$5M In Torrented Files Presented As Art

ideonexus snips thus from Wired: "The Art 404 gallery is currently exhibiting a piece by Manuel Palou called '5 Million Dollars, 1 Terabyte' which is a 'sculpture' consisting of a 1 TB external hard drive containing $5,000,000 worth of illegally downloaded files. The hard drive is displayed on a pedestal at the gallery." Adds ideonexus: "There is a PDF of the files stored on the device with links to the torrents." I'd like this to be an exhibit at every trial in which gigantic money damages are claimed for copyright infringement.

Comments

Two can play it that game

[elrous0]

In today's news, the RIAA and MPAA have given a generous grant to performance artist "B1ank S1ate" to support his new installation "B1ank S1ate pisses on other artist's hard drive."

Re:Two can play it that game

[Joce640k]

Nope, there's nothing on there from the RIAA/MPAA (that would be stupid...)

Re:Two can play it that game

[Tsingi]

If you had a terabyte of music, they would sue for a lot more than $5,000,000.00.

Interesting system, it's just like conjuring money out of thin air. In the olde daze a pirate was someone who had to work for his money, kill, rape, plunder. Now all he has to do is copy a file. Not even steal it, just make a copy

Avast ye swabbies!

Re:Two can play it that game

[hedwards]

Doubtful, it's clearly fair use, plus those were downloaded files.

Re:Two can play it that game

[TheCRAIGGERS]

In the olde daze a pirate was someone who had to work for his money, kill, rape, plunder. Now all he has to do is copy a file.

Hey, setting up rTorrent on a server is hard work!

Re:Two can play it that game

[FredFredrickson]

An interesting point.. since copies of artwork exist and just aren't worth what the original is worth.. hmmm...

Re:Two can play it that game

[Taty'sEyes]

You call it work, I call it "good times"!

Re:Two can play it that game

[master5o1]

Emotive propaganda. Make the "pirates" look worse than they are.

Re:Two can play it that game

[Anonymous Coward]

>In the olde daze a pirate was someone who had to work for his money, kill, rape, plunder. Now all he has to do is copy a file

Also, in the olde daze, an artist was someone who had to study hard, practice a lot, and slowly but methodically develop his techniques and skills to make something aesthetically sound to have a chance in hell of anyone paying money for his labors. Now all he has to do is throw the word "performance" in front of "art" and gullible rich hipsters living on trust fund money will spend lots of money on funding it.

Re:Two can play it that game

[pacinpm]

Downloading always was and still is legal. It's uploading which is not. And if you use torrents to download you distribute what you just downloaded. That's the real problem of using torrent. You can't sue people who downloaded from cyberlocker (which is why TPB goes for this model now), you can only sue uploader.

As I understand this artist used bittorrent to download so he can be sued.

Re:Two can play it that game

[Yamioni]

As I understand this artist used bittorrent to download so he can be sued.

There's a bit of logical fallacy in your claim here, but I'll concede that it may just be due to simple ignorance. BT clients can be set to only download and never upload by either setting the outbound bandwidth usage cap to zero or setting the outgoing connection pool to zero. So, even though the artist used bittorrent it is not necessarily true that he can be sued. Well, I guess technically they could be sued no matter how they downloaded the files (anyone can sue for any reason) however the case would have no merit if the artist asserts they took care not to upload any of what they downloaded. Burden of proof to the contrary would be on the 'prosecution' side, and if the arist is telling the truth there would be no evidence.

Does this classify

[esocid]

as found art?

Re:Does this classify

[Eraesr]

It strongly reminds me of the concept behind David Bowie's "Outside" album.

From that Wikipedia link:

The liner notes feature a short story by Bowie, the Diary of Nathan Adler, which outlines a somewhat dystopian version of the year 1999 in which the government, through its arts commission, had created a new bureau to investigate the phenomenon of Art Crime. In this future, murder and mutilation of bodies had become a new underground art craze. The main character, Nathan Adler, was in the business of deciding what of this was legally acceptable as art and what was, in a word, trash.

Re:Does this classify

[maxwell demon]

Didn't you read the summary? It's Art 404. 404 is "not found". Therefore it is not found art.

Re:Does this classify

[robot256]

"Art 404" = "Art not found". In other words, it is not art.

Re:Does this classify

[gullevek]

That would make it post modern art and therefore art again.

Two questions:

[Robert Zenz]

First, so the harddrive does not contain files, it contains one file with links to torrent files?

Second, THAT'S ART?!

Re:Two questions:

[nschubach]

One could conceivably argue the the content of the drive being worth $5 million is art in that it's an artistic statement.

Re:Two questions:

[Anonymous Coward]

First, so the harddrive does not contain files, it contains one file with links to torrent files?

No, the hard-drive contains the actual files in question, the PDF is a separate listing of what files have been downloaded to the drive, and their value IIRC (I can't access the PDF file without my browser crashing as I'm at work and this computer only has Adobe Reader).

Second, THAT'S ART?!

Moreso than most things passing as art these days.
This exhibit actually aims to raise a valid point about piracy.
By highlighting how trivial it is to cause $5million of "damage" (by certain definitions of that word) and how little effect it actually has, it's supposed to get people questioning the way we deal with infringers.

Re:Two questions:

[Scutter]

First, so the harddrive does not contain files, it contains one file with links to torrent files?

Second, THAT'S ART?!

It provoked an emotional response in you and it caused you to talk about it with other people. I'd say that classifies it as art. Maybe not GOOD art, but art nonetheless.

Re:Two questions:

[pak9rabid]

Second, THAT'S ART?!

No...being a snobby, pretentious prick with access to lots of skinny pants is art. Didn't you get the memo?

Re:Two questions:

[AngryDeuce]

Second, THAT'S ART?!

If it is, then I've got my own masterpiece right here. I bet I have way more than $5 million on my drive.

