GS

Student Art in Context, MA (UdK Berlin). Zuvor studierte er unter anderem Kommunikationsdesign und arbeitete als Bildungsreferent, Journalist, Fotograf sowie Programmierer in Berlin, New York und Tel Aviv.

Destillat:

Durch die Digitalisierung musealer Artefakte entstehen neue Herausforderungen und Fragestellungen zu Besitz, Eigentum und Kontrolle. Warum halten Museen im Kontext der Diskussion um digitale Technologien ihre Sammlungen inkl. der digitalen Daten zurück, fragt die Britische Anthropologin Haidy Geismar. Die Diskussion um die Verbreitung der Daten des unautorisierten 3D-Scans der Nofretete verweist insbesondere auf den restriktiven Umgang von Museen mit den Daten der digitalen Kopien der Objekte historischer Sammlungen. Die Verbreitung digitaler Objekte verursache derzeit noch Ängste sowohl auf Seiten der Museen als auch der Communities, was im Widerspruch zum utopischen Diskursen der Offenheit in Zeiten des Web 2.0. stehe.

In der westlichen Hemisphäre gelten digitale Abbilder von Objekten in der Regel lediglich als “tote” Kopien. Im Kontext der Maori beispielsweise verhält es sich anders: Artefakte können Kulturschätze unabhängig ihrer materiellen Form sein. Ein digitales Hologramm eines Stammeshauses hat den gleichen Stellenwert, wie einzelnen geschnitzten Holzstücke aus denen es gebaut wurde, welche weltweit in Museen verstreut wurden. Somit ist laut Geismar die digitale Rekonstruktion dieser Kulturgüter möglicherweise wichtiger, als die verstreuten Teile wieder physisch zusammenzutragen.

Im Gegensatz dazu können beispielsweise Malagan-Schnitzereien, welche nach Gebrauch zerstört werden müssen, digital reproduziert werden, da sie nicht als “echt” anerkannt werden und dadurch nicht der Praxis der Malaganzeremonien widersprechen.

Das Content-Management-System Mukurtu sowie Local Context sollen Communities ermöglichen eigene Bedingungen für die Verbreitung und Nutzung digitaler Artefakte zu formulieren, um politische und ökonomische Autorität der Communities trotz kolonialer Aneignungen durch Archive wiederherzustellen.

 

Posted by GS, 20. Jan 2019
Property Digitalisation Germany Kulturelles Erbe Male

Zitat: CopyFarLeft

“FREE CULTURE REQUIRES A FREE SOCIETY: COPYFARLEFT
Despite copyleft’s beneficial role in forming a valuable common stock of software, it remains problematic when the model is retrofitted back to the domains of art and culture from which dissent against intellectual property sprung. Cultural works, unlike software, are a consumer good, not a tool for use in production, or a producer’s good. […] Failure to understand the difference between capital demand and consumer demand propagates the myth that the success of free software can be a template for free culture. Under capitalism, only capital can be free. That’s why software can be free, but culture cannot be free without more fundamental shifts in society.
Art is not, in most cases, a common input to production as software is. Thus, the demand for itis consumer demand, not capital demand. […] Capitalist publishing firms and entertainment industry giants will support the creation of copyleft software in order to employ it in production. However, in most cases, they will not support the creation of copyleft art. Why would they, as art is a consumer good, and the industry is not in the business of giving away consumer goods for free. They are in the business, however, of earning profits by controlling the distribution of consumer goods. […]
In order for copyleft to mutate into a revolutionary instrument in the domain of cultural production, it must become ‘copy-far-left’. It must insist on workers’ ownership of the means of production. The works themselves must be a part of the common stock, and available for productive use by other commons-based producers. So long as authors reserve the right to make money with their works, and prevent other commons-based producers from doing so, their work cannot be considered to be in the commons at all and remains a private work. A copyfarleft license must not restrict commercial usage, but rather usage that is not based in the commons.”

Dmytri Kleiner: The Telekommunist Manifesto (2010), S. 40 ff.

