A Terabyte of Piracy Ain't Art

[Anodos]

Dont know what you guys dont get.


How many people go to museums and goggle at an egg made out of gold. So what? I can make an egg. I made eggs this morning. Oh, but gold is so VALUABLE. Oh, then thats amazing! How can one little tiny ball be with so much! You can carry a lifetime worth of money right in your pocket. Or, in this day and age, i can turn on my P2P for a week, and now i have a piece of metal that is WORTH MORE THEN GOLD. Or is it?

Thats why its art. Dont know what you guys THINK its supposed to be....

 

[TaboriHK]

Have you considered that perhaps your reaction to the piece is what the art is, and not the piece itself?

 

[ILikeEggs]

I'm just going to leave this here:
http://grumbledog.highconceptmedia.com/2007/11/modern-art-sucks-and-ill-tell-you-why.html

A short excerpt from the above blog

It turns out, that Wyeth, Parrish, Rockwell, Erte, Mucha, et al were not considered real artists - they're only illustrators. The real Artists (with a capital A) are above such petty concerns as being technically proficient and easily understandable. The new Modern art world, (which was sadly well established before I was born), would be inherited by the dribblers, those artists who created works whose (alleged) artistic merits were A) - inversely proportionate to the amount of skill needed to create them, and B) - directly proportionate to the amount of explanation they needed in order to be understood. Great technical virtuosity, and an incredible ability to communicate complex ideas to every person with eyes, has given way to the spastic spatterings of paint and the abstruse interpretations of Pollock and his imitators.

A terabyte of piracy is not art. Conceptual "art" is not art. Abstract "art" is not art.

I'm not saying that art needs no ideas to support it or that it must be purely representational. To simplify, an idea on its own is not art. Consequently, an idea presented in a way that any ordinary person can imitate is not art; it remains an idea or a concept.

1TB of piracy, as an idea needs no "representation" or execution in the form of a hard drive on a pedestal since one could simply explain the idea via an audio-reading of the concept.
One might say that it adds to the significance of the "piece", embodying it as art, but in reality it simply makes the idea more easy to relate to. This in itself does not make something art. Taking an idea, finding a real-world object commonly associated with such ideas or concepts and using this object to represent the idea is not art. It never will be.
Call it a profound, moving idea, call it whatever you like, but calling it art is absolutely ridiculous to me.

True visual art needs no contrived explanations, no frilly paragraphs of prose to have the desired effect on the viewer. All that true art requires of the viewer is a functioning pair of eyes. Hell, just one eye will do.
Take a look at Christina's World by Andrew Wyeth, paintings by William Bouguereau, Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema, Jean Leon Gerome, Raphael, Caravaggio, (maybe check out "The Connoiseur" by Norman Rockwell) and think about the impact they have on you.
I've found that true visual art cannot be explained as such. No matter how you try and explain the composition, colour palette, light, forms and style you'll never be able to allow another person to completely visualise it in their mind, or allow them to experience the impact of the piece, short of actually showing it to them. This is how I'd define true art, personally.

 

[Midnight Crossroads]

That's actually pretty cool. So much valuable data in a little black box.

 

[n00beffect]

.

**sigh**



This project is most certainly art, because it makes a comment about today's society. Art is not (just) about looking nice or creativity - it's about chronicling who we are as a people.

No, that's not what art is generally about. What you're describing is something completely different, in a completely different field, for that matter, called "History".

OT: I wouldn't call it art, exactly. I'd rather call it a "statement". Art, first and foremost, is something CREATED by an ARTIST. This is neither a "creation", nor do these things belong to the "artist", himself. Except maybe the drive. But that's like a frame. If for instance the picture's Van Gogh's and the frame is made by some bloke somewhere, do you call that whole piece of art his? No, of course not, that's obtuse. Nevertheless, I agree with what Princess Rose, whom I've quoted, says on all the other points. It's a message, but not necesserily art. It's rather, more of a graffity type of messege, or a poster, but certainly not a WORK of art.

 

[ILikeEggs]

OT: I wouldn't call it art, exactly. I'd rather call it a "statement". Art, first and foremost, is something CREATED by an ARTIST. This is neither a "creation", nor do these things belong to the "artist", himself. Except maybe the drive. But that's like a frame. If for instance the picture's Van Gogh's and the frame is made by some bloke somewhere, do you call that whole piece of art his? No, of course not, that's obtuse. Nevertheless, I agree with what Princess Rose, whom I've quoted, says on all the other points. It's a message, but not necesserily art. It's rather, more of a graffity type of messege, or a poster, but certainly not a WORK of art.

