A Generation of Thieves

Nov 14, 2008
Los Angeles, Ca

I had a discussion with a friend of mine via IM yesterday about Intellectual Property and its applicable laws protecting it. Then last night, as I was slugging my way through The New Yorker, I noted a book that is mentioned in the "Briefly Noted" section of the magazine.

The book is called "Remix" by Lawrence Lessig,
"As Lessig, a law professor at Stanford, sees it, if intellectual-property law is left as it is an entire generation will be criminalized. He argues that the ways in which young people break copyright laws help them to become the sort of people we want them to be—creative and collaborative. Kids today are simply not going to give up downloading music and using copyrighted material in YouTube videos: they belong to a culture for which “remix” is “the essential art.” Lessig’s proposals for revising copyright are compelling, because they rethink intellectual-property rights without abandoning them. He argues that hybrids that combine the “commercial and sharing” economies can create value for both sides (as Harry Potter fan sites and Lostpedia have done); indeed, one problem is media companies’ appropriating the work of fans without returning the favor. “When both benefit,” Lessig writes, “how do we say who is riding for free?”

I believe that as artists and creators we should be able to benefit from the "art" that which we create. After all, this choice of a life is a gamble, there is no guarantee that you will ever be successful, or even be able to pay your rent in the life time in which you spent creating the "art." But I think certain amount of content should be available for "free" for other users to amend, absorb and repatriate into something new, even if the new "art" is unlike the original at all. Which brings to mind the Creative Commons model and or how NIN offers tracks of their songs for download without charge online and you can remix and re post to be shared by other fans.

As I wonder about this model of "collective creating" and how I could incorporate it into my life as an artist - slightly difficult since my primary medium is rather "fixed" - I came up with an idea. What if a collaborative process was offered, I could either provide digital files of a selection of images, or actual prints, and a small group of artists (working in both photography and other mediums) utilized the "base" in which I have provided and do what they will to it. Then we will have collectively created something new.

But here is where the sticking point in Intellectual Property Law begins - who would own that piece of new art that is created? Or do all participating artists goes into this with the agreement that we are all owners of the new art?

Does the idea of "ownership" only truly matters when there is a perceived value for the "object"?

Art does have value. Radiohead proved that the fan will pay for the music by independently releasing their last album with the "pay what you will" system. NIN gave away its latest album for free online - Trent Reznor said "This one is on me!" I paid for the Radiohead album because I wanted to be heard that art has value. I happily accepted Trent's download and respected him all the more for acknowledging the fans who have supported him for nearly 20 years.

Is it the corporation in between who will rake in the largest profits from our angst and demented dreams that we have a problem with then?

I don't have the answers to any of these questions. But I am excited about the idea of "collectively creating," think I will buy Lessig's book and see his opinion on IP laws, and believe that the more we give the more we will be given in return.

Babies and James Bond

Nov 13, 2008
Los Angeles, Ca

I never pictured myself as a mother. I don't want children cause they don't really make any sense to me. I wanted to be James Bond plus MacGyver . To be working for a "greater" cause, ruthless and suave, unshaken by anything. Women are never mad that Bond could never committee and they are simply happy to have the pleasure and privilege to have been the ONE for the night. Bond girls knew that Bond is never meant to be the husband who takes out the trash and mows the lawn. I wanted to be MacGyver just in case when the issued gadgets fail, I could make my own instead. How liberating life can be when all you need is a coke can and a stick of gum to get you out of any situation?

Last night at our friend Elif's, I watched her interact with her 4 year old son, Anatol. If I ever had a moment in which I wanted a child, I think I felt it last night. It is not a child that I want, but what I envied was the bond and connection between the two of them. All Anatol ever needs is his mother, it wouldn't matter that there are riots on the street or the house is on fire, as long as he can be held by his mom, all is well. To see that contentment and pure joy in Elif when she is with her boy - so untainted by anything - it made me wish for the purity of that love.

Looking at Anatol, I can't help but be excited for him and yet sad at the same time. There is still so much for him to experience, to learn. First love, first kiss, first car, first epiphany, first everything. Yet, he still has to learn about heart break, disappointment, rejection and bell bottom pants. Elif's heart will travel with him through all the ups and downs and I wonder if this is not a devil's bargain after all.

Maybe that is why I wanted to be James Bond. It is easier when your life is your own and there is no one waiting for you at home. Bond might be more glamorous and exciting, but maybe he is not the brave one after all.

