Digital Art is a Performance Art

Middlemen do not produce art, they convey it

We should never lose sight of the original vision we had a few hundred years ago when the printing press made the act of copying an easier way to make money than commissioning an original work. In view of the stalemate that loomed if printing became unrestricted, and the consequent dearth of works that would be produced in the face of impossible economics, the idea of copyright came into being. Whilst printing presses had been controlled from their earliest days in order to keep tabs on seditious propaganda, it was only when they became unrestricted that things started looking bleak for authors looking to earn a living.

While there are always royal or other wealthy parties who may commission a piece of art, whether sculpture, painting, music, or other art form, even a song or play, the beauty of the printed word was that it was relatively cheap to duplicate, and meant the cost could be divided among a large total audience – larger even than to a performance or viewing. As long as the fee could be associated with the book, the work would continue to earn revenue in perpetuity. However, in order to ensure that the total production costs were covered, the price of the book had to be significantly more than the cost of printing. Naturally, there needed to be a mechanism to prohibit another printer from copying the work and unfairly competing for sales.

But, what would have happened if the idea of copyright had never come into being? Would society really have been deprived of great authors such as Charles Dickens? Well, let’s explore the idea. Most publications would have had to be funded by subscription to the original publisher. This subscription wouldn’t be identified as going toward the printing cost, but toward the production cost, not least the author. Remember, the subscriber could purchase the printed item anywhere that was convenient, since it would be a free market for printing the material.

But, hang on a mo. Wouldn’t everyone simply skip the subscription and just buy a printed copy on the street corner? But, if they do that, then the publication will deteriorate in terms of the quality of its content. The question is therefore, would market demand for a quality publication reach equilibrium with market pressure for lowest cost? Is the market in its aggregate behaviour intelligent enough to understand that whilst some people might get something for close to nothing, that enough people have to pay something in order to have anything at all?

What if we introduced the idea of a flexible subscription - that subscribers paid according to a personal evaluation of the work? Some subscribers might pay nothing except the printing cost, and other subscribers might pay a considerable amount. This might be based on how much the reader was interested in the work, as opposed to how wealthy the reader was. But it would have to be a self-policed process, as only the individual would know their level of interest.

This seems a little contrary to normal market practices, but could it work in practice? Is there anything else like it? Well, such a voluntary subscription could be compared to a charitable covenant. This altruistic, regular giving towards a ‘good cause’, is typically where the beneficiaries are the population at large, albeit that portion that suffers a misfortune. Perhaps it can be extended to apply to the misfortune of being without beauty to the senses? Could society have got used to the idea of putting artists on pedestals? We’d sponsor our favourites and reap the consequent rewards of all art together. Perhaps this would have kept art where it belongs, part of nature: once created, free to mankind.

Instead, we have art as a commodity, art as a consumable, art as property. And all because, the book coincidentally served as its own admission ticket. Would we really have become a society devoid of great works of literature? Would we have remained a society of illiterates, with no author coming forward to have their works printed because there was no money in it? Would the printing press have caused a revolution without copyright? Whilst it is difficult to conceive of circumstances that would prevent some form of copy protection system arising, I think there would still have been enough money in printing that something would have been printed. It’s just that other systems would still have had to be invented to ensure that the author got paid, and the reader was assured of a quality product.

The only difference between then and now, is that today, everyone has a printing press, and a particularly capable one at that. It is difficult to imagine the hundreds of millions of these printing press owners agreeing to not copy each other’s work, as the handful of original press owners did a few hundred years ago. For that matter, no one needs to make a living out of copying work if everyone can do it. We are now forced to consider that impossible situation where copyright is not an option, but we still need a mechanism to encourage authors to write and to ensure that readers get a quality product. It seems logical to connect these two requirements together, i.e. that the readers pay the author, or in more general terms, the people pay the artist.

Art must be conveyed from artist to people, and the people’s appreciation must be conveyed to the artist – work for art and art for money.

The better the conveyance, the better for all concerned. Imagine a society in which quality art can be appreciated by millions of people almost the very second it is created, and furthermore one in which the artist is reimbursed almost the very second they have completed their work.

Today, we have the beginnings of the infrastructure that can support this.

The Internet has demonstrated that it can serve as an extremely efficient and economic distribution system. Unfortunately, it has not yet demonstrated that it can serve so effectively on the reimbursement side. This is the real problem. The problem is not, as so many think, how to enforce copyright on the Internet. Copyright is simply a convenient mechanism to protect the investments of the publishers, it is not necessarily the best mechanism in every situation for ensuring the artist gets paid for their efforts.

Where is it written that all who enjoy art must suffer? Are there really artists out there who wouldn’t wish that their art could be enjoyed by all mankind for nothing? If an artist does a deal to produce a work of art for a particular commission, do they really begrudge anyone else who might set eyes on it who had not contributed? If we get out of the ‘art as commodity’ mind-set that copyright and commercialism has created over the years, then we might just begin to see that art is an idea, whether realised or not, something that gives people pleasure or helps them in their life or work. Once created, and shared among people, it is difficult to destroy. Its realisation on paper or any other medium only helps to make the art persist, to contribute to the total sum of mankind’s art for all time.

Academic research is probably one of the few cases where production of art is philanthropically sponsored, usually by the state, though it tends to express a strong interest in art that is at least potentially of practical use to mankind (science).

The Internet is the first occasion since democracy that people have been able to collectively sponsor art. Whereas before we’ve had to rely on elected governments to have some semblance of funding the arts and sciences on behalf of the people, now we can speak direct to the artists. Millions of people can now petition their favourite artists. It’s just that we don’t yet have a mechanism for people to pay their favourite artists.

We’ve always had unrecorded, unnoticed, send-a-cheque contributions, but obviously it’s not easy to know if we’ve had any effect. Tipster, etc. at least allow people to have some record of their actions, but it’s still a fairly one-sided affair without much communication going on. We have the street performer protocol, and this is pretty good, but it blah 

Performance in the face of perfect memory

Let’s go back to the time of Mozart and wonder if this great composer would have been particularly bothered if he knew that the people who attended his performances had perfect memories and were able to replay the performance in their own minds at any time afterwards. Would he have worried that people wouldn’t attend future performances given they could simply

Perhaps it is the very human nature of society that co-operation cannot be avoided, and the printers would conspire to create an effective copyright even if it were not enacted by law. Even if freedom to copy had been enshrined in law, perhaps

Why put great expense into a publication if the competition can duplicate and print it at a fraction of the cost?

Society does not wish to see a stalemate where no one produces art because there is no money

: to foster an environment that allows artists to prosper, that the world might become a richer more beautiful place in which to live, if only we ensure that the author of a work retains exclusive right to distribute or perform it

An article outside the Cyberspace series. Of relevance to games artists, designers, programmers, and players. Also relevant to passive entertainment artists: authors, movie-makers, musicians, painters, etc.

Digital Art is a Performance Art

'Pay per performance' replaces 'pay per use'

Almost back to the old days when recording was unknown.

Now, recording, is endemic, and must be considered simply a free means of enjoying a performance once more after the event. Consider it simply a facility for augmenting human memory (albeit a pretty good one). Once a performance has happened, it is then immediately available at zero cost to the entire planet.

Artists once more are paid for the creation and performance of art.

Popular - Procurement, Production, and Purchasing

End users collectively specify, design and fund the product they desire

    the production process is already happening to a certain extent. The user is migrating from registration feedback, through the beta testing process, and now is part of the design and production phase. Eventually they'll end up at the concept stage and will participate in the funding process.

The part technology plays in facilitating this revolution, both logistically and financially.

Users express interest in the form of bids. Interest now has value. Facilitate users with the ability either to express interest in the release of art given a preview, precursor, or prescription.

The way this revolution will affect what has gone before:

Copyright can only work where it can be demonstrated that the art has not leaked outside a manageable circle.

Patenting can only work for non-replicating devices, i.e. not software, not DNA, not business models. Only machinery.

TradeMarking can only work because a trademark is not generally a particularly popular piece of art. You can only prosecute infringing use by other companies. Hoover cannot prosecute the entire world for using the word in a generic sense, but it could prosecute another company.

Copyright could only work in the past, because it was difficult to duplicate or replicate art: there was thus value in the reproduction of the art, and the artist naturally desired this to be protected for the artist.

Patenting can only work where there is a great cost involved in exploiting a particular patent, and competition easily threatens such a venture.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.