Criptic Critic Conscience and Known for it

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Four years later and no one has come close to disproving my accusation. Academic Artist Fraud Argument Number Ten

  • Dr Mike Joy, another example of a public academic doing his job while promoting his public sponsorship ( Massey University). Artist's, designers at universities take note.

    A new report on New Zealand's fresh water biodiversity shows most species in rivers and lakes are under threat.
    radionz.co.nz
  • Jeff Hamm I've been thinking about this, and you know, it may be that artists hired by the University cannot put "sponsored by UoA" on their artwork because then, as employees of the University, they are signing over rights to the artwork. Any research I do, for example, is intellectual property of the University I work for; but there's not a huge private market for basic psychological research papers. However, an artist's work can be a source of income, so signing over rights to the University (who hires them to teach rather than create) is not part of their job. Again, I have no idea if this is the case, but it is a possibility that not putting "UoA" on a piece of artwork is because the artist's work is not promoted as part of UoA but is their own private showing. Having a "day job", even if it is teaching art related courses, doesn't automatically make your employer your patron.

    Now, you have more inside knowledge of the art world than I do, and so it may very well be that the above doesn't apply to or address your concerns.
  • Robert Fraser thats a pretty good point
  • Vita Black Yes. Would you like the university to own your work?

  • Wells Tao Hi Jeff Hamm, it does appear complicated, and it is. But I am interested in the principles and the spirit of the intention of the law.
  • Wells Tao It is interesting to hear that any research you do is intellectual property of the University you work for. Artists working for universities are also doing what is called research.
  • Wells Tao It also is of some historical/economic interest that the salaries of the university artist enables a level of production and access to international markets that have in some way created what is considered contemporary art in this country. So the relationship between private production and production subsidized by the tax payer is an interesting issue.
  • Wells Tao when you say "there's not a huge private market for basic psychological research papers." I believe however that it is still essential if you want to keep your day job that you sell/ publish these research papers. No? Artists who work in universities have their 'performance' reviewed and judged based on things like exhibitions and publications. These reviews in turn, as I understand it determine levels of funding. So are directly related to the functioning of the university.
  • Vita Black I am disappointed that the work of researchers or other employees of universities lose their intellectual property rights. If that is the case which it seems it is.
  • Wells Tao Vita Black in return there is financial remuneration, status, access etc. etc. Plus it's a job, an exchange. That one should only go into willingly.
  • Jeff Hamm Yes, I still have to publish, and the work goes into Scientific journals and/or books, conference presentations, etc. Students at the university keep the IP, so student artists continue to "own" their work. If, however, I invented something, the university "owns" that IP and so could sell any resultant product, etc. Now, as for a University based artist, I don't know the specifics of their situation so please take anything I say here as speculation only and not grounded in fact (only the result of my considering possible arrangements). Now, unlike me, who publishes the results of my work in journals that do not pay me for my research articles, an artist produces a piece of work that can be sold. Holding an exhibition isn't the work, it's a show in which a collection of works are shown. So, an artist can be evaluated as having met their job requirements by holding successful exhibitions without indicating that the university sponsered the individual pieces. This may be an arrangement to avoid the university having a claim on the copywrite/ownership of the artists individual pieces of work. Much of the odd labels, like refering to "research" is a result of the gov't implementing the "Performance Based Research Fund" method of funding universities. The term "research" is used, but it doesn't mean what one thinks it does. So, a musician doing a concert could be considered a "research output", for example.
  • Wells Tao Jeff Hamm I think the distinction between you inventing IP and an Artist inventing IP is the same. If it is different I would LOVE to see the evidence.
  • Wells Tao I don't know how it breaks down in terms of my accusation. It is the nuts and bolts of the argument and I would welcome anyone with a knowledge of how it breaks down to let us know.
  • Jeff Hamm That is indeed a valid point Tao. However, one could argue that a university should be hiring scientists, not inventors, so the probability of me inventing a product is very low and serendipitous while an artist's reason d'etre is to produce art, and art is always potentially marketable.
