Download - Medienwissenschaft

estoration of an installation, i.e. the replacement of individual components of the installation,
as a reduction in value.
Michael Wenzke: Of course, the problem is to assess the reduction in value. We
have to gauge or evaluate the degree of interference with the originality of the artistic
substance. The viewpoint is essentially material, I did say that, and that is simply at the
heart of the insurance concept. That may be quite banal, but it is the reality and everyday
business of insurances. We do consult curators, restorers and possibly valuators.
Axel Wirths: Are there any attempts in the collaboration with museums and collectors
to limit media installations in principle to editions of three to five works?
Michael Wenzke: No, that is defined by the artist. Of course we are all aware that
the market price rises with the rarity of the work.
Marcel Schwierin: I would like to return once more to the notion of the original and
its definition. We have heard that we have the algorithm that generates an image in the
digital field. What does it mean when an image comes into being? After all, it does not
appear non-intentionally, but intentionally. So the image has a particular association with
an intention at a particular point in time. I won't go into the reconstruction of the author
now, but this is what happens, and so I have a particular output that resurfaces in the
context of the museum or the exhibition. And therefore I once again have a framework
for originality that goes far beyond this whole issue. Essentially, the question is whether
this picture point is the true original since ultimately it cannot be separated from the intention.
Wolfgang Ernst: This is under discussion at the moment, and in America, algorithms
and mathematical formulas themselves have actually been put under copyright. The moment
that happens, the classical notion of the author, including image-generating programs,
would be restored. If we accept the model that even mathematical formulae that
generate images and are under copyright, then the public knowledge we produce, e.g. at
universities, would be in danger. Anybody can quote the debate we are conducting here.
Fortunately, not every word we are uttering here is spoken under copyright. Even the fact
that our contributions are being recorded does not pose a problem for us at the moment.
We have to be careful what we subject to copyright. One hypothetical note on the structure:
the pixel in an image is the actual original. But de facto, I can only realise what I
am able to describe, otherwise it does not exist. Nor can I reconstruct the remaining relations.
Axel Wirths: But the issue of the notion of the original is still relevant in this context.
I would like to refer to Siegfried Zielinski's contribution that the original is represented
by the moment of broadcasting in a temporal continuum. In this context, I would
also like to touch on another aspect, namely interactive installations. Bill Seaman's work
"The World Generator", for instance, where he offers an endless number of tools; or
George Legrady's work which we saw this morning. That is, the artist increasingly withdraws
as the author of the original and basically only offers a working platform where the
visitor can create his own original. I think it is very interesting that in some areas - that
is not an isolated case - the artist is withdrawing more and more from his authorship,
enabling the public to get into the work, to change it and even to create his own original
- l8l-