarians oppose to the "tragedy of the commons" a "comedy of the 23 commons" , where unfettered access for all produces a happy ending. Especially if those “commons" are never-ending. The framework for utopias The same as Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State and Utopia, I start from the idea that there is no type of community that is best for each of the individuals. Hence the conclusion: in a utopia there will not be just one type of community and of life. Utopia is a thin framework for other utopias, where people may assume 24 divergent positions or may join in realizing their visions on life . No-one, not a community and not an individual, may impose on the others its/his own utopian vision. "The environment where people may do what they want" is a meta-utopia. We insist on environment. What is the only environment where there is no state, no government, at the most there is governance? The only environment where there is always another way? The only environment where the costs of change, of shifting between utopias, if we accept open standards, are zero? The answer I have tried to give is: the virtual environment built on the principles of copyleft. In this framework, the most important for achieving personal utopias are the exchanges between individuals. The easiest exchange is the one that does not involve purchase costs, such as the exchanges between open source programmers. Communities are not imposed; they may disappear and reappear 25 in time . Individuals enter and exit them, change them, destroy them, remake [[21] Holcombe 2005], p. 8. [22] "Most of the good programmers do programming not because they expect to get paid or get adulation by the public, but because it is fun to program", declared in an interview Linus Torvalds. [23] [Holcombe 2005], p. 25. [24] [Nozick 1997], p. 371. [25] [Nozick 1997], p. 375. [26] [Nozick 1997], p. 379-380. [27] [Nozick 1997], p. 394. 126 127
128 [26] [Nozick 1997], p. 379-380. [27] [Nozick 1997], p. 394. them, according to their preferences. Any community must attract individuals in order to survive. It is easy to understand now why Wikipedia is a trusted encyclopedia and why people choose to get their information here, whereas other specialized sites have far less visitors (famous encyclopedias – Encarta, Britannica, Larousse). Wikipedia does not impose, but rather proposes an answer. The answer is fallible and then another user will try to correct it. In time, domains change and information becomes obsolete, but the ability to work collaboratively will reduce the update time. Nozick proposes as framework 26 an existential utopianism : we may not have the best community structure, but those who want to build it can live in agreement with it. It does not offer guarantees to any one particular utopia, but it does not impose a certain limit on it, either. The utopia framework treats us as inviolable individuals, with our own individual rights, not as resources or tools. It preserves the dignity of individuals 27 and allows them to cooperate with other individuals by virtue of this dignity . Within the copyleft it doesn't matter whether one understands or not what open source technically means. The important thing is not to choose because "this is best", but to choose by virtue of one's dignity. In a way, the relationship is the relationship established by Kant's categorical imperative. Even the knowledge capital one brings in doesn't count so much as an innovation in molecular study would, but as long as the framework preserves the existing capital, any intervention increases marginal utility. Without a deontological or utilitarian ethical purpose, the copyleft framework (like any libertarian framework for utopias) is a structure preceding ethics. One may leave a community (Linux) for another (Open Office), but I don't think one can leave these open standards for the closed ones (Microsoft). That is to go back to a set of contradicting and weakly justified rules. This is also probably the explanation the addictions the Internet creates. The copyleft framework proposes, rather than impose. It does not guarantee happiness, but it ensures one's dignity and the right to choose with the eyes open. Bibliography: Translated by Sorana Lupu B a r l o w , J o h n Pe r r y, 1 9 9 4 , T h e E c o n o m y o f I d e a s , http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.03/economy.ideas.html Berry, David M., 2004, The Contestation of Code, Critical Discourse Studies, 1, 1. Heffan, Ira V., 1997, Copyleft: Licensing Collaborative Works in the Digital Age, Stanford Law Review, 6, 49. Holcombe, Randall G., 2005, Common Property in Anarcho-Capitalism, Journal of Libertarian Studies, 2, 19. Nozick, Robert, 1997, Anarhie, stat şi utopie, Humanitas, Bucureşti. Raymond, Eric S., 1998, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue3_3/raymond/ Välimäki, Mikko, 2005, The Rise of Open Source Licensing, Turre Publishing, Helsinki. Deschiderea dosarului „Condiţia critică” propune expunerea şi arhivarea poziţiilor teoretice şi critice cu privire la situaţia actuală a discursurilor artei contemporane. Analizând producerea unei relaţii critice între teoriile artei, critica de artă, practicile curatoriale, instituţionale şi artistice în raport cu problematizarea microsocială şi micropolitică, textele ce vor fi incluse în acest dosar vor funcţiona asemenea unor dispozitive reflexive de proiectare a condiţiilor de mediere între gândirea criteriilor de judecare şi acţiunea decizională de punere în dezbatere. Pragmatica reconsiderării situării pluralismului critic faţă de multitudinea experienţelor artistice şi culturale actuale vizează crearea unor imagini alternative asupra producţiei teoriilor critice, ca discursuri edificatoare cu privire la specificul local al practicilor şi reprezentărilor artei contemporane. CRITICAL CONDITION: FRONTIERS The opening of the “Critical Condition” dossier is proposing to display and archiving the theoretical and critical positions regarding the present situation of the contemporary art discourses. Analyzing the production of a critical relation between art theories, art criticism, curatorial, institutional and artistic practices related to the microsocial and micropolitical questioning, the included texts will function as reflexive devices for the projection of mediating conditions between the thinking of the judgement criteria and the decisional action for organizing debates. The reconsideration pragmatics of situating the critical pluralism in front of the present multitude of artistic and cultural experiences is endorsing the creation of alternative images on the production of critical theories seen as edifying discourses related to the local specifics of the contemporary art practices and representations.