  • Wells Tao Well that is another argument, and not one that concerns me smile emoticon Again I feel the differences you are suggesting here may be fantastical.
  • Wells Tao or at least endless
  • Jeff Hamm Possibly. As I say, I'm not familiar with the contract arrangements for those in the arts, so I could simply be a humbug here. What I do know, though, is that the vast majority of scientists are not working on inventing products but furthering our understanding of some field. By furthering our understanding products may eventuate, but they are not the point of most research.
  • Wells Tao yeah, again I feel the same could be said of artists.
  • Wells Tao My point is that there is a reason that some are funded, some have jobs. And that reason has been obscured in the Fine Arts. In my opinion because the idea of artists working for the state means they are producing propaganda. Well if it is pro democratic propaganda I fail to see the problem.
  • Jeff Hamm Yes, similar arguments could be made, however, I believe the university tends to hire artists who have achieved a level of market success. Therefore, they are looking to hire those who have shown they can sell their works. Such individuals would probably want to protect their claims to the works they produce, and would therefore refuse to work for the university (and provide the services of teaching the students) if they had to surrender their works to the ownership of the university. The compromise may be that they are not to put the university on as a "presenter" of the piece because that implies the university is a part owner, etc. Again, I don't know if this is true, but it seems not an unreasonable possibility.
  • Jeff Hamm I'm not sure there is any pressure on the university artists to project a particular view. However, it is entirely possible that the university hires artists who project views the university approves of. Meaning, the artists are expressing their views freely but it could be the employer who is giving opportunity to a particular view over another.
  • Wells Tao That 'compromise' as you've put it, directly undermines the legal standing of a university, where to be a university there needs to be an acceptance of the taking on of a role. If that role is public, and this is particularly relevant to artists who make public presentations, if the connection isn't made. Then they are not meeting the legal requirement.
  • Jeff Hamm The artists are still making public presentations, and the university is not preventing them from doing so. The university may also enable them to put on shows and exhibitions through the univeristy's buildings and galleries. The only thing the compromise achieves is to clarify the ownership of the individual pieces.
  • Wells Tao As you've said I about your own research, paid for and owned by the university, I don't understand and would like to understand how and why for the last 26 years artists feel they are exempt from this. I am sure there are individual works that are negotiated over, rights kept or sold. But this too should be known.
  • Wells Tao We should know when a work is working for us, the university that we invest in as a nation. And when the work is working for someone else.
  • Jeff Hamm Remember, everything we're talking about here is hypothetical as I have no idea if any of the arrangements I've suggested above are, in fact, in place. These are entirely speculative ideas.
  • Wells Tao Oh yeah, me too. wink emoticon
  • Jeff Hamm smile emoticon
  • Wells Tao Jeff Hamm what did you think of this statement: We should know when a work is working for us, the university that we invest in as a nation. And when the work is working for someone else.
  • Jeff Hamm Also, the university allows clinical related staff (i.e. doctors) and lawyers, to work outside of the university (private practice). Artists may be viewed in a similar way, with the art they present being considered their private practice.
  • Jeff Hamm I think transparency is highly desirable in all things. Also, even if my suggestions were entirely spot on, I seen no reason why a contractual arrangement couldn't be made such that the University could be mentioned as a patron while forgoing any claim of ownership to the piece.
  • Wells Tao the issue of moonlighting is a very important one.
  • Wells Tao Sponsorship have very real strings attached. If we don't see the sponsorship, we don't see the strings.
  • Wells Tao I'll just say this before I go, that in terms of ideals, or my accusation being idealistic, no one said that about the heavy rain of hate we received when we were persecuted as beneficiaries receiving tax payers money to make art. That 'punishment' was...See More
  • Jeff Hamm I don't think your suggestion is overly idealistic at all, it's simply a request that if an artist is hired to a job that requires them to produce art as part of that job that the employer is acknowledged as existing. If there are legal implications surrounding the ownership of the art so created, those can be dealt with in the contract of employment. If that system gets abused and creates a power divide (i.e. new artists cannot get this clause but well established ones can, etc), then legislation can be brought in (but it's never a good idea to remove flexibility before it is shown to be problematic).
