To what extent does the artist own the authorship of their work? Megan Ojari Ba (Hons) Illustration – Level 5 Module Title: Context of Practice Module Code: OUIL501 Assignment: DRAFT ESSAY Word Count: 2629
The definitions and descriptions of art and authorship as a concept has been discussed by many theorists. Beöthy (2013), Barthes (1968) and Allen have all debated what the two mean, and whether they are intrinsically linked due to the author being ‘positioned as the centre of the work’ (2003:73) and therefore its origin. Beöthy (2013) would argue they are, as he states in Authorship that the two can only exist together, as ‘art is what someone takes responsibility for’ and authorship is the ‘practice of attaching a name to every artefact’, meaning the artists authorship and art go hand in hand. This is something Barthes would strongly disagree with, as he claims the artist is solely the creator of the art, and has no further claim once it has been completed, as the artist would then assume a ‘relation of antecedence with his work’ much like ‘a father sustains with his child’ (1968:52). The relationship between art and authorship is therefore a lot more complex than it would initially seem, as for work to exist, it must have an artist, but the actual owning of an authorship of work can be strongly contested, as the artist and the work are two completely separate, often unrelated entities, and therefore cannot be regarded as intrinsically linked (Barthes, 1968). As the trends and movements of art evolve and change over time, so too does its relationship with authorship. The meaning of the word ‘authorship’ has gleamed many new connotations throughout history, and has become ‘the subject of intense scrutiny over the last 40 years’ (Rock, 1996). As although Beöthy believes art is made unique solely by the authorship of the artist, he also states that since the 1960’s, there has been a shift in the acceptance that the meaning of art can alter between individuals, depending on the audiences’ interpretation (2013). This brings in a third aspect, of meaning, alongside creation and authorship, giving three entirely separate entities which rely on the others to exist, yet can be considered one and the same. Therefore, the essence and significance of any kind of art could be seen as the autonomous combination of meaning, creation and authorship, to combine as a sort of ‘aura’ of the work (Storey, 2008:69). This would evidence the swing of accepting the artist as ‘the sole determinant of the meaning of an artwork’ (Beöthy, 2013) towards challenging the meaning based on the audiences’ ideologies. Storey would explain this transition as a ‘decay of the aura’ opening art to ‘plurality of reinterpretation, freeing them to be used in other contexts, for other purposes’ (2008:69). This is something Foucalt would not agree with, as he argues in Textual Strategies:Perspectves in Post-Structuralist Critisism that the artist is ‘the ideological figure by which one marks the manner in which we fear the proliferation of meaning’ (1979:159). This infers that although the finished meaning gleamed from an artwork may alter slightly from person to person, the intent and idea of the meaning is set by the artist, suggesting that meaning is actually a collaboration of the artist and the audience, making it near impossible to find who the authorship belongs to. This, Storey says, is where the arts industry is heading, due to a demand for ‘democratic culture’ where accessibility and equality is desired over uniqueness and authorship (2008:69). Due to the growing trend in accessibility within art, the meaning of art itself has changed, leading to a demand for a more inclusive feel, which O’toole states is the responsibility of the artist to provide, through ‘engaging our attention, drawing us into’ their world (2011:11). By using calculated ‘functions’ artists are able to ‘colour our view of that world’, implying that although audiences may feel like they are creating their own interpretation of the art, they are simply seeing exactly what the artist wants them to see. This could be
proven through the universal shared understanding of a ‘common knowledge’ (Storey 2008), which ensures that all audiences will understand the work with the same, intended authorship. A direct example of this would be photography, of which the main purpose is to direct the gaze of the audience to the precise viewpoint, making its ‘composition or composite nature, obvious’ (Benjamin 2015:26). Benjamin (2015) would argue that a photograph is ‘an objective record’ which omits the ‘embellishments’ of an artists’ work (2015:24), implying that there is correct way of viewing the work. This would suggest that the photographer holds authorship over their work, by ensuring people see exactly what they did, and feel the same emotions. This is evidenced by the controversial work of Sherrie Levine (Fig. 1) where she photographs a photograph taken by Walker Evans (Fig. 1). Many people may argue that photographs are simply pieces of reality and have ceased to be ‘collectable objects’ (Sontag, 1979:5), meaning that Evans has no claim over his work, due to it being only his personal implication of authorship over real life objects. However, the more widely accepted view is that Levines’ image is merely stolen from