“Publishing is not evolving. Publishing is going away. Because the word ‘publishing’ means a cadre of professionals who are taking on the incredible difficulty and complexity and expense of making something public. That’s not a job anymore. That’s a button. There’s a button that says ‘publish,’ and when you press it, it’s done.”
-Clay Skirky

“So that is another rule for the whole nature of architecture: it must create new appetites, new hungers – not solve problems, architecture is too slow to solve problems.”1
– Cedric Price

“Information wants to be free. Information also wants to be expensive. Information wants to be free because it has become so cheap to distribute, copy, and recombine – too cheap to meter. It wants to be expensive because it can be immeasurably valuable to the recipient. That tension will not go away. It leads to endless wrenching debate about price, copyright, ‘intellectual property,’ the moral rightness of casual distribution, because each new round of new devices makes the tension worse, not better.”2
– Stewart Brand

“An artist is a title that you earn, and it’s a little embarrassing to hear people refer to themselves as an artist… it’s like referring to themselves as a genius… If your work is good enough, it can be art, but art isn’t a product. It’s a quality.”3
– Charles Eames

“These days, almost everyone seems to agree that the times in which art tried to establish its autonomy – successfully or unsuccessful – are over. And yet this diagnosis is made with mixed feelings. One tends to celebrate the readiness of contemporary art to transcend the traditional confines of the art system, if such a move is dictated by a will to change the dominant social and political conditions, to make the world a better place – if the move, in other words, is ethically motivated. One tends to deplore, on the other hand, that attempts to transcend the art system never seem to lead beyond the aesthetic sphere: instead of changing the world, art only makes it look better. This causes a great deal of frustration within the art system, in which the predominant mood appears to almost perpetually shift back and forth between hopes to intervene in a world beyond art and disappointment (even despair) due to the impossibility of achieving such a goal. While this failure is often interpreted as proof of art’s incapacity to penetrate the political sphere as such, I would argue instead that if the politicization of art is seriously intended and practiced, it mostly succeeds. Art can in fact enter the political sphere and, indeed, art already has entered it many times in the 20th century. The problem is not art’s incapacity to become truly political. The problem is that today’s political sphere has already become aestheticized. When art becomes political, it is forced to make the unpleasant discovery that politics has already become art – that politics has already situated itself in the aesthetic field.”4
-Boris Groys

1 Re: CP, ed. by Hans-Ulrich Obrist (Basel: Birkhäuser, 2003). 57.
2 Whole Earth Review, May 1985, 49.
3 Owen Gingerich, “A Conversation with Charles Eames,” The American Scholar 46, no 3 (Summer 1977): 331.
4 http://www.e-flux.com/journal/self-design-and-aesthetic-responsibility/