  • Vita Black This is a complicated discussion and some of it I don't understand but the difference I would think with Mike Joy is he can demonstrate facts. Artist s generally aren't about facts. It's a whole other ballgame. Also with universities there is the issue of funding which although comes thanks to taxpayers is managed of course through the govt. What do we know about the govt and politics. I don't know if that helps or hinders just a thought. It must be better I would think for an artist to be free. From any rules and regs imposed by any employer. I can't see any university letting an artist be absolutely free for obvious reasons.
  • Jeff Hamm Art is about exploring truth, but in ways that differ from the sciences. Science is about uncovering universal laws and structures that would exist whether or not we do. Art is about exploring our intellectual connection with the universe, for art exists only as an expression of what it is to be human; without us, there is no art (at least as we know it because art is fundamentally connected with the human mode of understanding). Universities are collections of scholars, where we explore our various fields, but all in the hope of furthering our understanding. Scholars have to be free to explore their areas for creative answers are not found by simply repeating what others have done before. Also, rules are not constraints on creativity, and in fact are required in order to be creative; otherwise all one has is unfocused chaos. A sonnet, for example, requires a lot of creative talent to compose well because of the rigid structure imposed upon the form will result in stilted presentation from those who lack that creative ability to make it work; Picaso was first a formal painter before he explored violating the constraints of the established forms, and so forth. So, universities don't have to worry about artists being absolutely free because artists, like everyone, can't be absolutely free and still be artists. Mind you, that's a diversion from the topic, and it's time for bed. Night all.
  • Wells Tao The bit where you said no one can be absolutely free. That I can agree with, at best we choose our masters. It is here that important ground is won and lost. It's complicated and it should be, it is after all in the interpretation, translation and articulation of this relationship, that the spark of wit is formed. For my money, the sharper the transparency, the more exciting the flame.
  • Vita Black Are artists signing over their rights to the artwork if they say Sponsored by UoA.? That's the first thing to sort out if that is even true. Sponsored doesn't usually denote ownership it denotes support. That is my understanding of that.
  • Vita Black To Wells, I don't think it matters too much what the spirit and the intention of the law is because in actual reality it is rarely honoured.
  • Jeff Hamm Vita, from what I know about intellectual property and universities it was certainly possible that faculty members in fine arts (for example) who create a piece could be creating art that is owned by the university. However, as I said, I don't know how it works with art. And Richard (below) has indicated that this is not the case, so while possible, it seems it is not actually the case. That removes the biggest hurdle that I could think of for not putting the university somewhere. Other arguments can be explored, such as the impact such labeling might have on the interpretation of a piece of work intended to be interpreted separate from the artist (I know there are some schools of thought where this is not possible, but that is not a universally accepted view and shouldn't be treated as one). Transparency of the employment relationship, Tao is arguing, trumps those arguments, though again, I'm not sure everyone would agree that the integrity of the art piece should be considered second fiddle to the employment history of the artist. My view is that the artist has to prove that the labeling would affect the piece in some meaningful way, otherwise indicating employment seems like a reasonable default starting point.
  • Wells Tao it's not employment history, it's a current economic context. With out that being transparent, how does one ascertain the integrity of the art piece? As said before who pays your bills affects more than is readily admitted, and this fact is often more easily observed by the other than the subject at hand.
  • Jeff Hamm Ah, but that brings us back to artists employed by other industries, such as art supply stores, etc. I asked if they should have to declare their employment as well, and the response was that the university act includes aspects of acting as critic of society, etc, so it wasn't about who pays bills anymore but specifically about attachment to a university. That brought us to the issue of the act's definition of the university as extending well beyond the academics who get paid. So, I'm confused now, is the requirement for disclosure because the artists have an additional paying job, or is it because their additional paying job is art related, or is it just those paid by universities? If it is just universities, then it can't be about who pays the bills since the others also get bills paid, and may benefit from job related discounts, etc.
