The remixing metaphor applies to almost any area you can think of: music, politics, culture.
Month: March 2005
Art Since 1900
this book is the final ludicrous monument to an intellectual corruption that has filled contemporary museums and the culture they sustain with a hollow and boring, impersonal chatter
But I think that A&L did better in the 1970s:
On the Material Necessity that the Editors of October, its Contributors, Supporters and Relatives, and Particularly, the Arch Fool, the Illiterate Liar Jeremy G. Rolfe, be Sought Out, Their Hands Smashed, Their Eyes Put Out, Their Offices, Ateliers Destroyed, Burned and Portions of the Bloodstained Ashes Sent to the Towering Wretches of French Structuralism
Nature On Cognitive Aesthetics
Cubism As A Form Of Complexity
ART, SCIENCE AND THE MIND: CUBISM AS A FORM OF COMPLEXITY
I prefer the neurological “peak shift” idea but this is still interesting.
AI And Art
Media Art Net
CommonPlaces
Public space and public information are common concerns, and both are under threat.
OurMedia
Via the ever-reliable Boing Boing.
OurMedia doesn’t handle project management, but it handles more media than archive.org and is dedicated to Free licensed work.
Aesthetics
http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/002782.shtml
http://creativecommons.org/drafts/wiki_0.5
I admire the community spirit that this license is proposed in, and an inter-wiki license seems like a good idea, but it’s called the FDL. And a “credit the organisation not the individual” license is a dangerous thing to create (and probably breaks the Right Of Paternity). It’s going to get used for many non-wiki megalomaniac’s projects, and it breaks the social contract of wiki contribution anyway.
This is niche license proliferation. License proliferation is bad. A wiki-specific license is such a bad idea that Britannica should sponsor it (suggest it to them and watch their faces light up like a TV company executive told that CC licenses don’t effect moral rights). Wikis face quite a challenge in non-“fair use” jurisdictions, ghettoising their content will just add to their problems.
An authorship assignment or licensing toolkit would be more constructive.
(Incidentally, I’m against the Creative Archive license as well, it’s basically CC-BY-SA with a definition of NonCommercial that, taken literally, wouldn’t allow schools to use CA content).