The concept of free is difficult for me to grasp. Any action should have a motivating cause that ultimately circles back and benefits the actor. Even anonymous donation to charity is self-satisfying in that it helps reinforce personal ideologies and allows one to be part of some larger cause. Very few things come to mind when I try to think of actions that have no motive, ulterior or otherwise, spurring them.
In fact, art published on the internet is the only action I can think that meets this criteria. As mentioned by Sally McKay in "The Affect of Animated GIFs", online artists are publishing work that is largely ephemeral and can be infinitely reproduced. Many of these pieces have no signature, or any identifying feature that could be used for future recognition of the creating artist. They get no commission or pay, worst yet, any individual with access to a computer can copy, paste and claim the work for their own. The only other outstanding possibility is that the artist wants feedback and to self-improve. This is unlikely to ever happen given that most pieces cannot be traced back to the original author. Plus, had the same pieces been produced in a gallery the artist would have gained not only feedback, but also commission. To me, uploading hours of work to the internet for no recognition or pay defies all logical sense.
In context, look at this following animated GIF image:
Even with the ease of making GIFs, this likely took the artist at least 30 minutes of time. If the artist had a $50 / hour wage, this GIF is worth at least $25. Yet here we are, a nameless piece from a nameless artist who likely had no compensation for his time and another college kid duplicating his work for free.
No comments:
Post a Comment