  • Wells Tao yeah Jeff, I think we've been around this block before. Sorry perhaps I haven't been clear.
  • Jeff Hamm It reflects the complexity of the issue. But that is why it is interesting and worth exploring. There are so many threads and influences that points of view are bound to differ, but through their voicing they help clarify.
  • Vita Black just wanted to say shouldn't have stuck my oar in here. Really what do I know. But I am interested in the conversation and it was posted to me .
  • Vita Black With you in spirit tao if you are doing your'e K rd thing today. I meant to be there but Im not.
  • Vita Black Unfortunately.
  • Jeff Hamm Nothing wrong with your oar in the water, Vita. It's been helping to move the conversation forward. That's all anyone can do.
  • Wells Tao Vita Black that's not me, I'm down south
  • Vita Black What have other artists done. It would seem best to stay independent of any one elses funding and that's what I meant by being free. Not free from the rules of a sonnet but free from vested interests. University in my day when I was 15 marching against the Vietnam war was known for radicalism but that all changed sometime about when david lange stopped to have his cup of tea and suddenly making millions seemed to be on everyones mind and students all started doing commerce instead of arts and they didn't do any politics it seemed. That change has never swung back. Something hideous happened and everyone seemed to become silent. Maybe the voices are rising again. I am trying to think of the catholic guy. What did he do. I will have to look him up.
  • Vita Black Oh you wren't doing some street theatre in k RD. ? i AM PRETENDING YOU ARE THEN. cOS i NEED THE LIFT.
  • Vita Black Colin McCahon. What did he do?He was radical for his time.
  • Jeff Hamm Ah, free from vested interests, gotcha! Academic freedom should ensure that the artists employed by a university are free from influence by senior administrations. Key word is should.
  • Vita Black Thats the problem . I don't know the scene at university. Maybe it's better or different there than most institutions. ? Have any artists had that relationship that you are talking about? If so what is there experience.
  • Jeff Hamm I don't know any of the artists at the university well enough to comment (I'm a scientist by trade).
  • Vita Black It would be easier enough to find out about this.
  • Vita Black Just ring Elam.
    • Vita Black You don't have to know anyone, you could make an enquiry to the administration at Elam and tell them what it is you are trying to find out and if they could put you in touch with someone.
    • Wells Tao
      Write a reply...
  • Charles Buchanan http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4d2_1273428626
    LiveLeak.com - Hi-Res Image Of UFO Leaked On NASA Server
    The original images are available on NASA public server. Just my two cents they were leaked by some insider that is not ok with the cover up agenda.
    ...See More
  • Richard Reddaway We, artists and designers, did take note, and invited Mike Joy to the Strange Baroque Ecologies symposium in 2013. Sadly, Mike left immediately after his presentation (on dairy pollution), so we never got to talk to him about how art and design might work for him and his profoundly important message. As I say, no one is interested.
  • Wells Tao yeah sorry Richard Reddaway, I didn't get what you were referring to here..
    • Vita Black Passionately interested in getting a message out there the best way possible. But I don't feel there is anything I can personally do unfortunately. I am meant to be writing a book on PTSD and even that is not going too well let alone trying to save fish and other sea creatures etc.
    • Wells Tao
      Write a reply...
  • Richard Reddaway And, Jeff, I have been told by more senior academics than I that the University doesn't own the actual artwork, so academic artists can, and do, sell their work and retain the profit. I have often suggested this is wrong, at least morally (yeh, we're not all vampiric leaches on society)(not completely), but it's rather "academic" because 1) in my case and most of the people I work with, there's no profit to be retained, the artwork always costs more than it returns. 2) the University has a cost+ accounting system that would make the artwork unreasonably expensive once time and overheads were taken into account, and 3) it's actually more efficient for us to manage the accounting, and return any (imaginary, bearing in mind point 1) profits back into our art making. As is what usually happens. None of which precludes us acknowledging the support our University provides, and most of us do. I can't speak for colleagues in other universities, I don't pay that much attention to their adverts in Art New Zealand.