Page 1 and 2:
vector v artă şi cultură în con
Page 3 and 4:
cuprins / contents construind conte
Page 5 and 6:
construind contexte_relaţionând c
Page 7 and 8:
12 3. organizarea proiectului cARTi
Page 9 and 10:
16 Platform Center for Contemporary
Page 11 and 12:
20 [4] Acesta este genul de proiect
Page 13 and 14: 24 [1] From the Curating Contempora
Page 15 and 16: 28 Center for Communication and Con
Page 17 and 18: uilding contexts_networking context
Page 19 and 20: 36 Another problem in Ukrainian art
Page 21 and 22: Periferic 7: Focussing Iaşi / Soci
Page 23 and 24: 44 Andrei Ujicã & Harun Farocki -
Page 25 and 26: construind contexte_relaţionând c
Page 27 and 28: Mircea Cantor - Images from the Pin
Page 29 and 30: Luchezar Boyadjiev - Defragmenting
Page 31 and 32: Bik van der Pol - Teach me Somethin
Page 33 and 34: IS MODERNITY OUR ANTIQUITY? Dosarul
Page 35 and 36: către un scop. Max Weber, care îi
Page 37 and 38: THE MASKS OF MODERNITY AND THE DOUB
Page 39 and 40: 76 If we had a detached look on thi
Page 41 and 42: Henri IV - Paris Etienne Marcel - P
Page 43 and 44: King Johann I - Dresden Louis XIV -
Page 45 and 46: CASA MODEI Lucas HORVATH Lucas Horv
Page 47 and 48: The architect N. Porumbescu left Bu
Page 49 and 50: Iată-l, noul centru al oraşului S
Page 57 and 58: artişti în context / Bogdan Teodo
Page 59 and 60: date transferate Despre un model li
Page 61 and 62: 120 [21] [Holcombe 2005], p. 8. [22
Page 63: transferring data [1] The first to
Page 67 and 68: 132 [9] Pierre Bourdieu şi Pierre
Page 69 and 70: André Alves, Aunt Nell Gis, 2006 N
Page 71 and 72: critical condition: frontiers 140 T
Page 73 and 74: 144 [22] I refer to theatre public
Page 75 and 76: 148 [31] Paolo Virno, A Grammar of
Page 77 and 78: 152 [16] ibidem. [17] ibidem. estet
Page 79 and 80: 156 [10] ibidem, 211a, 1-3. [11] Se
Page 81 and 82: 160 printr-o camuflare tactică sub
Page 83: 164 of the public's willingness to
Page 86 and 87: 170 [13] vezi Peter Bürger, Theory
Page 88 and 89: 174 [5] Arthur C. Danto, op. cit..
Page 90 and 91: 178 thus photography as an essentia
Page 92 and 93: A small democratic triumph Maeve Po
Page 94 and 95: camera de lectură Oraşul şi fron
Page 96 and 97: The City and the Border: Common Sin
Page 98 and 99: Mulţumiri / Acknowledgements Danie
show all

vector 2_1.cdr - Universitatea de Arte "George Enescu"

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?