blue and brown books

In reference to the previous discussion of Intellectual Property, this is not to be confused as an argument of art being for art’s sake. Keeping in mind that the term ‘art’ was only really used for lack of a better term for ‘the expression of ideas’, ideas for the sake of ideas is more of a correct way to put the goal of putting this argument forward.

More important is that this notion ought to be taken as an argument for ideas, their production and sale as a hyper-pragmatical and transparent process. That we are making sure that what we say is important and productive, and that we are doing these things for good and productive reasons.

This is part of the ‘holistic’ notion that ought to be hammered out a bit more before continuing. To begin with, we are attempting to eliminate the idea that we have a split between the ‘private’ and ‘public’ selves, and that these selves interact with one another and the end result is a kind of morality. The idea of living ‘morally’ this way in a kind of contractual obligation, is one that we in the capitalist-liberal tradition rest on how our private person acts in public, that they are different in kind from one another and that we rely on other public selves to keep our public self in moral check, even though our private self might want to murder/maim/destroy other public selves.

The goal of this Holism series is to show the importance of living publicly, at all times in all ways. It is to explore the notions of a world without a private self (not necessarily an absence of private things or matters, but the absence of privacy from other persons in language or thought).

Perhaps it hasn’t been best to begin here, but rest assured that what is being suggested is in line with what has already been established and explored in the rest of the A Cat Named Shrodinger series.

Soon to come will be a discussion directed to privacy itself, to hopefully clarify some issues, but keeping with the theme of intellectual property, for now let’s find the bridge to these two concepts of Privacy and Property.

Applying the idea of a public space of consciousness and a public responsibility in creation we then find that the sale and protection of such items to a the enth degree is not consistent with the operations of our selves in the world. There is no claim to a solution being presented here, really, except to emphasize the importance of the Creative Commons organization and the movement of CopyLeft. The shareability offers so much more in collaboration and creativity than clip-art libraries and closed-off art galleries.

The goal of this is merely to question and to have the artist question their role in their creation and subsequently, their deservedness of any monetary gain derived. Given these parameters set on the importance of a public consciousness, how is it possible to expect payment for something that is technically in the terms of existing property theory not yours and not created by only you.

Treating property as currency is a threat. The threat is to education at large in forming and fostering a social system that is not dependant and obsessed with the prisoner’s dillema of self-interest and suspicion. It is not the case that art can’t be a profession, but just a question of whether, given the outline of what we know makes a person, that art as a profession is a profession at all.

Are we, all of us, so proud of what we do?