  • Jeff Hamm Thanks for that Richard. As I say, the fine details of the relationship between the employer and the university artist and the created artworks is not something I know anything about. And while the university owns the IP, and a share of any "inventions", the university is also quite good at ensuring the inventor is paid a good share of the profits; in fact, the univeristy will help bring a product to market and assist the inventor rather than take it over completely. Personally, my view has always been that any invention created at a university should automatically be in the public domain and be nonpatentable (is that a word? if not, it should be). Which is related in some ways. But if there is no complications with respect to legal rights to the artwork, then there is no reason why an artist shouldn't acknowledge their position at the university.

    So, does that mean an artist working as a barrista, or night shift in a factory, should put their employers name on their artwork as well? What about those who work at an art supply store? Or sculptors who work at scrap metal yards and get discounts on material as a result? Or is it only university artists?
  • Wells Tao Yes thanks Richard, you describe a scene fairly close to what I imagined. I do believe you also have agreed with the moral and legal issue. If it was such a small deal I would say it wouldn't matter, that because it has been going on, at least as long as the law has existed then it doesn't matter. What I have tried to show is that it does. And that there are enormous costs to society that far out weigh, at least in my opinion the list you cite as reasons why it doesn't happen.
  • Wells Tao There is a great deal of symbolism involved in the role fine arts plays in universities. What exactly it is is up for debate, but one idea I have put forward is the visible testing of a governments/ democratic institutions commitment to free speech. Of course this wavers and varies, but the presentation of such movements is vital to be seen, for the rest of us who aren't paid to "accept a role, as critics and consciences of society".
  • Wells Tao And Jeff Hamm, I agree with the first part of your above comment, that there is no reason why an artist shouldn't acknowledge their position at a university, when the work presented is directly related to their employment.

    However your second point a
    bout other types of employment also being bound to transparency around sponsorship, again it would depend on individual agreements. What I am arguing is that the law is very specific with regards to the legal requirements, principles, the 'role' that a university needs to meet in order to be granted the status of university. The fact that Artists have never met that standard, in my opinion is one of contemporary societies visible travesties of justice and a direct and massive undermining of the responsibilities tied to the workings of free speech, transparency and ultimately, the trust we place in scholarship, authority based on excellence, democracy. I could go on... wink emoticon
  • Jeff Hamm Yes, if there is no risk to the artists claim to the artwork itself, as Richard indicates, then taking on a paid role that includes critic and consciences of society, then one has an obligation to fulfill that role. But does a piece of art, that comments upon some aspect of society in such a way, do so more or less with a university label attached? Does that symbol make the art more or less self reflective when commenting upon society in some way? Does it create or break down a barrier in the viewing (or otherwise experiencing) public? Could it be that by connecting a piece to an established institution and system, such as a university, that the piece is diminished and can no longer be viewed as the outside looking in? Does that make the piece artificial expression, or are artists capable of expressing realities and ideas other than those that reflect their own lived experience?
  • Wells Tao Jeff Hamm I'd have to say that it is conceivable that a uni employee could make an art work that is not directly tied to their job, but as a member of the public I would love to know why not, and then be the judge of that myself. Technically however I am sure such contracts would be able to be drawn, allowing employee specific instances of independence. There is the classic line about, "not speaking on behalf of the xxx".
  • Jeff Hamm Oh I agree with that. If there were legal issues they could easily be dealt with in the employment contract.
  • Wells Tao The rest of the question you list Jeff Hamm, I feel are interesting but not particularly pertaining to my accusation. interesting for sure. But
  • Wells Tao well in a way those are the type of question I could imagine a "public' at the receiving end of art sponsored by the tax payer, would find them selves engaging in. All relevant. But just not at this stage in my argument.
