The Economics of Attention

This was an interesting article. It tells us that during the twentieth century, artists developed their art to gain attention. In 1917, French artist Duchamp, along with two of his friends, purchased a urinal, painted R. Mutt on it and turned it upside down. This was entered in the Independent's art exhibition as a joke. This entry set the stage for the art show which was to show that art could be whatever the artist wanted it to be. Throughout the twentieth century, more pieces of art were simple things such as soup cans or bicycles. The things were used to attract attention which made them more meaningful. The things that were more commonplace showed the public that the physical object was truly insignificant. Duchamp wanted to diminish the seriousness of art and make it a game, and in 1923, he became so disillusioned with art that he stopped creating it. He became famous for taking an ordinary object, such as a bicycle wheel and displaying it so that everyone looks at it and says, "isn't that amazing" or "I wonder what the artist is trying to say", when the artist is laughing at the observers and thinking they're stupid for admiring a wheel.
The first futurists of the 20th century were led and financed by Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, who presented his utopian vision in a "futurist Manifesto". He was determined to bring Italy into the future and many of his ideas sound like they could be from the 1960's. He spoke of the world being shrunk by speed and of global awareness. Looking into the future he realized that with scientific advances that man gained sense of his home, of the district where he lived, his region and his continent. Today, man is aware of the whole world that is available at his fingertips. He doesn't need to know what happened in the past, but wants to know what is happening all over the world.
Andy Warhol is called an economist of attention He wanted to be successful in business, which he considered the most fascinating kind of art. He asked his friends what he should paint and they told him to paint what he liked best in the world. He started painting money, but that wasn't his most favorite thing. In 1960, he began to paint pictures of Campbell's soup cans, all different flavors. In the beginning, the New York galleries would not display his work. No-one knew what to do with the mass-produced commercial still life. The Ferus Gallery in Los Angeles first showed Campbell soup cans in 1962. Being the somewhat wacky 60's, the art became a success. Warhol did not mock the objects of his art, as Duchamp would have done, but knew that what you saw was what you got. After Marilyn Monroe's death, Warhol purchased a 1950's publicity photo of her and had it converted into a silkscreen. He imprinted her portrait hundreds of times and furthered her status as a cultural icon.
These objects allowed Warhol to convert attention into money by representing the attention in physical objects.
The end-all attention grabber is to create a public personality that functions as an attention trap. The person actually becomes the art exhibit. The sad thing is that this kind of art exhibit is on the surface only, There is no substance behind it.
The rules of attention-economoy art as practiced by Andy Warhol are:

• build attention traps
• understand the log of the centripetal gaze and how to profit from it
• draw your inspiration from your audience and keep in touch with them
• turn the masterpiece psychology of conventional art upside down
• objects do matter
• live in the present.

This article could be written about many of the movie stars and artists of today. Their entire life is a fabrication. There is no substance to their thoughts, actions or morals. Their focus is on the attention they can gain for the moment.

CyberDemocracy

Different issues such as access, technological determinism, encryption, intellectual property, anarchy and ethnicity have been impacted by new communications technology. In the instance of encryption, the United States government has tried to secure its borders from terrorists who might use the Internet and threaten it. The case is made, though, that ordinary citizens have been improperly abused and had their civil rights violated worse by our own government than by terrorists. The author of this article believes that terrorism is an effect of government propaganda which convinces the American people that there are big, bad terrorists out there and by doing so, shields them from government abuse. Since this article was written in 1995, I wonder if Poster's opinion of terrorism has changed since then. We know now that terrorism is a reality and there are evil people out there who will attack us simply because we are Americans.

The article asks questions such as " will the telephone companies, the cable companies or some almalgam of both be able to secure adequate markets and profits from providing the general public with railroad timetables, five hundred channels of television, the movie of one's choice on demand, and so forth?" That question has already been answered and it is Yes! Telephone companies and cable companies and, in most instances, a combination of the two, have probably gained markets and profits by providing those very services. Can commodities be sold on the Internet and can it be used to function as an electronic retail store or mall? Again, the answer is Yes! Commodites are not only bought, but also auctioned and sold daily. Just about any product one might be interested in purchasing, can be purchased on the Internet. Since I live in a 120 year old house, I recently purchased antique looking light switch covers and register covers. I was unable to find them in a retail store, but found a fairly good selection online.