Posted by GS, 19. Jan 2019
Property Dmytri Kleiner Künstler_in Male

Zitat: Archival Property and Propriety

Mukurtu is an open access collections management system that was developed by American anthropologist Kim Christen (now Kim Christen Withey) and colleagues out of her work with Warumungu Aboriginal communities in Tennant Creek, Australia. Starting as a digital project to think through the protocols around knowledge access in that specific community, Mukurtu now presents itself as ‘a grassroots project aiming to empower communities to manage, share, and exchange their digital heritage in culturally relevant and ethically-minded ways’. Local Context is an offshoot of Mukurtu led by Christen and Jane Anderson. A hack of Creative Commons (itself a hack of copyright), Local Context produces licenses and labels that facilitate both public awareness about, and allow for, the management of a community protocols in a relation to access and circulation of cultural expressions and knowledge. Labels such as TK Women Restricted, TK Attribution, TK Secret/Sacred and TK Commercial allow communities to appropriate representational, political and economic authority around the circulation of digital and digitised culture.
These projects each demonstrate the ways in which digital tools allow communities to re-imagine museum protocols of knowledge management and circulation, redefining the social relations of entitlement and obligation that constitute archival property and propriety. They implicitly recognise the complicity of digital technologies within broader projects of colonial appropriation, in which archives have become vehicles of dispossession, and a space in which to negotiate sovereignty. As projects of resistance, then, these projects knowingly connect to broader discourses that frame the digital as open to remix and mastering, and link these to questions of accessibility and accountability. […]”

Haidy Geismar: Museum Object Lessons for the Digital Age (2018), S. 26.

Posted by GS, 19. Jan 2019
Property Anthropology Female Haidy Geismar United Kingdom

Zitat: Digital Repatriation

“In the wake of Nefertiti 2.0, a series of enquiries raised by technologists and journalists raised the question of whether or not it would have been possible for the handheld scanners used by Al-Badri and Nelles to have captured the data released by the artists. Journalists traced a probable source of the data to a much higher- resolution scan commissioned by the Neues Museum itself, made by a private company, which has not been made available to the public. The website of this company presents a scan of Nefertiti that is uncannily like the image released by Al- Badri and Nelles. The artists responded by claiming that they had no specialist technical knowledge and were using data and resources managed by hackers whom they refused to name. If the sceptics are right, then the project is in fact a double hack: drawing attention to museum hoarding not just of ancient collections but of their digital doubles and using the tools of data collection and presentation to undo the regimes of authority and property over which the museum still asserts sovereignty, mocking the redemptive claims of so- called ‘digital repatriation’.”

Haidy Geismar: Museum Object Lessons for the Digital Age (2018), S. 112.

Posted by GS, 19. Jan 2019
Property Anthropology Female Haidy Geismar United Kingdom

Zitat: Proliferation of New Digital Objects

“As objects are transformed from one medium into another, what opportunities, and challenges, does this process of mediation raise for conventional museum discourses of ownership and to the politics of deciding where collections should be? Why, within the context of the largely celebratory discourses of digital technologies, are museums still reluctant to let go of their collections and, in some instances, their data? The proliferation of new digital objects of circulation provokes an anxiety in both museums and communities that contradicts many of the utopian discourses of openness that characterise the age of Web 2.0.”

Haidy Geismar: Museum Object Lessons for the Digital Age (2018), S. 112.

Posted by GS, 19. Jan 2019
Property Anthropology Europa Female Haidy Geismar United Kingdom

Zitat: Digital Taonga

“For people in Hauiti, the taonga-ness of an object, digital or otherwise, is determined by the quality of its relationships, so that something that to one person might appear as ‘just an artefact’ could be a taonga [cultural treasure] to someone who knows and/or is part of its history and kinship networks… Any artefact is a potential taonga, in the sense that it can be woven into the fabric of Hauiti whakapapa knowledge, and any artefact creatively generated out of these relationships can be a taonga, no matter what its form. This includes digital objects: a hologram of the ancestral house Te Kani a Takirau is as much a taonga to people who know and/or are related to this ancestor and his or her history as the carved wooden panels from which it was made, that are now scattered among museums in New Zealand, the US and Europe. Reassembling these taonga digitally is therefore just as important – if not more so – as bringing them physically together.”

Wayne Ngata, Hera Ngata-Gibson, Amiria Salmond: ‘Te Ataakura: Digital Taonga and Cultural Innovation.’ Journal of Material Culture 17 (3): p. 242, doi:10.1177/1359183512453807.

Posted by GS, 19. Jan 2019
Property Amiria Salmond Female Hera Ngata-Gibson Male New Zealand Wayne Ngata Zealandia

Zitat: Million Images of Cats

“For every digital utopianist who celebrates the capacity of digital technologies to liberate us from inequalities of access to knowledge, forging new communities unstratified by class, race, gender, there is a digital dystopianist who emphasises the entanglement or corporate projects of monetisation and state projects of surveillance now reaching into our most intimate moments. We know that digital infrastructures perpetuate existing inequalities of access and ownership as much as they disrupt them, and that for every grand project to digitise the world’s books there are at least a million images of cats.”

Haidy Geismar: Museum Object Lessons for the Digital Age (2018), S. 17.

Posted by GS, 19. Jan 2019
Property Anthropology Female Haidy Geismar United Kingdom