Re:Two questions:

[kiwimate]

Well, damn...

If I had mod points you'd get them. I actually disagree with you, but this is still the most pertinent, informative, and insightful comment I've seen on this story so far.

Re:Two questions:

[somersault]

By that definition, pretty much all shitty software is art..

Re:Two questions:

[Haedrian]

Most acts of terrorism are therefore art.

If I bomb an orphanage many people will feel an emotional response and talk about it. Art!

Re:Two questions:

[Abstrackt]

Apparently, anything can be called art now.

That tiny little box sitting on a pedestal is apparently worth $5,000,000. It think it's a poignant statement on copyright.

Re:Two questions:

[Abstrackt]

I just saw the cutest little kitten. It made me so happy, I just had to come on here to tell you about it. And now you're saying that kitten is art too? How wonderful!

Way to miss the point, AC. Art is a form of expression with the intention to create an emotional response. That could be a picture of a building, a family portrait my kid drew, or even an object used in a way that differs from its intended purpose, such as making a statement.

Re:Two questions:

[SleazyRidr]

Yes, but you never thought to call it art until just now. Manuel Palou thought to call it art, so that's why it's art.

Re:Two questions:

[khr]

Apparently, anything can be called art now.

That's hardly new... People have been saying that about any art they don't like or appreciate... Someone probably said that about the first painting of a woman without eyebrows or something...

Re:Two questions:

[InsectOverlord]

Second, THAT'S ART?!

Have you walked into a "Comtemporary Art" museum over the last 20 years or so?

Re:Two questions:

[Pope]

Is this supposed to tell me if I'm an art critic or a lesbian, Mr. Decker?

Re:Two questions:

[hedwards]

Depends whom you ask. The Joker in the first Batman movie certainly took that stance.

But, in practical terms, you're being obtuse. This exhibit was done as art and is being displayed by a gallery.

Re:Two questions:

[Bobakitoo]

Very true. You can claim it was artful, except that you also have committed several murders and claiming artwork will not help you in court.

Art is in the eye of the observer. Lot of things can be art, but artistic claim never take you off consequences of your actions.

Re:Two questions:

[gutnor]

I think we need to modernize Godwin's law to include terrorism to stay relevant in the "post 9/11" world.

Re:Two questions:

[xaxa]

Well, if that's the definition of art, I just created an art masterpiece in my bathroom. I named the piece "Where's the plunger?" It's a kind of performance art, actually.

Sure. But that's not a new idea.

Re:Two questions:

[sg_oneill]

Since when is art about being lawful?

Much Graffiti is grwat art, but t wouldn't even BE graffiti if it was legal.

Re:Two questions:

[baka_toroi]

In the eyes of the terrorist, it probably is.

Re:Two questions:

[cHALiTO]

Exactly: We could take another hard drive and copy the first one over to it, then BAM! we've got ourselves 10M bucks. Then another and it's 15M. If we do a couple hundreds, we could actually end world poverty!!

The concept as I understand it is that the fact that just producing a copy of a disk can instatly create 5M dollars worth of anything is incredibly wrong. From there you can start deconstructing the whole business interpretation of copyright.

Re:Two questions:

[CapnStank]

Exactly! People forget that its not necessarily *what* the art is but rather who did it first. There's a boat-load of abstract art I could replicate and arguably improve upon but it doesn't make it note-worthy because I wasn't the front-runner. This guy made a statement (as much as I think its crap) and was the first to really do it, he deserves the credit for it and any copycats afterward are just pissing in the wind.

Re:Two questions:

[Dr Herbert West]

I saw what you did there. You've been selected for early retirement.

Re:Two questions:

[Darinbob]

It's "conceptual art". I've never really considered that to be visual art. I put conceptual art into the same category as plays and novels, which may be art but it's not visual art. Visual art should be able to be appreciated without first knowing the title or reading some commentary from the artist; that doesn't mean you'll necessarily like it but you can make the attempt to view it for what it is without a tour guide. A blank hard drive on a pedestal will look exactly like this piece of art until you read the title and the placard. Too much conceptual art is really just social commentary by people who've figured out how to get grants.

Now knowing the background and title of a piece of art may actually improve your understanding of it. For instance the painting Guernica is much more interesting if you know what it's about. But you can look at Guernica even without knowing the title or story and be able to appreciate it as art and anyone would be able to recognize it as art even if they don't like the style.

Re:Two questions:

[Darinbob]

But is that art or is it just social commentary?

Re:Two questions:

[SETIGuy]

If you can tell the difference, that is evidence that you don't suffer from the syndrome known as "being an artist".

Re:Two questions:

[mapkinase]

no movies?

Re:Two questions:

[cheekyjohnson]

Second, THAT'S ART?!

I don't see why not. What is and isn't art is subjective to begin with. It just depends on who you ask.

Re:Two questions:

[Joce640k]

Apparently, anything can be called art now.

Technically it's art, yes. Art is anything that makes you form an opinion just by seeing it, it doesn't go unnoticed.

OTOH, there's good art and there's bad art. As art goes, this isn't among the greats.

Re:Two questions:

[Joce640k]

it's supposed to get people questioning the way we deal with infringers.

I'm sure it won't achieve that. All the lawyers will see is how *EASY* it is to steal $5,000,000 if you have an internet connection, then try to ban the Internet.

Re:Two questions:

[Joce640k]

There's good art and there's bad art, yes.

Just like there's good cars and bad cars. The bad ones are still "cars" even if you wouldn't personally drive one.

Re:Two questions:

[StingRay02]

As art, I think it would be far more compelling if the hard drive was online and seeding.

Re:Two questions:

[sjames]

Yes, it is. In a simple small display the artist asks us to consider if it is even possible that the contents of that drive, all available elsewhere could actually be worth $5,000,000.

It asks a question our courts should have asked a long time ago.

