Independence Air "No Apology Necessary"

Well, even though, I just received their apology (19 July 12:53 pm) I am choosing to keep this blog in. But I do owe it to them to acknowledge that they did (two weeks later) apologize for the inconvenience that canceled flight 1048 caused me, my family and friends. They also apologized for the dog toy incident. And they gave me a $50.00 credit for a flight in the future. According to their records flight 1048 was canceled due to maintenance problems. OK, so I have to ask this question again, why no loud speaker announcement?

I've since recieved some questions from others (in response to my story):

1. Why didn't they try to get us on another flight the next day? or the day after that?
2. Why didn't they offer to see that we got home safe.
3. Why didn't they offer to help us carry our carry-on baggage back to the main terminal or the bus to the main terminal, instead of fussing about the dog not being in his carrier?

The story you are about to read contains just the facts. I have tried to convey the experience that we went through without emotion for two reasons.

1. I never got mad while at the airport dealing with any of the Independence Air (flyi) staff. They, the staff on-site, where not the ones that caused the mishap on 1 July 2005 and getting mad at them would have only compounded the problems we were facing at the time. I believe that letting them have that power over my emotions would only serve to hurt me in the long run.
2. Once the entire ordeal was over and we had returned home, greatly disappointed our summer vacation was not to be, it was then that I decided to compose the letter below asking flyi to at least apologize. I stuck to the facts and avoided embellishments to reinforce the fact that my intent was not to receive monetary compensation, but that I was truly looking for a valid explanation and an apology from flyi for what had happened to my son and me (and what would have been our small dog's first flight).

I sent this letter 11 July and it is now 19 July. Still I have heard nothing back from flyi with the exception of the computer-generated reply letting me know that they had received my letter.

This trip had been planned and the tickets purchased since 9 May 2005.

I truly feel Independence Air should at the very least apologize; for the time, trouble and disappointment, my son, myself, my family, our friends in North Carolina and our friend (who took-off work to drop us off and returned to pick us up and take us home) due to a foul-up on the part of Independence Air.

We arrived at the main terminal 1 July @0650 hours. We obtained our boarding passes and then checked our baggage through (at the main terminal). At 0700 hours I medicated our small dog for his first plane trip. Let me emphasize: our bags were checked through and we had our boarding passes by 0710 hours. No one from flyi gave any indication flight 1048 was being delayed, re-routed or canceled.

We proceeded to the security checkpoint line and although the line was very long it went very quickly. We were though security and arrived at Gate A2 by 0735 hours (one hour prior to Flight 1048Â’s planned departure from Dulles to RDU). Still there was no loud speaker announcements made regarding flight 1048 at the terminal gates. Why were the passengers not informed?

The whole experience of traveling with our dog (for the very first time) had been a very pleasant one for us, our dog and everyone we came in contact with at the airport (passengers and airport staff). Until approximately 0750 hours.

According to our boarding passes the plane was scheduled to start boarding @0805 hours. We (my son, our dog and I) waited patiently and listened each time announcements regarding the status of the other flights were made. We heard the problems other flights were having, but never once heard of any problems concerning flight 1048. Approximately 0750 hours I asked my son to go to (our departure) Gate A2 and ask the attendant if flight 1048 was on time and on schedule. He returned with the response that the gate attendant told him that flight 1048 was leaving from Gate A1. There had been no announcement regarding this switch for departure at a different Gate.

At this point I approached the attendant at Gate A2 and held up our boarding passes and asked if she could please tell me what was going on with flight 1048. All she said was, You need to go to the customer service counter and check with them as to the status of that flight. I thanked her and went to the customer service counter and waited in line to find out the status of flight 1048 to RDU.

It was about 0815 hours by the time I reached the front of the line at the customer service counter. I handed my boarding passes to the CS rep and asked if she knew what was up with flight 1048. She left the CS counter, went to the kiosk and punched in our confirmation number, a screen came up stating, Please see a Customer Service Representative concerning your flight at this time. She returned to the service counter punched up something on her computer and said that the flight had been canceled and the earliest flight she could accommodate the two of us on would be @1705 hours. I explained to her that we were traveling with a small dog that had been medicated and he would not last that long. She said that was the best she could do for us at this time. We (I) had no choice! If we could have been put on an earlier flight leaving an hour or so later we might have been able to complete our planned vacation. On the advise of my dog's Vet, I was not to over medicate our dog because of his size. I told the CS rep that I would have to ask for a full refund. She told me she would not be able to help me I would have to go to the bank of phones and speak to one of the phone CS reps about getting my money back.

