A New LEA? How Can LL Best Support the Arts in Second Life?

[kiramanell]

42 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

Better check with LL first on that one. Looks to be a possible breach of the Community Standards concerning outing alts.

 

They shouldn't have to be outed, of course; more like simply having the application on their alts rejected (in private).

[Selene Gregoire]

15 minutes ago, kiramanell said:

 

They shouldn't have to be outed, of course; more like simply having the application on their alts rejected (in private).

Unless that info is on the profile, it violates the CS.

Quote

Disclosure

Sharing personal information about other users, either directly or indirectly, without their consent—including, but not limited to, gender, religion, age, marital status, race, sexual orientation, alternate account names (including account statuses, such as whether it is on hold, suspended, or active), and real-world location beyond what is provided by them in their user profile—is not allowed. Except for the purpose of reporting abuse or any violation of policies to Linden Lab, the remote monitoring, posting or sharing of conversations without a participant’s consent are prohibited.

https://www.lindenlab.com/legal/community-standards

[Scylla Rhiadra]

19 minutes ago, kiramanell said:

 

They shouldn't have to be outed, of course; more like simply having the application on their alts rejected (in private).

There would really be no allowable means for residents to check for alts anyway. And certainly none that are foolproof. If this was a concern, it would be up to LL to handle it. (And even they might not know for sure.)

This is just a fact of life in SL, I'm afraid.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

3 hours ago, Inara Pey said:

Again, are these ideas being collated and forwarded to those co-ordinating the effort (or are any of them here to collate ideas?

I can throw what we've got into a notecard and send it along. I'll also alert the new LEA group.

[kiramanell]

6 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

Unless that info is on the profile, it violates the CS.

https://www.lindenlab.com/legal/community-standards

 

I'm familiar with the rules.  Just not sold on the idea that knowing who someone's alt is, is the same as sharing (!) personal information about other users.

As Scylla says, though, there's no foolproof way to find out; and even trying, would inevitably have to lead to some form of RL incursion -- which I'm sure is strictly verboten.

[Selene Gregoire]

4 minutes ago, kiramanell said:

 

I'm familiar with the rules.  Just not sold on the idea that knowing who someone's alt is, is the same as sharing (!) personal information about other users.

As Scylla says, though, there's no foolproof way to find out; and even trying, would inevitably have to lead to some form of RL incursion -- which I'm sure is strictly verboten.

If you know and use that information to make a LEA decision, even without sharing that info with someone else and you were not told by the person whose alt it is that it is their alt and it is not stated on any of their profiles... you don't see anything wrong with that? Color me surprised.

No there is no foolproof way and never has been. That's one reason why I was so adamant about getting RedZone and zFire off the grid permanently.

 

[kiramanell]

2 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

If you know and use that information to make a LEA decision, even without sharing that info with someone else and you were not told by the person whose alt it is that it is their alt and it is not stated on any of their profiles... you don't see anything wrong with that? Color me surprised.

 

Um, no, that's not what I said at all. But, as someone who studied Law myself, 'color me surprised' indeed, that their document just talks about not being allowed to share the information. It never says anything about not being able to collect such information. Which I thought, for a legal document, is kinda curious. It's just an academic point.

Nor did I say or imply anywhere that I "don't see anything wrong with" coming into the knowledge about who one's alt is, without their consent... and beyond what is provided by them in their user profile. Please, don't put words into my mouth. All I suggested was, that if you know who someone's alt is (naturally by allowed means), you could block their alts. A point which was rather moot to begin with, of course, as ppl wanting to deploy alts to get on the committee, would naturally NOT share information about their alts.

[Selene Gregoire]

1 minute ago, kiramanell said:

 

Um, no, that's not what I said at all. But, as someone who studied Law myself, 'color me surprised' indeed, that their document just talks about not being allowed to share the information. It never says anything about not being able to collect such information. Which I thought, for a legal document, is kinda curious. It's just an academic point.

Nor did I say or imply anywhere that I "don't see anything wrong with" coming into the knowledge about who one's alt is, without their consent... and beyond what is provided by them in their user profile. Please, don't put words into my mouth. All I suggested was, that if you know who someone's alt is (naturally by allowed means), you could block their alts. A point which was rather moot to begin with, of course, as ppl wanting to deploy alts to get on the committee, would naturally NOT share information about their alts.