The Internet as a public sphere is discussed. Can the Internet take the place of town hall meetings? The Internet serves its purpose of bringing together people who would probably never have the opportunity to meet in person. They are able to discuss anything and everything, from politics and religion, to schools and child rearing. For some people, this may be the only form of public interaction they have. Others may participate in online chats and follow the latest political blunders and forums, but may also have an active life outside of the Internet. The Internet is great, but nothing totally takes the place of face to face conversation. Traditional town hall meetings may be something of the past, but there are still many other venues in which unorganized political discussions are held. Lunch groups, Rotary meetings, social and civic meetings, local churches, unions and around the water cooler are all places where unorganized, casual democratic meetings are held daily. Don't forget, this is America and we exercise our freedom of speech just about anywhere.

Information

There was so much material included in "Selling Wine Without Bottles on the Internet" that I needed to blog a little more on the subject of information. The author tells us that information is an activity, a life form and a relationship. He explains that information is a verb, not a noun, and is something that happens in the field of interaction between minds, objects of other forms of information. Information has to move and has to be shared, but I'm not sure I agree that it is a verb. I think of it as a ball, that has to be moved or thrown to be in motion. We personally have to throw the ball or share the information. We all benefit if information is shared. If one person shares his ideas with another, they both are informed and by more than one person possessing the information, they may be able to expand on the idea.

Information is a life form. When ideas are shared and more people have that knowledge, it spreads. Information is able to spread to all areas of the world within minutes and once it has gone out, there is no restraining it. Digital information is a continuing process similar to stories that have been passed down from generation to generation. No one knows exactly what happened originally, but has a vague sense of the story.

Information is a relationship. Receiving information can be as creative an act as generating it. Only people understand the information being sent to them. If it is nothing they need or can use, their perception is that it is meaningless. Based on the point of view and authority, people are willing to pay for that which they believe to be worthwhile. The author makes a valid point...owning a fabulous CD of your favorite artist may be enjoyable, but paying the price to attend a live concert is more than worth it.

Another valid point was that those who act on their information and ideas are the ones who reap the rewards. It is not enough to have a good idea and sit on it. Patent it and get it out on the market! If you don't act on it, someone else will.

Defining digital and visual rhetoric II

I am a little late for this blog as I was out of town for a week with no computer access. I read "The Economy of Ideas: Selling Wine Without Bottles on the Global Net." The article focuses on how we can protect our ideas and property when it is reproduced and distributed all over the world. Intellectual property law cannot be revised to encompass digital technology. In the past, it has been easier to protect physical expression with a patent or copyright because it always resulted in some thing such as a book or other physical object. The article tells us that for something to be patented, it has to be a thing and it has to work.

It is increasingly difficult to enforce existing copyright and patent laws that cover the free exchange of ideas. By attempting to solve the problem of protecting the ownership of speech, forms of more vigorous enforcement may threaten freedom of speech. In Cyberspace, there are no national or local boundaries to contain a crime and to determine a method of prosecution, and no clear cultural determination of exactly what the crime might be.

There now seems to be a world economy that is based on goods that have no material form. It may be hard to determine how to reward the creators based on the use of their products. Copyright and patent law were developed in most western countries for the purpose of promoting the creation of ideas and inventions and to help ensure those responsible would be compensated. Since we can now convey ideas to each other without them being physical, claims are made to own the ideas, not only their expression. This makes it difficult to determine actual ownership.

Laws regarding unlicensed reproduction of commercial software are harsh, but rarely observed. It is not reasonable to assume that laws made to protect physical things would also be appropriate for ideas communicated on the web. Unbounded intellectual property is different from physical property and cannot be protected the same way. If the information and ideas are not protected, the creator cannot be compensated for his work. When currency is meaningless, people will go back to bartering. Societies develop their own unwritten codes, practices and ethical systems when they develop outside the law. Technology may undo law, but it also offers methods for restoring creative rights.