Ethics/philosophy of / rights/

authorship and ownership


ownership of a community artwork

authorship of a community artwork

The National Association of Visual Artists warns, 'Artists undertaking community arts projects need to be aware that copyright and moral rights issues may not be as straight forward as those relating to the creation of art works by one individual.'

(https://visualarts.net.au/media/uploads/files/CHAPTER_3Commissioning.pdf)

What is so good about community artworks made by communities is that the authorship of them is shared amongst many. Community members have the opportunity to make their mark in public space and to be public artists. But along with this is the lessoning of the artist as the author of the work. The artist becomes a technical assistant, a leader, a guide, a facilitor but an artist along with others. The authorship, pride and glory must be shared. The artist also has less control over the artwork and what happens to it. They give over their control of many aspects of the artwork and also give up ownership of it.



who has the right to speak through art?
ownership of the land on which it is made


again I think that graffitti has a lot of light to shed on these things.
one of the main bugbears of graffitii comes from the idea of having to look at it. people feel lmaligned by it being in their neighborhood. some councils wont let you comission an artist unless you get the design approved. this is because how our environment appears is important in our culture. There are rules for signs, billboards and architecture, so there are also rules for anything else which you might be forced to look at.

We live in a culture that discourages people from making their mark in their physical environment. and unless you own your home, you have no right to make a mark somewhere. There is an underlying marxist bent to graffitti culture that supports the takingof public space. Why is it oly the priveledged who can express themselves in public space.

The spread of graffiti culture can be seen as an outcome of this culture of not expressing yourself in public space but also as a compounder of the situation. Because of regulationsto control graffitti and to make it ccriminal, it has become a crie to make aunauthorised artwork in public space. Council control is sought by the community in an effort to control the urban landscape. But the consequences of this control are that only people with money and corporations can afford to express themselves.

The only visual imagery that you see in public space is that of advertising. Advertising does not serve the community in anyway. Its sole purpose is to sell you an idea or a product.

Sao Paulo and the clean city law. 
In September 2006, the mayor of São Paulo passed the so-called “Clean City Law" that outlawed the use of all outdoor advertisements, including on billboards, transit, and in front of stores. Within a year, 15,000 billboards were taken down and store signs had to be shrunk so as not to violate the new law.
http://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/07/sao-paulo-city-with-no-outdoor.html

The sao paolo instance demonstrates the idea of public space belonging to the people not commercial enterprise. The reasons for the move have been described variously as getting rid of visual pollution and removing ideas which are promoted by advertising that are not necessarily good for people. 

its easier to ask for forgiveness than to get permission.

sometimes if you attempt to do everything the correct way you might be met with the answer no. Hence there is a whole field of art that doesn't ask permission.

i think there is a real anxiety about what people would say if you let them say something and rightly so. But also you have to think about the great things that people say and how powerful it is when an individual gets to speak about something to an audience. What is asked often by individauls is why does the billboard get to speak and not me. What's written on the billboard and what is advertised does affect the way we think about ourselves and our place in society. The write/here  project (Justin Newitt and Justy Phillips) addressed this dilemma. How it was edited, was that the artist's chose the work that would be shown.   in the same way I often choose or direct the work, i edit what is spoken or written. And perhaps it should be asked who should be the editor. should there be one. what is the editor's role?

http://www.jnewitt.com/work/write.html