Wasn't putting words into your mouth. I simply misunderstood your words. 

[kiramanell]

Just now, Selene Gregoire said:

Wasn't putting words into your mouth. I simply misunderstood your words. 

 

No problem. Sorry, was a bit on edge. Its 2:41 AM here; not interested in another fight today; especially not with you.  

[Selene Gregoire]

6 minutes ago, kiramanell said:

 

No problem. Sorry, was a bit on edge. Its 2:41 AM here; not interested in another fight today; especially not with you.  

ok then... . Go to bed! 

And sleep well.

[kiramanell]

1 minute ago, Selene Gregoire said:

ok then... . Go to bed! 

And sleep well.

 

I can't yet. Someone on the Internet is wrong! Must go out and correct these ppl! 🤤

[Akane Nacht]

8 hours ago, Aemeth Lysette said:

There should also be an alt-check, if it's possible to get one, for anyone sitting on the council. It's waaaay too easy for someone to make an alt, go "Oh I want to serve on a LEA council seat!" and then next thing you know, it's the same old person power-gaming and bullying that there was last time. Hell no. Let's not do that again.

People actually did this? 

I shouldn't be surprised but... ugh 😑

I think if they are in control of LL sponsored resources, they should declare via some form of contract they have not gamed the system in this way. 

[Akane Nacht]

12 hours ago, Chic Aeon said:

Just ONCE more a reminder that nothing can happen if there are no volunteers.  I tried to get a variety of great people to work on the committee. NOT ONE invitee  was willing to come on board. LEA takes a lot of time, effort and energy.   

 

So while I agree in the all new people with short term commitments  idea, in PRACTICE it has not been possible simply because there weren't enough people willing to give their time.  The reason for the long tenures was not ONLY a choice thing, members knew that if they left there was no one to take their place. 

 

And to the committee members who actually DID do the work (some of which I am not too fond of personally) I applaud their dedication. Without THEM, LEA would have disappeared long, long ago. 

 

That's the story of every art committee in existence I think!

I hesitate to be involved other than as an observer (and art fan) because I'd doubtless end up missing deadlines and meetings, etc. 

plus, I know I should never be given power 😈

[Scylla Rhiadra]

9 hours ago, Qie Niangao said:

I mean, at this point there's little chance of recruiting even a handful of volunteers for the kind of abuse they've been told to expect on a merely reconstituted LEA committee. Something substantial must change or the whole thing is doomed.

Long before seeking volunteers, I'd want to utterly redefine what they'd be volunteering for. The LEA doesn't need preserving, it needs refactoring.

Right. Exactly.

An awful lot of what I've been hearing has to do with changing the composition of the committee or providing some oversight to prevent a recurrence of problems that were evidently, at intervals at least of LEA's existence, a serious problem. But my sense is that LEA was plagued by at least three five major problems (and probably more that haven't been mentioned):

1. the politics and infighting within the LEA committee, which is (I'm pretty sure) a function of the fact that it was dominated by artists who were fighting turf wars of one sort or another
    
2. the steadily decreasing number of applications from artists for space, which may, at least in part, be a result of the toxic environment, but must surely represent something else as well (such as, for instance, the dominance of mesh over prim builds since about 2014 or so). This in turn has resulted in . . .
    
3. a decline in the quality of installations
    
4. poor or at least inadequate communications, public relations, and marketing which, together with 3) above, has meant . . .
    
5. a decline in the importance of LEA to cultural life in SL as a whole

It's pretty clear that finding a more effective and feasible governance and management structure for whatever replaces LEA is going to be important. But I actually think that the more important task is, as you note, establishing for it . . .

9 hours ago, Qie Niangao said:

a commonly accepted mission with some measurable criteria of success.

And, honestly, I think this needs to be not only clear, accepted, understood, and "measurable," but also pretty radical.  A good example might be the "clusters" idea we've been kicking around; another might be focusing upon new and unrecognized artists; yet another might be a focus upon using in-world tools (i.e., prims) rather than mesh

But at the heart of designing a new mission has to be the question . . . who are we doing this for? Is the idea to support "artists"? Or is it to produce public art that will enhance the culture of Second Life, and the experience of its residents?

