Authorship
- Started
- Last post
- 55 Responses
- identity0
The chapter on ROMA Publishing is particularly interesting in regards to authorship/context. I couldn't find it online to post though! Sorry :-(
- stewdio0
@fastmustache1. Of course Death of the Author is a beautiful idea / essay but I don't think it sits in reality. Particularly when it comes to advertising and branding where the role of "author" is ascribed to the brand itself. We make our livings off of the existence of the author role.
- fresnobob0
Anyone see that AT&T commercial that showed famous structures in the US being covered by huge orange cloth? So clearly inspired by those Christo and Jeanne Claude pieces that it even says in the fine print "The artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude have no direct or indirect affiliation or involvement with AT&T."
A few art people tripped on it, but it didn't reach the QBN because no one responded to the allegations like a dick.
I really think the reason that dudes occasionally get crazy about this sort of thing is because they are so worried that someone else might be making more money than they are off of the idea they felt they came up with. People should be stoked other people are "ripping off" their shit. The more something is "ripped off" the more obviously influential that thing is.
Anyways, In some ways, that is how a style is created. Some one sees something they like and copies it. Then someone else copies that and so on and so on. Eventually everyone is doing it and its no longer an original idea, its a universal idea. Sometimes its hard to see this on the small scale of one specific work of art being eerily similar to another, but its always true.
- Hmmm.. you can being influential put food on your table? I'd be annoyed if someone blatantly stole an idea and profited from it; it's rude and obnoxious behaviour.********
- ... it's rude and obnoxious behaviour.********
- "Hmm, _but_ can being influential .."********
- If you think that Christo did not get paid for this in some way, you're nuts!********
- Hmmm.. you can being influential put food on your table? I'd be annoyed if someone blatantly stole an idea and profited from it; it's rude and obnoxious behaviour.
- stewdio0
@fresnobob But Space150 and Forever21 stealing Chris's concept and execution doesn't pay his rent, equipment costs, or garner him new work. It only devalues his personal brand, effectively running that style he's created into the ground; making its cultural value worthless. That's not something to be taken lightly.
- PIZZA0
Can't believe you deleted the thread QBN, it might have been a bit out of hand but the issues were important.
- < The combination of that guy's actions and the way he presents himself, doesn't do him any favours.********
- < The combination of that guy's actions and the way he presents himself, doesn't do him any favours.
- ********0
I think the value society places in originality is shifting, and that this shift will continue drastically throughout the coming decades.
When I read about plagiarism, my gut reaction is annoyance, frustration, sometimes anger. It's something that I view as cheating - unfair play.
However, if I try to step back and think about originality as a concept, I'm not so certain what my stance should be. I'm caught between two conflicting views -> one saying "information and ideas should be free and open" and the other, that "effort should be rewarded and 'cheating' is bad".
- Jimbo820
Here is an original painting by Flemish painter Peter Paul Rubens entitled “The Meeting of Marie de Médicis and Henri IV at Lyon” , one of a number of paintings in his Medici series. circa 1622-1625
Note the lions pulling the charriot.http://upload.wikimedia...
Now, have a look at this painting by Paul de Vos entitles “The Ark of Noah”. Unable to determine the date it was painted, but you will note that the lions are identical. Either De Vos copied Rubens, vice versa, or they both copied a common artist.
- Continuity0
@lukus
That's fair game.
In the context of O'Shea v space150/Goossen, though, we're talking about a piece that knocks off the previous one wholesale conceptually, and comes damned well near aping it completely on the level of execution.
The point is that the Times Square piece wasn't enough of a deviation from the O'Shea piece to qualify as either progressive or a re-imagination, IMO, and I think this is one of the central pillars of this debate; the other being proper attribution.
- ********0
@Continuity;
I agree. I reckon that the guy who sparked the debate could have carried out his project with more dignity and class.
It's always worth trying to use a degree of empathy - placing yourself in the other person's shoes. By doing this, I think _anyone_ could understand how the originator became annoyed by the extreme similarity between the two works.
Having said that - I do think the value that society places in originality is changing, and I think it's quite interesting to think about why the change is occurring.
First of all - why is originality important? Why is the person who came up with the idea, valued more than a person who's in charge of implementation?
I think 'originality' has traditionally been valued because it encourages social, intellectual and economic progress. By allowing a person to _own_ an idea, all members of society are encouraged to innovate fiercely. At a guess, I'd imagine that the industrial revolution played a large part in helping us to form and accept this view.
The industrial revolution was driven by an economic model that places value according to how scarce a resource is .. by applying the same logic to ideas, an original (scarce) idea is worth most - and western culture has developed to accommodate the world-view that ownership (via authorship) should always be honoured.
- Continuity0
Agreed, completely.
I think one of the things that bothers me the most in the whole thing - the director's very public antics aside - is the agency's cavelier 'too bad, so sad' attitude.