Now I start picking up the phones and begin to listen to dead air. Not knowing how the phones worked, I again go to Gate A1 (least busy gate) and ask if they can explain how to use these phones. She told me once I pick up the phone it should ring through and although I may have to wait for someone to answer, someone would pick up at the other end, eventually. I watched as another flyi customer finished his conversation on one of the phones and after he hung up I picked that phone up with my fingers crossed. I waited for 15-20 minutes before I spoke to a person. I explained the situation at Dulles to the (phone) CS rep, she said that they would give me full credit back on my charge card, including my dog's round trip fare and all taxes and associated fees.

At this point we have to make two more phone calls, one to our friend to come back and get us, and one to my sister in North Carolina to tell her the flight has been canceled and we are not coming home now. She, of course, is half way to the RDU airport and very disappointed that we are not going to make it for the vacation we had planned since early May.

Then I remember that (3) three of our bags have been checked through since 0710 hours from the main terminal. I return to Gate A2 and ask about the procedure for having our bags returned to us. Luckily the ground chief is talking to the Gate A2 attendant and over hears my question and assures me that he will personally make sure that the bags (all 3 of them) will meet us at the baggage claim area #5. I, of course, get his name and title just in case there is another miscommunication and I need a name to help me get our bags.

Every one of the individuals representing flyi that I had dealt with (to this point) had been very pleasant. I should also mention that throughout the entire ordeal not once had there been an announcement concerning flight 1048. Can someone at Independence Air please explain to me why nothing was ever announced to those of us who were waiting for flight 1048 on 1 July going to RDU that morning? The loud speakers were working because other flights and their status were announced.

Now, We are (re)packed and headed for the bus back to the main terminal and baggage claim area #5. And one would think that our very eventfully morning is now coming to a very exhausting and very disappointing end.

However, as we are leaving I have our dog on his lease (a very short lease) when flyi representative Melissa R. Benjamin comes running up behind us and tells us we have to put that dog in its carrier. We start to comply with her command and I ask if she would hold a small hand fan, so I can help my son get the dog back in his carrier. She jumps back with both arms over her head and announces, I am not holding that dog toy! I show her that it is not a dog toy, but a hand fan, by turning it on. Her reply, I donot care, I am not holding that. She displayed a very bad attitude about the entire situation. I then asked her, What is wrong with you? and proceeded to explain that I need to help my son with the dog. She informs us that she is not required to help any passengers by holding their stuff and started picking at her fingernails. By this time my son has managed to get our dog in his carrier and we again head for the bus back to the main terminal.

If I had a complaint about anything after that morning's disaster of 1 July, it would be the very crude, rude and unpleasant treatment of Melissa R. Benjamin. Her attitude was totally unprofessional and totally unnecessary. I would hope that Independence Air would instruct her in the proper way to interact with their passengers in the future.

I would still like to know exactly what happened to flight 1048 that morning and why we were never informed, even after our bags had been checked through and we had our boarding passes in hand (by 0710 hours). There was not the slightest indication that flight 1048 was anything, but on schedule and on time for take-off that day? I am thoroughly disappointed with the way we (my son and I) were treated by the lack of information we were given at the airport.

I am truly convinced had I not started asking questions as to the status of flight 1048, we might still be sitting in the waiting area of the terminal gates today listening for the announcement, We will now start boarding for flight 1048.

This Conundrum: Net Art

Can net art, as we know it today, be taken seriously in the art world? I am working from the assumption that the definition of art is, “a form of human activity created primarily as an aesthetic expression, especially, but not limited to [my emphasis] drawing, painting, and sculpture” (Art Dictionary). There are many names, as well as definitions, for net art (i.e., net.art, web art, internet art, browser art, electronic art, digital art, cyberart and new media are names used to research this topic and to describe it today). In this paper I will show that net art appears to be following in the same footsteps as photography by non-acceptance as a serious art form in the world of high art. By establishing these facts concerning net art and photography;

1. Both are mechanically produced
2. Neither are considered to be in the same league with high art
3. These artists followed their hearts and held their heads high

In my search to find references to validate net art as real art. I found there were very few sources that agreed with its function, purpose or its value as a true art form. Therefore, I concur with Rachel Greene’s findings, as she points out in her recently released book, Internet Art:

Though internet art has been discussed in a number of books and catalogues that have appeared since the mid–1990s, and a handful of net art archives are available online, the connections between net art and other art-historical movements are not well documented. In part, this may be due to the specialization of many net art critics and writers, whose methodologies are often grounded in internet culture and whose audiences remain mostly online (Greene 19).

