Visual Proposal

A visual presentation of my proposal ideas can be found at:

http://docs.google.com/present/edit?id=0AYdrli-s5I-ZZDZrNDJoY18wZzg4cXIzdzU&hl=en

Authorship

Authorship is a very complex issue in the world today. Many of the readings we've had in this class have mentioned that most works of literature and art in the past were actually created through significant collaboration. Some have said that all authors are merely products of the world around them; therefore, all their works are likewise influenced by their influences.

It is my opinion that the idea of an author as a single individual wholly responsible for the work he or she creates and deserving of total control over the representation, presentation and proceeds of their work, is a modern concept. When the value of authorship was measured in social renown, there was no need for copyright laws, indeed many well known artists had studios full of underlings to actually paint their paintings. Also, prior to the worldwide dissemination of ideas available since the internet has taken off, it was easier for authors to get recognition for their work and harder for others to steal. Now, anything that is put on the web can be copied by just about anyone else and presented without credit or even with false representation.

I understand that people don't want to have their hard work stolen and profits for their efforts going into different hands. However, I agree with the earlier ideas that authorship should be valued by social renown. The profit for being a successful author should be in their popularity and public opinion. With value allocated in this way it is possible for all people to be authors and for all works to be shared, recreated and remixed. I feel that authorship is not something to be set beyond the scope of the average person. The feeling that I am capable of great creativity and thought equal to that of published and printed authors makes me more confident in my abilities and willing to work hard. On the other hand, I feel that when authorship is set beyond the average man's scope it represses the creativity and abilities of average people simply because they feel that such things are beyond them. On the whole, I feel that people are more successful when the majority of the population feel empowered and capable, than if they feel separated from creative values.

Revised Proposal

Technology has impacted every corner of our lives today and it goes far beyond the internet. Today artists have the ability to manipulate light and movement as much as paint and paper. I propose to write on the subject of multi-media writing in relation to the Free Art and Technology movement and the work of the Graffiti Research Lab. These organizations dedicate themselves to artistic expression and the freedom for individuals to create and experiment with art in their lives. This deals with issues of authorship in that artists are constantly reproducing and remixing the works of others as well as sharing their methods and mediums. In this way any one can be an artist and have ownership of what they create. However, the ideal of the artists involved in these groups is to have a world where artistic credit is nothing more than appreciation and the end results as well as the ability to recreate art are accessible to all.

The most critical issue facing these two groups is the freedom of creative expression. Is there a significant difference between graffiti and advertising? Both groups have had members imprisoned for their creative acts because they fall into the category of 'illegal graffiti.’ What is it that gives value to advertising that is not inherent in a single wall showcasing creative expression using paint and light?

What does ownership or authorship of art really mean? Some artists see the reproduction or remixing of their work as theft while others see it as creative expression. The Free Art & Technology group openly state that all their work is public domain and is free for all to "enjoy, use, modify, snipe about and republish." If this is the case then what does it really mean to be an artist? Can anyone be an artist?

I intend to explore the concept of ownership and authorship in terms of the artistic movement groups and societal views as related to modern forms of graffiti. I endeavor to find how art gains value and what impact modern technology has had on such value.

Bibliography:

“F.A.T. Free Art & Technology.” F.A.T. Free Art & Technology. http://fffff.at/. 9/14/09.

Holopainen, Shannon. “Six Theses On The TAG.” Art Crimes – The Writing on the Wall – graffiti art worldwide. http://www.graffiti.org/faq/holopainen.html. 9/14/09.

Hung, Wu. “Zhang Dali's Dialogue:
Conversation with a City.” Project MUSE. http://muse.jhu.edu.www.libproxy.wvu.edu/journals/public_culture/v012/12.3wu_hung.ht. 9/14/09.

Juarez, Geraldine. “kopyfamo’: free copyright for the masses.” F.A.T. Free Art & Technology. http://fffff.at/kopyfamo-free-copyright/. 9/14/09.

Powderly, James and Evan Roth. “Graffiti Research Lab.” Graffiti Research Lab. http://graffitiresearchlab.com/. 9/14/09.

Werwath, Timothy. “The Culture and Politics of Graffiti Art.” Art Crimes – The Writing on the Wall – graffiti art worldwide. http://www.graffiti.org/faq/werwath/werwath.html. 9/14/09.

Proposal

I propose to write on the subject of multi-media writing in relation to the Free Art and Technology movement and the work of the Graffiti Research Lab. These organizations dedicate themselves to artistic expression and the freedom for individuals to create and experiment with art in their lives. This deals with issues of authorship in that artists are sharing methods and mediums and constantly reproducing and remixing the works of others. In this way any one can be an artist and have ownership of what they create. However, the ideal is to have a world where the credit is nothing more than appreciation and the end results as well as the ability to recreate art are accessible to all.

Possibly the most critical element to these two groups is the freedom of creative expression. Is there a significant difference between graffiti and advertising? Both groups have had members imprisoned for their creative acts because they fall into the category of 'illegal graffiti'. What is it that gives value to advertising that is allowed to wallpaper entire city blocks that is not inherent in a single wall showcasing creative expression using paint and light? I feel the answer to this is highly tied into money. Many property owners want to be able to decide before hand what they allow to be posted on their premises; graffiti, however, does not allow for this.

The essential point is that art should be free. Any person should be able to recreate or remix anything they want for means of their own expression. As described above this meets much resistance when faced with issues of ownership. However, many artists have openly and actively created their art from the influences and beginnings of other artists. The Free Art & Techology group openly state that all their work is public domain and is free for all to "enjoy, use, modify, snipe about and republish."

The websites that I will primarily be using are the Graffiti Research Lab homepage (http://graffitiresearchlab.com/) and the Free Art & Technology homepage (http://fffff.at/). Some related sites are the eyebeam research site (http://eyebeam.org/research/research-groups) and the project compliation site of Evan Roth, a movement founder (http://evan-roth.com/).

Plagiarism - Response

These two articles were quite interesting to me because they expanded upon topics that have bothered and impacted my life for quite a while. Probably the most significant aspect these articles discussed (in my opinion) is the growing "contamination" or "anxiety" involved in creative endeavors of all- and multi-media. I feel the obsession with copyright and intellectual property is scaring people away from writing and thinking creatively because it creates an idea in the back of people's minds that their thoughts are likely not original and then one shouldn't bother. This is extremely depressing. I remember coming to realizations about literature and philosophy that made me so proud of myself and my cognitive abilities. However, seeing those conclusions printed in all or part, and generally paraphrased, in print works serves as a disappointment and discrediting of my thought process. It almost becomes more productive to rely solely on published works and citation when writing rather than fear the repercussions of accidental plagiarism.

The examples given of sampling in the arts throughout history indicate to me that, for a long time, the value of art was in the greater concepts and ideas presented by the artist. Reproduction for the purpose of generating a new concept seems like the furthest thing from the current idea of plagiarism - like the cut-and-paste writing style. It seems to me that current copyright laws focus on the surface of art, but this is exactly the aspect that, by its very nature, should exist in public commons. It tells people that their ideas are invalid unless they can be expressed by some surface image other than what has existed before. How can this be in a generation where movie plots are reduced to boy-meets-girl concepts months before the release? Or perhaps this is the reason behind this sense of copyright?