Evans, as ‘photographs are as much an interpretation of the world as paintings and drawings are’ (Sontag, 1979:6-7) meaning the authorship and rights to the image lie with Evans. Especially due to the nature of photography being to introduce new perspectives (Benjamin, 2015:17), as there is nothing ‘new’ in the appearance of Levines work compared to Evans. However, the controversy surrounding Levines work is where the real meaning lies, as it brings into question the existence of authorship and ownership, as both Evans and Levine simply Fig. 1 photographed a scenario already in existence, simply in different circumstances. This, Benjamin would say, is an example of how photography is a dangerous territory within art (2015:91), as at face value, they both seem to have created the same image. However, Levine could simply have been capturing her response to the work, and since it could be viewed that authorship ensures all emotional responses are the same (Storey 2008), then it makes sense that her outcome is an exact replica of the original. More likely, is that Levine is challenging the entire notion of authorship, as the reason her work has gained notoriety is through the controversy that it is simply a copyright infringement. This may be true, but since what ‘photography… captures exceeds the intention of the photographer’ (Benjamin, 2015:19) then her work is an expression of the meaning and ‘aura’ of the responses to the art (Storey, 2008:69). As through exposing the raw emotion and feeling of shared ownership attached to Evans photograph, Levine has showed the interpretation of art is actually the reason for the existence of art in its entirety (Althusser, 1969:67).
With regard to the reception and interpretation of art, Middleton & Edwards (1990) would suggest that there is a certain point at which the audience has an impact on the art, and this is when it gains true meaning. One of the most prominent examples of this is the work of van Gogh, who, during his life, sold few paintings, and was widely regarded as a terrible painter (Boyle, 2011). However, because his paintings were ambiguous for their time, they were structured to offer meaning ‘as much by what is absent as by what is present’ (Althusser, 1969:67), leaving a large portion of the ‘reality’ of the painting to be completed by the audience. During his life, the authorship of art was so unequivocally placed with the artist, that his work was seen as inaccessible and merely the ramblings of a mentally unstable man, as it was only van Gogh who could interpret his work ‘correctly’. But since the creation of art has over time become more about giving life to the piece, which is then lived through the audience (Barthes, 1968:52), his work has become not only accepted, but actively venerated. Boyle (2011) has stated that The Starry Night (Fig.2) would now be worth an estimated $100million, and Muchnic has attributed this increase in price and demand to the growing understanding of the emotions attached to his Fig. 2 paintings (1987). This change in attitude towards acceptance of artwork is a clear example of the ‘transference of authorial power’ to the audience (Landow, 1992:90) which makes them feel more connected to the piece, and in turn ensures they feel a unique, emotional relationship. This is something Marx would agree with very strongly, as he states in The German Ideology that this disparity of emotional response and transference of authorship is the ‘division of labour’ (1970:90) between the creator of the piece and the viewer. In fact, the initial creator is difficult to identify, as the paint manufacturers could be held accountable as the creators as much as the painter, or indeed the audience, as each input their own ideologies and skill to build an evocative, meaningful piece of art (Irvin, 2005). This, Landow may say, is due to the growing ability to make connections between everything and everyone (1992:90) which ensures that the tangible, palpable elements of a piece of art is bonded to the visceral, personal responses of the artist and audience. Landow would stress that although the meaning and authorship of a piece of art may be diverse and shared, this is only due to the artist reducing the autonomy in their work, thus reducing the autonomy in the audiences’ responses (1992:90). Therefore, although the creation and appearance of a piece of art is solely up to the artist, the value and meaning of the art is solely up to the audience, as a piece of work is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. By exploring further the idea that the meaning and success of a piece of art is intrinsically linked to the personal responses of the audience, the existence of ‘art’ in its traditional sense is brought into question. As Macdonald argues that the ‘creator is only the ‘past’ of the image, and no longer has any control over it’ (2013), therefore the life of the piece only
