This is a really interesting work that opens up a different position vis-a-vis the craft discussion put forth by Patrick Lichty. http://post.thing.net/node/1139
In this case it's a homespun or rather homebrewed stance against corporate hegemony. Check out their Feraltrade courier

Hi G.H & Patrick,

Well yes, and I also feel that there is shift regarding creative expansion, offering a nod towards an imaginative, 'relational' behaviour (not in the canon orientated french meaning of the word), from a place of knowing about networks and their potential, as metaphor or templates, informed via the function and experience of knowledge sharing and distribution - along with that, introducing an element of craft or or ast least a sensibility towards it.

Putting forward a notion of 'value' that openly and actively reflects a tactile reasoning, which could be just as important, as the art itself. And not necessarily from didactic means alone but also from a place of acknowledgement, of an artistic and cultural need to (really) connect with contemporary issues and happenings, moving beyond the trap of technological determinism, or institutionally accepted protocols - thus intuitive exploration with skills on how to use technology but with a consciousness that is relating to real essences and situations that declaring alternative territories that are real yet, a sideways shift from traditional hacktivism or networked art.

I also see that the move to creatively challenge corporate agendas that many of our governments slackly impose on our lives, is not even a political action - it's an emotional stance that realises that we really are in a dystopian age, and religion and governments do not value humanity, only as currency and cultural weight for power and control. So, such practices reflect an intelligence of knowing what the real deal is now about putting it into a more socially engaged form of connectivity, less reliant on a need for mainstream acknowledgement or acceptance, but earthing one's self to the mesh of human relations, and the multi-expansion around such behaviours that incorporate such forms of visceral and feral agencies...

ok, GH, then how do you make a living ?
if you have (like me) other resources than your art work to earn money and live then you are somewhat more free to do the art that you wish to do. on the other hand you have less time, which in itself is valuable: time

there is something I do not understand about what you state here:
if you don't need money from your art work, why sell it and be in an art show at all ?
if you do need the money then to me the computation of how much to sell it for I would find trivial. You know how much money you need to live by whatever standards you have now, then you can divide that to get an hourly "rate" of your standard of living then simply use this formula: add cost of materials to the time spent doing the work multiplied by that ratio
I would take into the "time spent" also the time you spend talking the dealer into actually paying this to you
the more the dealer wants to talk you into it the more expensive the piece you are selling becomes !

my homepage

"ok, GH, then how do you make a living ?"

Making art has nothing to do with the market and/or if one chooses to use the market as an aesthetic position to work out of than it is a part of the work. The problem with current system is that artists believe their value and self worth are tied to the sale of their work. For instance the cube cola people are using a marketing structure to make art. That's very liberating.

"if you don't need money from your art work, why sell it and be in an art show at all ?"

That's my quandry and it has to do with digital video. I don't care whether I sell the work or not. The people presenting it want to try and sell it. I can't imagine that anyone would buy the work. I don't make art to sell in an art show. I don't make art to fit in a market.

I have to point back to Duchamp. Most of his work resides at the Philadelphia Museum of Art. It is an archive of sorts. Most of Duchamps work was ephemeral in nature. For example the famous R.Mutt Urinal was shown in Alfred Steiglitz gallery. It was then lost. Can you imagine an art dealer losing a valuble piece of art? Indeed, the urinal was a challenge to the market and the aura of the art object.
Duchamp didn't tell Steiglitz he wasn't interested in putting the urinal in a gallery. I suppose if someone was astute enough they would have purchased it. This is propbably the same thing with my videos. I don't make things to sell in the market.