1.) There was an example of two artists buying the rights to a Manga character and supposed to be asking what does it mean to have multiple ownership of a sign. So, what does it mean? I thought I could answer that but I waited too long and everyone is home and I can’t concentrate.

2.) “The idea then, is to use forms,” but how? We, as artists know what’s up, we know the cultural map of global capitalism and have it in our toolbox. We also (I suppose only if we’re smart or non-delusional modernists) know that art has neither origin nor destination, so even though we don’t know where the proverbial train has been or is going we just get the fuck on for the ride, that’s what we do!

3.) So yes, the artist is a semionaut, navigating the treacherous waters of mass information and global culture – but to what end? Oh wait - there is no end, because that implies ideology. But is there a purpose at least? Well, “art [is] an activity that enables people to navigate and orient themselves in an increasingly digitized world.” So the artist is a semionautical cartographer, enabling everyone to know where he or she are in space and time in this crazy world of ours. Hmm, okay I can buy that function of an artist, but now where does the history of Art come into play? Is that still a valid tool in the box? There’s lots of talk about appropriation from art history, but I wonder if this is really all that effective to helping a person orient himself in the digitized world…

4.) “How can we avoid calling contemporary art only contemporary with the economy surrounding it?” But why do you want to do that, B? Wouldn’t that imply an ideology? The ideology where there’s an existing translation between all cultures and viewers and makers of art? Ha! The ideal is the Art Train on no track that is not going to an end or coming from an origin. Also the train keeps gaining cars from other random places magically, all kinds of inspiration and things to appropriate flying in from all angles!

5.) On the topic of appropriation, again, “the act of re-displaying is indistinguishable from that of re-making.” I got to wondering if this idea, expressed in the context of contemporary artists using copies of existing works or actually copying existing works, can be applied in the same way of re-displaying say the Mona Lisa in a different context from its current position at the Louvre. This might not be what was meant by the original comment, but could re-displaying the original historical work of Art in another setting, not just a copy mind you, have a profound effect on the meaning that work? Well, when I phrase it like that, yes, obviously it does. If I took the Mona Lisa out of its protective case and displayed it on a city street in front of some graffiti, that would give the viewer some pause and bring up obvious contradictions that comment on the status of Art over the centuries and today. I think the reason I keep thinking of this stuff is that I still want to hold on to the authority that Art used to have – it’s my belief that making a statement like I described with an Original has more potency than what would happen if a copy were used, even though in this day and age all that exists is copies and digital versions of culture.