I come down pretty firmly on the side of the latter. I actually don't believe artists are a sort of special breed of people who merit cossetting and special consideration. What is important is what they produce, and how that impacts upon other lives than their own.

So, while I would generally (with reservations) agree with Dekka that art is not "democratic," in the sense that its status or excellence should be subjected to popular vote, I personally don't see any point to a program like this one unless it is impacting upon as broad a range of residents as is possible, and consistent with its status as "art" (whatever we might decide that means). Artists who want to be "nurtured" and allowed to just do their own thing without any interference or evaluation from outside should buy their own sims, or find a tame patron. That's not what this program should be about.

So . . . start from that assumption, that whatever replaces LEA must add measurably to public life in SL. Then, work your way out from that: what will best ensure that this happens?

Edited July 31, 2019 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Mollymews]

16 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Molly, can you explain what you mean by this distinction? Why do you think LEA is (or maybe should be?) about "artists" rather than art?

i will try to hopefully explain

over on Hamlet I listened to a conversation between Cristina García-Lasuén and Jeff (AM Radio) Berg.  Cristina approaches 'what is art?' from a fine arts perspective. My understanding of what Christina said, the fine arts perspective basically is: "What is art that is intellectually worthy of preservation for the generations to come". This makes perfect sense to me, and is sound sense from this perspective

then Jeff replied that by the nature of the platform, 3D digital immersive art is ephemeral. It is present for a moment in time, then it isn't, it's gone. Because digital platforms/hosts come and digital platforms/hosts go. 3D digital (immersive) artists like himself embrace the ephemeral nature of their work

aha! my lightbulb moment!  I get it. From two people who know what they are talking about and are able to communicate this to me in a way that I can understand

so from my understanding of this then:

as the immersed audience we remember the ephemeral works we did see, but others will never see the work because they weren't there at that moment in time. Some of us who were there make fragments: take photos, make videos, write essays, etc about what we were immersed in, but these fragments are not the same as the work, they are other works which lend themselves to the ongoing narrative. We see this understanding of fragments by those who do make them. A typical comment: "This fragment does not truly do justice to the work. You had to be there"     

when works are ephemeral then what remains when the work is gone, is the artist. I think that what the artist should get from us is recognition/acknowledgment. An acknowledgement that can be preserved for the generations to come. An acknowledgement that goes beyond just name recognition. Acknowledgement of the ongoing participatory narrative begun by the artist

an example is this wall at Plum sandbox

t

 

http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Plum/123/53/33

when I look at this wall, I recognise some of these names. I remember what they did. Other names I don't recognise, but somebody else does. And on occasion when I am able to talk to that somebody else then they tell me about what they remember, as I tell them my recollections of those I remember. These recollections (oral fragments) are part of the ongoing narrative begun by the named person, handed from person to person, and down from generation to generation. There is a lot of parallel with the oral recording of history by narrative in this

oral history. In my own culture this wall at Plum is a poupou. When I go to another place not my own, I see a poupou. I ask a person of that place: Who is this?  And they tell me, and tell me what that person did to be on the poupou. Without the poupou I would never know to ask

 

[Akane Nacht]

4 hours ago, Mollymews said:

 

when works are ephemeral then what remains when the work is gone, is the artist. I think that what the artist should get from us is recognition/acknowledgment. An acknowledgement that can be preserved for the generations to come. An acknowledgement that goes beyond just name recognition. Acknowledgement of the ongoing participatory narrative begun by the artist

Like a history of SL art? that's actually a really interesting idea.

One of the hardest things in preserving knowledge about contemporary art is the scattered and ephemeral nature of what is recorded about it. A blog post here, a photo there... Maybe LEA 2.0 also could explore a virtual art library/archives. 

[kiramanell]

5 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Right. Exactly.