History tends to repeat itself. Our culture advances because of change and with change comes conflict(s) or disagreement(s). It is through these conflicts/disagreements man is able to grow or gain knowledge. The conflict(s) with photography (just as with net art) emanate from a resistance to accept the artistic qualities that this genre of art has to offer. Case in point, Brook notes, “The claim that photography is or might become an art has been resisted for generations on the ground that photographs are essentially mechanical products, whereas artistic representations in forms of which painting is the paradigm engage the essentially free and imaginative human creator” (Brook 171). More evidence of this fact is supported again as Orvell reports, “Alfred Stieglitz (1864-1946) was not only the acknowledged great photographer of his day, [but he] work[ed] persistently to establish photography as a fine art on the level of painting” (Orvell 339). And even though Alfred Stieglitz was obviously highly regarded in his profession as a photographer, it still took many years before photography was even considered to be on the same level as fine art. An article from the Christian Science Monitor reinforces this point, “It took the better part of a century after the invention of the camera for photography to arrive at its own aesthetic instead of being judged by the standards of painting” (Grant 17).

During this period many photographers chose to take a stand, as Seamon asserts, “for more than half a century the issue of whether or not photography can be a medium for fine art has been, at least for serious photographers, more a distraction than a serious question” (Seamon 245). And for those photographers, taking this stand, the statement was probably more of a mental release allowing them to continue with their work unhampered. However, this position repeatedly shows up in other events, including a CRUSH conference where one of the photographers remarked, “It was a wonderful moment when it wasn’t necessary to be thinking of yourself as an artist to make photographs. Perhaps that’s an interesting comparison to today and net.art” (Ross D).

Upon further searching I found a curious comparison of history to poetry and photography to painting. And while I understand what Ross (agreeing with Sontag) is trying to say in the comparison of these relationships, I still believe they miss the mark:

To compare painting and photography in much the way that Aristotle compared poetry and history. Just as history seems subservient to the facts, so photography seems subservient to appearances. The photographer tells us how things look, just as the historian tells us how things happened. By contrast, the painter, like the poet, can improvise and generalize (Ross S 6).

I feel compelled to point out that Ross (Sontag) is not seeing photography as anything other than a means for reproducing the image of an object. Again, totally missing the mark, if one is viewing photography as an aesthetic art form. Ross quotes Sontag as stating, “The earliest controversies center[ed] on the question whether photography’s fidelity to appearances and dependence on a machine did not prevent it from being a fine art—as distinct from a merely practical art, a arm of science, and trade” (qtd. in Ross S 6). I fail to understand why Ross (Sontag) has chosen to focus on only one aspect of photography. The whole paper was focused on the point-and-shoot aspect of the camera. Either they chose not to see or they did not possess the ability to comprehend the many complexities that the camera as a medium can create in the hands of an artist. For when anyone lacks the ability to see the big picture, even worse, chooses not to see the big picture, you can be sure they never fully intended to look for it in the first place. Translation: if you don’t know what you’re looking for, then how are you going to see it?

Here again, Ross and Sontag make a blanket statement that is totally incorrect, by saying a photograph is, “a frozen moment, and that their power comes from our knowledge of the causal process by which light rays deflected by objects create photographic images of them” (Ross S 10). Again they push their narrow-minded view of photography. It’s like saying all paintings must be impressionist or all etchings must come from woodcuts; neither of which is true. While I will agree that some photographs do present themselves as a frozen moment in time, I will respectfully submit that it was surely the intention of the photographer at the time. However, I totally disagree that all photographers set out with this single-minded intention for their photography. I have had the fortune to see some (and have taken some myself) very beautiful representational photographs that while I may or may not be able to discern the actual object in the photo it in no ways lessens the overall artistic impact of the image itself. (see photos below).

Duggan, Karin. Untitled. Summer 2004.

Ilachinski, Andrew. Noah and the Bridge. Summer 2004.

