I’d like to point everyone over to a website called Book By Its Cover and a post by Chad Kouri of Eric Ellis’s sketchbook. The post has garnered a good deal of discussion about the work in this sketchbook and the work of artist Geoff McFetridge. McFetridge has even weighed in with his own thoughts on the matter.
What bothers me about discussion like these are the belief that someone can seemingly own or possess ownership of a visual style or aesthetic. Perhaps I shouldn’t say much more, but I will. The point of contention in the post and discussion is whether the sketchbook artist, Eric Ellis, is copying the “style” or work of Geoff McFetridge. As McFetridge himself points out in his comment, a common defense in situations like these is that we all work on a sliding scale copying, which McFetridge says belies the truth of the situation. The truth of the situation is that one cannot copyright, patent, lay claim or otherwise possess any kind of style, as it is not something that is tangible nor something which origin can be objectively traced. I don’t think this is a matter of intellectual property rights either. I know there are a lot of art historians out there who might disagree with that statement that a visual style’s origin cannot be traced back objectively, and for those I will say again, “objectively”.
What is to say that McFetridge’s “style” or aesthetic of “drawing hands and bending things to make characters,” wasn’t already created by some high school kid or art student in the 70′s, but instead of getting on top of their shit and becoming a world-famous bad-ass like McFetridge did, that young kid’s drawings are still in his math notebooks? Does recognition and notoriety also encompass an entitlement?
Also, while this “style” that is in question may have a lot of thinking and precision behind it, it’s appeal is in it’s universality. The reason it is visually appealing is because people can relate to it.
The bottom line is that I think this conversation and many like these that deal with ownership of aesthetics are the epitome of egocentrism and indicative of a specific point-of-view and artistic perspective that I believe goes without critical self-analysis. But that’s just my two cents. I went to school for journalism not art.
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 1, 2009 at 10:51 pm
TS
You make a valid point. The law does not allow ownership of a style for exactly that reason. You can own an image. You can own a text. You can own a melody, or an invention, or a recipe.
But you can’t own a style, because you can’t objectively define a style.
On the other hand, if it’s dissing you’re doing, and not suing, well, you can diss someone for copping your style. Whether you get anywhere with your dissing is another matter.
September 2, 2009 at 12:06 am
lumpenmagazine
Thanks for the comment. Yeah you can dis someone’s work all you want for copying or mimicking the work of another, but even that leaves you open to the same exact criticism. I’m not one to say “everything has already been done before” exactly, but originality in it’s purest, most ideal form is a false construct.
Here is the analogy I keep thinking of in regards to all this:
Visual aesthetics are to art, what geographic formations are to the earth.
If a company buys or lays claim to a swath of land somewhere and discovers oil under the ground, that oil is not the company’s oil, it is the earth’s oil and any benefits that may come of that should benefit all those who inhabit the earth not solely the company.
Yes I know the analogy is flawed and then we can start talking about well if the company pays to pump out the oil, shouldn’t they be entitled to it…yes, compensation in the amount they spent pumping it. This part does really fit into my scheme of thinking, but I thought I’d share the analogy anyhow.
September 2, 2009 at 12:43 am
TS
I get your drift, and agree with you in principle. As the wise man said: “There is nothing new under the sun.”
When the OULIPO people find out someone had previously utilized one of their peculiar literary constraints, they refer to that person as an “anticipatory plagiarist”, and have done with it.
But, in my profession, we charge for our knowledge, not for work product, and we get paid C.O.D.. So professional courtesy prevents me from getting too self-righteous about how those who produce words, images and sounds fashion their business models. Hey, creative professionals have a hard enough time making a living. Who am I to question their sale of their products with strings attached?