An awful lot of what I've been hearing has to do with changing the composition of the committee or providing some oversight to prevent a recurrence of problems that were evidently, at intervals at least of LEA's existence, a serious problem. But my sense is that LEA was plagued by at least three five major problems (and probably more that haven't been mentioned):

1. the politics and infighting within the LEA committee, which is (I'm pretty sure) a function of the fact that it was dominated by artists who were fighting turf wars of one sort or another
    
2. the steadily decreasing number of applications from artists for space, which may, at least in part, be a result of the toxic environment, but must surely represent something else as well (such as, for instance, the dominance of mesh over prim builds since about 2014 or so). This in turn has resulted in . . .
    
3. a decline in the quality of installations
    
4. poor or at least inadequate communications, public relations, and marketing which, together with 3) above, has meant . . .
    
5. a decline in the importance of LEA to cultural life in SL as a whole

It's pretty clear that finding a more effective and feasible governance and management structure for whatever replaces LEA is going to be important. But I actually think that the more important task is, as you note, establishing for it . . .

 

Having absorbed it all, I was going to do a lovely summarization of the issues at hand. You beat me to it. 😛 And in your usual lucid, coherent wording.  /me, bows her head.

 

Quote

And, honestly, I think this needs to be not only clear, accepted, understood, and "measurable," but also pretty radical.  A good example might be the "clusters" idea we've been kicking around; another might be focusing upon new and unrecognized artists; yet another might be a focus upon using in-world tools (i.e., prims) rather than mesh

But at the heart of designing a new mission has to be the question . . . who are we doing this for? Is the idea to support "artists"? Or is it to produce public art that will enhance the culture of Second Life, and the experience of its residents?

I come down pretty firmly on the side of the latter. I actually don't believe artists are a sort of special breed of people who merit cossetting and special consideration. What is important is what they produce, and how that impacts upon other lives than their own.

 

For starters, I get Mollynews's point about 3D digital art being ephemeral in nature. I'm just not sure I fully buy into it. At least, not in the absolute. I mean, it's just a matter of stabilizing the technology. When Gutenberg devised a viable way to print books, I'm sure there were many who deemed his invention ephemeral too. 🙂 Photos, these days, are digital as well; and they're not going anywhere: they're already here to stay. And so is mesh. I'm sure that, 10 years from now, you will still be able to import mesh to your digital platform (and, if not directly, than via some conversion tool).

But, getting to the (he)art of the matter, even stipulating 3D digital art is inherently ephemeral, for the sake of argument, then that still poses the question as to whether it should therefore be about the artist as a person. Sounds a bit like a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy to me. I mean, Van Gogh, Monet, etc, I'm sure they were interesting people, but without their work, not to be rude, who cares?! One could say, 'Without the artist, no art!' But, conversely, the opposite is equally true "Without the art, no artist!" (As in: why should I bother with getting to know them?)

For these reasons, I firmly come down on the same side as you.  

[Mollymews]

1 hour ago, Akane Nacht said:

Like a history of SL art? that's actually a really interesting idea.

One of the hardest things in preserving knowledge about contemporary art is the scattered and ephemeral nature of what is recorded about it. A blog post here, a photo there... Maybe LEA 2.0 also could explore a virtual art library/archives. 

i will go off this quote-wise, and also give my thoughts on things that Selene, Qie, Scylla and others have raised also

whether there be a group of 6 or 60 or 600 or 6000 people, when there are no rules by which we cast votes / decide matters, then as people there is a tendency to decide/vote for what we prefer/like and who we know

the first rule of a new LEA is that this is ephemeral art (Jeff Berg). Here today, gone tomorrow. This has to be true because we can't preserve everything ever produced on the SL platform, or even on the LEA platform

it may be that an exhibit turns out to be fine art - meaning art that is intellectually worthy of preservation (Cristina García-Lasuén). When so then that work becomes a matter for the Linden preservation process, not the LEA

the second rule is who gets a vote. The Academy members get a vote. An artist who exhibits is a member of the Academy

the third rule is: How do I as an artist get to exhibit? The third rule conditions are:

