Well, talked with Tobias again today over the trouble with Osage concerning the foyer projection and my earlier entry here. It turned out to be another unfortunate mis-communication between different parties, and I am therefore happy to apologize for any false accusation to anyone based on incomplete facts. (the peculiar fact is ofcourse, how come I also have only the partial facts?)
The fact, it seems, is that Osage did ask or communicate (unfortunately just) with Tobias (and not us curators of the show), about what they wanted to do with the foyer projection, while we curators were then still attempting to use the foyer projection for showing our participants' work there. For us, work of art always should have the priorty, and hence we were particularly dissatisfied then, with the intended work showing there being replaced by a design that has not our (curators') endorsement.
I certainly do not want to put all the blame on to Tobias, for our idea over the projection at the foyer was a rather late decision, and I principally agreed with Tobias then, that it would be a waste of our energy with what I proposed to do, that of asking both Norman and us to meet with Osage and decide together on what to do with the front projection.
Yet taking in Tobias' advise on the spot, I shifted to response to it in the CHiE blog afterwards, by trying to see or link this experience with the topic of creative commons vs copy, stirring up attention to a new kind of unclear border, a grey zone, which is also a part of what the show is trying to address. What is stealing if we are trying to opening up copyright? What is it (or Why is it) that our designer was feeling bad about this? (Because its immitator technique is inferior?) I believe all these, should be a much more positive lesson for us to think about.
here is a link to
OPEN KNOWLEDGE.
