if we state that all art is an invention, then this migth lead us to
state that art = invention.
(but this would not logically imply that all inventions should be
considered art, it doesn't necessarily work back)
>>then we should ask: this statement could be considered really
true in practice?
and this would lead us to the meaning of art, and invention
and to the art practices and the inventions, of course
so if we take the word invention, as last email exposed, there are
plenty of definitions available,
> 1: discovery , finding2: productive imagination : inventiveness3 a:
> something invented: as (1): a product of the imagination ;
> especially : a false conception (2): a device, contrivance, or
> process originated after study and experiment b: a short keyboard
> composition featuring two- or three-part counterpoint4: the act or
> process of inventing
and in relation with patents
> any art or process (way of doing or making things), machine,
> manufacture, design, or composition of matter, or any new and useful
> improvement thereof, or any variety of plant, which is or may be
> patentable under the patent laws of the United States.
some of them are related to the concept itself and some others also
relate it with the idea of patent.
so this could make us think about two questions:
>>does all art should be considered an invention then?
I would say that many things could be considered an invention then.
All ideas would have to be considered inventions, product of the
imagination.
>>does all invention imply patents?
I would say no, an invention doesn't imply a patent. There are plenty
of inventions that are not patented. As the alphabet that I am using
rigth now.
I would say that a patent is a legal strategy created in an
industrial context to establish the autorship of an invention. And the
need for autorship is something related to the notion of property in
an economic model structured through this notion. This has been made
in order to take economic profit of the inventions made.
A diffrent notion of autorship, a different notion of property will
lead us to a different economic model as many stated.
But it's true that to our mind, rigth now patent comes close to the
idea of invention mainly because the word invention is higly used in
the industrial context.
So when we state "art as invention", we migth have been asking
implicitly also about "art as patented invention" too.
And this would imply the idea of the inventions of artists being
patented, and therefore the autorship of its invention being
established through legal procedures that are valuable in an
industrial context. So therefore we are talking about art practice
involved in an industrial context, that follows its rules and ways of
procedures.
An we could of course understand that Inventions as art are inscribed
too in an economic model, need an economy in order to make the living
and keep on inventing (if that's what is all about). And, as art have
evolved through times, we could say that in the art world the
inventions have been valuable through different mechanisms than patents.
So here we are also asking implicitely some other related questions:
>> through which mechanisms we can make an art creation valuable?
>>which are the different ways to make an artwork valuable?
>>which are the different contexts were an artwork could be
considered valuable?
>> which are the different objectives related to the differents
contexts that are capable to extract value in art?
>> and of course, the same question, what is art valuable for?
Here are some quick thougths and questions I wanted to share with you
in this discussion
Best
Pau
***************************************************
Pau Alsina
Lecturer - Arts and Humanities Studies
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
www.uoc.edu
Director- Artnodes: art,science and technology
www.uoc.edu/artnodes
El 02/03/2009, a las 19:01, Cynthia B Rubin escribió:
> Hi Yasminers
>
> It is interesting to consider the implications of Annick's comments
> and Murat's comments together. Open Source software is in fact an
> invention that might have been patented in another time. But the
> spirit of sharing depends on wealth in some form - either because
> the author(s) live in countries which are wealthy enough to support
> "a market place of ideas" , meaning that they will find income
> (usually through Universities) that respects the ideas without the
> need of a tangible product.
>
> On the other hand, poorer countries do not have this sort of system
> in place, and it is difficult for creative thinkers there to imagine
> giving away their code.
>
> One challenge that I think that those of us in wealthier countries
> face is how to engage our colleagues in less wealthy countries, so
> that they can reep some benefits of "open source publishing" . This
> would mean attaching some value to giving away their ideas through
> sharing. Benefits might include artist residencies, fellowships,
> guest lecturing.etc.
>
> As for producing actual objects, I would suggest that the same
> principal applies as the intangible object of open source code. It
> is the invention that counts, and while the wealthier countries are
> touting the benefits of free sharing, we are creating a new digital
> divide of those who simply cannot imagine giving away the fruits of
> their labor because they will quite literally have nothing to show
> for it.
>
> Cynthia Beth Rubin
> http://CBRubin.net
>
> On Mar 2, 2009, at 3:58 AM, Annick Bureaud wrote:
>
>> Often, when I throw the terms : "artists as inventors" and "patent"
>> immediatly come the words : Open Source and Creative Commons.
>> This is a new direction, how do you take that into account in the
>> overall discussion ?
>
>
>
> On Mar 1, 2009, at 10:29 PM, murat germen wrote:
>> i would like to add couple of things...
>>
>> contemporary conceptual art rests heavily on ideas as we know. it's
>> not the craft in the work but the idea usually that makes the work
>> valuable these days (i personally value craft as well, in addition
>> to "the" idea by the way). art market is an amazingly active
>> market, even in the days of economical crisis the amount of sales
>> and activity is surprisingly substantial. the simple equation goes
>> like this: art depends on idea, art has a market value, then
>> artistic idea has a market value too (sometimes millions of
>> dollars) and it has to be legally protected somehow.
>>
>> i visited paris photo last year, japan was the guest country. there
>> is one japanese photographer (among others) that i really like;
>> hiroshi sugimoto. he is especially known with some very minimal
>> seascapes (http://www.sugimotohiroshi.com/seascape.html). sugimoto
>> sells very well, i saw a photo from the seascape series which was
>> around 70.000 euros and it had 5 red dots on it. when i was walking
>> through thousands of images, one seascape photo caught my attention
>> in another booth and it looked very much like a sugimoto photo. i
>> approached to see details, saw it was somebody else's and felt
>> pretty awkward. this particular style is sugimoto's signature, it
>> is in a way a reserved slot in these circles and producing
>> something very similar to it, is taking advantage of the commercial
>> potential of the particular expression style. yes, everybody can
>> take sea photos; but there are tons of other ways to deal with sea
>> and water...
>>
>> i am not claiming at all that artistic idea is a more worthwhile
>> invention than other "types" of inventions that made our lives more
>> easy, pleasant, rich, etc.; but artistic creation, though not
>> indispensable and vital, is something that can make our lives
>> different, enjoyable, excited at times. since creation is directly
>> linked with idea, there should be some sort of a right protection
>> process involved within the art world. but i cannot at this moment
>> propose a particular protection system since i am not knowledgeable
>> at all in law...
>>
>> regards
>> murat
>>
>>
>> <<< +90 532 473 8970 (gsm mobile)
>> <<< muratgermen@gmail.com
>> <<< http://www.muratgermen.com
>> <<< http://www.flickr.com/photos/muratgermen/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Yasmin_discussions mailing list
> Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
> http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
>
> Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
>
> HOW TO SUBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to
> subscribe to. In the page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-
> mail address, name, and password in the fields found further down
> the page.
>
> HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and
> enter your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if
> asked. Click on the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear
> ("options page").
>
> HOW TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the
> "Set Digest Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
_______________________________________________
Yasmin_discussions mailing list
Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
HOW TO SUBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In the page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and password in the fields found further down the page.
HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
HOW TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set Digest Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
