well, talked with Tobias again today, and I decided personally to shrink further my previous entry over the foyer trouble with Osage for it turn out to be another unfortunate mis-communication between different parties, and I am happy to apologize for any false accusation to anyone based on incomplete facts. (the fact is ofcourse, how come I also have only the incomplete facts?)

The fact, it seems, is that they did asked and communicated (unfortunately) with Tobias (and not us curators of the show), about what they want to do with the foyer projection, while we curators were then still thinking and attempting to use the foyer projection for showing our participants' work. For us, work of art always should have the priorty, and hence we were particularly dissatisfy then, with the intended work showing there being replaced by a design that has not our (curators') endorsement.

I certainly do not want to put all the blame on to Tobias, for our idea over the projection at the foyer is a rather late decision, and I principally agreed with Tobias then, that it will be a waste of our energy with what I proposed to do, that of asking both Norman and us to meet with Osage and decide together on what to do with the front projection.
Yet taking in Tobias' advise on the spot, I shifted to response to it in the CHiE blog afterwards, by trying to see or link this experience with the topic of creative commons vs copy, a new kind of practice that has an unclear border, a grey zone, which is also a part of what the show is trying to address. What is stealing if we are trying to opening up copyright? What is it (or Why is it) that our designer was feeling bad about this? I believe all these, beyond curators being the final decision makers, should be a lesson for us to think about.

here is a link to OPEN KNOWLEDGE.