Posts Tagged ‘creative commons’

Open Source Values

Friday, April 30th, 2010

I am a firm believer in the open source movement and specifically Creative Commons licensing for creative works. I have been publishing this blog under a creative commons license for years giving away content, as most blogs do, without concern for making money. Credit yes. Money, no. The benefits I have received far outweigh what money could have been made had I tried to monetize this. The purpose for me writing this blog is fun and enjoyment.

Because I work as a professional artist I have found it important to have a creative outlet that is not tied to income. While I would certainly welcome a book deal, I am not about to go seek one out. I enjoy having a space wherein I can create without the pressure that money brings to a situation.

In my theater work I have provisions in my contracts to protect my work on a show. They state that if the show gets picked up by a larger producing organization I get the first right of refusal to be hired as the lighting designer for the next incarnation of the show. They also state that the lighting design, drawings, etc belong solely to me.

From an ethical standpoint I find myself posed with a bit of a dilemma. On the one hand I need to eat and ensure that I can continue to do so. On the other hand I want to remain true to the values of open source thinking. Because my theatre work is contract work for hire, rather than solely generative art, I am able to make a mental distinction that allows me to go on with my life in a state of ease. But it makes me wonder, what would open source performance look like? Is it possible in a collaborative art form or is the collaborative nature of theatre and opera inherently open source?

At a certain level theater does have an inherent open source component to it. Plays, opera scores, and ballets whose copyright has expired are ripe for remixing and reconceiving by contemporary artists. This happens all the time. While one could point to an obvious example like the Wooster Group’s Hamlet, every remount of a play or opera is a remix of the original.

Works in repertory, like opera or ballet, have an element of the open source ethos in them every time they are remounted. The lighting supervisor, who may well have not been born when the original lighting designer created the work, must reconstruct the thing using new lighting instruments colored with gels by companies which were not around at the time of creation. There is always a degree of interpretation in these moments, sometimes quite severe transformation, yet the by line will always read “Lighting by Original Designer” no matter how much the work has changed over the 10, 20, 80 year lifespan of the piece.

Repertory lightplots carry this same quality of a remixed open source code. Jean Rosenthal’s plot for New York City Ballet was updated by Tom Skelton and has been updated since. Many of the same ideas and structures are still in place now as were then. While the plot may not be attributed to anyone but the current lighting supervisor, the source code, as it were, could be traced back to the work of Jean Rosenthal.

While these are all elements of performance which have an open component to the code or structure, it does not get to the idea of the whole process as open source. The financial aspect of making work complicates a truly open source approach. It would be hard to relinquish one’s rights to a design for a show and then be the only one not to travel with the new production uptown. Or if the drawings and documentation were released with a production it could be difficult to see your work applied poorly and then be given credit for it.

But these concerns are egoic and have nothing to do with the efficacy of the potential project or the artistic validity of such an endeavor. For something like this to work it would require the full compliance, if not enthusiastic support, of a rather large number of individuals. Merely gathering such a group together would pose quite a challenge. But the novelty of the exercise could well be worth it.

All content Copyleft - LucasKrech.com, please Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • del.icio.us
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • RSS
  • email

Towards an Understanding of Social Revolution in the Digital Age – The Free Commons

Friday, December 4th, 2009

Last week I opened up the possibility that true social revolution in our contemporary age might not take the form of open revolt against state power and economic infrastructure. Rather, true revolt occurs within the realm of the interpersonal. It is exactly the place outside state control wherein we are free to exercise our existence however we see fit.

In these days of advertising everywhere we go and near absolute control of our cultural choices by economic and market forces that would have us do their bidding rather than follow our own will it is difficult indeed to see a place for human Being outside the market place. To see the self as more than consumer is increasingly difficult every day. Thus I suggested that “[i]n a world increasingly mediated by technologies that give the appearance of connection, while fostering distance and misunderstanding, perhaps the most radical act we can take is to carve time out of our schedules to meet another being face to face and find out who they truly are.” Radical action then is a reclaiming, a taking back, of our authentic and unmediated reality.

While this can happen to powerful effect in interpersonal relations we need not limit ourselves to this domain. Certainly interpersonal authenticity is a foundation. But while we work on our foundations we must have a vision of where we are going from here. Just like a return to direct and authentic interactions allow us to revision the entire social sphere away from the prescribed modes of being thrust upon us by corporate interests so too can we revision economic life as well.

For this revisioning to be successful we must move beyond the commodity fetishism of contemporary life. The bling bling culture we have been sold, and sadly bought into all too willingly, can be circumnavigated. For our survival as beings who are more than their bank card numbers we must. Slavoj Zizek indicates a turn in this direction when he states that:

[T]he Left should adopt a different, apparently more modest, but in fact much more radical strategy: to withdraw from state power and focus on directly transforming the very texture of social life, everyday practices which sustain the entire social structure . . . Any radical social change must be anti-fetishistic in its approach . . . our passive endurement of power constitutes it, we do not obey and fear because it is in itself so powerful; on the contrary, power appears powerful because we treat it as such. This fact opens up the space for a magical passive revolution which, instead of directly confronting power, gradually undermines it through the subterranean digging of the mole, through abstaining from participation in the everyday rituals and practices that sustain it.

One level of this revisioning of social life lies in the economic realm and specifically the exchange of goods and services between individuals. While one could make a case for the democratizing effects of ebay or craigslist a more radical manifestation of this potential lies in Freecycle.

