I've no problem with the media being at the Burn. Any more than I have with folk who don't "participate," by making art on playa. Seems to me that it takes a dose of ego that even I don't posess to sit back and judge who is and isn't "participating," and what art does and does not rise to the level of actual "art." vs. "crap that I don't like." Just because you think the DT piece, the huge Mousetrap, or the naked guy pained blue with a toilet built around his face is crap and artless doesn't mean anything more than you've got an opinion. Good for you, that and $5 will buy you a cup of coffee. And the exact same thing can be said for me, just to be clear.
Some folk are making money off images they took at the burn? So what. I personally know many folk who make, or have made, money off their burn experience. Starting at the top there's plenty of staff who get a few dimes from the burn. I'm aware of many theme camp organizers and creaters of art who have their burn experience subsidized by by the org, in one case even profitably (if they are the glaring exception.) I myself came out of working the ice and coffee sales with lots of cool, monetary, tips as well as great gifts and affection. And the list of folk who have made professional networking contact while there that has lead to jobs is long, in my head. I've friends who had their major works (The Machine, the Gyrosphere, and others) covered by the press and found jobs waiting for them back in the real world based on that coverage. Lots of folk are making money off the burn, it's not something that gets my panties in a wad.
As the organizer of a major theme camp and the creator of a big piece of public art for the past few years I personally think art requires an audience. "Spectators," if you will. If no one came into my theme camp, I wouldn't build it. If no one relaxed on the grass, under the shade, there's no way in hell I'd sweat and bleed as much as I do to get it done. As an actor I've been in shows where the cast outnumbers the audience and it sucks. Big time. Without spectators we're all just masturbating, IMHO, and while there's nothing wrong with that I don't tend to get all dressed up for a night of solo love. See what I mean?
Frankly, I think the org's current media positions are a bit draconian and probably legally indefensible. While I'm not a lawyer I have made my money in media and publishing for a few years and have more than a brushing familitary with press law. To illustrate my point, imagine that for some strange reason the next Burn melts down into chaos akin to the second Woodstock. Assaults, robberies, rapes, folk fightin' in the muck around the portapotties and so on. CBS, NBC, and so on all flock to the scene, fly helicopters over, and so on. Can you imagine the org trying to restrict the broadcast of those images based on copyright and "private event," arguments? Nah, the courts are going to come down on the side of the broadcasters every time. Really all it's gonna take to remove the illusion of control we're currently enjoying, in regards to the press and images from the event being used outside the event, is a determined publisher willing to pay the legal fees to do as they will. Barring blantient copyright infringemnt (and simply using the name Burningman in a news article, opinion piece, memior, or so on isn't gonna rise to that level, IMHO) or issues with obscenity folk are going to be able to take and publish images at the burn. That's why we've got that little thing called the 1st Ammendment to our federal constitution.
So why allow cameras/media at all? Because taking pictures/images is art. It's also an important method of archiving what's happened and how folk reacted to those happenings. And, like it or not, the media plays an important role in the creation of community. Various members of BRC have learned about the event from the media and as a the carrier of cultural stories the press is one of the important inputs to our common, "real world," culture. As such we at BRC can choose to engage with them and have our oar included in that cultural rowing, or not. Either way they'll cover us, the question is just do we want to have an antagonistic or partnership based relationship.
Consider this; currently the org is able to get most folk with cameras and commerical intent to sign a contract giving the org final cut of anything published. The org can refuse to allow publication based on any reason they see fit, once this contract is signed, barring any unforseen legal conflict. That's only true because the org has chosen to engage and partner with those camera totin' folk. If they attempted to ban all "press," all they would do is drive everyone underground and lose the value those signed contracts provide. Just by way of one example.
So I'm all for having cameras and the press at the Burn. It'll help to propagate the memes (those we like, and those we don't) of the event beyond the borders of BRC. It'll add opportunities for the creation of both art and art's vital partner, audience. And it'll be closest to the legally defensible position in the larger context the org has to survive in. I think actiongrl and company have done as good or better a job as could be expected, when it comes to the question of press relations. If they are a bit more controlling than this freewheelin' guy accepts easily.
Ron
