Diode...you're talking about a coup d'etat. Be careful or the Borg will shut you down!

Y'all bitch about EVERYTHING don't you?

Hi DaBomb,

I know I'll see you in a few days, but I wanted to write some of this down while it was still fresh. You should be warned that if you do not agree with everything that I say that I will be forced to take you out for pie in order to pursuade you. (Okay, I know you well enough to know you will stubbornly hold to what you believe. I'll take you out for pie anyway.) By the way, this discussion has caused me to do some thinking and I thank you for starting it.

This is going to be long - sorry about that. First, the questions you raise and then some of my own points how I see my relationship with BMORG.

>>How do you like being approached by friends who've seen
>>media coverage about BM and how do you handle being asked
>>ignorant and prejudiced questions about our community based
>>on what saw in the piece?

I try to correct their perception. I gave a presentation on large scale art at Burning Man at work one day and got the usual questions along the lines of "Is everyone out there naked and on drugs?" But these simply provided an opportunity to talk about the wonderful nudists from Utah and how they changed my perception of Salt Lake CIty and Provo being rather repressed LDS dominated places. And then I get point out the other stuff at BM, like art - like the housewife who never thought of herself as an artist, who then ended up creating because BMORG gave her a couple thousand dollars to do it. Met a woman the other evening, a social worker who is now hooked up building fire sculptures and apparently really enjoying it.

>>Do you think that you as an individual can change the
>>perceptions of the hundreds of thousands of people who saw that piece?

One person asking at a time, one presentation at a time, probably not hundreds of thousands. (I figure there are a lot of other people doing the same thing when their friends ask about BM so maybe a bunch of individuals might reach a hundred thousand.)

But what if a media project that had an audience of hundreds of thousands aired an explanation from a BM participant of the good things they derive from the event ("I would never thought of myself as an artist, but now I've learned to do MIG welding and I am having a great time working on a project with some wonderful people I would not have met otherwise." That sort of thing.)

>>How do you feel about the commercializing and branding of Burning Man via big
>>media outlets such as Discovery Channel and New
>>York Times. Or Malcolm in the Middle, The Simpsons, Reno 911,
>>Drew Carey for that matter?

I think that an event that draws almost 40,000 attendees with a growing number of regional events will inevitably appear in popular culture media. I do not believe that that can be stopped. There is interest so there will be tv shows, movies, and magazine articles to address that interest. I think the only question is how it is possible apply influence in order to have a more accurate portrayal represented

>>How do you feel about this undisclosed sum of money involved with this
>>deal and what would you like to see done with this money?

I don't believe that the BMORG corporation that organizes the event I attend is in any way required to tell me what money they have coming in and what they do with it. If it turned out that half the money from my ticket was actually going to new purchases for Larry Harvey's wine collection, I would still buy the ticket. I enjoy the event, the product that this corporation offers to sell me, and think that what I get is worth the price I pay. I believe that the BMORG providing the information that they do in the After Burn Report is great, but I don't believe they need to make that information available. (In a way, I expect it serves the BMORG by cutting down on the number of accusations and theories regarding the use of the funds.)

>>Do you approve that BM, that claims to be a non-commercial event,
>>gets in bed and strikes a
>>deal with commercially backed corporate america?

The non-commercial event label is a bit fuzzy. I buy a ticket to this event. That is a commercial transaction. Part of what they sold me is an opportunity to spend time in a place where there is minimal commercial activity. The space of the event is sort of governed by the principles that BM lists that people parrot like mantras. (An aside, and Chai will no doubt hate me for saying this - I like that I can buy a cup of coffee and sit and listen to cello or get caught up in a conversation. The cafe ritual thing for me offsets the minimal commercial transaction. Different discussion.) Most of the year, I do not live in a place where those principles apply. I have to do all this commercial stuff and participate in a big free market economy, sometimes even give money to corporations, in order to go and buy a ticket to go spend my time in a space that is free of that.

The interesting question for me here is this question of something that is produced at BM - like a tv show or a movie or a book - that will be sold in that world outside the event. Some of my questions earlier in this thread were aimed at trying to understand what you thought was appropriate and what you thought was not. For example, someone makes a book of photos from BM and I can go and buy that book. That is a commercial transaction. The transaction occurred outside the space of the event, but the production of the product began inside the space of the event. Similarly for the tv show, but the issue that has been raised is regarding the transaction outside the event - the selling of the product to advertisers as mass media does.

>>How do you feel about BMorg embedding a journalist/
>>comedian/jack-of-all-trades/Japanese show host/fire-spinning-wanna-bee
>>with our team of dedicated, hard working and talented fire performers and Rangers?

I think that it is preferable to not embedding him. That 'embedding' term is so loaded with association with manipulating the reporting of unpopular wars, but in this case I do want BMORG to manipulate this guy. I prefer he see the event from inside groups that are doing something than to simply be a film crew getting footage of woman dancing in fuzzy thongs. (And on the fire spinning thing - I am actually looking forward to seeing a guy with only two fire spinning practices potentially light himself up in front of a few thousand people. Perhaps I just prefer performance art with a larger element of risk than most people.)

>>Did you know that all BM sponsored events (aka, "The Regional Network") must
>>have open books and donate a portion to the Black Rock Arts Assoc? Follow me
>>on this: why BM strikes a secret deal with Discovery Channel/New York Times,
>>how do you feel about the hypocrisy of BMorg's non-reciprocal, non-disclosure policy?