1) Intellectual rigor. On the application the artist will describe the work. The description must be at least of a standard expected from a art college student. The applicant does not have to have been an art college student, they just have to be able to produce a description commensurate with this level
2) When so the artist is put on the New Artist proving list
3) In their turn the new artists will be given 1/8 of a region parcel as a canvas. Each 1/8 canvas parcel will be a platform in the sky away from the other platforms on the region. A self-contained box as it were
4) There will be caps on scripts and textures. Mole rules apply, 1.125 LOD
5) On the canvas the artist will realise their description of the work
6) The Academy members who view the work will vote Yes | No on the question: Does the work reflect what the artist described ? (the measure of intellectual rigor)  
7) Every artist has to do this a minimum of 3 times. They need 3 works that prove themselves to their peers
😎 When they have achieved this then they go on the list for a region canvas
9) The region canvases are rotated in turn
10) The full region artist does not have to provide a description. They can make whatever they like. But they only get X amount of time to complete the exhibitable work. Not completed in X then the region is cleared and given to the next artist on the list
11) When an artist gets near the top of the list(s), they get an email which requires a response. Don't respond in time then they have missed the window. They go to the bottom of the list
12) To remain on the full canvas list, an Academy member must vote X number of times annually on the New Artists work. Don't vote and you go the bottom of the list
13) When there are not enough New Artist applicants then the Academy members on the full canvas list will get offered the 1/8 canvases in their turn. Acceptance of a 1/8 doesn't change their place on the region canvas list. Is just a bonus as/when/if and no prior description needed.    

a question: Do the public get a vote? Sort of. The public don't get to vote on what is/isn't artistic intellectual rigor. They get to vote for what and who they like. There is a tip jar

I would expect the Administrator to be pretty ruthless in applying the rules. As the Adminstrator 'what is art' is not something they would concern themselves with. Their concern is that the artists understand the rules and that the scheduling is maintained in an orderly manner

a last question is one that Scylla raised. What's in it for SL as a whole ? Rule 3, Condition 4. If nothing else then those who come through this LEA model/process, if they don't already know it, will learn creative discipline as it relates to the platform

 

on your specific question Akane - should there be a web archive (photos, vids, etc) of the exhibits ? Yes, provided the artist agrees for their work to be archived in this way

 

ps. I just add that I am more of a process-driven person than anything else.  If this, this and that, then how might it be done

[Akane Nacht]

8 minutes ago, Mollymews said:

ps. I just add that I am more of a process-driven person than anything else.  

iso power 9001! 😁

ps. I'd make the archiving part of the agreement, as in artists statement and photos at least. 

[Love Zhaoying]

3 minutes ago, Akane Nacht said:

iso

“In search of”, or “International Standards Organization”? 

[Qie Niangao]

7 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

So . . . start from that assumption, that whatever replaces LEA must add measurably to public life in SL. Then, work your way out from that: what will best ensure that this happens?

This sounds right to me. I think it leaves undetermined two different aspects of what LEA could be. First is the permanence of the art as discussed at some length already. Personally I'm fine with completely ephemeral performance art, conceptually, although a recorded artifact is probably needed in SL where timezones make simultaneous viewing practically impossible.

The second aspect I raised earlier: how much "public life in SL" that LEA must benefit is

1. the experience of the created art (the gallery-attending public), vs
2. the promotion of art creation by the public.

I suppose #2 does emphasize (potential) artists over art, but the idea is to reduce the perceived barrier to entry into producing SL art. So the target is still "the public" but the emphasis is on that public's expectation that "my world, my imagination" could apply to their own artistic expression. Maybe that's too democratic or otherwise impractical. Or maybe the relative priorities can just emerge making it unnecessary to establish priorities in advance.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

7 hours ago, Mollymews said:

over on Hamlet I listened to a conversation between Cristina García-Lasuén and Jeff (AM Radio) Berg.  Cristina approaches 'what is art?' from a fine arts perspective. My understanding of what Christina said, the fine arts perspective basically is: "What is art that is intellectually worthy of preservation for the generations to come". This makes perfect sense to me, and is sound sense from this perspective

then Jeff replied that by the nature of the platform, 3D digital immersive art is ephemeral. It is present for a moment in time, then it isn't, it's gone. Because digital platforms/hosts come and digital platforms/hosts go. 3D digital (immersive) artists like himself embrace the ephemeral nature of their work

I've been meaning to listen to that conversation! I should do so.