Re:Two questions:

[PopeRatzo]

There's a boat-load of abstract art I could replicate and arguably improve upon but it doesn't make it note-worthy because I wasn't the front-runner.

I've heard this argument a lot. People look at a Jackson Pollock or Paul Klee work and say, "My five year-old could do that" except their five year-old can't do that.

My guess is that there really isn't a "boatload of abstract art" of any renown that you could replicate and "arguably improve upon".

I'm not trying to bust balls here, I'm just trying to warn against bragging about not being able to understand something. And yes, the best of abstract art can be "understood" or at least profitably pondered.

Re:Two questions:

[unrtst]

Way to miss the point, AC. Art is a form of expression with the intention to create an emotional response. That could be a picture of a building, a family portrait my kid drew, or even an object used in a way that differs from its intended purpose, such as making a statement.

Sure, and philosophy arguments can boil down to "I think therefore I am", leaving no other situations as valid. Ex. it's perfectly fine (morally, to ones self) to murder/rape/etc others if you honestly believe that the only existence that can be proven is your own - you can't prove I murdered anyone if you can't prove they ever existed.

There has to be some common understanding of what we'll accept as real, or in this case, as art. If art is simply defined by its intent (which, technically, does not have to be to provoke an emotional response - it could be to provoke an intellectual response, or to be just to be), then it's anything and everything, including that cute little kitten.

Maybe that's valid, but I think the point is that this thing is just a mass manufactured external drive (assuming it even contains a hard drive, let alone the data). Reminds me of Du Champ's "Fountain" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29). Plenty of people in the art world consider it art, and would/do consider this hard drive to be art, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a more classical view of art that is prevalent in society.

I think the kitten comment is sport on the point - are we, and are lawyers, expected to consider this art?

Re:Two questions:

[siddesu]

Now, that's a con art, I can give them that. Art in the sense used by that neanderthal guy drawing pictures the cave, that unknown Phoenician who made those pretty pictures on the amphoras, the Roman sculptors or Michelangelo and DaVinci? Nah, not really.

Re:Two questions:

[kiwimate]

If you put it that way, how much space do you think it'd take to represent your social security number, home address, credit card information, and banking information? A few hundred bytes, at most?

How much is that worth?

Re:Two questions:

[black soap]

The real performance art could come later, when the RIAA has claimed $5,000,000 loss because of his art, and he proves that there was nothing on the hard drive all along, demonstrating to world that the losses claimed by Hollywood don't have any relation to the real world. Also, that he could get hundreds of /. nerds' panties into a wad just by saying something was on a hard drive.

Re:Two questions:

[sjames]

Nowhere near $5 million, I assure you. In fact, for 2.5 million in certified funds, I'll hand it over to you. I'll even throw in my PIN.

Re:Two questions:

[z0idberg]

Art is anything that makes you form an opinion just by seeing it

Is that really the definition? So for something to not be art you have to look at it and form no opinion whatsoever. Even if the opinion is "that isn't art" - BAM - all of a sudden it's art.

Has a kind of Ghostbusters / Marshmallow-man feel to it.

Re:Two questions:

[Patch86]

Art is what you make of it. If the guy who created it thinks it's art, and the gallery displaying it thinks it's art, then that pretty much makes it art. You can form your own opinion about whether it's good art or not.

Re:Two questions:

[Patch86]

I'm pretty sure social commentary in visually demonstrated or sculpture form is art. In the same way a protest song is still music, or a satirical novel is still prose. Unless you have a better word for hanging various objects in a gallery to convey a message, of course.

Re:Two questions:

[Hognoxious]

The type of moron that would conceivably wear a beret and carry an iPad?

Re:Two questions:

[Kielistic]

That's the parent's point.. Graffiti artists are still prosecuted even if they claim they're making art.

Solicited graffiti is still art. That the term has evolved to mean something other than its original intent is more misuse of language than definition of art. And sometimes part of the artists message is in the unsolicited nature of it. You are too caught up in the noun and are missing the concept.

Re:Two questions:

[kiwimate]

Excellent. So you have placed a (possibly arbitrary, possibly not) value on this information of $2.5 million. Let's say that takes one kilobyte to represent informationally. Google says one terabyte = 1 073 741 824 kilobytes. Let's round down to be conservative, to 1 000 000 000 kilobytes.

$2.5 million dollars per kilobyte for 1 000 000 000 kilobytes comes out to $2,500,000,000,000,000. That's 2.5 quadrillion dollars for a terabyte of data.

Silly, isn't it? It's not about the quantity of information. You can't just say "one terabyte can store this many songs, and so it's worth $14.99 per song" or whatever random quantification you use. Your SSN, etc., are worth $2.5 million to you. That's what counts. I may or may not agree with your valuation, but that's what you say it's worth. How can I dispute that?

Re:Two questions:

[Yamioni]

Don't be silly. Anyone wearing a beret obviously lacks the upper body strength to lift an iPad. They'd stick to their iPhone.

Re:Two questions:

[Yamioni]

Someone probably said that about the first painting of a woman without eyebrows or something...

Ah, Art.

Thank you for giving us rule 34 of the internet long before the internet was even conceived.

Re:Two questions:

[Yamioni]

Art is a form of expression with the intention to create an emotional response. [...]or even an object used in a way that differs from its intended purpose, such as making a statement.

And to think that people called me uncivilized when I laughed at that monkey in a cowboy outfit riding a dog around like a horse.

Re:Two questions:

[sjames]

In economics, valuation is about buyers and sellers coming to an agreement. You can dispute my (entirely arbitrary) valuation by not accepting my offer. You can even do your own valuation by counter offering $0.02 which I then dispute by not accepting.

In a rational market, my info will not be worth more to a buyer than the contents of my bank account and the remaining credit limit on any credit cards. It will also not be worth less than that to me, so there's not likely to be a transaction.

