www.boingboing.net/2006/04/...ld_c.html

hmmmm, cory. For somebody fascinated with the future, you sure have an archaic idea of what constitutes art.

although that may not be strictly true -- but you certainly seem to have an archaic idea of what constitutes copyrightable art.

>installing art in a field doesn't make the field copyrighted.

that is correct. installing art in a field neither makes the field a piece of art nor does is make the field copyrightable.

however, when the field _is_ the art (as in "the affects of the forces of nature over the next 12 months commencing midnight April 14, 2006 on [this particular square acrea]) it is copyrightable. it is no longer "just" a piece of dirt. it is a piece of art.

you may not like that, you may not like conceptual art, but that's the way it goes. to say "I don't believe that's art, therefore it's not copyrightable" is criticism-based copyright law.