03.28.2006, 4:09 pm - ben
21st century quandry of the artist
If you desire to create music, write a book, or direct a movie, is it in your best interest to encourage others to share your creations? Is it the creators best interest to redistribute their art as easily as possible to as many people as possible?First, the moral argument. If art is intended ars gratis, then it's pupose is is soley the creation and the communication of an artistic idea to others. Does art exist if only the artist has experienced it? It is my argument that art only truly exists when the creator and observer connect through a medium. Payment for art is therefore subsequent and secondary to the moral purpose of art, which is to share ideas with one another.
Second, the financial argument. There is a marketing:purchase ratio that represents the maximum profits possible from a work of art. Good publicity, i.e. reviews, are essentially free marketing that results from talent. Therefore, you can increase the amount of sales if your work is well received. However, in a busy marketplace, you may have to spend marketing dollars announcing your presence in order to get more sales which results in more word-of-mouth marketing as you seek the optimum marketing investment. We will include production cost in this equation as well for sake of argument. This "optimum ratio" is essential equal to maximization of profit from art.
So, many artists decide that they are able to embark upon a career founded on the moral argument that the art they create is legitimate and important. Secondly, because of this legitimacy, the optimum ratio of profits derived from possible consumption is a fair course to take in order to further the artistic message. Also, there is nothing wrong with a bit of modern capitalism.
These artists are then faced with the challenge of the digital age. Questions that arise include, but are not limited to:
1. What is my optimum ratio? What is the path to the higheset profits?
2. Does digital redistribution result in higher or lower sales?
3. What are my moral arguments for controlling how my art is reproduced?
4. What is the social status quo or legal foundation for protecting my art?
Essentially, a very material and spiritual conundrum. There are two extremes and many in-betweens:
Total Control
Every copy of art that is created is monitored carefully. Each individual may purchase the art experience once and keep it only for themselves. They are under no circumstances permitted to redistribute this artwork for profit or otherwise. They may make parodies or write reviews, but each instance of the work is under the artists (or artist management) control.
Total Freedom
Artwork is copied freely and distributed freely in whatever medium possible by as many people as possible for profit or otherwise.
The last decade has seen an interesting mix of these two extremes. Some artists have had moral and spiritual awakenings and belive that their creations should be free to the world and communicated in as many ways as possible. This attitude is somewhat "hippie" or "left wing." Almost communist. At the very least, it seems to be anti-capitalistic, at least at first. A total control model seems authoritarian, "right wing" or overtly commercial, beyond capitalism. Almost draconian.
Some artists have achieved what is arguably their optimum ratio through more or less total freedom combined with for-profit models such as physical as opposed to digital representations of their art. An aritist can still make money while encouraging others to redistribute their work. More than in a total control model? All part of the quandry.
The path toward freedom strikes me as more artistic in nature and not a complete financial disaster, though pure publicity and no way to monetize the art is goign to result in no profits.. Technology has changed the practical application of concepts such as intellectual property and copyright restriction. How does the artist respond? That answer lies, I believe, deep within the creative and entreprenuerial spritis of those who dare to create. The observer awaits in the darkness, hoping for a light to shine in upon a beautiful, meaningful creation for her soul to enjoy. Will the observer pay money for the experience? Will the observer wear shackles during the experience? Is it right?
Tags: essay art drm
Leave a comment:
