MS 190: Authorship is the course website for the Fall 2006 Media Studies senior seminar at Pomona College in Claremont, California.
Thank God I'm not a copywrite lawyer...
Submitted by achillesheel on 3 September 2006 - 2:30pm.
I see the obvious legal importance of protecting and determining authorhsip rights, but I just can't seem to care about the classification of objects as "art/culture" or "industry". I have lost all interest in discussing whether or not a work constitutes art or not (I blame it on "Mona Lisa Smile," the decidedly unartistic movie that insists on addressing this question with predictable and unispired discussion). Reading Molly Nesbit's article, I found her descriptions of the process and motivations behind this desire to classify and judge the value of products/objects far more engaging than the actual assignments of value. Who determines whether or not something constitutes art, and more importantly, why do we care so much?
So in thinking more about
So in thinking more about this article and the discussion surrounding the title/classification of art, I'm beginning to relate it to the Barthes article. "Death of the Author" discussed the role of the reader versus that of the author in the production of meaning, asserting that signification ultimately belongs to the reader. Within Nesbit's discussion of authorship exists a similar tension between the role of the author and reader in the determination of what constitutes art. Is it the intent of the artist or the effect on the reader that determines artistic validity? To what extent does the author/artist possess or determine the meaning/significance/value of his work? Atget's photography particularly interested me, since he was eager to blur the lines in order to gain favorable classification either as cultural or industrial, depending on which suited his needs. Seems to demonstrate that the distinctions are fairly unimportant.
Maybe it is important...
Maybe the distinctions between culture and industry are important. I feel that this blurring is one of the most striking aspects of globalization. The whole idea of corporations taking over "mom-and-pop" stores is basically a fight of industry versus culture. To say that the distinction is unimportant means that you are allowing for social Darwinism, for the strongest one to win. For better or worse, recent patterns show that industry is stronger than culture. Nesbit writes, "Of late the cultural field has been seen as one of the few remaining zones for new industrial development" (250). Industry is ravenous, and culture (in this case, traditional art) is being seen less and less as a unique contribution to society, as evidenced by your own lack of concern with its increased commericialization. And honestly, I usually have the same response you do: do distinctions matter? Maybe we are being gradually desensitized to the homogenization taking place around us. Not too comforting.