I'd agree, but the piece must also be mentally or emotionally moving to an extent, in addition to the technical proficiency.

Which is why I'm also hesitant to classify abstract art as art simply because it is often nothing more than swirls and various patterns of colour.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

I like it. It brings up the question: can data that can replicated an infinite number of times at no cost really have a value?

 

[Asuka Soryu]

Ha ha. I hate art. ~.~

 

[Vankraken]

Why would you name a place Art 404 when 404 is file not found? So this gallery is for art not found? Seems fitting because a HD full of easily downloaded and replaceable files honestly has no real meaning. A flash drive with a person's ideas is worth infinity more than 5 million dollars of pirated files. Besides if that HD had every N64 game rom then it had Superman 64 on it and that automatically qualifies it as non art.

 

[Do4600]

I was really hoping this article would end with him getting arrested for several thousand counts of violating "Title 17, United States Code, Sections 501 and 506" and sentencing him to 8000 years in prison with parole.

In the eyes of the law this is just like stealing five million dollars worth of stuff, piling it in a room and calling it art, I really wonder if they will bring the hammer down on this person, the incentive to enforce these copyright laws just seems lax in this comparison, maybe that's why people get away with so much piracy.

 

[Do4600]

.

**sigh**



This project is most certainly art, because it makes a comment about today's society. Art is not (just) about looking nice or creativity - it's about chronicling who we are as a people.

No, that's not what art is generally about. What you're describing is something completely different, in a completely different field, for that matter, called "History".

OT: I wouldn't call it art, exactly. I'd rather call it a "statement". Art, first and foremost, is something CREATED by an ARTIST. This is neither a "creation", nor do these things belong to the "artist", himself. Except maybe the drive. But that's like a frame. If for instance the picture's Van Gogh's and the frame is made by some bloke somewhere, do you call that whole piece of art his? No, of course not, that's obtuse. Nevertheless, I agree with what Princess Rose, whom I've quoted, says on all the other points. It's a message, but not necesserily art. It's rather, more of a graffity type of messege, or a poster, but certainly not a WORK of art.

I have to disagree, this is art, art has many broad definitions in our society. Technically, you don't have to create anything to create physical art, the absolute fringes of art are beyond that, all that is actually required is to attach a thought to an object; "Fountain" by Marcel Duchamp is an excellent example of this that someone mentioned earlier. "Fountain" is certainly an important step in art of the 20th century, and all it is is a urinal that Duchamp found and scrawled "R Mutt" on it, but it's the idea that Duchamp attached to it, "This urinal is art." that made it art and one of the final steps of the Dada movement, which allowed forms like surrealism, pop and postmodernism to come about.

This hard-drive is art, sure anybody could do this, but they didn't, he did, he took a new concept, pirating online, and made a point to download a huge amount of data totaling over five million dollars, set it on a pedestal and called it art, this creates a situation where you are forced to consider it on the same level as other works of art, and this causes a whole cascade of thoughts regarding it and the validity not only of his statement but of the worth of data, the laws regarding the worth of data, how people view themselves who pirate data and how you feel about people who pirate data.

This is art, I've already specified a piece of artwork that took less time and is even more absurd in concept than this piece of artwork that has become a minor cornerstone in art in the last century.

That DOESN'T mean that a terabyte of stolen files is "GOOD" art, that is a separate concept, but this is definitely art. So yes, there are all sorts of things you as a person could do(Merda d'artista) and call it art, but that won't make it "good"

 

[ILikeEggs]

I have to disagree, this is art, art has many broad definitions in our society. Technically, you don't have to create anything to create physical art, the absolute fringes of art are beyond that, all that is actually required is to attach a thought to an object

Dadaism, modernism, conceptual "art", performance "art" and the like are a sham. Sure, a group of people with ideals(anti-war, blah blah) started the trend of defining art as whatever the hell an "artist" calls it. Does this automatically mean you stop thinking for yourself?
Here's a little something to think about; say you were in a junkyard and there were famous works of art, modern and realist strewn around the place. Without a knowledge of the ideas behind "masterpieces" like Guernica, Fountain and No. 5 by Pollock, would you know to rescue those works of "art" over realist works such as Pollice Verso, Dawn by Michaelangelo, Nymphs and Satyr, Christina's World or Madame X? I don't think I'd rescue a urinal with something scrawled on it over Michaelangelo's Dawn even if I did know it was "art".
Or consider this; which of the above paintings would you much rather have displayed in your home, the modern or the realist? Me? I'd have the paintings that wouldn't make people think I'm a pretentious git.

Additionally, modern art was at a point defined as anti-art by the artists comprising the movement. How have these "brilliant" non-conformists, these hipsters suddenly moulded themselves into conformity? I'd say it's because of the fake culture they've created. A culture that relies on someone telling you something is of value, rather than a culture which allows you, the viewer to rely on your brains and eyes, like any rational being. I'm starting to remind myself of that one speech from Life of Brian, now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-art#Anti-art_becomes_art

This hard-drive is art, sure anybody could do this, but they didn't, he did, he took a new concept, pirating online, and made a point to download a huge amount of data totaling over five million dollars, set it on a pedestal and called it art

So if I were to take a digital SLR, hold it over the edge of a tall building, take a photo of the street/ground below, remove the memory card, proceed to drop the camera to the ground, recover as many pieces as possible, print the photo taken just prior to dropping it, put the photo and remnants of the camera on a pedestal and call it some pretentious nonsense like "A life flashing before your eyes", it would be art? I'm sure if I had some contacts within the inner circle of buffoons that comprise the modern art establishment, someone would get me a buyer who'd pay me ridiculously well.
But no, that is NOT what art is. What I described above, and what you read into the 1TB of piracy would still be nothing more than an idea, statement, philosophy, political, cultural or social commentary which is simply presented in a logical fashion or made easy to relate to.

That DOESN'T mean that a terabyte of stolen files is "GOOD" art, that is a separate concept, but this is definitely art. So yes, there are all sorts of things you as a person could do(Merda d'artista) and call it art, but that won't make it "good"

I appreciate that you make a slight differentiation, but I still would not call this art. Nor would I call Duchamp's, Pollock's or any modern artist's shit(see what I did there?) art. If I were to subscribe to this definition of art, I could very well call my backyard wall art since it embodies my desire to keep people out of my backyard.
True art needs no explanation of the ideals, concepts or thoughts behind creating it to move the viewer.

Like other people have said earlier:

Just because a statement can be read into something does not make it art, see teenage rebellion.

 

[n00beffect]

.

**sigh**



This project is most certainly art, because it makes a comment about today's society. Art is not (just) about looking nice or creativity - it's about chronicling who we are as a people.

No, that's not what art is generally about. What you're describing is something completely different, in a completely different field, for that matter, called "History".

OT: I wouldn't call it art, exactly. I'd rather call it a "statement". Art, first and foremost, is something CREATED by an ARTIST. This is neither a "creation", nor do these things belong to the "artist", himself. Except maybe the drive. But that's like a frame. If for instance the picture's Van Gogh's and the frame is made by some bloke somewhere, do you call that whole piece of art his? No, of course not, that's obtuse. Nevertheless, I agree with what Princess Rose, whom I've quoted, says on all the other points. It's a message, but not necesserily art. It's rather, more of a graffity type of messege, or a poster, but certainly not a WORK of art.

I have to disagree, this is art, art has many broad definitions in our society. Technically, you don't have to create anything to create physical art, the absolute fringes of art are beyond that, all that is actually required is to attach a thought to an object; "Fountain" by Marcel Duchamp is an excellent example of this that someone mentioned earlier. "Fountain" is certainly an important step in art of the 20th century, and all it is is a urinal that Duchamp found and scrawled "R Mutt" on it, but it's the idea that Duchamp attached to it, "This urinal is art." that made it art and one of the final steps of the Dada movement, which allowed forms like surrealism, pop and postmodernism to come about.

This hard-drive is art, sure anybody could do this, but they didn't, he did, he took a new concept, pirating online, and made a point to download a huge amount of data totaling over five million dollars, set it on a pedestal and called it art, this creates a situation where you are forced to consider it on the same level as other works of art, and this causes a whole cascade of thoughts regarding it and the validity not only of his statement but of the worth of data, the laws regarding the worth of data, how people view themselves who pirate data and how you feel about people who pirate data.

This is art, I've already specified a piece of artwork that took less time and is even more absurd in concept than this piece of artwork that has become a minor cornerstone in art in the last century.

That DOESN'T mean that a terabyte of stolen files is "GOOD" art, that is a separate concept, but this is definitely art. So yes, there are all sorts of things you as a person could do(Merda d'artista) and call it art, but that won't make it "good"

Now, you may argue so, since the concept of "art" is extremely subjective, especially nowadays. (And not just nowadays, look-up the history and early works of Renoar, for instance, and you'll see how, even though at first rejected, later on he, and many others, were acknowledged. And their impressionist style, as well). However, as I and many other have said, a 'message' is not necesserily 'art'. I do not approve of, or acknowledge the Dada movement, or any/most abstract, surrealistic movements. Maybe that's why we tend to disagree. As the good gentlement @ilikeegs has stated "True art needs no explanation of the ideals, concepts or thoughts behind creating it, to move the viewer." Also, simply DISPLAYING something, isn't quite DEPICTING it, now, is it? There is a slight difference between both concepts, and the former applies to this particular "piece". If you were to attach a painting on yur wall, by some great artist, does that make you yourself an artist? Or rather, if you attach an unknow, or unthought of idea/picture/whatever to your wall or anywhere else, that is not YOUR piece of work, but someone else's - does this make you an artist?! Come on! Ridiculous! Sure, you may have an IDEA, the cornerstone of every work of art out there, but just manifesting it into some frame, that not even you created to begin with... I am sorry, I cannot acknowledge this. Depict it, for godssake! If he had drawn it, written it, performed it, even, anything - yes, then yes, I would agree and acknowledge. But since this is not the case, how could I! And that's not even about whether it's good or not, I never misconceived those two completely different notions. I just... Agh, since when has "displaying" something become art! Gosh, we're so fucked-up in today's society! I can barely stand it any longer.

So if I were to take a digital SLR, hold it over the edge of a tall building, take a photo of the street/ground below, remove the memory card, proceed to drop the camera to the ground, recover as many pieces as possible, print the photo taken just prior to dropping it, put the photo and remnants of the camera on a pedestal and call it some pretentious nonsense like "A life flashing before your eyes", it would be art? I'm sure if I had some contacts within the inner circle of buffoons that comprise the modern art establishment, someone would get me a buyer who'd pay me ridiculously well.

- ROFL, ROFL, ROFL!!!! I completely rofl-ed my ass off on this one! That was extremely well put, good sir, you are a genius in analogies! See @Do4600? That is exactly how ridiculous this situation is! Good show!

 

[Zarkov]

I usually have trouble with modern art (once I saw a broken snow shovel being displayed), but I actually get this. Doesn't it bring up the idea of how digital data that can be replicated with virtually no cost is assigned a value? A little black box you can buy at any computer store worth $5,000,000 because it's filled with data? And the fact that this is so easy to do?

Whoo, a person with a brain!

Most people on here automatically dismiss this as shit or "not art" just because it includes pirating in the name. I contend that this piece of art is one of most contemporary pieces of art out there. This idea that piracy is so easy to accomplish and the value of programs are almost useless to consumers is the core subject of the object. It not only gives away the justification most piraters use (thus a look into what someone pirating would think) but it also explores the ambiguity of value in programs and software.

I think this is amazing, personally; it provokes thought on subjects people rather ignore all together - and this is why its art.

(And I know that because it has pirating in the name isn't why some people dismiss it; its because they think it is unoriginal or easy to accomplish. But the way I see it they miss the meaning of the object as a whole.)

 

[Zarkov]

I wouldn't call this art because it's not original work and no effort went into making it. It's not 'Art' so much as 'the World's smallest gallery'.

Now it's thought provoking and it makes an interesting point but that doesn't make it art, that makes it an argument. Yes, a compelling argument but still an argument.

Ah, but one of the most defining traits of art is controversy. And this has no lack of it.

Why has abstract art become art? It's because there was ambiguity in whether it was considered art and in what the art actually meant.

And this object isn't an argument; it is something to be argued over. The authors clear point of view doesn't show itself through the work; multiple and opposing meanings can be derived from the art.

One could say this stands for how easy it is to obtain software illegally.

One could say this stands for how useless pricing on software that can be duplicated unlimited times for nothing.

One could also say that this stands for how a twenty dollar hard drive can be turned into over a million dollars just because of a bunch of ones and zeros it contains.

 

[Do4600]

I do not approve of, or acknowledge the Dada movement, or any/most abstract, surrealistic movements.

This tells me all I need to know.

You do realize that almost all of the key artists and pieces of art created after about 1880 were part of abstract movements right?

