Aparently mocking Bush is now right out

I was going to say that myself but realized his counter will be that an owner of an art gallery is not producing something with his own labor as an artist would. That is a gallery owner is actually displaying the products of other people's labor.Even if he concedes that the rest of the gallery is produced by the owner, the works being shown (at least in this case) are not. I, and perhaps you, would argue that the choice of works is itself a form of labor much like a movie producer, or perhaps an artist who works in "found items". But he would have a point that the items weren't exactly lost and were produced by someone else that is right there.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

He might. But he'd be displaying an astonishing amount of ignorance as to the amount of labor and artistic decision that actually goes into running a gallery.For the record, I'm not accusing Contracycle of ignorance on this point. He hasn't said anything yet, and it's dirty pool to start ripping on him for what he's going to say. Just making a point about galleries. Yeah, I'd say movie producer is pretty much the best metaphor there. When a person puts together a gallery exhibit, they're doing more than just nailing stuff to a wall for you to look at. They're creating a work of art in and of itself, that adds up to more than the sum of its parts.

quote:

---

My argument did not hinge on an owner owning all venues. I didn't even come close to saying that. My point is that one is equivocating on the word censorship. In one case of censorship a person's right to free speech is violated, in another type of censorship it is not. This case was the latter

---

As has been made clear, I do not accept that it was the latter. There was no equivocation.

quote:

---

What's the difference between "substituting for" and "actually being"? I mean in practice and not some ivory tower theorizing?

---

You can exercise proprty rights over things you merely hold title to - like galleries - rather than things you actually made.This is the error Dan makes in the post immediately following yours. A gallery cannot be built by one person, thus cannot be purely the product of the owners labour.

quote:

---

He might. But he'd be displaying an astonishing amount of ignorance as to the amount of labor and artistic decision that actually goes into running a gallery.

---

I am not displaying an astonishing amount of ignorance - I am merely proceeding from a different set of premises.I am fully aware - have studied - orthodox economics and its rationales, and I find them wanting. The basis in capitalist dogma for the owners exclusive control of private property is that Assets = Owners Equity + Liabilities. But I can and have criticised those premises on the basis of Marxian labour theory, and argued that they might have been reasonable principles in Adam Smith's day but that they have been redundant for 150 years.I am unclear which part of "I do not accept the legitimacy of private property" is not being understood. Furthermore, one of the primary reasons I reject private property is because of precisely this effect on freedom of expression.

quote:

---

I, and perhaps you, would argue that the choice of works is itself a form of labor much like a movie producer, or perhaps an artist who works in "found items".

---

Under my premises, the labour expended by the gallery owner in the selection of works to be displayed does constitute work and does deserve recompense. But I would not accept they exercise full executive control over messages expressed in the gallery.This message has been edited by contracycle, 12-16-2004 11:42 AM

I have produced an argument that it was the latter, and that your position was thus a form of equivocation. You have done nothing but reassert that it was the former and so not equivocation. Your argument is less than compelling. Yes, but that does not answer the question. The best this would do is limit what gets called private property, not eliminate private property as a reality. That's funny since I know people that have and have made some myself. I would also point out that not all works of art... including paintings... are solo projects. Film festivals are exactly like art galleries, and I have been involved with these as well. Censorship is prevalent and necessary. That is how one develops and identity for a gallery, festival, etc... and boy does that take some amount of work.Maybe you should try sometime.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Why when each work effects the environment and tone of the gallery that the owner is trying to create?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

A gallery is most definitely built by one person. (Of course, a gallery can have multiple curators, but let's keep things simple.) The work inside it is built by others, but the building of the exhibit itself is solely the labor of the curator/manager/what-have-you. Therefore, that arrangement is under the purview of the person performing that labor.If an artist is mad because the curator doesn't want to include their work in the arrangement he is creating, then tough titty. The artist doesn't have the right to tell the curator what to create.And before you repeat the claim that it's a group effort, keep in mind that even under those premises, a rejected artist is not a part of the collaborative effort. How could they be? Their work isn't part of the exhibit! Perhaps you skipped the paragraph immediately following the one you quoted. The one that started with "For the record, I'm not accusing Contracycle of ignorance on this point." I'm still waiting for you to insist that Percy make the changes to the forum I requested, so as not to trample on my freedom of expression. Under my premises, I'm nailing Eliza Dushku. I do not accept the idea that this is not the case.This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 12-16-2004 01:34 PM

quote:

---

I have produced an argument that it was the latter, and that your position was thus a form of equivocation.

