HBR, Groundfishing and the Art World
Over a week ago, I came across a reference to the noncompete clause, from an essay in the Harvard Business Review.(HBR). What interested me about this contractual issue was the idea that because copyright infringement issues often hinge on the question of “proximity” to ideas, in business, it is common to ask people to respect a period of moratorium before pursueing patents that could be construed to be inspired by the work of others. The article’s slant was toward protecting “profit,” but I was interested in the dynamic questions of ownership, abundance vs scarcity and allowing time to settle the dust between attribution and new work inspired by the ideas of others.
Indigenous peoples have managed this question by expressly telling anyone who has “proximity,” that they may not use any resource, species or concept with written permission. And for some, even that is unacceptable. Philosophically, the attitude seems to be that any non-indigenous culture is so driven by competition, that they cannot operate on a base of generosity and respect for resources.
Setting aside the legal or other issues here, what fascinated in the HBR, me was the question of how do you recognize & respect boundaries in creative/productive work of any kind? This is related to law of the commons questions, which always fascinate me for the relevance to natural resources. If you presume, as I do, that individual creativity is a resource akin to any other natural resource, does it require a measure of management and what might that look like in our contemporary culture?
While considering how I might best express the complexity if that idea, it came to my attention that there was about to be a major hearing on groundfishing and lobstering here. I see a clear relationship and thought it might be of interest to others.
This morning I did a virtual concert on an issue pending before the Maine legislature, of ground-fisherman dragging for lobsters and then selling them in Mass., apparently the only place that still permits the ecologically devastating practice of dragnetting (weighting a gill net down on the ocean floor and then pulling up everything & anything that happens along). The bill would allow fishermen who dragnet to sell lobster bycatch in Portland, Me., which they already do in Mass. Altho it is unlikely to pass, partly because it threatens decades of conservation work in the Gulf of Maine and could wipe out the well-managed, self-regulated lobster industry here, it is significant that it came up.
The relationship to the art world, is that when you have any scarce resource, eventually some people will want to push the limits of the commons for competitive advantage. The trouble I see, is that as population pressure on resources increases, whether scant star slots in the art world or fish sales or numbers of whatever, it is instructive to follow how various industries are negotiating to protect common resources.
The relevance to ecological art is simply the statement I made to start, re: proximity & consciousness vs what is called the economics of abundance. As ecological art creeps into the mainstream, It is a question worth considering.
Indigenous peoples have managed this question by expressly telling anyone who has “proximity,” that they may not use any resource, species or concept with written permission. And for some, even that is unacceptable. Philosophically, the attitude seems to be that any non-indigenous culture is so driven by competition, that they cannot operate on a base of generosity and respect for resources.
Setting aside the legal or other issues here, what fascinated in the HBR, me was the question of how do you recognize & respect boundaries in creative/productive work of any kind? This is related to law of the commons questions, which always fascinate me for the relevance to natural resources. If you presume, as I do, that individual creativity is a resource akin to any other natural resource, does it require a measure of management and what might that look like in our contemporary culture?
While considering how I might best express the complexity if that idea, it came to my attention that there was about to be a major hearing on groundfishing and lobstering here. I see a clear relationship and thought it might be of interest to others.
This morning I did a virtual concert on an issue pending before the Maine legislature, of ground-fisherman dragging for lobsters and then selling them in Mass., apparently the only place that still permits the ecologically devastating practice of dragnetting (weighting a gill net down on the ocean floor and then pulling up everything & anything that happens along). The bill would allow fishermen who dragnet to sell lobster bycatch in Portland, Me., which they already do in Mass. Altho it is unlikely to pass, partly because it threatens decades of conservation work in the Gulf of Maine and could wipe out the well-managed, self-regulated lobster industry here, it is significant that it came up.
The relationship to the art world, is that when you have any scarce resource, eventually some people will want to push the limits of the commons for competitive advantage. The trouble I see, is that as population pressure on resources increases, whether scant star slots in the art world or fish sales or numbers of whatever, it is instructive to follow how various industries are negotiating to protect common resources.
The relevance to ecological art is simply the statement I made to start, re: proximity & consciousness vs what is called the economics of abundance. As ecological art creeps into the mainstream, It is a question worth considering.
