
Does a terabyte of illegal downloads constitute art?  - OJKoukaz
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-08/24/illegal-downloads-as-art
======
droithomme
Yeah, I'll vote that that's a pretty valid art project. He's calling up the
movie image of a giant diamond on a pedestal, one that jewel thieves go to
great trouble to steal because it's so incredibly valuable. Well, there he has
$5 million in "stolen" loot, in a compact package with a comparable weight to
value ratio as giant diamonds. In addition, one is confronted with wondering
about intrinsic value. Is there really $5 million in value there? Is the Hope
Diamond really worth $200 million? To who and what for?

~~~
SandB0x
Imagine an identical hard drive in the room, except this one is blank. Or if
the data were continuously being copied back and forth between the two drives,
and the displayed values went up and down accordingly. Actually what if this
one turned out to be blank?

~~~
ctdonath
I've concluded that the simplest, broadest, yet still useful definition of
"art" is: something which is made/done for the purpose of being perceived.

In this particular instance, the item itself is not meant to be perceived. To
your point, it is indistinguishable from an empty hard drive (or whatever the
contents are); there may be a valid issue to discuss, but there is nothing to
perceive. Someone asserts there is "$5M of pirated software" there; I assert
it contains a single trillion-digit random number, and there is nothing there
to perceive in differentiation, even in theory - human perception of one data
storage device is indistinguishable from a duplicate device containing
different data.

This "exhibit" is qualitatively different from even the "blank canvas" "art"
rhetorical device. The "1m square, 2 shades of black" painting I recall from a
museum at least was in and of itself meant to be looked at, even if it
required 3 pages of explanation to justify its pathetic existence. John Cage's
4'33" was in fact meant to be heard, though the pianist played no notes.
Resounding voids they may have been, yet they were still meant to be
perceived.

In this instance, the physical artifact could be replaced by any storage
device of sufficient capacity. The alleged content may be the same, but the
audience cannot perceive it in any way.

It's not art. It's a point of discussion.

Now, if the "artist" had, say, covered a wall with a trillion dots colored
corresponding to that alleged data content, we'd have something for humans to
perceive for the purpose of perceiving it - to wit, art. The audience could
examine, at least in practical theory, the totality of the image and conclude
there is something of value there. And if the opposing wall were likewise
marked, but instead depicting a single trillion-digit random number, the
audience could decide if there were any life-affecting difference between
them, or conclude that the creation & viewing was a complete waste of time.

~~~
onemoreact
The part's of the work you don't see can be just as important as the parts you
can see. You can look at the physical device, and if found art is still art
then so can a HDD. But, in the larger context this is similar to creating a
sculpture and then displaying it covered in a tarp. You could take at the
information inside, but that's irrelevant to what you see and _feel_ when you
look at the HDD / Tarp.

PS: I think most people would get a much stronger reaction from looking at the
tarp than they would looking at most pieces of modern art.

~~~
staticshock
> But, in the larger context this is similar to creating a sculpture and then
> displaying it covered in a tarp.

The Hope Diamond doesn't need to be covered by a tarp for 99.999% of the
population to fail to distinguish it from a solid fake. I think the "is that
diamond real?" question is a decent equivalen to the "is that hard drive
empty?" one. Using special tools, both can be verified.

Edit: I realize that the hope diamond probably is not art, so my main point
has to be about the intrinsic value of the object.

~~~
ctdonath
Methinks the Hope Diamond IS art: taking a grungy rock, skill was applied at
great cost & risk to turn it into an object for the sole purpose of looking at
it. That its value and demand is great speaks for what a great piece of art it
is.

Whether the mind perceiving an object is trained to comprehend what is
perceived is a different issue from whether the nature of the object can be
perceived at all. This is why much of "modern art" is accompanied by several
pages of explanation: given the education required, the audience has at least
a hope of comprehending what is striking the senses. 4'33" makes some kind of
sense given preliminary background/training; "Thidreks" is great literature if
one but learns Old Norwegian; a viewer may be persuaded Pollock's paintings
are great art ... in all cases, the material is there for perception, and is
what it is regardless of training. Most viewers may be unable to discern the
Hope Diamond from like-shaped glass, but that's not the cutter's problem - the
outstanding beauty is there for the viewing, stifled only by the viewer's
mind. You're hard-pressed to fake the Hope Diamond, and a solid fake WOULD
share the artistry outside of the intrinsic value.

In this case, there is NOTHING in the exhibit for the audience to perceive. No
application of senses can reveal what's there. Plugging it into a computer for
conversion to perceptible form may reveal its intrinsic value, but as there is
nothing to perceive otherwise then there is no art any more than sticking the
Mona Lisa into a welded-shut steel box, covering a sculpture with a tarp, or
displaying the Hope Diamond before it was cut to shape.

------
cycojesus
The artist deemed it art, therefore it is. If you're wondering "Why is it
art?" realize that you, wondering this, are the very justification of the art.
It makes you wonder, it makes you react, therefore it is art.

