Lately I've been having vague thoughts about an artist's responsibility to the culture from which they draw their 'memes.' These vague thoughts have arisen specifically in the context of current thinking about how copyright has gotten out of control and should be trimmed back, if not entirely abolished. This post is a vague and rambling toss in that general direction. It’s thinking outloud.
* * * * *
So, if one is going to make an ethical case for releasing piles of materials from bondage to copyright, as people are doing these days, one needs to think about one’s obligations to make ethical use of that material. Perhaps the issue will take care of itself, whatever the issue is. But, if we drop the notion of the artist as protean creator, then it’s NOT simply an issue for the artist. And it’s not at all clear to me that we can simply say that the artist’s use will be ‘taken care of’ in post facto reception of their work.
* * * * *
As far as I can tell, the culturally dominant idea of the artist is still the romantic one of the protean creative genius. Such geniuses are obligated ONLY to their protean creativity, to which they must be true. As that two-faced SOB Polonius says in Hamlet: "To thine own self be true." The genius gets nothing from his culture and owes nothing to it.
What happens when you drop the notion of the creative genius while at the same time acknowledging the artist's dependence on existing cultural practices?
* * * * *
There is, of course, a great deal of thinking about the relationship between the art and the state, about censorship, and about art and politics. And there is a general argument that overt political agendas are inimical to art. This seems both relevant, but not quite to the point.
I guess what I’m wondering is there anything specific to the issue of ‘cultural capital’ and copyright. I suppose that, in a way, the answer is: likely not. For the problem is quite recent one. Copyright dates to the early 18th century, though perhaps earlier depending on how you reckon it. And it’s only recently that it’s become a significant problem.
And it’s become a problem in a world where the relationship between public and private, individual and collective, is radically different from the world in which copyright law was established. As I understand it copyright was established at the behest of and on behalf of commercial concerns, printers and publishers, not writers and artists. It’s only later that it came to be rationalized as protection for the rights of writers and artists.
Meanwhile, private corporations have flourished and come to occupy a dominant role in society. And they’re the legal entities that effectively hold most copyrights and they’re the entities who want to extend copyright. So, I suppose what I’m wondering is that, if one wishes to deprive these corporations of what is now, for better or worse, their property, if one isn’t at the same time have to reconceptualize the nature of artistic production and the responsibilities of the artist.
That is, we can’t just go back to the world that existed before copyright. That world doesn’t exist any more. The notion of the artist as protean genius either didn’t exist in that world, or just barely existed. Though that idea still persists, it’s being called into question.
Just where ARE we going?
I believe the artist has an absolute responsibility to the culture (s)he lives in. Commenting, analyzing, dissecting, teaching the way of life is part of the process of being an artist, and the art I most admire follows this mode of work. However, it seems to be considered an outdated belief. A recent show of the brilliant Ben Shahn's paintings was torn apart by an "esteemed" art critic. The critic didn't like the political message tied to the paintings. Of course, the critic is an idiot in my world, but that doesn't stop that negative review (given over a year ago) from beating in my head. Nor will it stop me from honoring the culture I live in when I make a film. (Not that I consider myself an artist - I just want to be one.)
ReplyDeleteAs to thinking about copyright law it's more about law these days than it is about protecting any artists. Protecting Mickey Mouse for Disney seems to be spearheading that law.
I agree, Michael. I'm having this conversation on an email list. I just dragged out Shelley's "A Defence of Poetry." Here's the last few lines:
ReplyDelete"The most unfailing herald, companion, and follower of the awakening of a great people to work a beneficial change in opinion or institution, is poetry. At such periods there is an accumulation of the power of communicating and receiving intense and impassioned conceptions respecting man and nature. The person in whom this power resides, may often, as far as regards many portions of their nature, have little apparent correspondence with that spirit of good of which they are the ministers. But even whilst they deny and abjure, they are yet compelled to serve, that power which is seated on the throne of their own soul. It is impossible to read the compositions of the most celebrated writers of the present day without being startled with the electric life which burns within their words. They measure the circumference and sound the depths of human nature with a comprehensive and all-penetrating spirit, and they are themselves perhaps the most sincerely astonished at its manifestations; for it is less their spirit than the spirit of the age. Poets are the hierophants of an unapprehended inspiration; the mirrors of the gigantic shadows which futurity casts upon the present; the words which express what they understand not; the trumpets which sing to battle, and feel not what they inspire; the influence which is moved not, but moves. Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world."
That's a heavy responsibility, legislating the world.
I'm with Shelley, and as I take it he sees the great artists as inevitably reflecting and commenting upon their world and culture. I don't think this needs to be explicit in the sense that "political art" often calls to mind (not that this is what you're saying), and that oftentimes trying to be conscious about it can be self-destructive.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I'd like to hear more on your idea of the artist' shifting responsibility in a world where he/she can use others' material freely. I'm not yet quite sure what you think that responsibility entails...
Well, I'm not sure it entails any responsibility that it didn't entail in Shakespeare's day. It's just that we can't go back there and the notion of the artist as some heroic genius is wearing thin. So I'm just wondering out loud what, if anything, this implies.
ReplyDelete"What happens when you drop the notion of the creative genius while at the same time acknowledging the artist's dependence on existing cultural practices?"
ReplyDeleteYou take a step nearer to working practice rather than the identity driven La La land that passes for thought in academic institutions or the sales patter of the seller of such objects?
Although many seem to have some misplaced sense of duty and responsability and are happy to sell cultural french fries for the heritage burger industry at Ye Olde Worlde Shakespeare Sweet Shoppe.
"...the heritage burger industry..."
ReplyDeleteLove it!
One from the vaults. Undergrad presentation title in folklore department.
ReplyDelete"One day will we all be selling cultural french fries for the heritage burger industry"
Thanks, at the time it was met with stunned silence. I should perhaps have not described a debate over the origins of Snow White as a dwarf throwing competition but I could not resist.
...origins of Snow White as a dwarf throwing competition ...
ReplyDeleteI can imagine Disney's animators having a good laugh over that one, though Walt himself might have been more moderated.
One headline described it as "grimm row over Snow White. An Italian scholar claimed it was Italian and the head of German tourism took exception and was having none of it. Its spent millions on a fairytale themed tourist industry.
ReplyDeleteOwnership and copy-write issues can be somewhat vexing as folk art has an increasing commercial value.