Re: [rumori] Re: pho: collage & advertising

From: Don Joyce (
Date: Mon Mar 05 2001 - 17:22:00 PST

If the content is paid for and controled by a third party, NOT the ad
makers and not the art appropriated and used in it - a THIRD party - Nike,
Buchannon, whatever, then the third party has to pay and get permission to
appropriate that material because the work (the ad) is not free expression,
it is paid expression, and we are theoretically reserving free
appropriation for free expression. All your examples can be determined by
this definition, it's purely mechanical. If the above condition is not in
effect, it's free expression and the work, be it ad or art, may appropriate
freely. You are still hung up on what is art and what is advertising.
There's no way to determine this. This is irrelevant, I'm only dealing with
controled vs. free expression no matter WHERE it appears or what it's
Oh, forget it, none of this is going to happen anyway! Things in this relm
are exactly as I want them now, and my proposal only has meaning if art
get's free appropriation (NOT likely!) and somebody asks " but what about
advertising." Should this happen, retain your smugness when they
appropriate YOU to sell something you don't approve of.

>Sun, 4 Mar 2001 found Don Joyce writing:
>->You have an excellent argument about the attachment of art to mindsets,
>->such as politics. However, since we're actually writing this law, I think
>->it should say that POLITICS will join advertising in a requirement for
>->payment and permission (unless donated) in order to use existing art in
>oh come now! now you're really in deep water. Isn't
>EVERYTHING political? Or perhaps you just meant paid-for
>political advertising? In that case, what about "volunteer
>ads"? Let's say I really really want Pat Buchannan to be
>elected president and I really think Negativland's "Car
>Bomb" would be great backing music for a little tv
>commercial i make with my own money and pay to be shown.
>This isn't that different from a lot of socially-concious,
>activist art. Someone is making a media work with the idea
>of persuading the audience to think/act a certain way. But
>how do you ever prove that it's "volunteer"? That the artist
>isn't receiving SOME benefit by pushing the agenda she's
>pushing via her work (of course she is)?
>And "Art for it's own sake", how do you prove that? (and why
>would you want to? IMHO art for its own sake is almost
>always the least interesting, so maybe that would be why we
>would want to single that stuff out, so people would know
>not to listen to or look at it. WARNING: THIS ART HAS
>I think the way we can and should prevent art from being
>coopted by advertising, if we so desire, is to make art that
>is so inextricably linked with its message that it's
>impossible for it to be re-used without that message
>backfiring on the co-opter ( like the "time bomb" trick on
>Rudy that you mentioned a few messages back, Don).
>Steev Hise, Would-be World-Wide Web Wizard (WWWWW)
>"Why would you want to understand that? I just ignore it."
> -15 yr. old girl noticing me reading
> McLuhan's "Understanding Media"
>Rumori, the Discussion List
>to unsubscribe, send mail to
>with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
>Rumori list archives & other information are at

Rumori, the Discussion List
to unsubscribe, send mail to
with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
Rumori list archives & other information are at

Home | Detrivores | Rhizome | Archive | Projects | Contact | Help | Text Index

[an error occurred while processing this directive] N© Sharerights extended to all.