---

And I refer you to the argument to which you were responding.

quote:

---

Yes, but that does not answer the question. The best this would do is limit what gets called private property, not eliminate private property as a reality.

---

No THAT's equivocation - a piece of paper that owns a company can be endowed with human rights under present American law on the basis of its property rights. You are confusing the ideaology fo private property with merely controlling some object. The specific ideology of private property is not the same as mere possession; private property is a particular thing that can be eliminated, as indeed it has not always existed.

quote:

---

That's funny since I know people that have and have made some myself.

---

You know its even remotely feasible with modern technology. But go on then - who are these individuals who have constructed whole buildings with no assistance from any other human?

quote:

---

Film festivals are exactly like art galleries

---

Not really - one is a FESTIVAL, and the other is a GALLERY. One is an event, the other is a building. Geddit?This message has been edited by contracycle, 12-17-2004 05:29 AM

quote:

---

A gallery is most definitely built by one person.

---

Cool. I'm always interested in robot-controlled machinery and human polytmaths who draw the blueprints with one hand and wield the concrete mixer with the other. So please, by all means, show this to be the case, I would be interested for reasons quite apart from this discussion.

quote:

---

If an artist is mad because the curator doesn't want to include their work in the arrangement he is creating, then tough titty. The artist doesn't have the right to tell the curator what to create.

---

You will recall that I never claimed they did. What I claimed was that reneging an agreement to display a work becuase of its political content is censorhisp, and that this is identifiable in the phiolosophy of freedom of expression. I specifically refuted the straw man that you re-present here that my argument implies a universal service obligation. Please stop presenting this straw man.

quote:

---

I'm still waiting for you to insist that Percy make the changes to the forum I requested, so as not to trample on my freedom of expression.

---

Take it up with him. Percy already considers racism acceptable, after all, as it is allowed on the board without any resistance. I'm not here to fight your battles - and failing to fight your battles for you does not imply a weakness in my position. Seeing as I am a member of an organisation that actively works to destroy property rights, I am already doing you a service.

quote:

---

Under my premises, I'm nailing Eliza Dushku. I do not accept the idea that this is not the case.

---

You seem to have suffered a typo and written premise when you meant delusion. Your ignorance as to the criticisms of private property does not imply those criticisms are not valid. What is abundantly clear however is that your sarcasm implies that my position is ridiculous: and that is unacceptably rude when derived from a position of ignorance. The fact that you fail to understand or investigate them does not mean that those of us who HAVE investigated them can be held to your low standards.

quote:

---

Why when each work effects the environment and tone of the gallery that the owner is trying to create?

---

Because it is a public discourse and therefore has public responsibilities AS I HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED:

quote:

---

Addendum: something you have not addressed is an argument easily derived from Montesquieu's premises. The republican state stands as guarantor of private property, and freedom of expression as guarantor of the republican state. Using private property to frustrate freedom of expression can be argued to be ultimately self-defeating by undermining the republican state and thus the very basis for the gaurantee of property rights.

---

Private property rights do NOT exempt the owner from their responsibility to maintain freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is more fundamental than property rights in the republican state.This message has been edited by contracycle, 12-17-2004 05:34 AM

