Re: nature of collaboration (was live performance)

[ndk <ndkent@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Richard Zvonar wrote:
> 
> At 10:28 PM -0500 12/10/02, ndk wrote:
> 
> >..where are the lines drawn or where should the be drawn in
> >utilizing the works of others?... what about presenting artwork
> >utilizing sourced material by someone else without their given
> >approval. Does the impulse to use such material superseded the
> >originator's rights to protect their work from not being presented
> >in a compromised manner? Does the recognizability or origin
> >mean it's "fair game"? Does random selection remove responisbility?
> 
> I think of this work as audio collage, just as theatrical works I've
> created have used visual and text collage. I've been making collages
> and assemblages since early childhood, so it's a natural and familiar
> process for me.
> 
> Quotation and parody are artistic traditions that predate copyright
> law and the concept of the artist as individual creator, so I do feel
> part of a long history. The questions of plagiarism and copyright
> infringement are certainly pertinent, but I choose to disregard them
> in my case because there is no commercial element to what I'm doing
> and there is no debasement of the original works in a wide public
> forum. If I were to release a commercial CD that included quoted
> material there would be a necessity to obtain clearances. I've
> already denied posting of mp3s of some of my performances because of
> the legal issues.

I don't think it's that productive to talk about copyright at this point
either. But I appreciate you mentioning more details and views.

> >...some definition of creativity has to come to bear if it is
> >granted (or is it?) that the right to utilize other's works
> >supersedes the rights to preserve the intactness of ones own works.
> 
> This is an arguable point. This idea of "intactness" seems to have
> been a crucial factor in the action taken against John Oswald in the
> case of the Plunderphonic CD. This notion of "moral copyright"
> appears to be part of Canadian copyright law but isn't in the US. A
> recent case brought against the Beastie Boys by a composer whose work
> they had sampled without his permission did hinge on such notions. In
> this case the court ruled against the composer, since permission to
> use the recording was granted by the record company. The fact that
> the composer and his publishing company hadn't given permission was
> deemed immaterial in this case (it's complicated).

Interesting point which seems to have boiled down to interpretation of
legal details.

I think a lot of people enjoy it when these issues become
multi-generational, like the rights to use samples of works that contain samples.

> >Is it okay anytime or place or maybe it is just okay if its made
> >clear what is going on, like stating openly "I am utilizing the work
> >of this person and juxtaposing it".
> 
> It's pretty obvious that's what's going on, so an overt statement isn't needed.

For the sake of arguement would it not be pretty obvious only to someone
of roughly similar cultural background as yourself?

> >But what really concerns me is if the attitude that ones right to
> >recontextualize works on a non mutual basis is acceptable just
> >because its sound and its in the uninhibited "out there".
> 
> It's a bit late in the game for that concern, I think. Any mediated
> product is by definition a part of our daily environment, so we're
> all creating collages in the process of living our lives in that
> milieu.

But I can because the enountered collages that take place in real life
are seldom willful and tend to be genuinely random in character.
Otherwise people would perceive an artwork presented in a similar vein
as invisible or undetectable as artwork.

I'm all for the enjoyment of collages, to add or adapt whatever you want
for your own enjoyment, share it privately, I see no issues there.

> Creating media collages is a bit like documentary filmmaking
> (which I've also done). Few are likely to argue that an advertising
> sign on the side of a bus or a bit of pop music from a passing car
> radio need to be excised from a cinema verité street scene, even
> though the filmmaker may have planned the shot quite deliberately.
> 
No disagreement, its just there. Its life.

I myself have no arguements with many of the classic issues. Quotations
in criticism and parody have to be permitted or criticism and parody
would be prevented.

> >But then is it equally fair game for pretty much anyone to censor,
> >edit, remove aspects of or tacitly misrepresent these works kinds of
> >works too without the artist's approval?
> 
> This happens all the time in collages and it happens all the time in
> TV commercials that use pop recordings.

Thats two real different things. I guess your response says they
shouldn't have been in the same sentance. Collage is a real fair debate. 

I'm not sure what the connection with TV commercials that use pop
recordings is. If its a problem for someone then they are badly in need
of competent legal representation or were fooled in their contracts. If
its not a problem for them then its not a problem.

> I suppose the issue becomes more than academic when the quoted artist
> invests the time and money to legally contest such use. This was the
> case when Arthur Miller sent a "cease and desist" letter to the
> Wooster Group because of their appropriation of the entire text of
> "The Crucible" in their production "LSD." Since it was a crucial
> element of the piece their response was to keep all the costumes,
> staging, and action the same but to rewrite the text (while
> preserving the overall phonemic contour of the words).

I think about it perhaps more in moral terms.

I really see maybe not a quite crisis but a definite concern that in
todays post-fill-in-the-blank era of art that curation substitutes for
creation. Admittedly curation has always held power over what becomes of
creation, and in essescence its sort of getting some of that power too.
But that's a kind of power struggle not addressing what is drifting into
a supremacy of audtioning and selecting sources over creating those sources.

Please do not consider this my disparaging or trying to apply this to
Richard's work. Its just my moral feeling than in this general kind of
work one might be making a true artistic point, like more than the sum
of the parts. Its that other 90% of the cases that bother me far more
than mundane bad art...  

So I feel this kind of thinking is going on -- "I'm sharing this other
artist's work within some sort of framework of my own art" so tacitly
this also says "I hope some of this magic will rub off but I don't want
to bother with what the artist might or might not think of this... I
just want my work to benefit from its incorporation".

I know some people are genuinely making a statement that needs the use
of non-original components and now more than ever one needs sources to
randomize and audition... but it seems to shout that the urge freely use
whatever is "out there" negates responibility for determining to what
extent another creator feels about their art. Its sending a message to
me at least some of the time that the person can't make a suitable
impression with their own work but don't respect what they are utilizing
enough to make a proper collaboration out of it.

nicholas d. kent

------------------------------