starts upon its completion. It could be considered that artwork which is stored away from view no longer has any meaning, as its purpose is to evoke feeling, yet if it is not being viewed it cannot fulfil its resolution. This, Barthes would say, means that since the authorship of the piece is not being shared, the existence of the piece of art is jeopardised, as although it may exist physically, its life is non existent, as it needs the responses of the audience for it to exist outside of itself (1968:52-3). This is something Allen would agree with, as he describes in Roland Barthes- Routledge Critical thinkers how an artist ‘gives stability and order to the work’ (2003:74) yet that is where their ownership ends, leaving the rest up to the audience. So, it could be considered that artwork stored away ‘for preservation’ is actually the murder of the life of the art, especially since the ageing and imperfections picked up by a piece of art creates its soul as much as the artist does, through adding to its story (Allen, 2003:74). Irvin would agree with this strongly, as she believes the existence of art is through a ‘pass the parcel effect’ ranging from the material suppliers through to the audience (2005), and should this journey stop short of being experienced by others, then so too, is the life of the artwork cut short. Althusser would disagree that artwork only fulfils its intent once it is completed, as he believes that all formations are equally weighted, and that often the expression is not a result of the object, but rather ‘necessary to the existence’ of it (1969:113). This means that the actual creation of the artwork could be seen as the most important part, especially in instances of interactivity with the audience. Although Allen would say that even interactive artwork is the owned solely by the artist, who is the ‘figure towards which all should direct itself’ (2003:73), Storey would strongly disagree, as he argues in Cultural Theory and Popular Culture that the role of the artist is ‘to make audible that which is merely a whisper’ (2008:75). Therefore, if artwork is the result of a shared interaction between the audience and the artist, then the ownership and authorship is also joint (Irvin, 2005), meaning the creation of the artwork is just as important, if not more so, than the end result. Yayoi Kusama evidences this in her work Obliteration Room (Fig. 3) in which the audience were invited to place brightly coloured stickers within a ‘blank canvas’ room. The intent of the piece was to create a feeling of interactivity and inclusivity with the audience, by turning the emotional responses to artwork into physical, tangible reactions. Therefore, the act of placing a sticker in the room is the most visible sense of emotional responses to a piece of art available. The decisions of the sticker placement will inevitably be completely different from person to person, which means the whole experience of the next person into the room will be entirely different dependent on the actions of the previous participant. This is the result of turning a piece of art into more than an ‘antecedence’ of the artist (Barthes, 1968:52), but a living, transforming entity Fig. 3 which alters both itself and the
audience through their own physical interaction. So, if, as previously discussed, the ‘aura’ of a piece of art is based on the collaboration of different intangible aspects (Storey, 2008:69), then the creation of art in this interactive sense must be viewed as the construction of palpable ideals to construct this ‘aura’. This, Marx would say, highlights how ‘the difference between “human” and “unique” labour amounts to sheer nonsense’ (1970:109), as viewing the piece from outside, during any point of its construction, the participants and their actions do not matter in relation to the ‘aura’ of the work. What does matter is that they do participate, and cause a change within the space, even if only by their momentary presence. This ensures that Kusamas’ work is living in the most real sense possible, as the ‘living breath’ Barthes (1968:52) avers artwork encompasses is realised through the ‘aura’ being recognised as a living, breathing movement of persons within and outside of the artwork. Overall, it would seem that both Althusser (1969) and Barthes (1968) would agree that the purpose of art is to establish a relationship with the audience. It is also evident that the interpretation of artwork is, in many ways, more important that its initial creation. This, Landow would state, means that the creation of the ‘aura’ of a piece of art does not stop once it is completed, but continues via the relationships people establish with it (1992). However, it is regarded that the ‘completion’ of a piece of art never really occurs, as its life continues in different ways to imbue and collate different meanings, interpretations and develop as a separate, emotionally provoking entity. It is also evident that although authorship may offer stability and direction to a piece, the ‘aura’ of an artwork does not become whole until the authorship has become shared among the individuals who give the work a voice. Also, through believing the artwork as a separate article to its artist, the piece itself gathers a momentum which propels it into becoming not simply a creation of an individual, but a transitioning art form in itself, in essence, it becomes its own art. In conclusion, Middleton & Edwards (1990), Storey (2008) and Irvin (2005) would all agree that the authorship of an artwork does not lie solely with the creating artist, but is rather shared with them by any audience who interprets physical or emotional meaning onto it, therefore giving the piece its own life.
