[dundee] Open Curatorial Practice

[Rick Moynihan]

Hi Donna,

I have been an advocate of the Free/Libre & Open Source movements for
many years and spent some time a few years ago trying to popularise
the ideas outside of the typical software communities.  Like you I
feel that the ideas are broadly applicable, in many disciplines beyond
software.  Sadly we struggled to gather a regular membership, though
we did generate some interest from the occasional art student or
musician, connecting with the wider community proved hard.

I'm sorry to say I don't know an awful lot about curatorial practice,
but if you wish to discuss ways in which these ideas can be applied to
this line of work, then I, and I'm sure others on this list will be
happy to offer any advice we can muster....  Some ideas certainly
spring to mind, and I might touch on some areas in answer to your
specific questions below but a better starting point for such a
discussion might be for you to tell us what 'curatorial practice' is
to you, and how you think FLOSS ideas might be applied.

It's also worth mentioning that applying FLOSS principles outside of
software is not a new idea.  And there are many examples of these
ideas being extended into other domains.  I'd suggest you also look at
The work of Lawrence Lessig - in particular his books:

- Free Culture ( http://www.free-culture.cc/ )
- The Future of Ideas ( http://www.the-future-of-ideas.com/download/ )

Both of which are available for free download online, or in a
dead-tree format for a few pounds.  They are essential reading.

Lessig founded the Creative Commons movement which aims to apply FLOSS
licensing ideas to other creative works.  It has been incredibly
successful, but is still unknown (or misunderstood) to many in
creative communities.  I'd encourage you to look at the Creative
Commons, as it is almost certainly the right (legal) underpinning for
any Free Culture or Copyleft project you might undertake.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons
- http://creativecommons.org/

The work of Yochai Benkler (in particular "The Wealth of Networks")
may also be of interest, though his work is a lot heavier, and leans
more towards the economic principles underlying these forms of
production.

More specific answers to some of your questions are below:

2009/1/30 Donna Holford-Lovell <d.holford-lovell at abertay.ac.uk>:
> Dear All
>
> It would be great to get you opinion on the following:
>
> I am looking at Free and open source and implementing this metaphor to a
> curatorial practice. What effect would this have on exhibiting artists?
> Would the audience benefit?

Firstly "I Am Not A Lawyer", and I don't fully understand the roles of
a curator beyond researching and managing collections of work    but
my initial thoughts are that it's important to make a distinction
between the work of the curator, and the work of the artist.  If you
as a curator were to engage in copyleft ideas then there would be
little or no effect on the exhibiting artists, as their rights would
remain the same; unless as curator you were to convince them to
release their work under a copyleft license.

This said there could be some benefits.  If for example you were to
engage in open research and publish the works under a liberal license,
then there could be some benefits.  For example the artists and public
might be able to remix your research, or perhaps contribute to it in a
more direct way.

Copyleft licenses such as the creative commons can also serve as a
basis for participatory 'remix' arts projects, involving artists and
the public.

> Also anyone with an interest in Eric S. Raymond's free software development
> model. I would like to know the following:
>
>    1. What are your personal views about the 'Cathedral' and the 'Bazaar'?

I have a natural tendency to prefer the Bazaar, as I have found it's
value immeasurable on countless occasions in a wide variety of
different communities.  Not only has it allowed us to leverage
expertise from outside our organisation but having free access to the
software blueprints has allowed us to quickly diagnose and address
problems faster than would be possible with most proprietary support
relationships.

I tend to be pragmatic in my views though and understand the cathedral
model of software development will always be with us.  For example you
might be unwise to open source your product if operating in a
new-market where there is great uncertainty about the value chain, as
it might complicate venture funding etc...

However though the 'Bazaar' analogy serves to describe maybe 90/95% of
FLOSS projects, there are numerous projects which though technically
open source, are for all intents and purposes managed like a
Cathedral, with any external contributions refused.  Such projects
might comply with the definition, but not the spirit of the Bazaar.

>    2. If you subscribe to one of these models how much of it applies to the
> whole of your life?

I wish the ideas were more broadly applied, and think today's
"permission culture" is untenable and destructive to society as a
whole.  I also resent the idea that human culture and expression can
be controlled through copyright for vast periods of time (currently
approaching 100 years for many works).

I also think government should generally be more transparent, but
beyond this, outside of software development, it has little effect,
other than being a personal interest.

>    3. Do you jump from one to another to suit your needs?

Yes but with a strong preference.

>    4. Besides in a software engineering world, can the Cathedral and the
> Bazaar be seen any where else? or could it be applied to something else?

It depends what you mean by "Cathedral" and "Bazaar", but if we assume
you are asking:

"Could we see grass-roots democratic models of social production,
based on a commons of freely shared knowledge challenge established
Bureaucratic organisations who have spent many years profiting from
their position?"

Then I think it's easiest when the following conditions prevail:

a) The Cathedral is exploiting some artificial scarcity.

The goods should be artificially scarce rather than actually scarce.
The original "Mona Lisa" is truly scarce, however reproductions need
not be.  In cases where copyright is enforced to ensure that
reproductions of works is restricted, artificial scarcity is
introduced.  In proprietary software the source code or blueprints are
kept secret (artificially scarce) and copyright law is used to ensure
it is not freely copied.

Usually this tends to limit FLOSS ideals to information and intangible
goods.  For example in open source hardware, it is the designs that
are freely given, not the physical hardware.

b) Networked social production is possible

Though not strictly necessary "Networked social production" tends to
be a characteristic of the Bazaar, and delivers speed in innovation
and lowers barriers to entry.  The benefit over cathedral models here
is that you can leverage many minds without costly bureaucratic
procedures.

Perhaps the clearest example of it's direct application elsewhere is
Wikipedia's Bazaar vs Britannica's cathedral.

> I believe we need to get art out of its Cathedral – could this metaphor
> work?

Yes, it sounds like a good, snappy way to sum up these ideas, the
difficulty is finding a metaphor that works without requiring an
already informed audience.

Anyway, I hope you find this discussion helpful!

R.