<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" > <channel><title>Comments on: Art Intercom: Featuring New Media Artist Nathaniel Stern</title> <atom:link href="http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/06/07/art-intercom-featuring-new-media-artist-nathaniel-stern/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/06/07/art-intercom-featuring-new-media-artist-nathaniel-stern/</link> <description>New York art news and reviews.</description> <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 04:20:00 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator> <item><title>By: David McBride</title><link>http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/06/07/art-intercom-featuring-new-media-artist-nathaniel-stern/comment-page-1/#comment-2626</link> <dc:creator>David McBride</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:29:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/06/07/art-intercom-featuring-new-media-artist-nathaniel-stern/#comment-2626</guid> <description>You&#039;re right, since you&#039;re trying to gain from your own work then perhaps &quot;exploit&quot; is not the right word.  That seems like an important distinction that I didn&#039;t consider. Thanks for responding, our little 10-day analysis has been nice.  Next time maybe in person.  Cheers, Nathaniel</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re right, since you&#8217;re trying to gain from your own work then perhaps &#8220;exploit&#8221; is not the right word.  That seems like an important distinction that I didn&#8217;t consider.<br /> Thanks for responding, our little 10-day analysis has been nice.  Next time maybe in person.  Cheers, Nathaniel</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: David McBride</title><link>http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/06/07/art-intercom-featuring-new-media-artist-nathaniel-stern/comment-page-1/#comment-311886</link> <dc:creator>David McBride</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:29:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/06/07/art-intercom-featuring-new-media-artist-nathaniel-stern/#comment-311886</guid> <description>You&#039;re right, since you&#039;re trying to gain from your own work then perhaps &quot;exploit&quot; is not the right word.  That seems like an important distinction that I didn&#039;t consider. Thanks for responding, our little 10-day analysis has been nice.  Next time maybe in person.  Cheers, Nathaniel</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re right, since you&#8217;re trying to gain from your own work then perhaps &#8220;exploit&#8221; is not the right word.  That seems like an important distinction that I didn&#8217;t consider.<br /> Thanks for responding, our little 10-day analysis has been nice.  Next time maybe in person.  Cheers, Nathaniel</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: David McBride</title><link>http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/06/07/art-intercom-featuring-new-media-artist-nathaniel-stern/comment-page-1/#comment-311887</link> <dc:creator>David McBride</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:29:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/06/07/art-intercom-featuring-new-media-artist-nathaniel-stern/#comment-311887</guid> <description>You&#039;re right, since you&#039;re trying to gain from your own work then perhaps &quot;exploit&quot; is not the right word.  That seems like an important distinction that I didn&#039;t consider. Thanks for responding, our little 10-day analysis has been nice.  Next time maybe in person.  Cheers, Nathaniel</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re right, since you&#8217;re trying to gain from your own work then perhaps &#8220;exploit&#8221; is not the right word.  That seems like an important distinction that I didn&#8217;t consider.<br /> Thanks for responding, our little 10-day analysis has been nice.  Next time maybe in person.  Cheers, Nathaniel</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: nathaniel</title><link>http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/06/07/art-intercom-featuring-new-media-artist-nathaniel-stern/comment-page-1/#comment-2581</link> <dc:creator>nathaniel</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jun 2007 08:21:57 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/06/07/art-intercom-featuring-new-media-artist-nathaniel-stern/#comment-2581</guid> <description>Thanks David - I appreciate the feedback, and the tugged teaching issues; I think the use of the word exploitative hit a nerve, given that it&#039;s me trying to gain from my own work, and and not external forces... I appreciate and concede your clarification, and agree I should be more careful in my quick renderings of important historical pieces...When I say meme&#039;d, I mean the copied buzz of a work which can often happen through re-blogging. And aura, in your/Ben&#039; sense of the word, is unaffected. Hoep to chat face to face some time....