Freecycle provides an alternative to our disposable culture that could have potentially systemic repercussions. It not only removes any mediation between agents (people interact directly with one another) but the very notion of, and potential for, capitalization has been removed. The core essence is the free exchange of goods. Because the system has no monetary incentive there is a tendency to heighten the authenticity with which these interactions occur. My girlfriend, for example, gives items away to the person with the best story or most compelling need (rather than first responder, which would favor those with high tech gadgets, and the commensurate disposable income that goes with them).

In a similar vein to Freecycle are community gardens. Here the basic unit of production, the growing of food, is brought back into a communal mode of being. People come together to share in an activity which provides direct benefit to them and their fellow human. At the same time these action occur outside the realm of traditional economic forces. Similar too is the rise of urban farming as well as formal and informal trading between these urban farmers.

The above, as well as clothing swaps, book swaps, and other such activities, not only keep otherwise disposable items out of landfills, but bring people together to share time and space as human beings. Because the old “commons” have all been appropriated by private interests it has been necessary to open new terrain to common use.

Of similar import to these local manifestations of open commons is the rise of the open source movement and specifically creative commons. Here is a direct opening of a commons area out of a closed environment. Copyright is a closed system by design. The intent was to keep intellectual property held by its creator. Over time that has expanded ad infinitum until now genetic material which has existed inside organisms for millions of years can be “owned” by a corporation. Copyleft is open by design. With creative commons a public space has been opened up and created within the otherwise closed system. While software is the most well known aspect of creative commons, music is increasingly released under CC licenses as is a lot of writing, including this blog.

Each idea listed here provides a possible escape vector out of the misery of the disposable culture we have been sold. While it is possible that these may simply be recouperated into the economic engines of post-industrial capitalism, they none the less provide a rupture point which might be exploited to bring about a fundamental shift in society’s ethical orientation towards itself. Escaping the reality proposed by the corporate interests is necessary before we, the human subjects in this experiment, are deemed disposable too.

All content Copyleft - LucasKrech.com, please Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • del.icio.us
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • RSS
  • email

Freedom of Information, Act

Wednesday, March 26th, 2008

It has been a while since I have written anything here. Lots of posting but mostly other people’s words. The main reason for this has been a personal shift in how I spend my free time. While blogging has for several years now been my primary hobby, that has shifted in recent months. I have been relearning a skill/instrument that I gave up a number of years ago, the turntable.

Last weekend I played my first set in public. It was quite well received. A mix of ambient/minimal techno and classical. The electronic music I played was all composed to be freely distributed. Licensed under a Creative Commons non-commercial distribution license, the music was made to be free.

The idea of truly free information, in my opinion the foundation to a truly free society, is slowly gaining ground. In music and software circles, the model of the mega-corporations are seen for the inherent failure they represent. The technology has evolved beyond the capacity for an institution to control its distribution. Fighting a war against consumers is a losing battle.

There are free software alternatives for every major commercial piece of software from word processing to image manipulation to web browsing to operating systems and more.

The group I was playing for has been producing all night music and dance events for over 12 years on an open source model. Planning procedures are maintained on a wiki, the entire organization is run by volunteers and everything from food, to music, to entrance to the event is given freely. Donations are asked for but in no way required.

In the theatre an open source model is still very much in its infancy. Charles Mee is one of, if not the first playwright to truly embrace open source ethics and aesthetics in his works.

As he says

Sometimes playwrights steal stories and conversations and dreams and intimate revelations from their friends and lovers and call this original.

And sometimes some of us write about our own innermost lives, believing that, then, we have written something truly original and unique. But, of course, the culture writes us first, and then we write our stories. When we look at a painting of the virgin and child by Botticelli, we recognize at once that it is a Renaissance painting—that is it a product of its time and place. We may not know or recognize at once that it was painted by Botticelli, but we do see that it is a Renaissance painting. We see that it has been derived from, and authored by, the culture that produced it.

And yet we recognize, too, that this painting of the virgin and child is not identical to one by Raphael or Ghirlandaio or Leonardo. So, clearly, while the culture creates much of Botticelli, it is also true that Botticelli creates the culture—that he took the culture into himself and transformed it in his own unique way.

And so, whether we mean to or not, the work we do is both received and created, both an adaptation and an original, at the same time. We re-make things as we go.

Another aspect of Free Theatre appears to be opening up as well. While many companies do pay-what-you-can nights, a theater in Ohio is trying that theory out for the whole run of its current production.

Available Light is opening Sheila Callaghan’s Dead City here in Columbus in about 2 weeks. This show is a really big deal for us. Aside from being a beautiful play that we’re all really excited about, it’s also our first show to receive significant public funding, it has the largest cast we’ve put on stage, and it’s in a space that’s costing us about 3 times what we usually pay. (Frequent readers of this blog will remember that I am very ambivalent about that particular fact.)

However, instead responding by playing it safe on other fronts to compensate for the big risks we’re taking, we’ve decided to try another big experiment. We’re making all tickets to all shows for everyone all the time “Pay What You Want”. That’s right, just like Radiohead,Trent Reznor, Saul Williams, Paste Magazine, and a small crop of restaurants.

Free culture is on the rise. It is being written into the very fabric of our larger culture. Much like free(read renewable) energy will replace finite resources like oil and coal, so too will free (read open) culture replace finite and “owned” culture.

its just a matter of time.

All content Copyleft - LucasKrech.com, please Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • del.icio.us
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • RSS
  • email

Creative Commons License

All text and images on this site unless otherwise noted are licensed under a Creative Commons License.