I think you could argue that nearly all art is, to some degree and possibly in different ways, ephemeral, or at least perishable and dynamic. We have the performance arts, most obviously -- music notation represents a code that preserves something of a work that exists only in time, but it can't catch the nuance of each performance. Dramatic texts similarly encode a "core" set of meanings, but literally every performance is going to be different, and texts themselves change (there exist three quite different early texts of the play Hamlet, for instance). A recording can only capture one performance, and watching or listening to it is very much a different experience from "being there."

And even the visual arts are subject to time: paint fades, statuary becomes dirty or crumbles, and then, when you restore them, the question becomes, which version through time to restore it to? The controversies surrounding, for instance, the restoration of the Sistine Chapel are rooted in our understanding that even painting exists in, and is changed through, the passage of time.

Ironically, it's probably easier to preserve a digital artifact, particularly if it uses a non-proprietary coding standard. Even when it doesn't, you can theoretically get close using some form of emulation. What I actually think is more important than the ephemerality of digital art is its nature as a virtual artifact, rendered from machine codes into a form that can be comprehended by the human.You and I can both be standing together, at the same moment, at AM Radio's The Faraway, and yet we are, literally, factually (because the build is individually constructed from code for each of us), and materially (depending upon our computers, the viewer we use, our settings, and so forth) experiencing a very different artifact. So, I'd complicate this statement . . .

8 hours ago, Mollymews said:

A typical comment: "This fragment does not truly do justice to the work. You had to be there"

. . . by arguing that we can never "be there" together. We can share some core experiential impressions -- over there is a "tree," which we both can see -- but the experience of virtual art, to a degree that is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other forms, is always a little solipsistic.

8 hours ago, Mollymews said:

when works are ephemeral then what remains when the work is gone, is the artist. I think that what the artist should get from us is recognition/acknowledgment. An acknowledgement that can be preserved for the generations to come. An acknowledgement that goes beyond just name recognition. Acknowledgement of the ongoing participatory narrative begun by the artist

Acknowledgment and recognition is, of course, really vital. And I think it certainly can be useful -- maybe even necessary -- to understand something about the artist and their oeuvre, to help contextualize it.

But I'm not very comfortable, myself, with an "artist-centred" approach to understanding art, for a number of reasons. One of these is that, taken too far, it can turn the art work itself into little more than a medium through which we "read" the artist. So, for instance, we read Hamlet not because it's a brilliant play so much as because it gives us "access" (which is probably illusory anyway) to the mind and spirit of The Bard. We're not reading Hamlet, we are somehow experiencing "Shakespeare" (in all of the ways in which that name can signify). There is a tendency too for artist-centric approaches to devolve finally into something like hero worship: we can, culturally speaking, become fixated on the "the Genius," or "the Great Artist," rather than focusing upon richness of the things they produced.

And also, artists are often the worst vandals of their own work. They destroy paintings they later regret producing. They burn manuscripts or suppress literary works they produced when they were younger. OR . . . and I talked a bit about this in the HL thread . . . they try to enforce their reading, which may or may not be the same as their original intention, of the works they've produced.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 hour ago, Qie Niangao said:

 

The second aspect I raised earlier: how much "public life in SL" that LEA must benefit is

1. the experience of the created art (the gallery-attending public), vs
2. the promotion of art creation by the public.

I suppose #2 does emphasize (potential) artists over art, but the idea is to reduce the perceived barrier to entry into producing SL art. So the target is still "the public" but the emphasis is on that public's expectation that "my world, my imagination" could apply to their own artistic expression. Maybe that's too democratic or otherwise impractical.

Really nice points, especially #2.

Musing aloud . . . has LEA ever tried blind submission? I.e., worked out a mechanism whereby the submissions were anonymous, at least to those doing the actual vetting? Blind submission would be one way to at least make it a little easier for less established artists, or even members of the general public, to get submissions accepted.

[Akane Nacht]

2 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

“In search of”, or “International Standards Organization”? 

the second one

[Selene Gregoire]

If this thread is any indication of how LEA is going to be run in the future... you won't be seeing any of my work. Door's been slammed in my face before I ever even pulled into the driveway. Which makes me wonder if this wasn't part of the problem to begin with. Artists being shut out/left out just because they are different.

Good luck. You guys are going to need it.