Based on what I have gleaned from the writings of Ross, Sontag, Scruton, and Walton, I wonder why someone who obviously has no or very little practical knowledge about a subject would present themselves as experts. From what I have been able to follow in their writings, they are making assumptions based on what they perceive and not by what they have personally experienced by using a camera. I am talking about hands-on, actually manipulating the camera to obtain the desired photographic result(s), or in the case of net art, sitting in front of the computer (keying) and pushing the software to its limits.

I have always felt the best part of being an artist is having that desire, that drive or that need (an itch) coupled with the ability (pardon the pun) to look outside the box. Of actually being able to create (scratch the itch) an aesthetic expression of a moment, emotion, or narrative through visual representation is what its all about. To push, twist, or manipulate the media, in this case with a camera or a computer, and being able to take it to the next level and beyond. This is what I am not reading in their papers.

The artistry of photography has come a long way since the writing of these two papers by Sontag (1977) and Ross (1982). But where were they when Stieglitz, Strand, Weston, Adams and Kertész were producing this awe-inspiring photography from 1925 to 1937. (see photos below). In some of these photographs the image of the object is not easily recognizable, however, the visual impact of each photograph is truly breathe-taking. In any one of these photos the sheer depth of field, the myriad of tones, or the intimacy that each photographer is sharing, speaks volumes to the artistry of photography and the photographer.

Alfred Stieglitz. Equivalent. 1930. <http://www.masters-of-photography.com/>.

Strand, Paul. Leaves II. 1929. <http://www.masters-of-photography.com/>.

Weston, Edward. Nude. 1925. <http://www.masters-of-photography.com/>.

Adams, Ansel. Clearing Winter Storm, Yosemite National Park. 1937.
<http://www.masters-of-photography.com/>.

Kertész, André. Montmartre. 1927. <http://www.masters-of-photography.com/>.

Oddly enough it was Walter Benjamin who asked the right question, in his essay the Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, “How had photography’s invention changed the central idea of art itself? Or further, how had mechanization in the era of mechanical reproduction out of which flowed the invention of photography changed completely the ground rules of our social lives, the nature of representation, patterns of communication and corresponding aesthetic practices?” (Ross D). And now the computer (a mechanical devise) and net art (the art form in question) arrive on the scene and there is yet another invention that threatens to change completely the ground rules of our social lives, the nature of representation, patterns of communication and corresponding aesthetic practices. And this is a bad thing?

Everyone’s a critic and everyone has an opinion about what makes art. And there will always be those few select critics out there with their strong opinions who will not concede that photography (or net art) is a true art form. It seems to me that their narrow-mindedness is their greatest weakness and their greatest loss. I therefore have to agree with Paul Strand when he phrases it so succinctly and poetically:

Whether a water-color is inferior to an oil, or whether a drawing, an etching, or a photograph is not as important as either, is inconsequent. To have to despise something in order to respect something else is a thing of impotence. Let us rather accept joyously and with gratitude everything through which the spirit of man seeks to an even fuller and more intense self-realization (qtd. in Seamon 245).

Now in the case of net art, there have been many online forums debating net art and in this one rebuttal the focus seemed to shift and, “…all talk seemed to focus on critique of the interface, as if it were photography [my emphasis] or painting. A most disturbing example of a discussion of false distinctions was Charles Altieri’s pronouncement that “deep and moving” were adjectives that could not be used to describe net art” (Crush). Just to fuel the fire, Rachel Greene adds, “work that begins with or exists within internet or commercial formats can never rise above those limits to achieve the status of art” (Greene 13). And yet again, history repeats itself, as net art gets whacked, just as photography once did. Making net art the new unofficial redheaded stepchild of the art world.

At this point it would probably be safe to indicate, “There are probably many people working within this space who don’t necessarily consider themselves artists because they don’t want to limit themselves and their activity by a set of prejudices and predefinitions of artistic practice” (Ross D). Even now an accomplished and well-known net artist remembers his humble beginnings as he states for the record,

For example, here is a complex truth that I will never be able to explain in full: I knew exactly what I was doing when I began my online practice back in January 1993, but I had no real institutional support to help facilitate the discoveries that I was in the process of making and this, in fact, forced me to anticipate the future by questioning the validity of institutional structures while nomadically circulating within the ‘hypertextual consciousness’ of the world wide web itself (how is that for personification)?” (Amerika 72).

