Let’s start with a “simple” definition:
What is art? Art is speech; art is both expression and the means of expressing oneself. Art encompasses written and spoken language, but isn’t bound to the lexicon. (I can guess what you’re thinking — “PRETENSION!” — but bear with me here.)
If we can agree that art is expression then there are two interpretations of how it can function: (a) art is static: what is expressed is pushed into the world and the only form of “interaction” we can have with it is “appreciation” — essentially, we can know the art exists and, on occasion, we can stare at/listen to it.
But, let’s step back. Consider that if art is expression, if art encompasses language but isn’t cornered by the limitations of using words to express ideas, might there be a form of — gasp — artistic conversation? Enter (b) art is active: as an “expression,” art makes “appreciation” active. That is, when we encounter art, we can take our reflections, interpretations, (mis)understandings, questions … and turn them back to the art. We can respond to art with art.
In fact, art is a two-way conversation. It’s about culture, it’s about politics, it’s about the wildness of human survival, it’s about people’s opinions about the way the world works. When someone writes an opinion article in a newspaper, you can write back to them. You can quote them; you can critique them or support them or reference them because you’re able to quote them. You can quote other people, too. All words are open. When someone expresses themselves in writing, you can respond in writing.
When someone expresses themselves in any other another medium, however, the law says that you do not have the freedom to fully respond to them in that medium. You can’t respond to a musician in music; you can’t reply to a film in film, to an ad with an interpretation of the ad’s image. You are only allowed “to listen,” to consume the author’s point of view. “Artists” may not be saying anything different than writers, but they say it differently — they speak in pictures, in paint, in c notes, in steel. Copyright tells you that this difference in medium means something. We need to be critical and respond. Ask, “Really?”
What’s the threat of the big bad remix? What happens when I respond to you without words that in any way threatens your liberty, creativity, or “ownership” as an original author? Just like any good written material, an “artistic” response should (and will) cite the source material. So you can’t see the credit in a footnote written on the page because you’re listening to an audio file or checking out an infographic? Check the meta-data. As our technology has evolved, so too has our ability to thoroughly, appropriately, and consistently give credit where credit’s due.
You say the original author is going to lose revenue? How? Because someone will steal their material? That’s why we define a line between plagiarism and fair use. Plagiarism and fair use are different. The copyleft is not advocating for plagiarism. No one is advocating for the dissolution of proper citation and respect for creation. What we want — and what we should be demanding — is the other right: the right to fair use. The right to respond. Journalists and newspapers don’t fear becoming obsolete because someone is quoting them. In fact, they thrive on quotation. Quotation is recognition. Quotation breeds capitol. So, don’t tell me copyright incentivizes. Copyright doesn’t incentivize. Fame incentivizes. Recognition for skill and quality incentivizes. Excitement, interest, conversation, and shared knowledge capitol incentivize.
Technology has made it easier than ever before for the average person to compose photographs, edit video, cut sound, paint — and write. Major news-media groups may look down their noses at the blogs that have popped up all over the Internet, but blogging provides a critical platform for Joe and Jane Anybody to write about and respond to … anything. Most blogs function by quoting up a storm, but when people use parallel platforms to try to post remixes of music or a depiction of a culture-jammed Mickey Mouse to a blog or website their work may be taken down. The populist particulars of blogs and art remixes on the Internet is a subject deserving more thought for a later time, but the take away message is this:
There is no excuse to silence “artistic conversation” because of proprietary fears. People have the intelligence, the ability, and the tools to create, engage, and respond with art. We know this because people are already creating, engaging, and responding in text — and lo, the world has not come to an end. Money still changes hands. Bylines still appear under headlines. We still recognize individuals for their thoughts and words and achievements.
Why should communication be any different through “alternative,” non-textual means? I don’t know. I don’t understand the fear. It’s fine to choose to sit out on the conversation — to look, to watch, or to listen without choosing to respond to art, but remember that this is a choice that you get to make. And when it’s my choice, I want all my options available to me.