  • Jeff Hamm They are tangential, I admit, but they occurred to me and I thought I would toss them out there. They add to the complexity of the issue for, depending upon how one answered those questions (and answers would vary from piece to piece), one could argue that the integrity of the work should come first and if the univeristy label negatively impacts it, then the label should go. However, in the absence of that, the label should be the default.
  • Wells Tao I think the negative quality should stand as is, as it is subjective and relative to the point of view arguing so.
  • Wells Tao The denial of its existence is misleading.
  • Wells Tao This is against the grain of art, I understand this.
  • Wells Tao One of the fundamentals of art is the obscuring of its economic base.
  • Wells Tao It is a works hidden pedigree that is chewed on like cud well past the auction shops public butchery.
  • Jeff Hamm I think it depends upon whether or not one views a piece of art as self contained, or if the piece's meaning extends to life and crimes of the artist.
  • Wells Tao those are simply two competing markets, from my perspective.
  • Jeff Hamm Because the link to the university is through the artist, and not necessarily through the meaning of the piece. I would think the bio of the artist, however, could easily include reference to their association with a university.
  • Jeff Hamm I'm more flexible on the notion that each piece needs to be so labeled.
  • Wells Tao again it is not about 'technically' covering ones legal duties, it is the public impression created by the promotion of ones economic sponsored position.
  • Wells Tao Jeff, have you considered in your own field, for example where 'independent' scholarship is published when it is later discovered that it is privately sponsored by a particular Corporation.
  • Wells Tao I;m sure the work is still able to be evaluated for its science, but are not the sponsors particular bias's also taken into account? If they exist. And my point is that in a university context there is a bias!
  • Richard Reddaway Kate and I toyed with buying a very interesting Para Matchit print... But she said we couldn't. Anyway, I agree with yous about academic artist acknowledging their funding from the people of Aotearoa through their universities. I suppose it doesn't happen because artists often think everything is down to Their Great and Individual Genius. Or possible because, well, we do like to bite the hand that feeds on occasion. Do we not want our artists a little "testy", eh, Tao?
  • Wells Tao Yes the uni artist is entitled to bite the hand that feeds, the uni employer as a matter of principle, it is what the law governing the formation of universities, that I have pointed out, protects. This is the testing of free speech that needs to be publicly visible. And not always gotten 'right'. there are consequences. But to not see those at a level of funding that is paid to engage in these matters, creates a vacuum of traction, language and power at the volunteer level of engagement that is extremely difficult to overcome.
  • Jeff Hamm That is an extremely good point.
  • Jeff Hamm But in that situation, the private sponsor wants me to investigate a particular topic, usually with a desired outcome/message. The concern is that the work ends up corrupted by conflicts of interests, etc. My employer, the university, is prevented from directing me in terms of my research through the protections of academic freedom, which also apply to university artists (academic freedom is there to prevent this very valid concern about corruption of the academic output in all fields, not just science). So, unless the university is influencing the artists to create particular works, rather than enabling them to create their works, then it is harder to argue a corruption of the work. All that is left is whether or not it changes the interpretation of the piece, which again, brings in whether or not the artist's history is an integral part of a piece of art's interpretation.
  • Wells Tao maybe, sure. But the very freedom you talk of, Academic freedom, I am assuming that is associated with the political frame work that govern the laws that the uni operates under, no?
  • Wells Tao I don't know how the sciences are, but I know in the arts, fine arts included, across the board from Primary to Tertiary, under Inverted totalitarianism's austerity measures, funding, access and relevance is being cut. For twenty years I've been a part of this community and watched it behave so strangely defenseless. I have never understood why those so talented in communication should be driven to be so silent before the storm. For the longest time I was told and experienced this culture of silence, the fear of being impolite etc... and was struck dumb by its insistence as the correct response. Four years ago with assistance I was led to the Education Act of 1989, and the specific amendment which clearly states that the Universities silence is a mistake at best, at worst deliberate fraud. The arts need to come out fighting, not defending. They need to push back on behalf of all of us, that is what the law asks them overtly to do.
