Contextsmajor part of the work, i.e. by reflecting on how new market conditions can be shaped
in favour of the interests of many of them, what it will give them, what such a market
relation should look like, and what they already experience. Their daily practice, and
the experiences of colleagues, is the original material for the development of coherent
thoughts on how markets can and should be fashioned.
Originality?What are the challenges that many artists and their entrepreneurs will experience if the
cultural field were to change as much as i propose? What are the topics that warrant
that creators and performers themselves reflect on the changing circumstances in their
professional life?
What first comes to mind is the concept of originality. let us immediately take
away any form of potential misunderstanding. one may have enormous respect for
the work of a certain artist and even think that it contains some original aspects.
however, is this really our main focus when we are reading a book, watching a film,
admiring a theatre performance, listening to a concert? We might feel attracted by
the beauty of the specific work, or we may abhor it. of course the audience knows,
to some degree, that it is not the same as a work that we have seen, read or heard
before. it is therefore arguable whether the public, in the first instance, judges a
work on its supposed originality. We must honestly recognize that this is a relatively
recent Western concept that is only a few centuries old. a trend developed around
the myth of authors’ originality. a work was no longer considered the result of a
continuing process of interchange and exchange between artists and audiences,
commissioners and buyers, from past and present. But rather, the cultural expression
began to be seen as a unique event that could, allegedly, only have been created by
a genius. and even in the event of the artists’ capacities losing their superhuman
status, the creation still remained the act of an individual, a person who rose above
the crowd. This person surpassed the collective and his, and sometimes her, creations
needed to be properly recognized. This legitimized the individual appropriation of
knowledge and creativity. several centuries later, we may now wonder whether this
individualization was actually a harmful development because it meant that the
notion that knowledge and creativity that depend on collective contributions was
denied, or at least undervalued.
let us analyse why originality is a relative concept that lacks sufficient substance for
granting someone the exclusive and monopolistic right of use of a work. The particular
someone in question may even be an enterprise that did not create or perform the work
itself, but that nevertheless holds the copyright and thus the moral rights. one can
greatly respect the work of artists, irrespective of whether they are world- famous and
have been elevated to ‘star’ status, or whether they are known to only a small circle.
however, this does not mean that what they produce is completely original, authentic
or unique. The language, melodies and images they utilize are largely drawn from the
public domain of creativity and knowledge that we have jointly accumulated through
the centuries. is it therefore not strange to allow an author, a composer, a painter, a
designer or a performer an exclusive and monopolistic right to something they largely
derive from what many before them have brought into being?