~~~
jey
Simply calling something "art" doesn't make a difference in the actual content
of the piece, so we might as well consider every entity as already having that
label. Therefore everything/anything is already "art", and the question
becomes whether a particular piece is "good" art.

~~~
kiba
Here is my creteria for art:

If someone mistaken it as trash and throw it away when cleaning up the
gallery, then it is not art.

If trashmen are arguing whether or not a piece is art, then it is borderline
art.

If they ignore it, then the art piece is art.

Otherwise, we have no standard at all, and the art world would only belong to
elitist who can't draw a damn and status seeking idiot who up the price of a
particular 'art piece'.

Beautiful is not in the eyes of the beholder.

~~~
jey

      If someone mistaken it as trash and throw it away
      when cleaning up the gallery, then it is not art.
    

Would a random person from the 1500s who did not grow up with Jackson Pollock
as part of acquired culture know that they shouldn't just throw away a Pollock
piece that was laying around?

~~~
westbywest
Indeed, there are several examples of museum janitors from present day
removing a portion of (or the whole) art thought to be trash.
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3604278.stm>
<http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/11/swept-away.php>

~~~
morganpyne
And funnily enough, the reverse scenario played out at least once also. In
2009 in New Zealand a very controversial 1st prize of $15,000 was awarded to
artist Dane Mitchell in the Waikato National Contemporary Art competition.

Dane did not even come over to NZ from his residence in Berlin, or send any
artwork to the competition. He simply phoned in instructions to the janitor to
wait until all the other exhibits had been prepared and their packing and
scraps had been cleaned up, and then told the janitor to empty the contents of
the rubbish bin and enter it as his sculpture :-)

~~~
waitwhat
I do hope he split it with the janitor.

------
artursapek
He attached links to all of the downloads, that's the ballsiest part about
this.

<http://www.art404.com/5million1terrabyte.pdf>

Being an art student I love seeing new modern art like this hit the news. Even
though I'm just studying Industrial Design, I always get a kick out of this
kind of obscure shit. I'll always remember my trip to NYC last year when I
browsed the modern art galleries for hours. If you ever get a chance, there's
a particular street lined with them (I forget which). It promises some of the
most interesting stuff you've ever seen.

Edit: The downloads seem to be password-protected, so this guy's not a total
maniac.

------
yaix
"Art is anything you get away with" is my favourite definition.

The artist should have used the valuation usually claimed by the media
companies when dragging young kids to court and he'd have gotten a valuation
of somewhere in the billions.

~~~
techtalsky
I'm afraid I can't find any other definition of art quite as accurate. I don't
know if EVERYONE could say their pirated collection was art, but I think
Manuel Palou successfully made his hard drive art.

Frankly, the fact that we're seriously discussing it here is adequate proof
that it is art.

------
tmroyal
This is excellent not only as a question about the intrinsic value of
information, but this piece also implicitly, even involuntarily, makes a
negative statement about the valuation of conceptual art, of which this piece
is an example. I read in this something akin to Epimenides Paradox (i.e. the
value of this work is in showing how works like this have no value.)

The question pertaining to whether or not this is really art isn't very
interesting. It's an old argument. What I find fascinating are the very
passionate arguments against things labeling things like this art, sometimes
coming from people who might not even follow art.

The objection must stem from the fact that the term 'art' automatically
connotes a cultural/economic value and a signifier of class. There is a
legitimate worry that the message from the art world is that you just aren't
very impressive if you aren't just infatuated with Kadinsky, De Kooning and,
by some perverse extension, Jeff Koons.

Calling something an installation like this art has the value of framing a
very, very specific statement: something would be lost by not calling this
art. That said, I wouldn't buy this, nor make any effort to see it in person.
That would hardly be necessary. Nor would I label someone who didn't 'get'
this a 'prole' or 'not with it' (as if my opinion counted.)