Sources: Books/Journals: Allen, G. (2003) Roland Barthes- Routledge Critial thinkers, London: Routledge Althusser, L. (1969) For Marx, London: Allen Lane Barthes, R. (1968) The Death of the Author, London: Fontana Benjamin, W. (2015) On Photography, Glasgow: Bell & Bain Berger, J. (1972) Ways of Seeing, Harmondsworth: Penguin Brent Plate, S. (2002) Religion, Art, and Visual Culture- A Cross-Cultural Reader, New York: Palgrave Foucalt, M. (1979) Textual Strategies:Perspectves in Post-Structuralist Critisism, New York: Cornell University Press Landow, G.P. (1992) Reconfiguring the Author in ‘Hypertext: The Convergence of Contemporary Critical Theory and Technology’, Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press Lidwell, W., Holden, K. & Butler, J. (2010) Universal Principals of Design, Massachusetts: Rockport Publishers Marx, K. (1970) The German Ideology, London: Lawrence and Wishart Middleton, D. & Edwards, D. (1990) Collective Remembering, London: Sage Publications Miles, S. (1998) Consumerism as a way of life, Oxford: Sage nd O’toole, M. (2011) The Language of Displayed Art, 2 ed, Oxon: Routledge Rock, M. (1996) The Designer as Author, Eye no. 20 vol. 5 1996 Silverman, K. (1983) The Subject of Semiotics, Oxford University Press: New York Sontag, S. (1979) On Photography, St Ives: Clays Ltd th Storey, J. (2008) Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, 5 ed, London: Pearson Internet: Beöthy, B. (2013) Authorship, [internet] Available: <http://tranzit.org/curatorialdictionary/index.php/dictionary/authorship/>. [3/1/17] Boyle, A. (2011) Vincent van Gogh: Emotion, vision, and A Singular Style, [internet] Available: <https://www.moma.org/learn/moma_learning/vincent-van-gogh-the-starry-night-1889>. [20/01/17] Colincliff, C. (2014) Week 7 Visual Literacy Now- Mark Adam, [internet] Available: <https://paulcolincliff.wordpress.com/page-1/week-7-notes/>. [25/01/17] Irvin, S. (2005) Appropriation and Authorship in Contemporary Art [internet] Available: <http://bjaesthetics.oxfordjournals.org/content/45/2/123.abstract>. [20/12/16] Jagodzińska, K. (2015) GOMA Brisbane: Australia gateway to Asia and Pacific, [internet] Available: <http://museumsadvisor.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/GOMA_Kusama_Obliteration_room.jpg>. [25/01/17] MacDonald, L. (2013) Authorship in Art/Science- Collaboration is Tricky [internet] Available: <http://innovis.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/innovis/uploads/Publications/Publications/MacDonald_Authorship.pdf>. [20/12/16] Muchnic, S. (1987) Price Shatters Old Mark by More Than $10 Million : Van Gogh Painting 'Irises' Brings Record $53.9 Million, [internet] Available: <http://articles.latimes.com/1987-11-12/news/mn-20474_1_van-gogh-sprices>. [20/01/17] Image: Fig. 1 Walker Evans (1936), Alabama Tenant Farmer Wife, (Gelatine silver print)/Sherrie Levine (1981), After Walker Evans Fig.2 Vincent van Gogh (1889), The Starry Night, (Oil on canvas) Fig. 3 Yayoi Kusama (2014) Obliteration Room, Video: John Berger / Ways of Seeing, Episode 4 (1972) [video] BBC4, Available: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jTUebm73IY>. [12/01/17]