It does seem ashamed, as Bosma points out, that many “art historians and other theorists either tried to diminish the significance of art on the net and denied its uniqueness, or tried to put it in perspective within art history to get a better understanding of it; in either case, their position towards net.art was of course strongly influenced by their background” (Bosma). Even though they are consider professionals in their fields, they apparently have not caught up to the rapid moving pace of technology or the artistry of net art. And at sometime in the near future one is “hopefully, net art criticism will be more than the constant confusion and unpleasant feuds that arise every time attempts are made to openly discuss the features of art on the net. Accepting its existence would be step one” (Bosma).

But you can’t keep a good artist down, as Ameriak reports, “The last five years have seen networked digital artists come into their own. Not only have they been making challenging new work that blurs the intermedia boundaries, but also they have been inventing their own way of expressing and/or contextualizing this work for their distributed audiences” (Amerika 73). And just as photographers took a stand; we see net artists taking a stand, as White notes, “through their strategy of quotation and denial, net artists manage to elide their relationship to such high art “problems” as class privilege, hierarchical evaluation, claims of mastery, and the exclusion of other voices while still marking the importance and cultural worth of their work” (White 175). Many net artists also believe that, “… criticism is sometimes aimed at the works’ creators: that internet and software artists, often self-identified as programmers, are not ‘real’ artists” (Greene 13).

Sounds like the critics of the art world are implying, in order to be a serious (or to be taken as a serious) artist, one should never think of using a machine (like a computer or a camera) to create art. And if this is true, then why shouldn’t they (the art critics) make the same assumption in reference to the art of painting? To be taken as a serious painter, one should never think of using a palette knife or anything other than oils on the canvas. Then why stop there, lets really limit the artist’s ability to create by saying, “If you use anything other than a paint brush or apply anything other than oils to anything other than a canvas, then surely you can not consider yourself to be a serious painter.” Hopefully, the absurdity of these statements is obvious, whether one is talking about painting, photography or yes, even net art. Each artistic genre comes with its own tools (or medium, if you will) specific to its creation. What right does any one person or group have to pass judgment as to whether on not a specific medium or tool has validity in the creative process. Isn’t that what creativity is all about?

Simply put, art, however we describe it, is always evolving and with it evolves the medium(s) the artist uses in its creation. Each art genre has its own special place in our history and as mankind advances in history, so will the techniques of art. It makes no sense to resist net art as the next art genre, as Greene observes, “Though their tools and venues differ, internet art is underwritten by the motivations that have propelled nearly all artistic practices: ideology; technology; desire; the urge to experiment, communicate, critique or destroy, the elaboration of ideals or emotions; and memorializing observation or experience” (Greene 12).

In his speech, David Ross declares, “People who are thinking seriously about art, get it. It’s the lowest blow to say what you’re doing is not art. But that’s critics” (Ross D). In life there is good and there is bad. In the case of net art, it seems obvious the good outweighs the bad. The freedom to create using new technology as a medium is a big part of what net art brings to society today:

1. Net art is an interactive intimate experience between the artist of his/her audience in real-time
2. Net art is global
3. Net art is created and viewed in the same environment and is not cost prohibited
4. Net art is not class or gender specific and each viewer walks away with their own unique experience

If you get right down to it, history will repeat itself and it’s only a matter of time before net art (just as photography) becomes a recognized art genre.

Works Cited

Amerika, Mark. “Anticipating the Present: An Artist’s Intuition.” New Media & Society. 6.1 (2004): 71-76.

“Art.” Gallery Direct Art. March 15, 2004. <http://www.gallerydirectart.com/art-dictionary.html>

Bosma, Josephine. “Is it Spam? Noooo…Is It a Commercial? Noooo…It’s Net Art.” 1998. 24 Nov. 2004. <http://www.cityarts.com/paulc/SVA/vol2_no3_net_art.html>.

Brook, Donald. “Painting, Photography and Representation.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. 42.2 (Winter 1983): 171-180.

“CRUSH: a response to CRASH: UC Berkeley Symposium on Critical and Historical Issues in Net Art.” 19 Feb. 2000. <http://www.conceputalart.org/features/crush/crush.htm>.

Grant, Daniel. “More Art Student Create on Digital Canvases.” Christian Science Monitor 94.157 (2002): 17.

Greene, Rachel. Internet Art. New York: Thames & Hudson, 2004.

“Masters of Photography.” Home page. 15 March 2005.<http://www.masters-of-photography.com/>.