Between the initial media exposure comparing the two works side-by-side, O'Shea's own thoughts on the subject _and_ the court of public opinion convicting space150 of plagiarism (there, I said it), the agency's response has been flagrantly weak-wristed and apathetic. 'We tried to get him on board, but he was busy' simply doesn't cut it. At the risk of getting all Lars Ulrich on the topic, it's a slap in the face to every artist out there who wants to embrace innovation. It's discouraging them to even bother trying.
I'm curious; will the agency dare to submit this thing to festivals in hopes of getting short-listed or getting awards for it? An award or two is _alwats_ great for business development? How do they plan to handle creative attribution? Simply ignore this whole incident, claim this idea and execution as 100% theirs, and reap all of the benefits with even giving a shred of the recognition O'Shea deserves? Who knows. If I see this piece on next year's submission list for Cannes, I'll know this is one shop that is utterly devoid of integrity.
- Sigh. I hate my own typos.Continuity
- If Space150 even bothers to submit this to awards, they will be laughed off I think.********
- stewdio0
You bring up an interesting point: design awards competitions. If Space150 attempted to enter this into any, should they be disqualified? Or going a bit further: Is there any sort of retribution or true court of public opinion—one that could put forth a sentencing?
For example, if you were offered a job or even freelance work with Space150 would you feel comfortable accepting it? If designers chose not to work with studios they felt had crossed the line would that be enough social pressure to keep this sort of thing in check? Is there any way to hold such agencies accountable outside of expensive international lawsuits? (Litigation rarely goes so well for the little guy.)
There's no real graphic design "union", though I suppose AIGA and the like might do as communities to rally around. Or even QBN?
- If Space150 even bothers to submit this to awards, they will be laughed off I think.********
- If Space150 even bothers to submit this to awards, they will be laughed off I think.
- Continuity0
'You bring up an interesting point: design awards competitions. If Space150 attempted to enter this into any, should they be disqualified?'
Should? Yes. Would be? Difficult to say, but I can tell you from personal experience that in matters of attribution, those left off the list of credits have an impossible time getting on after the fact. Truth be told, though, it might be different in O'Shea's case because he's a figure of some reknown in the global creative world, whereas I'm just some guy no-one's heard of.
Nonetheless, I would hope that members of the various festival juries who are even remotely familiar with this situation act according to their consciences and common sense; particularly since, in our industry, awards = new clients = more revenue.
- Continuity0
http://www.space150.com/ <-- space150 analytics bump :D
- Continuity0
Here's an interesting update on the Vimeo thread:
'
space150 40 minutes ago
Chris O'Shea and I just spoke on the phone regarding his inspiration for our work, credits and what to do moving forward. We apologized for the approach that was taken. Hand from Above will be acknowledged and credited as an inspiration to the "Model Pickup" scenes for all future documentation and communications of this project. We respect his position and work, and will do our best to make sure this communication process is not repeated.- Billy Jurewicz, space150'
- hah .. superb - at least they admit they acted wrongly.********
- hah .. superb - at least they admit they acted wrongly.
- ********0
I suppose, just by talking about the controversy now - more people are hearing about the story involved. Muck sticks .. I don't think any company wants to be thought of as a classless bunch of c*nts.
Just checked the gizmondo article -> it seems they're well aware of the fact that O'Shea got there first .. so hopefully O'Shea will come out of this better than space150.
- fresnobob0
@ stewdio
I don't think theres any devaluation going on here. First of all the company asked the artist if he wanted to be involved and he said no. That's his fault, he could have gotten richer off of it but he chose not too. Also, if the artist was heavily involved in creating the technology that made the piece, which is open source, he clearly wasn't asking for much credit on that end.
Secondly, the point of my previous post is that he shouldn't want or need that personal gain from it. For example, look at the history of music. Only in recent times did people have to pay other people to play there songs, before that everyone was pretty cool because it was all for the sake of making music. How many folk songs do most people know as Bob Dylan songs? A lot. Did that devalue any of those said songs? Not at all, in fact there is a lot more people now aware of those songs.
Anyways, I would say that there's at least a small number of people (us here on QBN and all the dudes on Vimeo, plus anyone else who heard about the situation) who are now aware of the original artists work who otherwise would not have been. If that isn't leading to him gaining more work or more exposure, I'm not sure what would. There is no devaluation, there is actually value being added through exposure. That is how art goes from being ideologically valuable to society to monetarily valuable, more people see it, thus more people want it, thus the price goes up.
As another point, lets take the example of typefaces in graphic design. Yes, many typefaces cost money, but in how many pieces of design do you see the typeface credited, along with the designer? Almost zero. Isn't this the same thing, using another's idea without giving proper credit? Designing a nice and complete typeface takes easily as much effort as did the piece of work in question so why aren't these type designers given more credit? Its because they realize they don't really need that credit and are happy to see their creation in use in a way they possibly didn't quite imagine. The whole idea of giving credit and wanting credit is a bullshit ideal set forth by selfish individuals. Anyways...