  • Wells Tao It's a now or never, use it or lose it, kind of moment.
  • Jeff Hamm Yes, universities do need to speak out, however as gov't continue to reduce funding to universities, and reduce academic interests on the governing bodies of universities, then universities start to be run like corporations. Academics, rather than being viewed as a collection of professionals (meaning professional scholars) are viewed as employees - and administration, rather than being viewed as a support branch of the university (there to support the professional scholars) view themselves as the employers. Academic freedom starts to get viewed as a quaint idea, but one which administration dislikes because it gets in the way of restructuring to align with the results of a customer satisfaction survey (student evaluations, which are based upon factors far removed from quality of education). The problems are not just with fine arts, but are much more endemic.
  • Wells Tao Jeff Hamm well what's your plan of attack? Just wait it out, warm your hands and watch it burn? I guess perhaps, like I found, you won't know till the money stops rolling in.
  • Jeff Hamm You have to remember, Tao, that in the university act that you are talking about, "the university" is defined as the "academics, students, and alumni", it is the people. So, whenever people speak out, they are "the university". A university's job is to help create critical thinkers, which is why gov'ts often get annoyed with universities because the population becomes more critical in their evaluation of gov't policies. Faculty members at universities speak out all the time, but speaking doesn't mean others are listening. The plan of attack is to continue to speak only based upon well established facts, supported by evidence, and not to resort to rhetoric. Once you overstate a position for emphasis, it becomes easy for those in power to ignore everything you say because they can say you are unreliable. It's how those in power are able to avoid issues that they want to avoid.
  • Wells Tao nah, what we have to remember - wink emoticon is that money talks. THAT is well proven, and universities and their employees know this as well as the rest of us. It's time that this institution and it's employees did the hard yards, the actual job, behind the money.
  • Jeff Hamm But there is more to the job than just being the critic of society, and if one uses the legislative act to argue that individual academics are committing fraud by not labeling their work as by the university, you have to accept that the act defines the university as much more than the paid academics, and so are you leveling accusations of fraud against students who have graduated from a university (are alumni) but who don't label their work as being part of the university, since presumably they benefited from a subsidized education (one which, in my view, should be subsidized more, but that would only increase the point). I admit, that do find it odd if academics do not indicate their association with their university when the present art work if, as Richard says, doing so doesn't create ownership issues. However, I'm thinking here about the accusations of fraud being based upon the university act, and I don't think you can pick some bits and not take the rest too.
  • Wells Tao Jeff Hamm, I appreciate your picking away at possible flaws in the argument, and i must admit some fatigue in this area, but to me you don't make a lot of sense here. If you are saying that the law is intended to be read as a blanket statement that concerns anyone in connection to the university, I think that's absurd. And again you've focused on the "critic and conscience' aspect of the law, a part where I 've already declared impossible to prove one way or another if existing. Jeff Hamm, the issue is in the university accepting a role, the emphasis is on the employer to make the role public. Of course it is A LOT easier, commercially to not do this, perfectly understandable from a business perspective. However the intent of the law needs to be upheld.
  • Wells Tao Because it is the employers responsibility, any employee that wanted to actually do the job the law set out for them to do, would be protected.
  • Jeff Hamm Sorry, I focused on the critic/conscience issue as I thought that was central to the idea of fraud that you mentioned. If I've misunderstood that, then I am off track by maintaining that focus and so would be talking past the issue rather than to it. With respect to indicating association with their university when presenting their artwork, I think we're more or less in agreement (I've stated elsewhere I think this association should be the default that is only over-ridden if the artist can make a clear, and convincing argument as to how broadcasting that association somehow devalues the piece - but of course they have to simultaneously argue that associating their name with it doesn't do the same thing).
  • Wells Tao Ha, yes, thanks Jeff, 4year 6months and 3 days now and still no defeat! wink emoticon

No comments: