OOI-MTA+++
OOI-MTA+++ is a perpetually curated archive of past, present, and future projects, with the OOI-MTA collective originating in Ahmedabad, India, in 2017. The archive is intended to illustrate and privilege works-based agency in literary-artistic scholarship versus bespoke or singular projects. The focus of the event-based records is the non-necessity of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and the limitations imposed by adhering to out-of-date methodologies for the production and dissemination of works.
THE LAW OF QUANTUM SUBMISSIONS
PREPARED + PENDING SUBMISSION
PREPARED + SUBMITTED
PREPARED + NEVER SUBMITTED
SUBMITTED + WAITING
SUBMITTED + NEVER HEARD ANYTHING
SUBMITTED + SHORTLISTED + WAITING
SUBMITTED + SHORTLISTED + FAILED
INTERVIEWED + FAILED
INTERVIEWED + ACCEPTED
ACCEPTED + FORTHCOMING
ACCEPTED + WITHDREW
ACCEPTED + SENT SOMEONE ELSE
ACCEPTED + DISAPPEARED EN ROUTE
ACCEPTED + WAS KIDNAPPED EN ROUTE
ACCEPTED + WAS ARRESTED EN ROUTE
ACCEPTED + DIED EN ROUTE
ACCEPTED + ON-GOING
ACCEPTED + COMPLETED
FAILED + PENDING RE-SUBMISSION
FAILED + CONVERTED TO RECORD
FAILED + CONSIGNED TO FLAMES
NEXT REVOLUTION: BEYOND IPR
“I IS REVOLUTION”
I speak through the stones
In words as whorls and worlds.
I rest in calm, unagitated
By wind, waves, or wandering.
What was has always passed
Into places beyond stones or wood.
What will be is the wildest dream,
The question and answer as One.
Life turns on the slimmest chance
Into an immeasurable quest.
The heart rises with moon and stars,
And clouds drift over inner seas.
When Kurt Schwitters declared, “I is Style” (“Ich ist Stil”), if he actually ever did openly state such, was it an egotistical, narcissistic statement? No. (Was it bad grammar? No.) It was, instead, an “elemental” (perhaps apocryphal) aspect of second-wave Dada, in the subcontext of Surrealism, with Dada having been established in Zurich at the Cabaret Voltaire, in 1916, by an international group of avant-garde, anti-war activists — foremost the redoubtable Hugo Ball, who would later go on to voluntary exile in Switzerland studying Byzantine angelology, in part supported by Hermann Hesse. Schwitters’ posture (or imposture) brings into tension all of the issues of “the voice” of radical works of art. For, “who” is actually speaking through such works? And “who” would dare state such a thing?
If artist-scholars today were to dare to declare, through works, “I is Revolution,” and, in the process, renounce Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), would it be an egotistical, narcissistic statement? No. (Would it be bad grammar? No.) It would be, instead, a form of second-wave Open Access (OA), with OA having been formally established in the 2000s — and then, subsequently, rigorously defended through both Guerilla Open Access (GOA) and the creation of Creative Commons (CC) licensing, with the former (GOA) championed by Aaron Swartz and the latter (CC licensing) by Aaron Swartz, Lawrence Lessig et al., in response to the neoliberal, capitalist assault on academic and scholarly publishing. In stating (silently or otherwise), “I is Revolution,” “who” would actually be speaking through such works?
The next step in the OA revolution is, therefore, perhaps, to electively and performatively renounce IPR, such that things that are currently otherwise inaccessible — e.g., due to artists and scholars being obsessed with IPR and abject careerism — become accessible. The irreducible foundation for such a Franciscan-inspired “No Rights” status for works (the “right to have no rights”) is “Prior Art” (a term notably embedded in both copyright and patent law) — or, the acknowledgment that everything is, more or less, “The Gift” or “The Given,” as disclosed in Phenomenology and in Post-phenomenology, through a set of critical measures or engagements established across the arc of the modernist and post-modernist insurrection(s) known as Structuralism and Post-structuralism (from “Saussure to Derrida”). To claim ownership of works based on and/or incorporating Prior Art is, arguably, the equivalent of theft, while the enforcement of IPR (including, ironically, the recent enforcement of OA), by law or by neoliberal academic fiat, is the equivalent of slavery or serfdom for artist-scholars — i.e., enslavement and servitude to Capital and its edicts, and capitulation to Capital’s subtle and openly vulgar mechanisms for the cooptation of works and de facto censorship by marginalization of authors and works. The construction of authorial presences, a 500-to-600-year project of Modernity and Capital, may easily be seen as the construction of a mythos, on behalf of Capital and its apologists. The construction of the artistic ego goes hand-in-glove, and the apparent glorification of celebrity artists and the attendant privileges granted (wealth, influence, immortality, etc.) may be easily equated with the construction of saints. Capital’s semi-secret alliance with theology may, however, also be its downfall. Under the right circumstances, that theological impress, however debased and secularized, may be restored to its principled, existential and essentialist origins. This universalist impress, while out of fashion or out of date, may be re-positioned through works versus through ideology and mere Kafka-esque caprice for Power.
WILD BLUE YONDER
Thus, the (next) revolution will not be sensationalized — and it will certainly not be televised. It will have little or nothing to do with the so-called knowledge commons, at least as it is constructed/consecrated today. It will be, instead, a matter of quietly sidestepping “all of that” — and, in a sense, it will be (or it will resemble) a return to General Intellect, as homage to Karl Marx, who was, after all, quite right about Capital and its incessant assault on Life Itself, through its assault on labor and subjects proper. It will be the equivalent of “Walking away from illness” (walking away from the edicts, biases, and debris of neoliberal academia); and it will be the equivalent of “Picking up thy bed and walking” (walking away from the hyper-commodified, sensationalized art world and its globalized cabals of gatekeepers). This revolution in literary-artistic sentiment(s) will be collectivist and communitarian in spirit; and it will find access to things otherwise buried or banned within and by post-contemporary art and scholarship, through new, radical-democratic works of literary-artistic merit produced under the rubric of “utter uselessness.” In being utterly useless, such works will actually be mysteriously and mischievously useful, countering the prevailing materialist definitions of utility and empiricism. The utilitarian and empirical values will be atemporal, ahistorical, and of no commercial value. They will have no value to/for Capital. They will refuse historicization by academics and art historians. They will be, by default, anti-capitalistic and anti-academic. The ideational-Franciscan, foundational precepts of “itinerancy, poverty, works,” as disclosed through all such avant-garde works of radical-democratic merit, will return by way of the renunciation not of money, per se, but of the worship of money and privilege. Other privileges, other forms of largesse (i.e., not-money), lost across the capitalist onslaught of 500–600 years, may then return. A foundational Spirit for such works is but one example, but established — out of Necessity — through works.
PARALOGISMS FOR ARTIST-SCHOLARS
INTRODUCTION
“Beware of the man whose God is in the skies.” — George Bernard Shaw
The following questions — as semi-absurd (non-moral, Nietzschean) propositions or aphorisms — represent what might be termed “fallacious” arguments (paralogisms) in favor of justifying a “No Rights” status for works of literary-artistic merit, yet only when judged from the perspective of author rights. As such, they are also fallacious paralogisms. The ironic value, as paralogisms, is to illustrate that what is required is to exit the entire field of argumentation concerning Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) law, foremost the definitions of “authorial presence” in place for over 500 years, such that “No Rights” becomes an a-legal category that is also entirely elective through works versus a legal option for works (i.e., in advance of works). Embedded in the somewhat elliptical argumentation is the tacit observance and acknowledgement of Creative Commons (CC) licensing as the foremost, current frontier, with CC0 signaling the limit presently permissible for “renouncing” authorial rights via license.
EIGHT QUESTIONS
1. What is a “semi-divine” oikonomia — for works of literary-artistic scholarship — and how does it differ from the prevailing ecosystems to be found in present-day neoliberal academia and the art world?
1.1. Such a “semi-divine” oikonomia (household/estate) suggests, to a degree, what existed prior to the creation of copyright (privilegio) in the fifteenth-century, through ad hoc and formal scriptoria but also through forms of classical patronage.
2. As an appendage to the 500–600-year capitalist commodification and exploitation of works (and labor), plus the construction and privileging of “authorial presence,” are the concepts of “authorship” and “intellectual property” passé, and have they not outlived their combined usefulness?
2.1. In terms of the present-day stature of Open Access (OA) publishing, with for-profit publishers claiming the lion’s share of OA publications, the institutional or disciplinary biases “pushing” OA are in most cases underwritten by an incessant culture of competition, which in turn is driven by external forces often openly engaged in defining what is “useful” and what is “useless” through monetary measure.
3. Is the presence of prior art in all works of literary-artistic merit justification for refusing abject commodification, and is not the proverbial “anxiety of influence” an example of how all authors and artists appropriate, assimilate, and re-mix prior art?
3.1. With the cultural commons currently hyper-commodified, and competition between institutions characterized by metrics associated with ranking and funding mechanisms, the apparent elephant in the room is everything assimilated to the cultural commons through the elaborate channels created to actually hide such assimilations and privilege works as property.
4. Does a “No Rights” status for works of literary-artistic merit suggest the abolition of IPR, or does it suggest a classic détournement of IPR law and a passage into the “wild blue yonder”?
4.1. Any such “wild blue yonder” is currently inadmissible within the prevailing ecosystems associated with both academia and the art world due to the prevailing standards, which are more or less reducible to competition for attention and resources, plus an emphasis on careerism and celebrity.
5. Does the “wild blue yonder” indicate anything real, or is it an empty signifier covering a black hole?
5.1. Such an exit from the current standards and protocols of “cultural production” would need to be carried out through works and through an entirely novel means (ecosystem) for the creation and dissemination of works.
6. Could the “wild blue yonder,” instead, be a synonym for the /Empyrean/, and, if so, how is the /Empyrean/ different from a black hole?
6.1. The term Empyrean (/Empyrean/) suggests the renunciation of personal agendas for a collectivist ethos that, in turn, becomes the foundation for the creation of works that inhabit a dimension otherwise inaccessible when personal agendas prevail or the commodification of works is the default purpose (goal) for works.
7. What is the /Empyrean/ — as disclosed, for example, by Dante in The Divine Comedy?
7.1. Dante’s /Empyrean/ is, effectively, reached through Grace and cannot be accessed through effort alone, suggesting that “No Rights” will remain a category of and for works that exist only through a non-proprietary, collectivist ethos.
8. Is the /Empyrean/ accessible, for artist-scholars, once IPR law is abandoned, and what might be the benefits of gaining access through and for works?
8.1. As “wild blue yonder,” the /Empyrean/ is a goal versus a destination, yet approachable (accessible) through works and/or life-works.
CONCLUDING UNSCIENTIFIC POSTSCRIPT
“For it is great to give up one’s wish, but it is greater to hold it fast after having given it up, it is great to grasp the eternal, but it is greater to hold fast to the temporal after having given it up.” — Søren Kierkegaard
Since “No Rights” does not mean abandoning rights to works such that others might assume those rights, the “wild blue yonder” inferred also requires protecting works from exploitation and misappropriation. Therefore, the primary means of safeguarding works is the ideational transfer of moral rights from authors to works, by authors — but, once again, through an a-legal means beyond the scope of IPR law and embedded within and exemplified through works-based agency.
“NO RIGHTS” NEGATED
The significance of the “paralogisms” is that they are all stuck in the current ecosystem of authorial rights and copyright. They are, therefore, semi-absurd and cannot be left behind without a second negation — “No Rights” negated — which then takes the entire exercise elsewhere; i.e., out of IPR entirely and into a custom ecosystem (“wild blue yonder”) that ignores copyright and IPR entirely, plus commodity status (including OA and its implicit careerist agenda as dictated by academia and the art world).
There are two historical examples: 1/ prior to copyright (privilegio), and before the printing press, the so-called right (permission) to copy a manuscript belonged to whomever held the manuscript in their library, thus scriptoria; 2/ during the years of resistance to communist rule in the Soviet Union dissidents issued what was called samizdat, i.e., writings and works that circulated secretly and privately (P2P style) amongst fellow dissidents. Both of these examples illustrate that the work itself has preeminence (via P2P distribution/dissemination) — i.e., that the ontic rights are co-equivalent to what has come to be called moral rights. This all went awry, of course, with the printing press and then with the digital “revolution.” Moral rights are reducible to “right of identity” and right to protect works against misuse and misappropriation. Moral rights, by IPR law, belong to the author and in many countries cannot be renounced.
[…]
And thus, the question of PhD or PhD negated (Thesis or Thesis negated). How does one negotiate the extravagances of a research PhD (not to be confused with the contemporary and debased taught or professional PhD) when the entire complex is loaded, from the beginning, with authorial privileges and abject careerism? Can an author finish a PhD (i.e., submit and defend a thesis/dissertation) without finishing a PhD, other than by failing the defense (e.g., Nietzsche, Benjamin, and Derrida)? Is there justification for finishing a PhD that is against the entire ecosystem of academia and such privileges? Could a PhD or PhD negated act and/or serve to “prove” that the entire ecosystem that it is produced from within is corrupted from within (and from without by “industry” meddling in academia to define what is permissible)?
[…]
C.G. JUNG + RED BOOK
As if necessary, to prove the obvious point of “No Rights,” plus the double negation required to reach the “wild blue yonder,” here’s Carl Jung’s experience of “everything contemporary” — i.e., via Red Book, which is purportedly a diary of when he went “mad”…
“If I speak in the spirit of this time, I must say: no one and nothing can justify what I must proclaim to you. […] I have learned that in addition to the spirit of this time, there is still another spirit at work, namely that which rules the depths of everything contemporary. The spirit of this time would like to hear of use and value. I also thought this way, and my humanity still thinks this way. But that other spirit forces nevertheless to speak, beyond justification, use, and meaning. […] The spirit of the depths took my understanding and all my knowledge and placed them at the service of the inexplicable and the paradoxical.” — C.G. Jung*
*Cited in “C’est la CEPT: Archiving the Archive” (découpage intégral), pp. 163–92, Harsh Bhavsar, Ishita Jain, Gavin Keeney, in Ashutosh Potdar and Sharmistha Saha, eds., Performance Making and the Archive (Delhi: Routledge India, 2022), p. 163
[…]
The links noted above to the T+F web portal for accessing the photo-essay, “C’est la CEPT: Archiving the Archive,” published in 2022, after a four-to-five-year wait,** show that a print copy of the book in which the essay appears sells for 128.00 USD (originally 160.00 USD). The print copy price includes “free standard shipping on every order across the globe” (“6–12 Business Days”). A digital copy sells for 42.36 USD (originally 52.95 USD). You can also “rent” a copy — e.g., 29.13 USD for six months, or 34.42 USD for twelve months. These prices are mostly aimed at libraries, versus individuals. The “Get Access” button for the individual essay (see the second link) leads to, of course, a paywall. Taylor & Francis Group is one of the “most successful” academic presses in the world, and is owned by Informa PLC. Revenue for the Taylor & Francis Group: “£556M in 2020 with adjusted operating margin of 38.8%.” “Informa PLC Press Release 2020 Full-Year Results” (PDF). Informa.com. Retrieved 11 April 2022, via Wikipedia.
