Art is the expression of ideas.
What are we doing when we engage in the activity and publishing of art or ideas? Here I’m using ‘Art’ in an extremely broad sense, far more broad than is typical. I’d qualify anything from fiction, non-fiction, painting, journalism, photography, patents, or proofs; intangible, or seemingly intangible property is what I would call ‘Art’. This exchange of ideas as the step before we apply or manifest them as physical objects. Admittedly, this applies to any set of ideas about the world.
However, for the sake of simplicity, let’s deal with Intellectual property in the space of ‘Art’. This is admittedly up for grabs, and even slightly contentious in terms of what property in general is. I feel as though property, in general, is property. However, that’s not to be argued here. The focus here is on ideas, and intellectual property, whatever that means.
The Social Framework is Defined by the Expression of Ideas
Art, Ideas, whatever it is, Expression in general is how we articulate and navigate the world. Our perception of the world is not a passive activity, we are not merely being changed by the incoming information from the world, we meet this incoming information with a rich and vast range existing commitments. The expressions hit with some resistance, a slight give, rather than being entirely absorbed. We are ever acting on and dealing with the dialogue between those incoming interests with one’s own existing interests. My writing to you now is framing things in such a way to be, or attempt to be, understandable and clear. I have certain commitments about the world, and hope that these commitments are coming across for your own processing.
What we do articulates to world around us, informing and educating even if it is only slightly. Our experiences are rich, and have been informed by expressions in the public framework. The social structure articulates the world around us. The expression of ideas is what this is. Talking, painting, writing, thinking, any thing that we are doing is articulating and building upon the world as perceived. Our influences are vast and complex and our responsibility to present those influences and ideas in such a way that is positive or at least constructive is extremely important.
Therefore, The Importance of Good Art and The Misappropriation of Ideas
Keeping in mind that there has been a great deal of philosophical backing to this notion of Social Framework and the relation to Personhood.
Given this definition of art as an internal dialogue, while also being an important informant to the way the world is structured, it is extremely fragile. Ideas are vulnerable but important to the way of communication and education. What does it say about a social system, or a person who is interested in the protection and attribution of that work for monetary or populous gains?
The protection or attribution of our ideas from further duplication, sale, or otherwise seeks to break that connectivity of social framework, and cloud the intention of legitimate contribution to the humanist project. The current system of property right is not compatible with the operations of our consciousness, and therefore does not seek to further cultivate the expression of our ideas.
If a person is a kind of conglomerate of the existing social structure, constituted by the social objects and obstacles therein, how is it that what I’ve created just now with this brush, or with this guitar is mine?
If we mistake the idea of intellectual property protection as valuable in its exchange-value (monetary) and rely less and less on its value of utility (as a part of the common intellectual creative process we are all engaging in) then we are no longer making an expression of any important content aside from publishing it as a ‘buy-able’ object. Art and Ideas become very closed off from the realm of fragile education or, it further reinforces the importance of monetary gains and competition between valuable things. Art (ideas) ought not to be thought of as a lottery ticket.
The exchange of ideas ought to be taken very seriously, as everything we “put out” is in one form or another, structuring the environment in which we and everyone else must live in. We, each of us, pee in the same pool, if you will. The idea here is that everything we do/make/say/think goes somewhere and does something.
Why are we worried about the sale of our art? Why are we worried about the theft of our art? Are without it if it is copied? Ask instead what we make it for in the first place.
The Cost of Art
We ought to be paying or supporting the method of production rather than the object produced. Not only then is this a case made against the monetization of ‘art’ but it is a case against it really being yours. Forms of property and ownership do not represent how our consciousness, and how our interactions with other consciousnesses and the environment at large go on.
There is nothing necessarily wrong with monetary compensation from the ideas we make and the art we publish, but the system of paying for content, rather than paying for the access or venue to receive or take in that content are two different things entirely.
Personally, I take issue with paying for music in physical or digital form, but I would NEVER think twice about paying to go to a live show of that same artist I would otherwise not have had interest in.
Ideas are made from our activity in the world. To be a full-time artist is to miss the point of being a participant in, and making our criticism of the world.
The Creative Commons, GNU, Copyleft
This is, I think, the philosophical framework for why open source philosophy in software/hardware production is such a benefit. Also for why programs like the Creative Commons, or the GNU notion of “Copyleft”. That we share information openly, and charge or donate for actual labour, maintenance, consultation or otherwise. That we are aware of where and how we receive the content, and provide accordingly for it, but have no commitment to the content itself.
The CC is a platform that plays directly to the expression of ideas as explained above. A platform in which is intrinsically based and supportive of this kind of dialogue. That we might openlly allow access with subsequent links to places and areas in which the discussions about those ideas take place. Again, the current system of property right is not compatible with the operations of our consciousness, and therefore does not seek to further cultivate the expression of our ideas. The Creative Commons, in contrast, not only allows but endorses the share-ability and non-commercialness of an authentic dialogue of ideas.
Open and Public
A Person is not a person without other people. There is no real I, we’re confusing that where we come from is already away from an isolated individualism. The internet culture of myspace and amateurness is admittedly narcissistic, but there is no such thing as meaninglessness. If people say it, they mean it in some facet. The connectivity among human beings is what busts out of this libertarian angle on “Internet Culture”.
If we look hard at people who are passionate about what they are writing or saying or doing, you will indeed find a legitimate kind of compulsion to share and build and figure “it” (whatever “it” is) out. It might be masterbation, but even masterbation has the benefit of being self-practice or self-exploration.
This is such an interesting idea. It really is the debate of the internet isn’t it? I am not sure exactly where I stand on this. I get why people should make money from their art. All of us have to, whether we like it or not, have a way of making money to survive. It seems only fair that if art is what they do best then they should be allowed to do that. I agree that hardworking bands who do the concert thing should make money, but does that necessarily mean that musicians shouldn’t be able to make money from selling their songs? I think, no. In Korea, the recording industry is in major difficulties. Every Korean seems to be a pirate. Hell, I have a lot of Korean music on my harddrive that was never paid for. I pretty much couldn’t find a place to buy it even if I wanted to. So… in order to make money, bands and groups have to tour, appear on tv and endorse things. What I have noticed is that the quality of Korean music has dropped. The bands making all the money now are the dance/hip hop groups. The serious indy bands are out alone and without the support of a traditional record label (albeit a seriously outdated model) this kind of music is vanishing… What I do like is the Radiohead / NiN model where you pay the artist directly. I paid nothing for Radiohead (they owe me for all the money I laid down in the past!) but I am sure they made money from it.
Other arts are in more difficulties. I would love to make money from my photos. I would love to give up my job so that I could do only that, but with the idea you are talking, I would never have that chance.
My thoughts aren’t fully formed, but I think I pretty much disagree with you…. :)