Again, you ramble off into an argument on something I am not discussing. Look if you just don't want to admit you were equivocating, or that you don't know what equivocation means, that's fine. Just quit with bringing in completely separate arguments.Whether a paper is the correct way to establish private property, or labour applied to an object is the correct way to establish property is not the point. THE POINT is that the scheme of labour creating a situation "as if" private property exists, in practice makes private property exist. I'm not one to pick on misspellings or bad grammar, but this post has some that are keeping me from understanding exactly what you are trying to say.Galleries do not require the construction of entire buildings. Why would they? Or more importantly what would the container have to do with the actual gallery? Galleries are more about interior design, than exterior architecture.But let's roll with your argument.Exactly how many painters create their own paints, tools, canvas, frames, and set the whole thing together? Very few movies and songs are truly solo endeavours, but that does not stop their being a person on top that has the right to "censor" in order to determine a final appearance for the work.Do you really believe that the guy that makes the paints or the canvas, or the sound guy on the picture has the right to demand his "free speech" rights to the artist involved in making a work of art? In a gallery, the gallery owner is the artist, or the artist with the final say (if a collaboration). So temporarily built galleries are not galleries, but events without buildings? And festivals that run longer than some galleries are still just events and in any case require no buildings?No I have to say I don't "geddit". Try putting together a gallery showing and try putting together a film festival, the work is nearly identical. Commercial galleries are somewhat different than public ones, though in any case many permanent galleries are simply series of "shows" or "events" as you termed it.And in any case the building containing them are (in the end) superfluous. That is why galleries and festivals can change venues... oh my gosh.I'd be interested to know what you make of a situation where an artist pulls their work from a show they had already commited to... an perhaps already displaying... because they discover the environment is not conducive to their own work, or are upset with the existence of other works they do not like in the same showing? Does an artist have the right to do that?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

These two put together:1) create an obligation of a gallery owner to run their gallery first come first serve, if not come on come all.2) create the right for a person to be able to freely express themselves on another person's work of art.I think you may want to tone down some of those absolute statements.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

Again, you ramble off into an argument on something I am not discussing.

---

If you don't want to discuss it, don't bring it up. You claimed that private property was necessary for art, and that becuase I failed to understand that my position was ridiculous. All I have done is point out that there is a coherent counter-argument.

quote:

---

I'm not one to pick on misspellings or bad grammar, but this post has some that are keeping me from understanding exactly what you are trying to say.

---

I'm aware of that becuase you are not operating from the set of premises inhreent to marist labour theory, which as you already point out is only tangential to this topic.

quote:

---

Galleries do not require the construction of entire buildings. Why would they? Or more importantly what would the container have to do with the actual gallery? Galleries are more about interior design, than exterior architecture.

---

Technically, a gallery is an indoor covered passageway.Colloquially, a gallery is a building used as a venue for art diaplys. As in, you know, the Tate Gallery.[qupte] Do you really believe that the guy that makes the paints or the canvas, or the sound guy on the picture has the right to demand his "free speech" rights to the artist involved in making a work of art? In a gallery, the gallery owner is the artist, or the artist with the final say (if a collaboration).[/quote]No that is utterly ridiculous. I have repeatedly pointed out that the difference arises from the nature of the gallery as a public space. Please stop dragging the property argument into this if you yourself say it is irrelevant - which it is. Marxist arguments about property are irrelevant to Montesqueues argument about the primacy of expression.

quote:

---

And in any case the building containing them are (in the end) superfluous. That is why galleries and festivals can change venues... oh my gosh.

---

Then why are you talking about it. Grrr. The BUILDING is exactly what I was talking about.

quote:

---

1) create an obligation of a gallery owner to run their gallery first come first serve, if not come on come all.

---

Nonsense. The requirement to Not Censor does not imply first come first serve. This is now the second time you have proposed this straw man. you cannot spuriously assert that all selection is tantamount to censorship.

quote:

---

2) create the right for a person to be able to freely express themselves on another person's work of art.

---

Well it might. I have no problem with graffiti. It already happens, there were those two performance artists who pissed on Tracey Emins bed. Plenty of artists would agree with precisely that argument.

Whoops, Mike distracted me, and I didn't even realize this was still going. Let's see here... You're either retarded, and geniunely think I was talking about the building and not the exhibits contained therein, or you're just being an ass, because you knew exactly what I was saying.To be honest though, I really don't care which. In other words, you're getting pissy because the curator has chosen to not include a specific work in his exhibit. The reason he chose to do so is irrelevant. It's still his exhibit, and you're still trying to tell him what he must include. Yeah... as I recalled, you tried to have it removed, didn't you? How does that jive with what you've been going on about here, exactly? Like, if the painting in question was titled "Kill All The Darkies (And No, I'm Not Being Ironic, I Really Want To Kill All The Darkies)", would you still be up in arms about this?Or is this less of a property-rights-stifle-free-speech-blah-blah-blah-bullshit thing, and more of a contracycle-gets-pissy-when-people-don't-like-the-same-things-he-likes sorta deal? No, contracycle. You just seem to be using the two interchangeably. So I figured I'd play along. *tips hat*