**The photo-essay was tied up for four years and eight months in the T+F submissions’ tunnel before finally being published (i.e., seeing the so-called light of day). Submission of manuscript, March 5, 2018. Submission of images, alt text, etc., December 11, 2021. Publication, November 30, 2022.
The publication originates with a conference, as below, held in India, in 2018, whereas the “C’est la CEPT” project itself — i.e., the perpetually re-mixed and re-rationalized performance-based media archive — dates to February 2017 and a series of lectures and performances known as “Emptiness within Emptiness.”
CONFERENCE — “Out of India: Experiments in Transmedia” (screening and discussion of “Emptiness within Emptiness”), presented by Ishita Jain and Harsh Bhavsar, “Performance Making and the Archive” (conference), Inlaks-AAA, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai, India — March 16, 2018
PERFORMANCE — “Emptiness within Emptiness” (performance, exhibition, spectacle), CEPT University, Ahmedabad, India, co-produced by Gavin Keeney, Owen O’Carroll, Harsh Bhavsar, Ishita Jain, Anne Feenstra, Gauri Wagenaar, w/ C’est la CEPT Troupe (Callan Green, Alexandre Guerin, Aniket Ahuja, Vishal Mehta, Mansi Shah, Marta Agueda Carlero, Juan Gutierrez Sanchez, Antonin Lenglen, Matteo Farina, Mihir Jagdish et al.), in association w/ Archiprix International 2017 — January-March 2017
While this summary of the “C’est la CEPT” publication represents the so-called long tail of such transmedia-based projects, inclusive of re-mix and re-play strategies, it also serves as a traveler’s advisory for artist-scholars regarding the current publications’ ecosystem on offer from within academia and the neo-liberalized knowledge commons.
[…]
A second such re-mix and re-rationalization project, illustrating a slightly different and more forgiving path to the dissemination of works of event-based media, occurred between April-May 2019 and June 2022. The long tail of this project includes publication of two videos, in 2019, and publication of a photo-essay, in 2022. The two short videos (extracts) were published Open Access (CC BY-NC), whereas the photo-essay ended up behind Springer Nature’s paywall, Springer Nature being one of the “Big Four” global academic publishers (Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Springer, Taylor & Francis). The photo-essay sells for 39.95 USD on the Springer website. Readers may also “rent” the essay via the Springer website from DeepDyve, a digital library, for an undisclosed amount. A one-year subscription to DeepDyve sells for 499.00 USD.
PERFORMANCE — “Resting Place” (installation/performance), OOI Collective+++ (Gavin Keeney, Ishita Jain, Harsh Bhavsar et al.), Abhivyakti City Arts Project, Ahmedabad, India — April 26-May 12, 2019
PUBLICATION — “Fragments from Khi + Ordo” (videos), OOI Collective (Gavin Keeney, Ishita Jain, Harsh Bhavsar, Owen O’Carroll), Ocean-Archive, TBA21 Academy, Thyssen-Bornemisza Art Contemporary, Venice, Italy — November 22, 2019
Fragments of Khi + Ordo: The Dying Mermaid
Fragments of Khi + Ordo: Room A-702
PUBLICATION — “The Art of Law (and the Law of Art) is Perpetual Crisis” (photo-essay), Gavin Keeney, Ishita Jain, photos by Harsh Bhavsar, Jindal Global Law Review, Vol. 13, No. 1 (2022), “Law/Crisis: Justice in Times of Catastrophe” — June 18, 2022
ENTR’ACTE — A VENUSIAN (NON-)QUEST
“A Venusian (Non-)quest” (2022) — Co-produced by Gavin Keeney, Ishita Jain — A montaged summary of a five-year quest to transcend disciplinary boundaries and chart new landscapes for radical-democratic (avant-garde) works of literary-artistic scholarship
Entr’acte — “A Venusian (Non-)quest” — MP4 — 116.4 MB — 07:11