Home is the edge of the world in the mind of god

Nov 12, 2008
Los Angeles, Ca

I have been having much trouble with the concept of home of late as you may know. There is desire to not just see the world, to go to some of the most outer edges. Tibet, base camp of Mt Everest case in point. The top of the world! Now its the end of the world, Patagonia.

Ironically, few days after I returned from Argentina, the Patagonia catalog arrived at the house. I have never made any purchases from them before as I am far more of a fan of NorthFace products, but somehow, somewhere, they got my name and a catalog came.

The catalog have little essays inside with some great images accompany them about Chile, conservation in Patagonia and etc. There is this one essay by Jeff Johnson, titled "Home."

"I had sailed from California to Chile, a four-month journey that led me far off the beaten path. An extended stay on Easter Island had been the turning point for me as I finally let go of the trappings back home - a slow and difficult process. But it was here, floating in a river on the every edge of Patagonia, that I realized home is not a physical reference to a specific place on earth but a boardening of the consciousness. Home is, after all, where you are."

Yes, Home, maybe just that, where you are and nothing more. Not the trappings of cable TV or running water, not the smell of coffee or the warmth of your duvet. But home is the unspoken love in my mom's hug or the embrace of a loved one.

I sometimes wonder if my desire to see the world, and the extreme ends of the world is not to somehow to have a peak inside our significance by seeing "...the Earth; the Solar System; the Universe; the Mind of God.” as Thorton Wilder described in Our Town.

Land Reform - Do the East only dreams of the West?

Nov 8, 2008
Los Angeles, Ca

A friend of mine and I are applying for the Dorthea Lang- Paul Taylor Documentary Prize offered by Duke University. The prize funds a collaborative documentary project for a writer and a photographer. We had been discussing our interests and what our pitch for a month now. We wanted to ask a question, a question that would need research, time and dedication on our part instead of simply using the grant money to merely document a foregone conclusion. We both felt that it would be a more interesting way to approach the project. After all, if we already knew the answer, then is not the documentary simply a way to prove that we are right?

We wanted see about a comparative analysis of American market culture compared to the emerging market culture of China (food market that is). As China industrializes and the middle class expands, do they shift towards the American style of sanitized supermarkets and give up on the traditional markets that I have spent the last few years photographing? Or is there something so deeply ingrained to their attachment of that style of markets - knowing that the chicken is freshly killed that day - that China would never become a version of America as they industrialize.

As American becomes more and more conscience of their food choices and the impact their purchases has, farmer's market thrive, Buy Local and Grass Fed gains momentum. What will the future of American markets be like? Will it ever become a clean version of the traditional markets in China. Will Americans ever be brave enough to look at death in the face and see an animal killed for their benefit and be ok with it?

Are the developing nations have another example to look at, another model to emulate than the West? Without it, will it be able to dream of a different dream of prosperity and progress?

As we finalize our grant application here, NPR had a news story this week about land reforms in China:

" In China, land issues and peasant rebellions have traditionally brought down imperial dynasties. Land reform was at the heart of the Communist Revolution in 1949.

Now China's leaders have quietly announced a new rural revolution, making it easier for farmers to lease or trade their land-use rights. This will transform life for the country's 700 million farmers...

Under the new reforms, Beiping village is the first in the province to set up a cooperative. It will lease farmers' land, consolidate the patchwork of plots, then modernize and mechanize farming.

In return, it promises each farmer 440 pounds of grain a year or the cash equivalent at market prices. After three years, each will also receive a share of the cooperatives profits. They won't have to do anything for it, unless they want to work for the collective, earning about $8 a day.

Chinese farmers don't actually own their land, but they do have land-use rights — and these reforms make it easier for farmers to lease these rights or sell them to agribusiness. Any land transferred can only be used for farming, in order to guarantee China's food security...

'Our leaders are rolling out policies to help farmers get rich," Liu says. "They want to close the gap between the city and the countryside. They want to urbanize the countryside. The small fields will become big fields, and we'll have rows and rows of houses like in the city...'

Details aside, these reforms are far-reaching — China's Communist leaders rose to power by liberating peasant farmers from the reviled landlord class; now they're promising to liberate peasants from the land itself."

(All Things Considered, NPR, Louisa Lim)

I curious as to what China dreams of becoming.