I don't see the hypocrisy. So if BM give me money and branding for my event they give it with strings attached. I don't have a problem with that. If one of those strings is donating part of the proceeds to civic art grants, that is more likely to pursuade me to go than to disuade me. If I don't want BM telling me what to do with my event, than I don't take their money. And many of these non official regional events do just that. (Though I don't think it has much to do with BM's requirements for sponsorship as much as these events just get organized on their own and don't need what BMORG is offering.)

____________

What would you like to see happen?

a) BMORG does deals like this, but they tell everyone how much money they got and what they are going to do with it. (Might still happen this way. I can only speculate about their reasons to not make information available. I'm just staying I don't see them as required to do so or evil if they don't.)

b) BMORG lets media projects be produced at BM, but doesn't accept any of portion of the profits that the products produce.

c) Should those working on media projects be 'embedded' or forced to participate, or should they be allowed to take a more external view of the event?

d) No one should be allowed to produce a media project at the event that is sold outside the event. (I expect you might want to define this further based on the sort of representation of the event, and maybe where the money comes from when the product is sold.)

_____________

I see it like this. BMORG sells me a product, entry into this event. I think that this worth what I pay for what I get. What I get includes the chance to play in their playground, to show in their gallery and to interact with the other attendees. From BMORG specifically, I don't expect much beyond making sure the porta-pottys get emptied, that the roads (and some of my camp mates) get watered, that they make some attempt to prevent people from jumping into fires and that there are services around to put out the people who do and provide them medical attention. I do not expect credit from BMORG for what I do out there. I do not expect reimbursement for what I do out there. (Hell, I don't expect reimbursement from my fellow campers for the camp stuff I build out there.)

I think that it is great that BMORG provides some money for artists to create things. There are works that would not have been created otherwise. Does everyone who might create something wonderful get money from BMORG? Certainly not. There are no doubt people who would've created wonderful things who didn't get money. Processing involving people are never perfectly fair processes. I do think that BORG2 did a good thing in getting people to consider the art grant process. (I expect that those involved in BORG2 learned a lot as well.)

I have met with a number of those who work for BORG, so it isn't quite a faceless corporation for me. Overall, I think they are good people and make decisions based on the right considerations. That is the reason I have trouble believing they woke up one morning and thought "Look at all this money we could make if we exploited our customers and sold out to a big media corporation." I don't believe that is what is happening. I don't believe anyone in the decision making process for BMORG came away thinking they'd compromised their principles.

But I do not believe the BMORG is above making mistakes. In fact, I think they make lots and people get hurt by them. I don't think that these result from some sort of corporate policy, but from the sort of organic bureaucracy of little power trips/struggles, history, and existing friends networks that make up the BMORG. There are lots of issues of inclusion and exclusion that effect people. One moment you are on the inside as a volunteer, the next you are on the outside as a customer buying a ticket.

Enough, time to go dig through my storage container for stuff I need next week.

My sources are confirmed. I would not stick myself out on limb like this if I didn't know for a fact about what I was talking about.

Mitch,

I'm not really sure what "entertainment" has to do with it. Burning Man and Major League Baseball for the sake of this arguement are essentially the same thing in my opinion. They both require a ticket to enter, even though they are "open to the public" and they both require prior written consent to film. I don't believe that anything "newsworthy" happens at Burning Man on any kind of a regular basis. It's an entertainment event (I don't pay $175 to walk into Reno).

The fact that Burning Man takes place on public land is a topic for another discussion. The fact is that if you don't have a ticket you will be cited for trespass and removed. Burning Man can revoke your ticket at any time and have you physically removed from the event by Law Enforcement.

I don't find the anti-video to be any kind of artificial distinction. (more on that later).

Thanks for sharing that Kat, and I hope you always share your heart without fear of what other people might say or think. I'm glad you're connected to the community and are participating in it. I hope I run into you on the playa next week.

Just to bring up a few points, for clarification, Kat reminded me of some things.


1. It's not about exposure. Burning Man is completely exposed, here are a few places where Burning Man has been discussed, featured, photographed etc.
Discovery Channel (not "Only in America", but on virtually every other show from "monster nation" to "monster house" to "monster garage" a participant is talking about or having art featured on the show, which is fine by me, it's there art, let them show it).
Simpsons
Family Guy
Reno 911
Wired Magazine
The Wired Book
The host of BM docs - "Burn Baby Burn", "Gone off Deep", "Juicy Danger Does Burning Man" , "Confessions of a Burning Man" , "Gifting It"
National Geographic (cover)
CNN
11,500,000 website hits on GOOGLE
BBC News
Survivor

Plus a whole host of other local news stations and tons of things I haven't even seen (feel free to add your own to this list).

So the point is I'm not worried about "over-exposure". My concern is plain and simple:

Burning Man selling other people's art and images for profit.

"Who, if anybody, is compensated, and how and how much are different questions. "

And, IMHO, the right questions and ones that I beleive many of us would like the answer to. Sadly, I doubt asking those who know will actually result in an answer.

Kendall,

I'm not sure I totally understand your posting. I realize that the ticket is just a boiler plate and that you can sue anybody for anything in this country. It is however one more hurdle to climb if you find that Discovery Channel has appropriated your image/art without written consent.

Here are some quotes from Maid Marian that were issued around the Voyeur Video litigation, the seem incredibly appropriate at this time:

"It's not about controlling the press," says Marian Goodell, Burning Man's "Mistress of Communications," who oversees the event's public affairs. "It's about imagery. It's easy to turn imagery into a commodity."

Said Goodell, "We don't encourage radical self-expression so people can find themselves for sale in a video store."

Did anyone send Todd Schindler a tribe invite? that would be funny