</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks David &#8211; I appreciate the feedback, and the tugged teaching issues; I think the use of the word exploitative hit a nerve, given that it&#8217;s me trying to gain from my own work, and and not external forces&#8230; I appreciate and concede your clarification, and agree I should be more careful in my quick renderings of important historical pieces&#8230;</p><p>When I say meme&#8217;d, I mean the copied buzz of a work which can often happen through re-blogging. And aura, in your/Ben&#8217; sense of the word, is unaffected. Hoep to chat face to face some time&#8230;.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: nathaniel</title><link>http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/06/07/art-intercom-featuring-new-media-artist-nathaniel-stern/comment-page-1/#comment-311885</link> <dc:creator>nathaniel</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jun 2007 08:21:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/06/07/art-intercom-featuring-new-media-artist-nathaniel-stern/#comment-311885</guid> <description>Thanks David - I appreciate the feedback, and the tugged teaching issues; I think the use of the word exploitative hit a nerve, given that it&#039;s me trying to gain from my own work, and and not external forces... I appreciate and concede your clarification, and agree I should be more careful in my quick renderings of important historical pieces...When I say meme&#039;d, I mean the copied buzz of a work which can often happen through re-blogging. And aura, in your/Ben&#039; sense of the word, is unaffected. Hoep to chat face to face some time....</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks David &#8211; I appreciate the feedback, and the tugged teaching issues; I think the use of the word exploitative hit a nerve, given that it&#8217;s me trying to gain from my own work, and and not external forces&#8230; I appreciate and concede your clarification, and agree I should be more careful in my quick renderings of important historical pieces&#8230;</p><p>When I say meme&#8217;d, I mean the copied buzz of a work which can often happen through re-blogging. And aura, in your/Ben&#8217; sense of the word, is unaffected. Hoep to chat face to face some time&#8230;.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: David McBride</title><link>http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/06/07/art-intercom-featuring-new-media-artist-nathaniel-stern/comment-page-1/#comment-2519</link> <dc:creator>David McBride</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2007 23:01:08 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/06/07/art-intercom-featuring-new-media-artist-nathaniel-stern/#comment-2519</guid> <description>Apologies for the delay.  Admittedly, I introduced them in my last post; but I&#039;m not sure of the place of value judgements here.  Insofar as the essay can be read as a lament for lost aura, then perhaps aura has &quot;value&quot; and things that reduce it are &quot;bad&quot;.  But I&#039;m more inclined to think Benjamin is describing a cultural phenomenon, neither &quot;good&quot; nor &quot;bad&quot;, and that the moral side of the essay exists primarily as a warning concerning this phenomenon and its potential for Fascist exploitation.  In other words, Benjamin&#039;s aura is not the same thing as &quot;good&quot;, and even bad art has aura when it is original (in the sense of not being a reproduction).  In another part of the essay, Benjamin refers to mechanical reproduction as having liberated art from its &quot;parasitical dependence on ritual&quot;. Also, my stake in this not the same as Benjamin&#039;s; I&#039;m only concerned with a correct interpretation of the essay.  (&quot;Aura&quot; is one of the theoretical foundations of the piece, but it&#039;s certainly a debatable one.  It seems to exist largely as a matter of faith, and Benjamin&#039;s definition of it is difficult to quantify - though, I admit I do prefer to think it&#039;s for real.)  I have a (limited) experience of teaching, and in my classes we read Berger&#039;s Ways of Seeing.  It&#039;s always a challenging point to get students to understand that the celebrity status of certain works of art doesn&#039;t amount to a democratization of art, or that this condition adds value in the sense of &quot;aura&quot; to works.  Your referencing of Benjamin&#039;s essay, and its apparent miscalculation, tugged at this part of my thinking, and my desire to clear up what I think is a common misinterpretation of the essay is what compelled me to post. (And I recognize it was telephone interview and it&#039;s possible we&#039;re in an echo chamber.  I&#039;m not trying to beat a dead horse).Finally, I&#039;m not familiar with the term meme&#039;d; my brief research leads me to understand it as a work that is copied.  Is there more to it?  Is a photograph a meme&#039;d work, or does it need to be digital?  In any case, from the perspective of the essay I&#039;d say that a meme&#039;d work, and/or a photograph, if they are different, doesn&#039;t have an aura to begin with.  Again, I don&#039;t think that&#039;s &quot;good&quot; or &quot;bad&quot;, but it does illustrate the possible limitations of the essay these days.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Apologies for the delay.  