We-Make-Open -Source-Not-Money

The Take Away Festival in the Node London context once more showed up, how closely software development, media and arts are connected to each other.

For many people, at the first glance, there may not seem to be an intermediate connection between those industries - particularly not between software development and arts.

Software has most of the time been a product, that generates money - only just in recent times, when open-source has become mainstream, software had become more of something, that creates cultural value rather than monetary profits.

Nobody can deny, that more and more software intrudes our daily lives. Even the fact, that you can read this text here on your screen call for an arbitrary number of machines to do specific operations.

Software is a set of instructions readable by machines, filled up with ideas and written by humans. As machines and automated processes gradually become more ubiquitous in our surroundings, the need for human-machine interfaces becomes very evident.

The beauty of software development is, that *everything* that is thinkable is also doable. It is all a question of time (and money). Artists in general are visionary masterminds using their creativity in a way, that surprises the audience. So every artist operating in the field of media that wants to push his/her creativity to the limits sooner or later gets involved into ideas that require software development. Some of them even become pure software developers.

Art is always a form of communication, and true communication requires the unlimited and free flow of information. The information exchange between humans and machines however is anything but transparent. In contrary, the process called "compiling" is an almost irreversible process that creates very cryptic machine code (binary code) out of a human readable set of instructions (source code). And just as the Coca Cola Company is keeping their recipe secret, so does Microsoft their source code. Would they not do this, the ideas would become just as public as nowadays everybody knows, how to make butter out of cream.

Art is also always somehow idealistic. Sometimes even quixotic. Artists make a point, send a message, change the world. No matter if it's by adding grandiose music to a concert hall, paint a nice picture of a sunflower or build a glorious cathedral. "Artificial" comes from "art" (or vice versa) and is always human made - and with the purpose to change the world to the better.

The community of open source developers believes in the idea, that human-machine communication should be free. Free not only as in "free beer" but, and even more important, as in "free speech". Simply available for everyone (to contribute). Detached from materialistic ideas.

The way artists usually make money is by selling their pieces. It is important, that these pieces come in limited editions or are attached to license fees (e.g. musicians, writers, fine art photographers). Otherwise there would be no way of making any monetary profit of the hard work (which is undoubtedly necessary in today's world). Is this why an artist propagating open source software will never make money out of his/her work?

Christoph Burgdorfer's blog
Login or register to post comments

Sweat Of The Brow

Submitted by Rob Myers (not verified) on Wed, 2006-04-05 12:01.

The way artists usually make money is by selling their pieces.

This is incorrect. Many (most?) artists do teaching, commissions, residencies, and other effectively paid work to make the pieces that they sell. Not to mention bar work and tile-laying. a-n has plenty of research on this.

It is important, that these pieces come in limited editions or are attached to license fees (e.g. musicians, writers, fine art photographers).

Even if artists did make most of their income from selling consumer goods, this does not follow. If one is buying an edition one is buying an authentic connection to the production of the work, which can be produced (commodified...) in other ways.

Otherwise there would be no way of making any monetary profit of the hard work (which is undoubtedly necessary in today's world).

"Undoubtedly"? There are many ways of making money from zero-marginal copyable art. Patronage, the street performer protocol, dual licensing, commissions...

Is this why an artist propagating open source software will never make money out of his/her work?

It has not been established that an artist propagating Free Software will never make money out of their work.

Historically, artists have made money out of their work despite having no way of preventing its copying. And many software companies make money off of Free Software (notably Red Hat, SuSE and the other "distro" sellers).

Warhol sold unlimited editions quite happily. Copies of the Mona Lisa sell well. Even easily reproduced single-sentence conceptual art pieces are now quite valuable. But being sued for "stealing" an image will steal valuable time and money from an artist.

Free Software and Free Culture (or, if we must confuse ourselves to avoid scaring the suits, "Open Source") are not radically new, they are simply reform. DaVinci and Monet managed to make money under far worse circumstances.

The way artists usually make

Submitted by Christoph Burgdorfer on Thu, 2006-04-06 11:15.

The way artists usually make money is by selling their pieces.

I am interested in this research. A-n in Google didn't return any decent results. Can you please provide me with a link for that?

In my opinion, if an artist does teaching, he is acting as a teacher, rather than as an artist. Same goes for commissioner, curator, bartender or tiler. I was more thinking of artists working a 100% on their job *as an artist*. And live statisfactory of it. Meaning not to turn every penny around at the end of every month.

It is important, that these pieces come in limited editions or are attached to license fees (e.g. musicians, writers, fine art photographers).

Even if I wish it would be like that, I do not think so. Unfortunately our world is not that idealistic. People are buying art for various reasons. But only the minority buys it for the truly fine reason you mention above.

I noticed, if someone is buying art, it is for personal entertainment (yes, I have a couple of Frank Sinatra records or Hitchcock DVDs in my bookshelf), for investment (Banks have dedicated art dealers that invest in art), for prestige (big companies or cities invest into e.g. massive sculptures for prestigious reasons), for representation (remember the big piece of art in the entrance hall of the London Stock Exchange?), for collection, for doing a friend a favor or, sometimes, if you're lucky for the reason you mention above.

Otherwise there would be no way of making any monetary profit of the hard work (which is undoubtedly necessary in today's world).

"Undoubtedly"? There are many ways of making money from zero-marginal copyable art. Patronage, the street performer protocol, dual licensing, commissions...

Breaking it all down, economy works because: demand/supply=price. And giving up this basic principle because "supply" is striving to infinite requires the market to come up with entirely new business models. Nice, if the above mentioned actually really work just like that. I believe it works, but it needs a lot of goodwill of people. And there's the very heavy question: are people fundamentally egoistic or altruistic? The world had been split into two about this question.

As for the software companies: As far as I know, they make the money with consulting (which is one of the most profitable businesses) and not actually like Microsoft by packaging it into carton boxes or licensing it to brand new computers preinstalled.

As for the artist: I am interested in that - can you give me some examples?

Warhol sold unlimited editions quite happily.

This is interesting. However, there were material and physical efforts involved, he could charge for, I reckon?

Even easily reproduced single-sentence conceptual art pieces are now quite valuable.

This surprises me. I am very interested in that. Can you give me an example? I can't think anything like that (yet). But for sure I could have missed something.

But being sued for "stealing" an image will steal valuable time and money from an artist.

I agree! This is certainly not the path anyone of us wants to go down ...

DaVinci and Monet managed to make money under far worse circumstances.

Yes, true. But none of their work was as easily copyable as today's Linux. And if it was, it was sold as "consulting", "research", I would reckon?

The Myth Of The Artist

Submitted by Rob Myers (not verified) on Thu, 2006-04-06 15:39.

A-n in Google didn't return any decent results.

Sorry, I should have made that a hyperlink. a-n are at:

http://www.a-n.co.uk/

Then Barbara Kruger, Julian Opie, Liam Gillick and many other contemporary artists are not real artists. :-)

The idea that artists make a living off their "intellectual property" is true for only a tiny minority, and for an even tinier minority of beginning artists.

It is for the most part a romantic fiction that serves the art market, although possibly it is better than The Starving Artist.

Unfortunately our world is not that idealistic. People are buying art for various reasons. But only the minority buys it for the truly fine reason you mention above.

I noticed, if someone is buying art, it is for [...] prestige

I am being cynical, not idealistic. :-) The piece of paper that shows you own a work is a fetish, this is psychology not economics. That fetish, that psychology, can be produced by other means.

As for the software companies: As far as I know, they make the money with consulting

They make some money from consulting, which fits with how most artists actually make some of their money. Apple and Red Hat do make their money from selling shrink-wrapped Free Software, and Apple and IBM also sell hardware to run that software.

As a cultural example, Loca Records make money selling copylefted (that is, Free) music.

Does Damien Hirst make money from art? Or from management? Could anyone actually copy his "Hymn" if it was Free? And if the idea was Free, would someone else making it first prevent people owning an "authentic" Hirst, or the right to make one?

How about Sol LeWitt's wall drawings? If those were Free, would a drawing not installed by LeWitt's assistants, or with a certificate from LeWitt, have the same value?

As for the artist: I am interested in that - can you give me some examples?

Any artist who worked prior to Hogarth lobbying parliament to expand copyright to cover etchings. :-)

Even easily reproduced single-sentence conceptual art pieces are now quite valuable.

This surprises me. I am very interested in that. Can you give me an example?

I must put my hands up and confess that I do not have the data to hand. If anyone is member of an auction record site then they could check to see what the records for Robert Barry or Art & Language are.

But none of their work was as easily copyable as today's Linux.

It would be easy for a noble or a bourgeoise to pay for a copy. But social convention usually makes direct copies undesirable. People do make a living programming Linux and other Free Software. Free Software formalises the culture of derivation that art has always had. Zero marginal reproduction is not a barrier to making profits, although it is a challenge to maximising profits. The actual career path of even the best-known artists does not fit the romantic myth of the artist making a living off of the few artistic masterpieces they make each year. But it does rely on reputation, which Free Software/Free Culture does build.

service industries

Submitted by Anon on Wed, 2006-04-19 10:14.

I find this topic facinating, as the software industry is/has largely changed from a product based industry to a service based one - which fits much better with the intangible nature of software, and a lot more in line with the world of free software too.

Now, this idea of artists as producers of content to sell for profit is actually a very recent one I think. Maybe the last 100 years or so? I think before it's been bound up with craft, and as part of manufacturing. This split of art/design and craft is really problematic in my mind (along with the "artist as genius") - and a reason for a lot of these problems maybe.

So maybe art needs to change too, but back to these older ideas of art - after all, as Rob points out, it's only ever been the very tiny majority artists who have worked in the way you describe - and not necessarily the ones who are the most forward thinking.

dave griffiths

very good ....... thanks!
العاب العاب فلاش العاب سيارات
العاب طبخ موقع العاب لعب
العاب باربي العاب اطفال
لعب العاب اكشن العاب تلبيس
صدام حسين العاب تلبيس بنات
العاب باربي العاب بنات للبنات فقط
العاب قص الشعر العاب بنات جديدةالعاب بنات
العاب ديكور صور بنات موقع العاب
صور العاب مكياج العاب الطبخ يوتوب
العاب العاب ذكاء العاب
موقع قوافي لعبة سونيك شبكة صور
youtube يوتيوب فيديو يوتيوب موقع يوتيوب صور للنساء فقط - صور جلابيات - صور فساتين سهرة - صور فساتين زفاف - صور اطفال - صور مضحكه - صور مضحكة - صور بنات - صور حيوانات - صور ورود وازهار - صور طبيعة - صور رومانسيه - صور رومانسية - صور شلالات وانهار - صور سيارات - صور كرتون العاب اطفال
العاب للاطفال فقط موقع
العاب اكشن
العاب مغامرات
العاب تركيز
العاب الصور
العاب الغاز
العاب الالغاز
العاب الورق
العاب بنات
العاب للبنات فقط
العاب تعليميه
العاب اطفال تعليميه للاطفال
العاب ذكاء
العاب الرمايه
العاب رياضه رياضيه
العاب سيارات
العاب سباق سيارات السيارات
العاب سهله سهلة
العاب سهله للاطفال
العاب طريفه طريفة
العاب حرب الفضاء
العاب قتال
العاب قتاليه قتالية
العاب كبار
العاب للكبار فقط
العاب اولاد
العاب للاولاد فقط
العاب مثيره
العاب كرتون للاطفال
العاب كرتونيه
العاب مسليه مسلية
العاب مسليه للبنات
العاب مضحكه
فلاشات مضحكه
العاب حربيه حربية
العاب منوعه
العاب صوتيه صوتية
العاب

Women President Helen

Submitted by evden eve nakliyat (not verified) on Wed, 2009-03-11 11:24.

Deep South sun ankara evden eve nakliyat ankara evden eve nakliyat Deep South sun evden eve nakliyat ankara
Deep South sun ankara nakliyat shine state that has spent most of my life working with wildlife,
and teaching. ankara nakliyat Currently am married with 4 children all out of the nest.