Nothing to Hide? Art, Surveillance, and Privacy, is an exhibition of visual art, public art, film, performance, interactivity, public discussions, and spoken word, exploring the prevalence of surveillance and its impact on the way we lead our lives.
Mass government surveillance and corporate data collection have become the new normal. We hear that individual privacy must be sacrificed in the interests of national security and that “If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear.” But has increased surveillance made us safer, or are we, in fact, more vulnerable in other ways? Is privacy only about hiding bad things? Might privacy be a matter of principle: that personal information isn’t anyone else’s business, that citizens have the right “to be let alone,” as the U.S. Supreme Court declared more than a century ago?
This exhibition takes place at Real Art Ways and is co-curated by Edward Shanken and current Art & Law Program fellow, Jessica Hodin. The exhibition opens on Saturday, March 4, from 5 to 7 PM, with a free public reception, and will be on view through June 19, 2017.
Stephanie Mercedes’s, Luz de Dia project (2017).
Artist Stephanie Mercedes takes on Argentina’s attempt to use copyright law to censor speech. In response to the Argentine Bill No. 2517-D-2015 that would erase all photographic remnants of the Dirty War from public access, artist Stephanie Mercedes attempts to preserve the archive by copyrighting “the light of day” of each image. Negatives and altered photographs displayed on light boxes will show the process of preserving the archive. Mercedes is a 2016 alumna of The Art & Law Program.
The exhibition opens tomorrow at the Flower City Arts Center and closes on March 31.
Not much going on in art law these days (at least not on the surface), but here’s an interesting story on what kept MoMA from acquiring a major work of mid-century American art. It also details the issues raised by fragile artworks. Worth a read.
Images in question in the Graham v. Prince copyright infringement case.
The Federalist’s Robin Ridless takes some clean power-punches at the “ivy-cloistered radicalism” of the “all-appropriation-is-fair-use” jihadists. Here’s one example,
To read a sampling of current American law review articles on the topic, it is easy to form the impression that copyright and trademark protections comprise this nation’s gravest injustice. The call by legal academics to get rid of almost all intellectual-property protection at first seems like a reversal of the Left’s usual promotion of the nanny state.
And then this zinger,
Legal grants of “monopoly” in artworks suppress the free speech of others. Ownership privileges thwart the “flourishing” of inner-city children.
Right. Because in the end the leftist’s hysteria about the “death of creativity” means nothing other than the death of sexy art law cases to opine and write about. The spectacle, pure and simple. Sans the rockets and red glare, all we’re left with is “aspiring” artists, art students and, oh yes, just plain simple artists. Who the hell wants to write about that?
February 8th, 2017 by Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento in Education
The Washington Post’s Tom Rachman shoots several zingers and comedy and farce that “political art” has become.
Example number one: “Today, ‘politicized artist’ is as likely to evoke a whiny, entitled, bobble-headed creative.”