Orvell, Miles. “The Inner Eye of Alfred Stieglitz; Literary Admirers of Alfred Stieglitz.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 42.3 (Spring 1984): 339-341.

Ross, David. “Art and the Age of the Digital.” Cadre Institute in conjunction with San Jose State University art gallery, New Mexico. 2 Mar. 1999. <http://switch.sjsu.edu/web/ross.html>.

Ross, Stephanie. “What Photographs Can’t Do.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 41.1 (Autumn 1982): 5-17.

Seamon, Roger. “From the World Is Beautiful to the Family of Man: The Plight of Photography as a Modern Art.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 55.3 (Summer 1997): 245-252.

White, Michele. “The Aesthetic of Failure: Net Art Gone Wrong.” Journal of the Theoretical Humanities 7.1 (2002): 173-194.

Suggested Net Art Websites:
<http://www.superbad.com/>
<http://www.markamerika.com/filmtext/>
<http://www.doctorhugo.org/dreamz/>
<http://www.art.net/studios/digital.html>

GMU
AVT 600 Research Methodologies
24 March 2005

Reception History Updated

It was a late October afternoon the sky was a gun metal gray and the rain was steadily falling, giving a bone chilling dampness to the air, with not the slightest hint of the weather changing for the better.

The trial was fast paced and turning out to be very exciting from a laymen’s point of view. Both the defense and prosecution had done their homework and done it well, for with each turn of events the tension mounted in the courtroom. With both sides deadlocked in confrontation, it was time for a radical decision to be made. The defense lawyer petitioned the court for a day of recess. He called me to his side and whispering in low tones told me of an old relic he was sure still existed in a warehouse of rare and antique art objects. And with this object of art, he swore he could prove his point beyond the shadow of a doubt and bring these incessant legal arguments to a close once and for all. After all, he stated, “How many times has it been said…one picture is worth a thousand words.” So with that statement, I accepted my assignment and was off in search of this rare art object for the defense attorney.

The warehouse itself had been skillfully constructed to hold and maintain various objects of art throughout the ages and was in and of itself a tribute to modern technology at its finest. As I entered the building, I immediately became aware of the change of the purity in the air, it had an indescribable clean sweetness to it and it almost took my breath away. The total lack of moisture in the building was also a remarkable and yet unmistakable sensation. It was also at the entrance of the warehouse that I was stopped by one of the guards, dressed in white from head to foot, and asked to produce the legal document authorizing my admittance into this holy repository of artifacts.

Once my document was found to be in order the guard led me down a short hallway and into a small room where I was instructed to put on what appeared to be a puffy snow white space suit. At first, I couldn’t understand why this seemed so important, but then the guard explained the necessity of maintaining the purity of the warehouse’s atmosphere to preserve the art objects held within its walls.

With my snow white space suit securely on, the guard then led me into another containment room, large enough for only one person, and it was from here that I would be allowed to pass into the warehouse itself. The guard sealed the door shut and I steadied my nerves as a high pitched whooshing sound and a pale white transparent smoke-like substance enveloped me and filled the one-person cleansing cubicle in final preparation for my entrance into the main warehouse.

As quickly as the smoke-like substance had appeared, so did it also disappear with a sharp high-pitched hissing sound that left my ears ringing for a few moments following the departure of the smoke-like substance. I slowly turned to face the door on the opposite side of the cubicle and as that door slide from right to left a blinding white light snapped on in the room directly ahead of me. I was unprepared for the awesome sight as I slowly emerged from the cleansing cubicle. This looming structure was the sole haven for the most visually breath-taking and stimulating objects of art I had ever seen or experienced since starting my detective agency. I immediately sensed the overwhelming vastness in the warehouse and an overpowering inadequacy of my task at hand, as I witnessed before me rows upon rows of a myriad of colors, a diversity of sizes, and an unconceivable polymorphism of shapes contained within these walls.

The relationship between the diminutive size of the thing I was seeking and the sheer spaciousness of this warehouse, with its rows upon rows of awe-inspiring art objects, seemed to work against each other. However, the cold hard facts still remained, my instructions of where to locate the white box inside this warehouse were “level 6, section 38, row 52, shelf 103-B” and I was determined to carry out my assignment. Therefore, I had to muster up my convictions and bolster my determination to press onward without any more delay to the task now set before me. It was of little comfort to me that I carried the knowledge of where to find this unpretentious small white box. This small white box had somehow become more than just an art student’s simple message to the masses.