Admittedly, I introduced them in my last post; but I&#8217;m not sure of the place of value judgements here.  Insofar as the essay can be read as a lament for lost aura, then perhaps aura has &#8220;value&#8221; and things that reduce it are &#8220;bad&#8221;.  But I&#8217;m more inclined to think Benjamin is describing a cultural phenomenon, neither &#8220;good&#8221; nor &#8220;bad&#8221;, and that the moral side of the essay exists primarily as a warning concerning this phenomenon and its potential for Fascist exploitation.  In other words, Benjamin&#8217;s aura is not the same thing as &#8220;good&#8221;, and even bad art has aura when it is original (in the sense of not being a reproduction).  In another part of the essay, Benjamin refers to mechanical reproduction as having liberated art from its &#8220;parasitical dependence on ritual&#8221;.</p><p> Also, my stake in this not the same as Benjamin&#8217;s; I&#8217;m only concerned with a correct interpretation of the essay.  (&#8220;Aura&#8221; is one of the theoretical foundations of the piece, but it&#8217;s certainly a debatable one.  It seems to exist largely as a matter of faith, and Benjamin&#8217;s definition of it is difficult to quantify &#8211; though, I admit I do prefer to think it&#8217;s for real.)  I have a (limited) experience of teaching, and in my classes we read Berger&#8217;s Ways of Seeing.  It&#8217;s always a challenging point to get students to understand that the celebrity status of certain works of art doesn&#8217;t amount to a democratization of art, or that this condition adds value in the sense of &#8220;aura&#8221; to works.  Your referencing of Benjamin&#8217;s essay, and its apparent miscalculation, tugged at this part of my thinking, and my desire to clear up what I think is a common misinterpretation of the essay is what compelled me to post. (And I recognize it was telephone interview and it&#8217;s possible we&#8217;re in an echo chamber.  I&#8217;m not trying to beat a dead horse).</p><p> Finally, I&#8217;m not familiar with the term meme&#8217;d; my brief research leads me to understand it as a work that is copied.  Is there more to it?  Is a photograph a meme&#8217;d work, or does it need to be digital?  In any case, from the perspective of the essay I&#8217;d say that a meme&#8217;d work, and/or a photograph, if they are different, doesn&#8217;t have an aura to begin with.  Again, I don&#8217;t think that&#8217;s &#8220;good&#8221; or &#8220;bad&#8221;, but it does illustrate the possible limitations of the essay these days.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: David McBride</title><link>http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/06/07/art-intercom-featuring-new-media-artist-nathaniel-stern/comment-page-1/#comment-311883</link> <dc:creator>David McBride</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2007 23:01:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/06/07/art-intercom-featuring-new-media-artist-nathaniel-stern/#comment-311883</guid> <description>Apologies for the delay.  Admittedly, I introduced them in my last post; but I&#039;m not sure of the place of value judgements here.  Insofar as the essay can be read as a lament for lost aura, then perhaps aura has &quot;value&quot; and things that reduce it are &quot;bad&quot;.  But I&#039;m more inclined to think Benjamin is describing a cultural phenomenon, neither &quot;good&quot; nor &quot;bad&quot;, and that the moral side of the essay exists primarily as a warning concerning this phenomenon and its potential for Fascist exploitation.  In other words, Benjamin&#039;s aura is not the same thing as &quot;good&quot;, and even bad art has aura when it is original (in the sense of not being a reproduction).  In another part of the essay, Benjamin refers to mechanical reproduction as having liberated art from its &quot;parasitical dependence on ritual&quot;. Also, my stake in this not the same as Benjamin&#039;s; I&#039;m only concerned with a correct interpretation of the essay.  (&quot;Aura&quot; is one of the theoretical foundations of the piece, but it&#039;s certainly a debatable one.  It seems to exist largely as a matter of faith, and Benjamin&#039;s definition of it is difficult to quantify - though, I admit I do prefer to think it&#039;s for real.)  I have a (limited) experience of teaching, and in my classes we read Berger&#039;s Ways of Seeing.  It&#039;s always a challenging point to get students to understand that the celebrity status of certain works of art doesn&#039;t amount to a democratization of art, or that this condition adds value in the sense of &quot;aura&quot; to works.  Your referencing of Benjamin&#039;s essay, and its apparent miscalculation, tugged at this part of my thinking, and my desire to clear up what I think is a common misinterpretation of the essay is what compelled me to post. (And I recognize it was telephone interview and it&#039;s possible we&#039;re in an echo chamber.  I&#039;m not trying to beat a dead horse).Finally, I&#039;m not familiar with the term meme&#039;d; my brief research leads me to understand it as a work that is copied.  Is there more to it?  