The Rebuttal

Nov 8, 2008
Los Angeles, CA

Here is my reply to the letter of objection sent to Gastronomica magazine:

The point of my project is to raise cultural awareness and cause viewers to rethink ideas about Western cultural superiority. My work questions whether we have modernized and sterilized our food industry to the point where we have lost something of value that less-developed nations still retain. How can we impose our own standards of right and wrong on those who must eat, on those who do not see a dog as a companion but as food, given their cultural norms?

Most of my images do, in fact, depict local and grass-fed livestock, because the majority of the cultures I photograph know little of the industrialized killing machine we have created here in the States. Experience has taught me that markets like those depicted in my photos waste far less than we do and make use of every part of the slaughtered animal. Their practices represent a far more profound display of respect for the sentient being that gave up its life than does the standard Western approach of only eating select parts and discarding the rest.

I urge Gastronomica readers to put aside outrage and take another look at my work, and at the fuller body of work that is offered on my Web site (www.charliestudio.com/). We must look beyond our immediate surroundings and think about the global society.

====

Brave New World

Nov 4, 2008
Los Angeles, CA

First time in over 2 years do I regret not having a live TV. All I can do is hit the refresh button on CNN with more frequency than necessary.

This has been long in coming. I feel that we are at the precipice of a revolution, of a Brave New World. 8 years of bad leadership and bad policies, domestic and foreign, 8 years of fear. Enough!

I have never been this excited before for an election, been this excited to exercise my right to vote. I voted today believing that I am choosing a better future.

The World is waking up, I can feel it in my bones, in my heart, all around me. Not just how the fate of the World is dependent on the outcome of this election, or how active voter turn out as been. But in other ways as well. We have finally awaken to problems that are around us, from global warming to buying locally, in all ways, we are finally AWAKE!

I am excited to be a able to contribute to the dialogue.

Despite my excitement for the Presidential outcome tonight, the phrase "Brave New World" is stuck in my head. So I wikied a refresher on the novel since its been over 14 years since I have read Huxley's novel. At the end of the wiki article, I found this which I thought was interesting:

Social critic Neil Postman contrasts the worlds of 1984 and Brave New World in the foreword of his 1985 book Amusing Ourselves to Death. He writes:

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we desire will ruin us.

Neither version of the future is what I hope for us all, yet, over 70 years since the publication of both novels, the prediction of the future is too eerily close for comfort.

I dream a better future for us all!

First Hate Mail

Nov 3, 2008
Los Angeles, Ca

As many of you may know, I was featured in Gastronomica magazine's Summer 08 issue for my series "Wok the Dog." It opens with a 250 word introduction written by me and a 7 page spread with images that were chosen from the series by Gastronomica.

The editor from the journal today had sent me an email, wanting me to respond to a letter of objection that she received regarding my work and series. My first hate mail!

Here is the letter:

Dear Gastronomica,

It was with great excitement that I awaited my first issue of Gastronomica: what I expected to be an epicurean resource. After receiving it recently, I wish to forward some rather despondent input. On so many levels it is hard to capture, I have issues with Charlie Grosso’s Market and Meat, photographic sample of her Wok the Dog project.

This is, at a minimum, sensationalist journalism but, more realistically, work that is the result of an individual’s fascination with the macabre. This opinion is exemplified by Ms. Grosso’s revolting and callous picture titles. Additionally, I see no connection between the statement “…but we have lost our connection not only to the vendors who sell us our food, but to life itself, to the animal our dinner once was” and the photographs shown, which depict the goriest elements of slaughter; not any correlation to the actual sentient being. It would have been so much more powerful, appropriate and value added if, after that statement, she had shown or detailed information on the Buy Local or Grass Fed movements, which actually do connect you with your food, where it comes from, and the vendors who provide it to the market.

Ultimately, the magazine carries much responsibility for giving this type of eccentricity exposure, so I have cancelled my subscription.

I wish to change the world with my art, what I dedicate this brief time that I have. I have gotten some real heart felt and positive responds from all sorts of different people regrading the series. The responds make me feel like I am on the right track and making some sort of impact. But this, a letter and a cancelled subscription, I almost feel that is just as a good responds as any that I have gotten. Maybe we should gauge the impact we make by the hate mail that we receive instead?!

The editor has requested a responds from me and I will post that here in the next day or two. Stay tuned.....