Response to Marc Garrett

Over on the New Media Curating list serv, Marc Garrett of Furtherfield.org had some tough questions about OSMOSA and artistic practices in Second Life. Below is our response. You can read Marc's original email here.

-Deborah, Kiera, and Davis

***

Dear Marc,

Thank you for your questions regarding the proprietary nature of SL and the metaverse's appeal to artists. Are you aware that Linden Labs recently announced that it is making the software for Second Life open source (http://www.informationweek.com/internet/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199203108)? This is a pertinent development given that many of your comments were aimed at the non-open source nature of Second Life rather than the specificities of our project. It is, however, unclear when exactly Linden Labs will make their software open source. Furthermore, we agree that it is important to think about the challenges and possibilities of creative practice within a propriety system.

You wondered, “How much an influence is the SL brand and profile behind the decision making of this project.” Were it not for SL’s high profile, our project would not be enjoying the kind of success that it is. OSMOSA relies on public participation and discourse, and a major way this is being achieved is from the attention of bloggers (Mark Wallace of 3pointD.com in particular). Furthermore, had we chosen a lower profile alternative to SL, it is doubtful that we would have received much response outside of communities heavily involved in metaverses. Second Life’s recent mass popularity means that this is a project we can talk about with our friends—not some class assignment that never sees the light of day. Lastly, were it not for the controversy SL invites, we would not be having this list serv exchange—the kind of exchange that is integral to our stated project goal of “reimagin[ing] definitions of art, artist, curator, museum, culture, and open source.”

You argued that SL is “a business that accumulates more publicity for its brand, as the energies of those participating within it become more appropriated, mediated and consumed.” Must all creative practices in SL reduce us to publicity robots? Your argument suggests an underlying belief that artistic practices cannot exist within a propriety system--as if art and commerce can be kept separate.

Our previous list serv email read, “We are enabling a community of people who are interested in producing, transforming, and sharing work within this [public] domain.” In response, you wrote, “This is an honorable notion, but why in SL? Wouldn’t it be more critically engaged if it was outside of such a hierarchy?” Our project is an attempt to get outside of another kind of hierarchy--the hierarchy of the museum and its regulation of cultural production. In this effort, it is inevitable that we will find ourselves in a whole new set of hierarchies. The qustion, then, is this: what space is there for subversion within the SL hierarchy (before it goes open source)?

We could not disagree more with this statement: “So the lesson for the students is that they do not need to build their own communites and independent, creative infrastructures because it is better to rely on structures that already exist.” OSMOSA is as DIY as any project that uses existing technologies. The lesson for students is that such technologies provide an exciting opportunity to take theoretical concepts from the classroom and put them into practice in the world outside of Brown.

We ask that you visit OSMOSA and see for yourself the extent to which “SL itself either limit[s] or offer[s] flexibility when creating an art project” (to quote your second email). Also, be sure to visit the OSMOSA blog— osmosa.blogspot.com. It is an effort to collaborative construct institutional history and thus anyone can post (login and password are listed in the first entry).

All the best,
Deborah Abramson, Kiera Feldman, and Davis Jung