Thursday, October 29, 2009

media, rights?

I have always felt that art in general would work better if it was freely shared among the community. I don’t believe that people should be able to profit from others’ work without adding something original, but I do strongly feel that if something I create can bring inspiration to someone else to make something that is meaningful to them, they should go ahead and use my work. Such a creative process is exemplified in On the rights of man article. A single meaningful photograph inspired paintings, flyers, tee-shirts, etc. etc. The coolest part of that process was that because of this inspiration more and more people became aware of the problem at hand; knowledge was passed along. As far as credit goes I’m not sure how I feel about this issue. It would have been nice for Miss Garnett to mention the original photographer, I know if I had taken the picture, I would have wanted at least a thank you, but I don’t think that she should be sued or criticized because she recreated this photograph in an entirely different medium. As the Ecstasy article mentions, or at least this is what I got out of it, we are surrounded with all sorts of media all of the time, everything is mixed together, and some of the best works of literature, music, and art, have come into being because of the same type of “plagiarism” Garnett was sued for. The tradition of borrowing/ building on other people’s works of art goes back as far as Shakespeare, and probably even further. In this day and age there are too many laws and regulations; ways for us to try and hurt each other when that time could be spend doing something much more productive. The stupid napster fiasco is a perfect example of this ridiculousness. Suing kids as young as twelve… give me a break, what is the purpose of this? Did Metallica really need those few thousands of dollars this lawsuit took away from hundreds of people who were probably not very well off to begin with. I understand that artists whose livelihood depends on the sales of their works being upset about it being shared freely, but I also think that this free share of media can bring about more fans and followers who will eventually contribute to the artists’ success by going to see them perform, or buying their merchandise, or even passing their work along to others who will do the same. Many underground musicians post their work freely online for people to use and share with one another, perhaps because they realize this. The business of art has been spoiled by having so many branches of people who make money off the artist legally, i.e. record companies, producers, advertisers, and the list goes on and on, but instead of cutting out these middle men who at times serve very little purpose, the lawyers are going after those who want to enjoy the art just for its own sake. Maybe I don’t want to go buy a CD in a record store, if I’m aware that the original creators of this music wont’ see more then maybe a penny of every ten dollars in sales! This is why I personally don’t’ spend money on CDs unless I’m buying them from the musicians themselves. I support the artistic community as much as I can, but I refuse to buy into the corporate portion of this business; hope that’s something I keep along my way through my chosen profession.

No comments:

Post a Comment