Contextsclose to their work while others do not; some see it as an extension of themselves;
some see it as a part of their reputation, etc. There are also others who consider it
a strange phenomenon that they are forced to accept absolute mastery over their
work. general opinion in many parts of the world does not assume that an author
should claim ownership over a work. With the introduction of digitization we find an
increasing number of artists who are not in the least concerned about the supposed
ownership they could claim over the work and the integrity protection that flows from
it. if artists do not have unambiguous relationships with their work, then it is strange
that the moral rights, which are cherished by some, have become a legally enforceable
instrument.
For artists this observation has huge consequences. if originality is no longer what is
decisive for the quality and importance of a work, a burden may fall off their shoulders.
it is not unlikely that this form of freedom – i.e. where there is no longer any obligation
to create something that smells of the new – will change the attitude that drives artists’
work. one would no longer have to hide that there are sources of inspiration, and that
one has used elements of works from wherever. it is certainly attractive (and technically
simple) in the digital field to sample from what has been created before. practice- based
research by artists may give important insight into how different sources, from the past
and the near present, are flowing into what they are creating and performing at this
moment in time. such research might contribute to the complete redefinition of the
concept of originality, and of the act of creation as well.
Struggle over meaningsThere is another, and even more profound reason why changing the work of other
artists is desirable from a social and cultural perspective. an artist must be able to
respond to the texts of others in a book or the colours on a canvas. and we, as citizens
ought to have free access to what the artist has created with materials from the public
domain of creativity and knowledge. That access must not be obstructed by a package
of conditions, and these must certainly not dictate the terms and the atmosphere under
which we can enjoy artistic work. Why is this important? Because – no matter how you
put it – music, images, dance, film and novels contribute to our personal development.
They shape our pleasures and provide us with the opportunity to feel good, to stir
up our fantasy, our dreams or unspoken desires and, thus, we as citizens should have
unrestrained access to those artistic creations and performances.
The fact that artistic works are blessed with such powers of expression makes it
important that we are free to chose and follow our preferences. The importance of free
access to artistic work not only matters for the development of an individuals’ sense
of wellbeing but it is also a fundamental precondition for human communication. We
have to be able to communicate our preferences.
postmodern dialogic practices of parody, pastiche, irony, and social critique
come into tension with the monologism of a modern legal discourse that
bestows monopolies over meaning under the authority vested in the proper
name in the form of property.
(Coombe 1998: 68)