Re:Two questions:

[ex0duz]

I think most of slashdots users(not mine, i don't pirate, arghhhh!)dvd's then are worth billions or trillions, especially their DVDRIP collections and soon to be BR rip collections and whatever else the next best standard is..

It's the "free market" baby, the "FREE" market! ;)

The quotes, capitals, and repeating of the word was for those who missed it the first time i said it. The emoticons are emoticons, which seem to have gone out of fashion these days =[

A PDF?

[Hatta]

I don't know which is stupider, the concept of the art project, or that they are distributing a list of links over the internet with a PDF file.

Re:A PDF?

[ifiwereasculptor]

The concept is fine. I'm working on a similar project right now. The stupid part is calling it art.

Re:A PDF?

[bfields]

I don't know which is stupider, the concept of the art project, or that they are distributing a list of links over the internet with a PDF file.

Well, this is primarily something to be displayed in a gallery so I suppose it makes sense to make something printable that could be stuck on the wall next to it or included in the exhibit catalog, or whatever. And then why not throw it on the web site. This is a problem for you?

Re:A PDF?

[Yvanhoe]

At the hackerspace, we agreed on something : If we want to do a useless project that is awesome but too geeky to explain, we will call it art.

"What if the interlocutor actually knows about art ?"
"Digital art"

Re:A PDF?

[shutdown -p now]

The stupid part is calling it art.

Probably why they've called it "art 404", no?

Re:A PDF?

[flimflammer]

No, what he means is that the PDF file listing the pirated content contains working links to said pirated contact. It's like a tiny table that lists what it is, where you can get it (tinyurl links to megaupload), how much it's worth, et cetera.

It does seem a bit weird for them to show you where to pirate the content yourself.

So it has two songs on it?

[mla_anderson]

At current RIAA prices isn't that just two MP3s?

Re:So it has two songs on it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends, are we buying them or is Sony Entertainment buying them, I'm pretty sure they just use some form of special IOU.

Re:So it has two songs on it?

[nhat11]

The price only comes into affected when you get a fine slapped onto you.

Re:So it has two songs on it?

[Yvanhoe]

No, this is the sum of the retail prices of things stored on the disk. I am sure that we could make a similar sculpture that, according to RIAA, could solve the US debt crisis.

the PDF linked is 40 KB big and crashs AdobePDF

[Emil_and_the_Detecti]

The link to the PDF leads to a PDF file that is 40KB big ... that will hardly contain 40.000 files. And if you open it using Adobe it does crash Adobe PDF Viewer.

Re:the PDF linked is 40 KB big and crashs AdobePDF

[Mordermi]

It didn't crash my Adobe Reader. Also, it doesn't list all of the files. It lists them as groups such as "Video Game Collection."

Re:the PDF linked is 40 KB big and crashs AdobePDF

[damn_registrars]

The link to the PDF leads to a PDF file that is 40KB big ... that will hardly contain 40.000 files. And if you open it using Adobe it does crash Adobe PDF Viewer.

He might have a different version of Adobe Reader you can try if you'd like..

Re:the PDF linked is 40 KB big and crashs AdobePDF

[somersault]

It would be kind of funny if it contains an Adobe Reader exploit.. this guy is obviously into his illegal activities in a big way..

Re:the PDF linked is 40 KB big and crashs AdobePDF

[SydShamino]

To be fair, almost every PDF I've opened in the last week has crashed Adobe Reader. Something is just not right with the latest update...

Re:the PDF linked is 40 KB big and crashs AdobePDF

[FredFredrickson]

I assume that's to keep from outright admitting a specific crime. It'd be a hands-down loss of a law suit if he just admitted to pirating specific titles.

Re:the PDF linked is 40 KB big and crashs AdobePDF

[matthiasvegh]

Why on slashdot of all places, is everyones default pdf viewer one from adobe? Foxit 3.1 handles it fine.

Re:Price determined by...?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess the MSRP value of what the software/digital media is being sold for at the time of creation? i.e. ebooks, songs, DVDs, blu-rays, etc.

Not art

[OverlordQ]

So can I take a shit on a pedestal and call it 'Modern Hollywood' and call it art?

Re:Not art

[nedlohs]

You can call it whatever you like.Whether it is "art" as such is really up to other people - but I'm sure you'll be able to find some people who think so.

Re:Not art

[drinkypoo]

Right after the big ugly art museum was opened in downtown Santa Cruz, or maybe it was just after the sign went up, someone smeared shit all over the sign. I remember seeing it and thinking it was a pretty cool political statement. That building really is a big piece of shit.

Re:Not art

[somersault]

“Your mother” is a large installation that turns food into feces [sic.]...

FTFY

Re:Not art

[MaWeiTao]

You could, if you were a hipster living in the right neighborhood and associated with the right people. The problem is that this crowd is unlikely to be sympathetic towards your criticism of Hollywood. Your dump would have to represent some other form of establishment the artsy hipster crowd despises.

Re:Not art

[shutdown -p now]

People who use the phrase "this isn't art!" usually seem to be objecting to the idea that someone might be making money off the back of very little work.

No, people who use the phrase "this isn't art" object to the idea of calling green something that isn't.

And don't ask me to define what "art" is. Like many things around us, it escapes a concise definition, but I know it when I see it. More importantly, so does the majority of other people, and if you'd do a poll among general population, you'd get some remarkable agreement on what things aren't art that are claimed to be.

Re:Not art

[orange47]

prior art...: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist's_shit

Re:Not art

[drinkypoo]

Everything about the building is ugly. It looks like a warehouse humped a 1980s office building and then that office building humped a midget skyscraper. It totally fails to fit in with the look of any other building downtown (no really, any other building downtown) and also manages to be a new modern piece of crap that shits all over the town's legacy.

Re:Not art

[sjames]

There was this one artist who canned his shit and sold it.

Uh... art?!