Is a photograph a meme&#039;d work, or does it need to be digital?  In any case, from the perspective of the essay I&#039;d say that a meme&#039;d work, and/or a photograph, if they are different, doesn&#039;t have an aura to begin with.  Again, I don&#039;t think that&#039;s &quot;good&quot; or &quot;bad&quot;, but it does illustrate the possible limitations of the essay these days.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Apologies for the delay.  Admittedly, I introduced them in my last post; but I&#8217;m not sure of the place of value judgements here.  Insofar as the essay can be read as a lament for lost aura, then perhaps aura has &#8220;value&#8221; and things that reduce it are &#8220;bad&#8221;.  But I&#8217;m more inclined to think Benjamin is describing a cultural phenomenon, neither &#8220;good&#8221; nor &#8220;bad&#8221;, and that the moral side of the essay exists primarily as a warning concerning this phenomenon and its potential for Fascist exploitation.  In other words, Benjamin&#8217;s aura is not the same thing as &#8220;good&#8221;, and even bad art has aura when it is original (in the sense of not being a reproduction).  In another part of the essay, Benjamin refers to mechanical reproduction as having liberated art from its &#8220;parasitical dependence on ritual&#8221;.</p><p> Also, my stake in this not the same as Benjamin&#8217;s; I&#8217;m only concerned with a correct interpretation of the essay.  (&#8220;Aura&#8221; is one of the theoretical foundations of the piece, but it&#8217;s certainly a debatable one.  It seems to exist largely as a matter of faith, and Benjamin&#8217;s definition of it is difficult to quantify &#8211; though, I admit I do prefer to think it&#8217;s for real.)  I have a (limited) experience of teaching, and in my classes we read Berger&#8217;s Ways of Seeing.  It&#8217;s always a challenging point to get students to understand that the celebrity status of certain works of art doesn&#8217;t amount to a democratization of art, or that this condition adds value in the sense of &#8220;aura&#8221; to works.  Your referencing of Benjamin&#8217;s essay, and its apparent miscalculation, tugged at this part of my thinking, and my desire to clear up what I think is a common misinterpretation of the essay is what compelled me to post. (And I recognize it was telephone interview and it&#8217;s possible we&#8217;re in an echo chamber.  I&#8217;m not trying to beat a dead horse).</p><p> Finally, I&#8217;m not familiar with the term meme&#8217;d; my brief research leads me to understand it as a work that is copied.  Is there more to it?  Is a photograph a meme&#8217;d work, or does it need to be digital?  In any case, from the perspective of the essay I&#8217;d say that a meme&#8217;d work, and/or a photograph, if they are different, doesn&#8217;t have an aura to begin with.  Again, I don&#8217;t think that&#8217;s &#8220;good&#8221; or &#8220;bad&#8221;, but it does illustrate the possible limitations of the essay these days.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: David McBride</title><link>http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/06/07/art-intercom-featuring-new-media-artist-nathaniel-stern/comment-page-1/#comment-311884</link> <dc:creator>David McBride</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2007 23:01:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/06/07/art-intercom-featuring-new-media-artist-nathaniel-stern/#comment-311884</guid> <description>Apologies for the delay.  Admittedly, I introduced them in my last post; but I&#039;m not sure of the place of value judgements here.  Insofar as the essay can be read as a lament for lost aura, then perhaps aura has &quot;value&quot; and things that reduce it are &quot;bad&quot;.  But I&#039;m more inclined to think Benjamin is describing a cultural phenomenon, neither &quot;good&quot; nor &quot;bad&quot;, and that the moral side of the essay exists primarily as a warning concerning this phenomenon and its potential for Fascist exploitation.  In other words, Benjamin&#039;s aura is not the same thing as &quot;good&quot;, and even bad art has aura when it is original (in the sense of not being a reproduction).  In another part of the essay, Benjamin refers to mechanical reproduction as having liberated art from its &quot;parasitical dependence on ritual&quot;. Also, my stake in this not the same as Benjamin&#039;s; I&#039;m only concerned with a correct interpretation of the essay.  (&quot;Aura&quot; is one of the theoretical foundations of the piece, but it&#039;s certainly a debatable one.  It seems to exist largely as a matter of faith, and Benjamin&#039;s definition of it is difficult to quantify - though, I admit I do prefer to think it&#039;s for real.)  I have a (limited) experience of teaching, and in my classes we read Berger&#039;s Ways of Seeing.  It&#039;s always a challenging point to get students to understand that the celebrity status of certain works of art doesn&#039;t amount to a democratization of art, or that this condition adds value in the sense of &quot;aura&quot; to works.  