It was the defense attorney’s intention to introduce this small box into evidence. At present he alone knew of the thought-provoking message contained within the small white box and he was pinning all his hopes on the irrefutable explanation of this mysterious message. For this reason alone my urgency to locate and obtain the white box overrode my sense of complicity, so I dug down deep into my inner resources and continued on my search.

I carefully removed, from the pouch on the side of my white space suit, a sterile see-through zip-locked bag holding the instructions I was to follow once inside the warehouse. I followed the directions without a hitch and as I came to my last turn on the lower level I knew it was now time to ascend into the web-like rafters above. I quickly located a nearby elevating platform and following the instructions supplied on the control panel I was able to engage the gears and was on my way to the top of the rafters and to my small white prize.

Yet even armed with the knowledge that I was well within reach of successfully finding this small white box, the same question kept repeating itself over and over again inside my head, “Was there still be time to change the course of events that had recently thrown our society into this creative abyss?” Or would the freedom of creative borrowing from the great minds of our past become dead to our future?

Because of this question it was hard for me to believe I had been sent to look for a piece of art that had originated as an university art student’s project for a remix assignment using Lessig’s book, Free Culture. The catalog description of this art project was, “a predominately white rectangular box, approximately seven inches in length by five inches in height and four inches in width, light in weight and simple in its overall design.” There would be several curious geometrical-shaped groupings of text on the outside of this white box. The placement of these geometrical-shaped groupings fall into a random and chaotic layout, with the groupings sometimes overlapping, sometimes being placed upside down, and sometimes with chunks of text being randomly cut out of their paragraphs and discarded. Furthermore, upon my closer inspection of these textual groupings, it becomes apparent that they are indeed direct quotes from the book authored by Lawrence Lessig dealing with his interpretations of the unintended and improper use of intellectual property and copyright laws.

However, the most intriguing part of this small white box was not the text that haphazardly covered its outside, it was a lonely rectangular opening in the upper left-hand corner at one end of the box. I could not resist my curiosity, I had to peek inside the white box that I had been sent to retrieve for the defense. The visual impact of the diminishing repetitions of the copyright symbol hit me like a ton of bricks. Instantly realizing the sheer folly of our society being allowed to continue on its present path of self-destruction was nothing short of mind boggling. For by permitting ‘ALL’ copyrights to become extended indefinitely, it would only be a matter of time before nothing would be left to draw from or to use as source material in the creative realm.

What had once started off as noble and justifiable ideas, intellectual property and our copyright laws, had been quickly turned around and put into a downward spiral working against our unsuspecting society. The original intention of Intellectual Property (IP) and our copyright laws was to allow people to own their own creations and innovative ideas in the same way they owned personal property. Through IP and copyrights these owners could control and be rewarded for the use of their creative property, which would in-turn promote new growth and the continued development of other new creative and innovative ideas.

It was obvious to me that it would not have been prudent for me to have continued with my search had it not been for the Preservation of Art Acts (POAA) passed some fifty years ago. By putting into motion these preservation laws society was able to maintain and restore artifacts from our past. To give back, by building on the knowledge given to us from those (creative people) before us, is only right. Then I began to understand a quote I had read from Francis Bacon (English painter, 1909-92), he said, “…This is the artist’s privilege—to be ageless.” And it was in this warehouse where those laws were being enforced I was able to find the evidence for defense.

Finally with the small white box tucked securely under my right arm I started a slow steady decent from the web-like rafters of the warehouse. My return trip from the warehouse was wholly uneventfully, for the most part, with the exception of the warehouse guard’s meticulous handling of the white box in preparation for its departure into the outside world from which it had been protected from all these many years until now.

The warehouse guard carefully opened the front door to the entrance of the warehouse and I stepped out onto the covered landing before the street. I popped opened my oversized black umbrella and adjusted my coat, in hopes of protecting me and my prize from the steady downpour of the endless rain, the gun metal gray sky and the bone chilling damp cold that seemed to penetrate the strongest of materials, as I slowly descended the stairs from the covered landing. I was now on the finally leg of my adventure, back to the conclusion of the trial and ultimately to witness the judge’s decision concerning the future of borrowed creativity.

Works Cited
Image Description
Intellectual Property and Copyright laws
Lessig, Laurence. "Free Culture."