[Type44Q]

I'll say it again (for the thousandth time - and this is entirely subjective but it's still true): THIS ISN'T FUCKING ART!!! What it is, however, is a coherent political statement that actually says something (unlike the proverbial paint thrown on the wall, feces on a Ritz cracker, etc, etc). Imagine that...

Re:Uh... art?!

[maxwell demon]

THIS ISN'T FUCKING ART!!!

So you are saying the downloaded files don't include porn?

Re:Uh... art?!

[Tar-Alcarin]

So something can be entirely subjective, and at the same time hold some universal truth? That's quite impressive.

But as for your main point, here's the definition of the concept of art, as quoted from Wikipedia:
"Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect."

I'd say; a coherent political statement that says something by means of symbolism, can easily be viewed as art.
The fact that people are getting quite heated in a discussion about this, I think lends credit to that viewpoint.

Re:Uh... art?!

[hedwards]

I take it you're not a fan of Pop and Performance Art either. Or poetry for that matter.

Re:Uh... art?!

[bickle]

Saying something again doesn't mean that you were right.

Re:Uh... art?!

[bfields]

"THIS ISN'T FUCKING ART!"

Shrug. If it's projected on a screen in a movie theater, it's a movie. If it happens on a stage in a theater, let's call it a play. That doesn't make it a good movie, or good theater. If it's stuck on a pedestal in an art gallery, let's call it art, OK? Why is that a problem?

And personally I think sticking it on a pedestal under a spotlight in an art gallery adds an extra dimension of hilarity to the whole idea. I like it.

Re:Uh... art?!

[shutdown -p now]

"Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect."

In my personal opinion, if an "artist" has to explain the meaning of his "art" to an audience to influence and affect their senses in the way he intended, that's not art.

Re:Uh... art?!

[d34thm0nk3y]

What it is, however, is a coherent political statement that actually says something

So is Voltaire's Candide not art either then?

Re:Uh... art?!

[Type44Q]

Wikipedia got it wrong: art should stimulate (and not even necessarily positively) the senses and thereby (hopefully) evoke an emotional or intellectual response. Yes, technically, this means one of my farts would better qualify as art than the "work" in question. A mere juxtaposition of objects, however surreal, no matter how poignant the point is that's being made... shouldn't be declared art. When it is, there's an obvious stink of desperation (lack of talent, perhaps?)...

Re:Uh... art?!

[MimeticLie]

Who says that the reaction the audience has to the work must be the same as what the artist intended? The ability of people to individually interpret art is one of its better qualities, in my opinion.

Re:Uh... art?!

[shutdown -p now]

If any reaction is okay regardless of what the artist desired, then defecating into the toilet bowl and not flushing it is also art by that definition - it's very deliberate arranging of items, and it certainly influences and affects senses of those who see it afterwards.

Re:Uh... art?!

[martin-boundary]

"Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect."

So if I deliberately place two jugs containing a mixture of lemon pulp, sugar and water on a public table next to a cardboard sign having the string "$1" written on it, in the hope of influencing the senses of thirsty passers by and stimulating their intellect into acquiescing an exchange of green bills, then that means I'm doing art?

Sorry, that definition is terrible. Definitions are a dime a dozen. A good definition needs to 1) cover the cases that are intended and 2) not cover unrelated cases. Your definition only does 1), but completely fails at 2).

Re:Uh... art?!

[Tar-Alcarin]

In a word, yes. It can certainly be viewed and interpreted as art.
As can almost anything, which makes the whole definition of art incredibly difficult ... and somewhat pointless.

In case this wasn't what you were alluding to, here's Artist's shit.

Re:Uh... art?!

[Tar-Alcarin]

I agree with that, but coming up with a definition of art which fulfills both criteria, has proven to be beyond difficult. Especially considering that art is also about breaking the rules.

When you study art, you learn what the rules to making art are. You then learn about how and when to break these rules and expectations, in order to effect different responses. The truly great artists of our history have been pioneers in both expression and symbolism.

A definition that is narrow enough to only cover what we today call art, will not be wide enough to cover the truly creative products of tomorrow.

Re:Uh... art?!

[Tar-Alcarin]

Wikipedia got it wrong: art should stimulate (and not even necessarily positively) the senses and thereby (hopefully) evoke an emotional or intellectual response.

But that's just it. You are discussing it here, does that not prove that it has evoked an intellectual response from you?

I know the definition I quoted is incredibly wide; it's basically a catch-all, but it's the best definition I've found for a concept as vague as art.

Re:Uh... art?!

[bitt3n]

"Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect."

so giving someone the finger is art, as is deliberately farting in class, and throwing all the mice in the computer lab onto the roof of the building... all my teenage years I was a consummate artist, and I didn't know it. in fact, I was persecuted for it, in precisely the same manner as were many other visionary artists through the centuries.

Re:Uh... art?!

[Tar-Alcarin]

Well, sure, if you want. I don't really see any problem with you calling those examples art, but then you have to be prepared to have their artistic value judged as such. There are many ways to judge artistic value, and I'm sure I'm not qualified to give any sort of universal view, but here's my take on it:

Originality counts for quite a lot, and your first two examples, which I guess we could call performance art and/or shock art, pretty clearly fall through here. The installation "lab mice on roof" (or whatever title you want to use) on the other hand, is something a bit more special.

Secondly, most art starts with an artist wanting to communicate something; that which we would call the artists message and intent. Your first two examples carry the incredibly unoriginal message "fuck you" or "I'm a rebel", which isn't really anything new or interesting. But again, there's "lab mice on roof", which certainly has more impact, although it's hard to judge what the actual message you were trying to convey there was. Especially without seeing the installation itself. It's always interesting (but not always necessary) to hear the artists own reflections on message and intent, so please chime in.

The drawback is that people tend to assign value to art, relative to what the artist has been known to produce earlier, which means that your rooftop installation would be judged with that in mind, and probably not come out with a lot of praise.

TL;DR: Yeah, you could call yourself an artist, but your art examples are mostly crap.

Re:Price determined by...?

[ifiwereasculptor]

For 1TB of downloads? Man, I wish I lived wherever it is that you do. Is it Freebroadbandland?

Music for $46k?

[damn_registrars]

Interesting that the artist assigns a value of only $46,000 to the music on the hard drive. It would be interesting to know where that number came from - I presume our dear friends at the RIAA would disagree with the figure.

Re:Music for $46k?

[Vanderhoth]

I agree it would be interesting to have two price values. What he would have spent if he had bought the media and then what the *IAA would have claimed the "damages" were in court. I guarantee people would have some raised eyebrows being able to see the difference. Who knows, maybe the project is an incomplete and he's waiting for the *IAA to come after him so he can finish it.

Re:Music for $46k?

[hesaigo999ca]

I agree, it will only be truly overpriced art once someone has actually tried to purchase, (in this case...use it in legal court) at said value of 5million dollars, vs. the 46,000$.....then it would be true art!

Not just torrents

[andydouble07]

Several of the URLs go to passworded rar files on megaupload taken from endoftheinter.net

Re:Not just torrents

[FredFredrickson]

That's bs, that site doesn't exist.

Re:Price determined by...?

[Kjella]

I guess the MSRP value of what the software/digital media is being sold for at the time of creation? i.e. ebooks, songs, DVDs, blu-rays, etc.

So since the RIAA/MPAA/BSA like to ask for $150000 per infringement, I guess the lawsuit will be in the billions. That's one man certain to be a starving artist for the rest of his life....

PDF File size

[bernywork]

404 Art.... The file size is 40.4 KB in size.

Co-incidence? I think not!

This is art

[mfh]

I know a lot of you are going to protest and complain that this isn't art, much like the protest over that sculpture made of raw meat... but in a sense this really is art because of the people downloading, the controversy over copyright, the flagrant copyright violation involved in the artist downloading these files and presenting them as an artistic work. I think it's commendable, and it definitely involves taking a risk and it does make you feel something, so it's art.

I didn't say it was good art, but it is art, and I think it's interesting.

Re:This is art

[L4t3r4lu5]

Much more interesting than your thoughts; If I download the same works and put them on the same drive, will he sue me for copyright infringement?

Re:This is art

[impaledsunset]

If I download the same works and put them on the same drive

Kids these days! Not even the slightest bit of originality, sheesh! When we stole copyrighted works, we stole them creatively!

Re:This is art

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish people would stop calling "statements", "art".
Art is about aesthetics.

While some art makes a statement, not all art does (for example the mona-lisa), and not everything that makes a statement is art (for example PETA rallies).

A commodity hard drive containing files, is not art. It can (depending on how it's used) be a statement.

Re:This is art

[Anonymous Coward]

definitely a comment. The post I'm replying to has a subject and two paragraphs separated by a newline. It's making an argument against a straw man of its own invention ("a lot of you are going to protest and complain that this isn't art"), and ends, cryptically, with "I didn't say it was good art, but it is art, and I think it's interesting"... This involves making a point (about it not being "good" art) completely orthogonal to the straw man the comment raised, and completely failing to include the correct response to the straw man (that it's art because it was created to sit in a gallery with an audience, which actually now -- because it's very good -- includes us) but not completely unrelated to the subject. In conclusion, I don't think the parent comment is any good, but it is definitely a comment.

Re:This is art

[mfh]

I don't think the parent comment is any good, but it is definitely a comment.

Good troll. You fail to understand the art world. Things are either art or they are not art; the article posted on Slashdot was presenting the idea that the hard drive was not art. I argued very well that it is in fact art because it meets the criteria of what art is; art makes the audience feel something, art is risky, and art is topical. The hard drive passes these three tests for what can classify as art. Now the fact that I don't think it's good art is because the artist did not actually do anything artistic; the artist presented someone else's work and merely arranged it in a way that would change the classification of an ordinary object into art. There are artists that specialize in this, and they create good art.

This is imaginary art; it's not really there... the idea is the art and that part of it is good art. The object itself is not good art.

But it's still art. And your comment barely qualifies as a comment; more like a slew of horrible conjecture designed by a bot.

Re:This is art

[Dutchmaan]

Best quote for art I've heard goes something like this: "If you want to make art, don't try to be an artist."

Re:This is art

[mfh]

And that makes it clear, that anyone acting as if he's an "authority" on what is and what is not art, is full of shit.

Except of course curators, professors of art, graduate students of art, artists, art enthusiasts, and anyone else with an opinion. One thing is true and will remain true forever; art is what the people think it is.

Re:This is art

[mfh]

Art is about aesthetics.

You raise the "principles of beauty" argument and you have made a good point, to some extent. How do you explain languished art, art of pain and darkness, art that paints sorrow? Beauty is what triggers a positive emotion so in my opinion, your statement that art is about aesthetics is lacking because it only expresses one of many rich emotions possible to be generated through art. Visual art, feeling art, art of noise; these are the contrasts of art and each has a place. To suggest that only one fraction of one part is what art is all about is like saying clam chowder is about the milk.

Re:This is art

[mfh]

Mind = blown.

Re:This is art

[silverglade00]

You'll note that if I recreate his work on a different external drive

Wouldn't that be a derivative work?

Why is that?

[mcmonkey]

I'd like this to be an exhibit at every trial in which gigantic money damages are claimed for copyright infringement.

Why? What relation does the exhibit have to a civil regarding copyrights? Or do you think wasting the judge's time will work in favor of the defense?

I've seen crime scene photos displayed in a gallery as art. Do you think those should be exhibits at the trial? (Obviously the crime scene photos are evidence. I mean, the particular fact that the photos could be displayed as art, is that relevant to the trial?)

"See judge, the blood splatter is art. Therefor this killing was not a crime!"

Unless you're going the other way, and saying, if anyone should have to pay big money for copyright infringement, it should be the pretentious arsehole who tries to pass off a commodity hard drive as art.

In that, I'm with you 100%.

Re:Why is that?

[jeffmeden]

I think this jab was intended to point out the "unbelievable value" of what we regard as a simple object, as if to demonstrate the absurdity in a pile of sand being imbued with $5M worth of value... Sure, it's a normal object and sure, it was easy to (illegally, in the case of the hard drive) obtain. Does that stop it from having significant worth?

To counter I would say, where is the "art" exhibit containing a group of programmers who work 40 hours/week for a company for nothing in return due to the premise that all they are doing is temporarily moving electrons from one place to another? The notion that just because something can be easily copied it should be copied or even should be "free" to copy is complete nonsense, that computer you are sitting at and that operating system you are using is there because someone at some point got paid very handsomely to create it.*

*(To any linux/foss users, dont bother replying, the coders "working" for you are actually getting paid by someone else; if it were up to the open source community to pay them a living wage they would have moved on long ago and Linux would be dead as a doornail. Volunteerism, while noble, is not a business model.)

pfft, small potatoes!

[Thud457]

howzabout 75 trillion dollars! ?
Then you could call it social commentary on the insanity of the ??AAs.

Fail to see the worthyness of this

[abigsmurf]

Perhaps I should do an art exhibit consisting of a cheque for $1mill and say "this should be at all trials where someone is accused of fraud or embezzelment!".

We haven't been a society where the physical size of something, or even the workmanship of the product represents its financial value. Modern artists of all people should know that.

Re:Fail to see the worthyness of this

[maxwell demon]

Perhaps I should do an art exhibit consisting of a cheque for $1mill and say "this should be at all trials where someone is accused of fraud or embezzelment!".

I have a better idea: Make it performance art. The performance consists in you writing the cheque and giving it to me, and then me going to the bank and cashing it. :-)

Re:Price determined by...?

[somersault]

Only if he actually uploaded the files himself.. which he didn't. They're safely stored away in a museum. You'd need to have tight leather pants and an aerosol can to break in and steal it.

Oh for the days...

[thepainguy]

...when art required skill and not just a (debatable) amount of vision and/or insight.

People are doing a disservice to real artists when they label stuff like this "art."

Re:Oh for the days...

[HiThere]

Which particular time are you thinking of?

Good art has always required both skill and luck. And even then much of the best art was not at first accepted by those who experienced it as art...and definitely not as good art.

So don't rush to judgment. I'm not sure I consider this art, but I'm also not sure that it isn't.

Remember, art is not craftsmanship. They are orthogonal concepts. This clearly isn't craftsmanship, but it might be art. It might even be good art. Another concept is involved her, design, which is separate from both art and craftsmanship, but has overlaps with both of them. It's not evident how much design was involved. (The calling of the piece "Art 404" and the sizing of the file at 40.4 KB indicates that more than some design was involved. But it's not evident how much.)

P.S.: IANA art critic. So I'm not going to say whether it is good art or not. And I'm not going to judge that either, even privately. Snap judgments along those lines while quite normal, are also often wrong.

So..

[Mordermi]

Shouldn't he be fined instead of recognized as an artist?

Re:Ahh, copyright infringement....

[halivar]

Every time you borrow my air, you are stealing from me. Please stop.

My next art project:

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Forge a cheque for 14 trillion dollars made out to U S Treasury from the personal checking account of Steven Colbert. Encase it in clear plastic and claim it is art.

earth bytes?

[Paulvdh]

What's a terrabyte?

Cool...

[Yuioup]

Cool.

Can I hook up my laptop to it and copy the files? That way, the drive will be worth even more money because I'm duplicating the files.

If everybody does this, then the exhibit can be renamed '5 Trillion Dollars' (pinky on mouth).

Re:Cool...

[jgoemat]

5 million dollars is the purchase price for the items on the drive. One of the torrents has over 200k books, which would be billions of dollars in damages with the U.S. copyright statute.

Re:Art?

[rwv]

What's the point?

The point is that a 1 TB harddrive is worth $100, but the same 1 TB harddrive - when loaded with certain bits - is said to be worth $5,000,100. The point is THAT IT'S NOT WORTH THAT MUCH. The "artist" doesn't accomplish anything in terms of getting the judge or a jury to agree that people who commit copyright infringement aren't hurting copyright owners. He only accomplishes the goal that the copyright holding megacorps are gigantic assholes.

I didn't think it was art either, at first...

[bistromath007]

Then I looked at the pdf. I can see that he chose which files he'd download very carefully. This isn't $5M of effortless movie and music grabbing. The first section of the list is several software tools that have outrageous license prices, like AutoCAD. Crown jewel of the collection: eight years of fiction books, $3M. It is literally an order of magnitude larger than the next largest thing on the list. This work shows how kinds of knowledge and culture that we don't spend a bunch of money and time arguing about in court have been affected by our banged up ideas about IP rights.

This is a work of art.

Re:Ahh, copyright infringement....

[richie2000]

Ahh, photography... ... Weasel words for "kidnapping".

In other unletated news

[houghi]

RIAA claims a 5.000.000USD tax reduction because of donations to an arts project.

Re:Ahh, copyright infringement....

[cforciea]

If my neighbor could steal my lawnmower but I'd still have a lawnmower after the theft occured, then copyright infringement would be analogous to theft. Since this is not the case, we need different terminology for different crimes.

Art.. my ass

[JustNiz]

Lets have some differentiation. It may be a political statement but its not art.

How can this be put in the same category as a painting by a great master?

I long for a return to the time when great art and music means something produced by someone with a unique genius or at least a skill that took and decades to perfect, not something that is just all about an idea and not its execution. Where's the value in something that any of us could make in a few minutes?

More statement than art.

[blackicye]

I like the message, and whilst I doubt it will serve as a reality check to the IP holders, I think it is a point well made.