Your referencing of Benjamin&#039;s essay, and its apparent miscalculation, tugged at this part of my thinking, and my desire to clear up what I think is a common misinterpretation of the essay is what compelled me to post. (And I recognize it was telephone interview and it&#039;s possible we&#039;re in an echo chamber.  I&#039;m not trying to beat a dead horse).Finally, I&#039;m not familiar with the term meme&#039;d; my brief research leads me to understand it as a work that is copied.  Is there more to it?  Is a photograph a meme&#039;d work, or does it need to be digital?  In any case, from the perspective of the essay I&#039;d say that a meme&#039;d work, and/or a photograph, if they are different, doesn&#039;t have an aura to begin with.  Again, I don&#039;t think that&#039;s &quot;good&quot; or &quot;bad&quot;, but it does illustrate the possible limitations of the essay these days.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Apologies for the delay.  Admittedly, I introduced them in my last post; but I&#8217;m not sure of the place of value judgements here.  Insofar as the essay can be read as a lament for lost aura, then perhaps aura has &#8220;value&#8221; and things that reduce it are &#8220;bad&#8221;.  But I&#8217;m more inclined to think Benjamin is describing a cultural phenomenon, neither &#8220;good&#8221; nor &#8220;bad&#8221;, and that the moral side of the essay exists primarily as a warning concerning this phenomenon and its potential for Fascist exploitation.  In other words, Benjamin&#8217;s aura is not the same thing as &#8220;good&#8221;, and even bad art has aura when it is original (in the sense of not being a reproduction).  In another part of the essay, Benjamin refers to mechanical reproduction as having liberated art from its &#8220;parasitical dependence on ritual&#8221;.</p><p> Also, my stake in this not the same as Benjamin&#8217;s; I&#8217;m only concerned with a correct interpretation of the essay.  (&#8220;Aura&#8221; is one of the theoretical foundations of the piece, but it&#8217;s certainly a debatable one.  It seems to exist largely as a matter of faith, and Benjamin&#8217;s definition of it is difficult to quantify &#8211; though, I admit I do prefer to think it&#8217;s for real.)  I have a (limited) experience of teaching, and in my classes we read Berger&#8217;s Ways of Seeing.  It&#8217;s always a challenging point to get students to understand that the celebrity status of certain works of art doesn&#8217;t amount to a democratization of art, or that this condition adds value in the sense of &#8220;aura&#8221; to works.  Your referencing of Benjamin&#8217;s essay, and its apparent miscalculation, tugged at this part of my thinking, and my desire to clear up what I think is a common misinterpretation of the essay is what compelled me to post. (And I recognize it was telephone interview and it&#8217;s possible we&#8217;re in an echo chamber.  I&#8217;m not trying to beat a dead horse).</p><p> Finally, I&#8217;m not familiar with the term meme&#8217;d; my brief research leads me to understand it as a work that is copied.  Is there more to it?  Is a photograph a meme&#8217;d work, or does it need to be digital?  In any case, from the perspective of the essay I&#8217;d say that a meme&#8217;d work, and/or a photograph, if they are different, doesn&#8217;t have an aura to begin with.  Again, I don&#8217;t think that&#8217;s &#8220;good&#8221; or &#8220;bad&#8221;, but it does illustrate the possible limitations of the essay these days.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: nathaniel</title><link>http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/06/07/art-intercom-featuring-new-media-artist-nathaniel-stern/comment-page-1/#comment-2309</link> <dc:creator>nathaniel</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 16 Jun 2007 11:07:04 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/06/07/art-intercom-featuring-new-media-artist-nathaniel-stern/#comment-2309</guid> <description>I think we are on the same page, and perhaps a useful distinction might be between value (&quot;aura&quot;) and value (&quot;monetary&quot;). A little didactic, but the two sometimes go hand in hand, and sometimes do not. I &lt;i&gt;think&lt;/i&gt; that what you are saying is that Benjamin sees the these two as opposed? The former is &quot;good,&quot; the latter is &quot;bad&quot;? For me, a bit of a control freak, my intended (or at least an interesting) context and provenance must go with a &quot;meme&quot;d work in order for it to be successful (aura), and if a &quot;money&quot;d work takes away from that, I&#039;d be unhappy -- and I&#039;d agree with you / Benjamin here.I&#039;ve heard this conflated/misused by opponents of and/or newcomers to CC, to say that monetary value decreases as a work of art is distributed (we both agree this is silly - I am not attributing b/c the two that come to mind have since changed their minds and would likely not want to be linked to). This is what I was arguing against, and again, I misspoke (was a phone interview).But, and maybe this will carry on our discussion, I also disagree that the two are necessarily always opposed (what I think you and Benjamin are saying) -- sometimes a meme&#039;d work, even (tho less often) one that is misread (but later studied more b/c of this), can increase in both &quot;forms&quot; of value...