October 2004 Archives
I've posted about Open Source as being a reform movement before (confusingly in the Aesthetics section of this blog).
One of the things that has struck me about the most successful Open licenses is that they come from a personal desire to be able to continue working with and producing materials in a particular area. So the GPL came from Richard Stallman, a programmer, wanting to be able to continue reading and writing program code. The OGL came from Ryan Dancey wanting to be able to continue playing and writing role-playing games.
And the Creative Commons licenses came from- well, that's slightly different, and I believe this explains some of the problems with the Creative Commons licenses. The Creative Commons licenses came from Lawrence Lessig, a lawyer, wanting Eric Eldred, a publisher, to be able to republish old materials. Whether this is wanting to be able to produce materials in any sort of primary way isn't important, what's important is that the CC licenses were not produced by Lessig for he himself to use on his primary work (the CC licensing of his book "Free Culture" doesn't affect this argument). What would a Free Law license look like? I don't know, but it wouldn't look like the CC licenses. What would a free culture license look like? For me, more like the GPL: providing source so a work can be remade is pivotal to the success of the GPL for programs, and should not be underestimated for music, art, film and literature. Likewise the precise scope of the GPL's effects, even CC-SA is more LGPL-like than GPL-like.
This is not to say that the CC licenses are not usable, or even that they are anything less than excellent. But the few flaws I personally regard them as having make more sense considered in the context of their creation.
One of the things that has struck me about the most successful Open licenses is that they come from a personal desire to be able to continue working with and producing materials in a particular area. So the GPL came from Richard Stallman, a programmer, wanting to be able to continue reading and writing program code. The OGL came from Ryan Dancey wanting to be able to continue playing and writing role-playing games.
And the Creative Commons licenses came from- well, that's slightly different, and I believe this explains some of the problems with the Creative Commons licenses. The Creative Commons licenses came from Lawrence Lessig, a lawyer, wanting Eric Eldred, a publisher, to be able to republish old materials. Whether this is wanting to be able to produce materials in any sort of primary way isn't important, what's important is that the CC licenses were not produced by Lessig for he himself to use on his primary work (the CC licensing of his book "Free Culture" doesn't affect this argument). What would a Free Law license look like? I don't know, but it wouldn't look like the CC licenses. What would a free culture license look like? For me, more like the GPL: providing source so a work can be remade is pivotal to the success of the GPL for programs, and should not be underestimated for music, art, film and literature. Likewise the precise scope of the GPL's effects, even CC-SA is more LGPL-like than GPL-like.
This is not to say that the CC licenses are not usable, or even that they are anything less than excellent. But the few flaws I personally regard them as having make more sense considered in the context of their creation.
The colours are either straight Pantone runs, references to natural scenes, or fashion and product colours. No sweets or food yet this time.
See my Sketchblog for images.
See my Sketchblog for images.
CC-BY-SA licensed original music from Loca.
Listen online: http://www.locarecords.com/downloads.html
It's good stuff.
Read about them in Wired: http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,61282,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1
Buy! Buy! I have... ;-)
Listen online: http://www.locarecords.com/downloads.html
It's good stuff.
Read about them in Wired: http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,61282,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1
Buy! Buy! I have... ;-)
The Wired CD of Creative-Commons licensed music by top performers including The Beastie Boys, Chuck D (neither of whom allow sampling from their tracks!), David Byrne and Brazil's Minister of Culture (now that's what I call government taking a positive interest in the arts!).
Read all about it:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.11/sample.html
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.11/beastie.html
Get the tracks legally online via bittorrent and get sampling (unless you're a Beaties or Public Enemy fan. Ironwhat?):
http://www.legaltorrents.com/index.php?fuse=71
Read all about it:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.11/sample.html
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.11/beastie.html
Get the tracks legally online via bittorrent and get sampling (unless you're a Beaties or Public Enemy fan. Ironwhat?):
http://www.legaltorrents.com/index.php?fuse=71
One project I want to do is a system to map random emotional states (encoded using one of the systems discussed in "Affective Computing") through a slipnet onto to visual expressive qualities that a drawing module could use to constrain an image. An Emotron. That would answer a recurring criticism of computer art; that it's cold and unemotional. :-)
Generative art, making external processes make your art, is a form of depersonalisation. Yet getting the art you want is "repersonalisation". It's a form of irony, I suppose, if I can add that leaden weight to the idea without it heading straight to the bottom.
Another of my research interests, shapeshifter mythology, is also about depersonalisation and, in its modern form, repersonalisation as well. I think I'm trying to tell myself something, or possibly I'm just overintellectualising things.
Good consumers don't repersonalise, but the cultural creolisation that "kitsch" theory insultingly doesn't capture does. The street finds its own use for things, as William Gibson said.
Another of my research interests, shapeshifter mythology, is also about depersonalisation and, in its modern form, repersonalisation as well. I think I'm trying to tell myself something, or possibly I'm just overintellectualising things.
Good consumers don't repersonalise, but the cultural creolisation that "kitsch" theory insultingly doesn't capture does. The street finds its own use for things, as William Gibson said.
I've finished the initial transferral of images from my sketchbook to Illustrator pictures. Now I need to colour them up and fine-tune the compositions, which could take a while.
Is the universe complete? Does it contain all the information required to understand it? If it is discretely computable, what's it's shortest Godel string? Is consciousness such a string?
I wonder if I can take Stallmanian stance on Free Culture and only listen to, read, or watch something if it's Free? Probably not yet.
Loca Records
Loca Records
Which is a shame, because it was great.
On the plus side, I don't have to figure out how to draw teapots for now.
On the plus side, I don't have to figure out how to draw teapots for now.
But when an empire makes reality, what image is that reality made in?
http://www.williamgibsonbooks.com/blog/2004_10_01_archive.asp#109803212139081479
The reflections must be put back into the mirror.
http://www.williamgibsonbooks.com/blog/2004_10_01_archive.asp#109803212139081479
The reflections must be put back into the mirror.
Some of my earliest work was remixing images. I went round the studios at KIAD asking people if I could photograph their work, and made images by sampling the results.
Now it's possible to search for Creative Commons licensed work by license and type, I can find more images to sample. I'm starting to get a remixing itch that I may have to scratch soon. :-)
Now it's possible to search for Creative Commons licensed work by license and type, I can find more images to sample. I'm starting to get a remixing itch that I may have to scratch soon. :-)
Checking old disks I've found images from "The Order Of Things" (squares), the PostScript Virii, and various minor Illustrator projects. I'll add those to the art section of the site as I can convert them and, in the case of the generative work, find the source code if possible.
http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/programming_and_digital_art.html
Oh, and the answer is yes... :-)
Oh, and the answer is yes... :-)
The follow up to 1968 is of course titled "1969". See the sketches at my sketchblog, where they're still titled "1968". This is the source material of 1968 increasingly distorted, selectively presented and divorced from reality. So its a continuation of the allegory.
I'm working on the images in my old copy of Illustrator 6 (!) in Classic because I just can't get used to working in Inkscape and I can't afford Illustrator CS. :-( Using familiar tools is having a positive effect this time. :-) I just wish I could find my copy of Letraset Envelopes. :-/
I'm working on the images in my old copy of Illustrator 6 (!) in Classic because I just can't get used to working in Inkscape and I can't afford Illustrator CS. :-( Using familiar tools is having a positive effect this time. :-) I just wish I could find my copy of Letraset Envelopes. :-/
I've checked the latest version of Minara in to SourceForge. The basic window, buffer and tool systems are now running well, and I've written a toy pen tool that doesn't always crash GLUT's polyline intersector. ;-)
I'm going to get back to Minara in December or January for a major clean-up of the buffer code, converting the rendering code to using LibArt, and reformatting the C code to follow GNU coding standards.
I'm going to get back to Minara in December or January for a major clean-up of the buffer code, converting the rendering code to using LibArt, and reformatting the C code to follow GNU coding standards.
I've been ill for a couple of weeks with an on-again-off-again cold-type-thing that's left me with no energy to devote to anything other than basic existence. I haven't made very much progress on anything. :-(
Interpol's new album is good, though. :-)
Interpol's new album is good, though. :-)