Also I was wondering if I was the only one suddenly compelled to go and locate a torrent of the "$20,000" font pack.

Re:More statement than art.

[eric31415927]

You might want to download the $20K font pack?
Depending on your jurisdiction, using any of the fonts commercially could open you up to a costly lawsuit.
The supplied links are now "hot" (i.e. everybody knows about them); you should not want your IP address connected to them.

Readymades

[j33px0r]

I would argue that it does count as "found art" but, perhaps more appropriately, "readymade" in the tradition of Marcel Duchamp. The Fountain
(a urinal turned on end) is one of his more famous and controversial readymades. Modern art museums will often have galleries dedicated to industrial design but this doesn't seem to meet that description based upon the nature of the work.

What I find especially interesting is that the work is not about the object itself but what might be contained within. Questions such as: Which programs did the artist load onto it? What's the most expensive program on it? How much does the software on my external drive add up to?

Re:Readymades

[esocid]

I thought found art, and ready made art were synonymous.

Art is Subjective

[greycortex]

Huh. This doesn't make me nearly as angry as I thought it would, though I did see a Martin Creed installation once. I never thought that I'd ever be so irrationally angry at self-opening and closing doors and lights that turn themselves on and off.

Books are 82% of the $5M

[hwk_br]

The major part of the value comes from books, not music/movies, so the MPAA/RIAA has little to worry about.... As for the editors/etc, I guess I can borrow a book from a friend os just get it on the public/school library...

100 years of art history support this piece

[asdbffg]

Comments questioning the artistic merit of this piece are ignoring the last 100 years of art history. There is at this time a long and rich tradition of conceptual art that this piece fits into. Just look at Duchamp's Fountain and follow the history of conceptual art to today.

And while we might criticize a piece of conceptual art or even criticize the movement as a whole. Some art relies on technical skill. Some art, like this piece here, relies on conceptual insight or social awareness. I would argue that it's just bad form to dismiss an entire portion of art history because something's not made with oil paint or chiseled out of marble.

As for my opinion, the piece is interesting but far from brilliant.

http://xkcd.com/915/

Off with his head.

[westlake]

I'd like this to be an exhibit at every trial in which gigantic money damages are claimed for copyright infringement.

So would the attorneys for the plaintiff.

The geek casts himself as the hero in his own courtroom melodrama. In the real world, the jury is more likely to see him as a candidate a stout oak and thirty feet of hemp.

American juries are middle-aged, middle-class, small-C Conservative and firmly of the opinion that property rights matter, that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

The geek's sense of entitlement really pisses them off.

Re:Off with his head.

[MimeticLie]

small-C Conservative

...

Call me Artie

[JackSpratts]

I have 2TBs. I'm twice as arty.

Re:Ahh, copyright infringement....

[paintballer1087]

If my neighbor could steal my only lawnmower but I'd still have the same lawnmower after the theft occured, then copyright infringement would be analogous to theft. Since this is not the case, we need different terminology for different crimes.

FTFY
Sorry to be a logic nazi... I just got this irresistible urge to adjust it to fit scenarios of having multiple lawnmowers, or your neighbor stealing your lawnmower, and replacing it with another lawnmower...

Re:Ahh, copyright infringement....

[Hatta]

Ahh, copyright infringement. Weasel word for government protectionism interfering in a free and consensual transaction between two individuals.

Re:Price determined by...?

[SeeSp0tRun]

Look up the value of each of these on the market. Not the (RI/MP)AA market, but the real, "I would like to give you paper for goods" market.
For things like the ROM's, consider what each ROM costs, if you were to buy the game, and to play it, you need the console.

I can only assume it is the same logic that gets us to $5m. And if it were (RI/MP)AA market values... One hundred... billion...kajillion... flazillion... dollars.

Re:Ahh, copyright infringement....

[kiwimate]

So what? It's still a criminal and illegal act, and even the staunchest defenders of copyright infringement admit that. (They instead focus on the justification of that act and why it is morally acceptable in their viewpoint.)

I wish we could get past all the semantics arguments and instead focus on the issues. It's illegal, and in my opinion it's also morally wrong. I know that's not a popular opinion here on Slashdot, but endless debate on the semantics of what you call it is - yes - weaselling out of the actual point of it.

Modern Art

[TiggertheMad]

Second, THAT'S ART?!

Many people balk at the stuff that is passed as 'art' by contemporary 'artists'. They can fairly call their 'work' art, because the artists have realized that beauty is subjective, and that by definition, everything and nothing is art depending on who you ask. Therefore an 'artist' has the right to call anything they want 'art'.

A very nice side effect of this definition, in my opinion, is the more subtle point that anyone can also label said 'art' as 'worthless crap' with equal weight and validity.

Making art explode with colour

[TiggertheMad]

But, in practical terms, you're being obtuse. This exhibit was done as art and is being displayed by a gallery.

Hes right, Haedrian. Which is why you shouldn't blow up an orphanage. You should blow up an art gallery. THAT is art....

Re:Making art explode with colour

[silverglade00]

You should blow up an art gallery. THAT is art....

No, that's pieces of art.

Re:Making art explode with colour

[Yamioni]

Oh the delicious irony of destroying art in order to create it. I commend you good Tigger, mad though you may be.

First Amendment?

[mosb1000]

If they were able to sue him, wouldn't that infringe on his guaranteed first amendment rights? Or is that still an issue these days.

Wishes are to be avoided.

[Oligonicella]

Another moron who thinks that calling something *art* changes what it is. But, I sincerely hope this fool gets his wish and his art *is* subpenaed into maybe a hundred cases where he's called as a witness.

Let the IRS decide on copyright law!

[mykos]

Every company that sells non-substantial products should put their money where their mouth is. If piracy is costing them cash, they should claim it on their taxes. If they're right, I'm sure the IRS will agree.