Still, this would not be enough to sway one holding on to a conservative
definition of art. His or her value as a human being is at stake. Who can
blame them? It's a shame, because these political concerns limit art in many
thousands of tiny ways with a net result of making a more boring world. I
guess politics of status limits activities in many other ways. Nothing new
here.

------
ugh
Is that question important or interesting?

It is what it is. A one terabyte hard drive that contains illegally downloaded
data valued at 5 million dollars. By presenting the drive in a certain way (on
a pedestal, with a title, …) certain properties are specifically pointed out.

Is that art? I don’t know. Is it important to answer that question? I don’t
think so.

It’s a nice piece all about the value, nature and availability of digital
goods, bringing all these aspects together in a nice and compact way. Well
done, creator.

------
oniTony
At the "$150,000 per work infringed" valuation, I think one could claim a
_much_ larger number. 34 individual songs would break $5 million claimed.

~~~
qjz
"Controversial work of art skyrockets in value."

Starting out with a calculation based on retail price is pretty shrewd and
helps fuel the conversation.

------
seagaia
I think what helps make it art is that this artist took this idea, made it
into an object (the hard drive with all the data), and then labeled it/made it
accessible in such a way that we start to question it differently than if we
had just looked at some old hard drive in our room.. So yeah, it's art, but in
a sense away from typical mediums like music or painting, etc.

------
pseudonimble
I find it very anti-intellectual when people call others snobs for
appreciating art. There's nothing snobbish about learning about or
appreciating conceptual art. People who don't care enough to learn about
something find that they do not undertand it, conclude that it must be phoney
or fake or for snobs.

------
daenz
This comment is art.

------
rms
Why would it be on a gallery pedestal if it wasn't art?!

------
baddox
If so, I've got ten or so more pieces of art than I previously was aware of.

------
vectorpush
Can ideas be art? We can't attribute much of any visual aspects of the piece
to the artist since the artistic merit of this display relies entirely on the
idea of what the drive contains.

~~~
wazoox
Conceptual art dates back to 1917, when Marcel Duchamp first displayed his
"fontaine" ( <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29> ).
Apparently, nearly 100 years later most people not directly interested in art
didn't get it. Modern art museum are filled with similar works.

~~~
prodigal_erik
I'm fine with not getting it. _Fountain_ was the day we learned the art world
can no longer pass the test of "The Emperor's New Clothes". Claims of art
without craft and a moving beauty are at best disposable props for rhetoric,
if not merely trolling gullible collectors.

~~~
wazoox
Art is a social manifestation. In an industrial world where any machined
object is more perfect than the best handcraft work, the importance of craft
is deemed unimportant by modern art. And beauty is mostly relative, anyway.

Yes, modern art is cynicism and relativism at its best, with a touch of
snobbishness... At least, one indisputable advantage is that it pisses off
conservatives :)

------
jgeralnik
The most beautiful part about it is that the hard drive doesn't even have to
contain the files listed - for all we know it could be completely empty.

------
jh3
If a urinal laid on its back[1] can be considered art, so can an external hard
drive placed on a pedestal.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)>

------
J_Darnley
The artwork here is by the original designer(s) of the disk drive enclosure.

------
blendergasket
Anything with semiotic intent constitutes art. Anyone who says otherwise is a
terrorist and needs to go die lonely in a ditch.

------
yread
The article should have links to the torrents!

~~~
jgeralnik
The attached pdf actually does have links to the torrents

------
jayemdee3
Lueks like art to me

------
Shenglong
Someone's ISP must be really pissed~

------
chaosfox
I think people are missing the point here, whether or not that is art doesn't
matter, the question here is if one is allowed to break the law just because
"it's art".

~~~
icebraining
Of course not, but that's only relevant if any of the copyright holders decide
to sue him.

The deeper question is whether that should be against the law in the first
place.

------
b0rsuk
I approve of this incident because it (perhaps not intentionally) pokes fun at
art. The argument reveals how silly art really is.

I don't care if it's art or not. Art is such a vague label that calling
something "art" is meaningless. A far more meaningful criteria are pretty/not
pretty, enjoyable/not enjoyable, or intriguing/not intriguing. Something can
be pretty, enjoyable or intriguing without being labeled as art. The term
"art" is for people who want to feel superior at the cost of others (snobs).

In my opinion this hard drive is neither.

