On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, ...(Sunsp0t)... wrote:
quoted 10 lines Argument 1 (boiled down)
>
> Argument 1 (boiled down)
> Yes, by definition, the purchase of a work gives complete control
> over the item.
>
> Argument 2 (boiled down)
> Although there is an economic value and legal right, there is also
> a social value. Legal rights extend from moral codes and being a
> treasured part of our culture.
>
Walter Benjamin's ``The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical
Reproduction'' is a seminal essay on this subject. Everyone
participating in a debate like this should read it and think about it for
a while. The article was written in 1935 and may or may not directly
translate to the discussion at hand, but it is a fascinating read. It is
hard reading, but with time and thought it is a very, very powerful essay.
You can find it all around the net, here's one URL:
http://www.aber.ac.uk/~ednwww/Undgrad/ED10510/benjamin.html
I'll quote a bit for those who don't have enough time or patience to
read the whole essay:
------ BEGIN QUOTE ------
Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one
element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place
where it happens to be. This unique existence of the work of art
determined the history to which it was subject throughout the time of its
existence. This includes the changes which it may have suffered in physical
condition over the years as well as the various changes in its
ownership. The traces of the first can be revealed only by chemical or
physical analyses which it is impossible to perform on a reproduction;
changes of ownership are subject to a tradition which must be traced from
the situation of the original.
...
The situations into which the product of mechanical reproduction can be
brought may not touch the actual work of art, yet the quality of its
presence is always depreciated. This holds not only for the art work but
also, for instance, for a landscape which passes in review before the
spectator in a movie. In the case of the art object, a most sensitive
nucleus - namely, its authenticity - is interfered with whereas no natural
object is vulnerable on that score. The authenticity of a thing is the
essence of all that is transmissible from its beginning, ranging from its
substantive duration to its testimony to the history which it has
experienced. Since the historical testimony rests on the authenticity, the
former, too, is jeopardized by reproduction when substantive duration
ceases to matter. And what is really jeopardized when the historical
testimony is affected is the authority of the object.
...
One of the foremost tasks of art has always been the creation of a demand
which could be fully satisfied only later. The history of every art form
shows critical epochs in which a certain art form aspires to effects which
could be fully obtained only with a changed technical standard, that
is to say, in a new art form. The extravagances and crudities of art which
thus appear, particularly in the so-calleddecadent epochs, actually arise
from the nucleus of its richest historical energies.
------ END QUOTE ---
Please read the whole essay if the above two passages picqued your
interest. I have found the essay to be both fascinating and correct, even
though it mostly encompasses the visual arts and is almost 70 years old.
And now for something not-so-completely different. It's...
** A DISCLAIMER: You could be offended by the following. I don't care. **
** Good, argumentative comments are welcome, flames >/dev/null . **
I'll touch on the issue of P2P technologies like Napster as well: I
think I have made my standing quite clear in my previous posts that I do
not appreciate the way music is disseminated through technology to those
who only seek to hoard it (collect it in numbers on their hard drives just
to gloat on their existence and to promote their value as tradeable
items like baseball cards). I hold originals very, very dear. If I want
to listen to a record, I search for it, and if I find it I may or may not
pay an arm and a leg for it, but I won't feel morally challenged because I
didn't use a morally questionable method of obtaining the works of art I
consume (although it is debatable whether the latest developments in DSP
programming technologies can be constituted as art (or music, for that
matter)).
The usual counterargument is that the more the music spreads, the more
people will actually buy it. I do not subscribe to this line of thought,
because most people are not willing to pay if they don't have to (and
please don't quote the sales figures of big companies - they do not
apply to the question at hand - independent labels can't take it up
the rear like huge music conglomerates can). The second counterargument is
that the releases may be limited edition and very hard to get or not
obtainable at all anymore - well, tough. If you really appreciate the
music, you should be willing to search for it and pay for it. I welcome
the death of Napster, and I would rather not see any more CDR trade posts
on the list either.
If thought simplistically, the wildfire spread of hard-to-find
electronic music through P2P technologies like Napster is devaluing the
collections of people like me, who spend time and money procuring the
originals. And then people even brag about how many gigabytes of
unreleased/hard-to-get material they have on the their hard disks.
Granted, free flow of information is essential to the advancement of the
information society at large, but works of art should be maintained as
works of art, be they single originals like Rodin's or limited edition
releases like Skam records, and thus appreciated and not devalued through
infinitely reproducible digital copies that don't seem to incur any costs.
In some instances with independent labels, the monetary losses are not the
only things to consider - valueless digital copies also erode the culture
(which some see as good since it challenges the established practices and
values - I don't. Call me a square).
Acts who haven't yet established themselves can use the leverage of the
P2P technologies to make themselves known, which is a good thing since it
is no longer up to the A&R people to decide what gets released and what
doesn't. But when something _is_ released, it becomes a product to be sold
in a limited quantity (represses notwithstanding) and thus should be duly
appreciated.
This is a thorny issue, and I am sure I haven't even touched the tip of
the iceberg. Books have been and will be written on the subject. My views
may seem narrow-minded to some, and you may respond with a flamethrower,
but that is your right. I'll don my asbestos suit and wait for it. As I've
probably written before (I can't remember who I could credit this quote
to, but...), truth is plural by nature. My views are not immutable, and
I've done my share of faux pas. This, even, maybe one of them.
Cheers,
--
nuutti-iivari meriläinen gordon at diversion dot org
http colon slash slash www dot diversion dot org slash
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org