</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think we are on the same page, and perhaps a useful distinction might be between value (&#8220;aura&#8221;) and value (&#8220;monetary&#8221;). A little didactic, but the two sometimes go hand in hand, and sometimes do not. I <i>think</i> that what you are saying is that Benjamin sees the these two as opposed? The former is &#8220;good,&#8221; the latter is &#8220;bad&#8221;? For me, a bit of a control freak, my intended (or at least an interesting) context and provenance must go with a &#8220;meme&#8221;d work in order for it to be successful (aura), and if a &#8220;money&#8221;d work takes away from that, I&#8217;d be unhappy &#8212; and I&#8217;d agree with you / Benjamin here.</p><p>I&#8217;ve heard this conflated/misused by opponents of and/or newcomers to CC, to say that monetary value decreases as a work of art is distributed (we both agree this is silly &#8211; I am not attributing b/c the two that come to mind have since changed their minds and would likely not want to be linked to). This is what I was arguing against, and again, I misspoke (was a phone interview).</p><p>But, and maybe this will carry on our discussion, I also disagree that the two are necessarily always opposed (what I think you and Benjamin are saying) &#8212; sometimes a meme&#8217;d work, even (tho less often) one that is misread (but later studied more b/c of this), can increase in both &#8220;forms&#8221; of value&#8230;</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: nathaniel</title><link>http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/06/07/art-intercom-featuring-new-media-artist-nathaniel-stern/comment-page-1/#comment-311882</link> <dc:creator>nathaniel</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 16 Jun 2007 11:07:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/06/07/art-intercom-featuring-new-media-artist-nathaniel-stern/#comment-311882</guid> <description>I think we are on the same page, and perhaps a useful distinction might be between value (&quot;aura&quot;) and value (&quot;monetary&quot;). A little didactic, but the two sometimes go hand in hand, and sometimes do not. I &lt;i&gt;think&lt;/i&gt; that what you are saying is that Benjamin sees the these two as opposed? The former is &quot;good,&quot; the latter is &quot;bad&quot;? For me, a bit of a control freak, my intended (or at least an interesting) context and provenance must go with a &quot;meme&quot;d work in order for it to be successful (aura), and if a &quot;money&quot;d work takes away from that, I&#039;d be unhappy -- and I&#039;d agree with you / Benjamin here.I&#039;ve heard this conflated/misused by opponents of and/or newcomers to CC, to say that monetary value decreases as a work of art is distributed (we both agree this is silly - I am not attributing b/c the two that come to mind have since changed their minds and would likely not want to be linked to). This is what I was arguing against, and again, I misspoke (was a phone interview).But, and maybe this will carry on our discussion, I also disagree that the two are necessarily always opposed (what I think you and Benjamin are saying) -- sometimes a meme&#039;d work, even (tho less often) one that is misread (but later studied more b/c of this), can increase in both &quot;forms&quot; of value...</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think we are on the same page, and perhaps a useful distinction might be between value (&#8220;aura&#8221;) and value (&#8220;monetary&#8221;). A little didactic, but the two sometimes go hand in hand, and sometimes do not. I <i>think</i> that what you are saying is that Benjamin sees the these two as opposed? The former is &#8220;good,&#8221; the latter is &#8220;bad&#8221;? For me, a bit of a control freak, my intended (or at least an interesting) context and provenance must go with a &#8220;meme&#8221;d work in order for it to be successful (aura), and if a &#8220;money&#8221;d work takes away from that, I&#8217;d be unhappy &#8212; and I&#8217;d agree with you / Benjamin here.</p><p>I&#8217;ve heard this conflated/misused by opponents of and/or newcomers to CC, to say that monetary value decreases as a work of art is distributed (we both agree this is silly &#8211; I am not attributing b/c the two that come to mind have since changed their minds and would likely not want to be linked to). This is what I was arguing against, and again, I misspoke (was a phone interview).</p><p>But, and maybe this will carry on our discussion, I also disagree that the two are necessarily always opposed (what I think you and Benjamin are saying) &#8212; sometimes a meme&#8217;d work, even (tho less often) one that is misread (but later studied more b/c of this), can increase in both &#8220;forms&#8221; of value&#8230;</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using disk: basic (User agent is rejected)
Content Delivery Network via Amazon Web Services: S3: static.artfagcity.com.s3.amazonaws.com

Served from: www.artfagcity.com @ 2012-02-13 10:23:15 -->