This includes artists like: Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Max Ernst, Paul Cézanne, Pablo Picasso, Henri Matisse, Egon Schiele, Max Beckmann, Gustav Klimt, Willem de Kooning, Claude Monet, Paul Gauguin, Georgia O'Keeffe, Salvador Dalí and Vincent Van Gogh.

You can choose not to acknowledge these artists and their works of art but I won't be able to have a discussion about recent works of art with someone who doesn't recognize the forms and ideals of the movements that have occurred in the past 131 years as a legitimate expression within the context of art.

 

[Do4600]

pretentious git, non-conformists, hipsters

You seem to assign an awful lot of importance to attaching current commonly negative connotations to artists whom you didn't know that lived 95 years ago, it's almost as if you were trying to discredit them without providing a reasonable critique of their work.

So if I were to take a digital SLR, hold it over the edge of a tall building, take a photo of the street/ground below, remove the memory card, proceed to drop the camera to the ground, recover as many pieces as possible, print the photo taken just prior to dropping it, put the photo and remnants of the camera on a pedestal and call it some pretentious nonsense like "A life flashing before your eyes", it would be art? I'm sure if I had some contacts within the inner circle of buffoons that comprise the modern art establishment, someone would get me a buyer who'd pay me ridiculously well.

I believe I already answered this.

yes, there are all sorts of things you as a person could do and call it art, but that won't make it "good"

I appreciate that you make a slight differentiation, but I still would not call this art. Nor would I call Duchamp's, Pollock's or any modern artist's shit(see what I did there?) art. If I were to subscribe to this definition of art, I could very well call my backyard wall art since it embodies my desire to keep people out of my backyard.

Again, I already answered this.

yes, there are all sorts of things you as a person could do and call it art, but that won't make it "good"

Also by

Spoiler: Duchamp

Just because you dislike something doesn't cease to make it art, and just because this piece of art in is the same field as "The Philosopher in Meditation" and "Number 18" doesn't lower "The Philosopher in Meditation" and in turn "The Philosopher in Meditation" doesn't grant prestige to "One Terabyte of Stolen Pron on a Hard drive".

 

[ILikeEggs]

- ROFL, ROFL, ROFL!!!! I completely rofl-ed my ass off on this one! That was extremely well put, good sir, you are a genius in analogies! See @Do4600? That is exactly how ridiculous this situation is! Good show!

You're too kind, but I'm not that good, haha.

You seem to assign an awful lot of importance to attaching current commonly negative connotations to artists whom you didn't know that lived 95 years ago, it's almost as if you were trying to discredit them without providing a reasonable critique of their work.

In case you haven't noticed, I have been critiquing their work. Again, their work is sloppy, amateurish, nearly non-existent, incoherent and oftentimes looks like something a monkey could have created.
In my mind, their "work" can not include the ideas behind the piece simply because an idea or a philosophy is in no way art, and it takes no work as such to attach an idea or concept to a common utilitarian object.
To take my backyard wall analogy a step further, STOP signs would have to be considered art by your definition simply because they embody the idea that a person who sees them must stop in an orderly fashion. Doesn't that sound the slightest bit ridiculous to you?

Just because you dislike something doesn't cease to make it art, and just because this piece of art in is the same field as "The Philosopher in Meditation" and "Number 18" doesn't lower "The Philosopher in Meditation" and in turn "The Philosopher in Meditation" doesn't grant prestige to "One Terabyte of Stolen Pron on a Hard drive".

There's nothing about pieces of modern art I inherently dislike for the most part. However, I do dislike the culture surrounding modern art. The problem with modern art as it stands is that most modern artists are in fact wannabe philosophers and political, cultural and social commentators.
Well, all that in addition to the fact that they want quick, easy fame and money.
Ideas and concepts have no real place in art(most certainly not as the basis for a work of art), which up until recently has remained aesthetic, sometimes practical. Ideas and concepts are under the purview of philosophy and everything I mentioned above.
I'm not saying ideas have no place in art whatsoever, but to radically change one's definition of art to "An object embodying an idea" simply because a group of people within the last century said so makes no sense to me.
All I'm asking you to do is ignore everything everyone has told you about what makes something art and think for yourself.

As a thinking person, I do not subscribe to the contrived definition of art as an object that absolutely must embody an idea, which is considered art only for the person who thought it up first.
I believe art is immediately and plainly accessible and understandable to any viewer with an eye or a pair of eyes, without the need for someone to tell them that it is art.