Cultural+Work+and+Control


 * [[file:mona_lisa-3559.bmp]]Cultural Work and Control**

Walter Benjamin, a Jewish German born Philosopher, Sociologist and Literary Critic lived between 1892 and 1940.

-When photography was beginning to be used to create replicas of art why did no one at the time ask: "will this change the entire nature of art?" -How has the method of looking at art changed with the introduction of new technologies? -Is film a real form of art? How has film deviated from definitions in the past?
 * Questions to ask yourself during the reading.**

Bejamin talks about how people who witness activities like sports or film feel like experts just by being part in the experience. This idea of sharing one's public opinion was a venue opened up in newspapers years ago in the form of "Letter to the Editor."
 * Other Thoughts:**

-What are the implications of the growing number of venues where people can comment on artwork in a public forum? Ex. Youtube reactions

-Is there a code of appropriate behavior that comes with witnessing someone else's artwork? Should that code change depending where you are? (online, gallery, museum, play, radio, TV)

-In what ways is it appropriate to comment on someone's art?

-If there is a code of behavior for looking at art, is that line being crossed when public condemnation is present? (ex. someone bashing a 12 year old's Youtube video of him skateboarding.)

-Are people becoming too attached to being participants of art rather than just observing it? What exists to protect the sacred space of artists?

-If people feel entitled today to comment publically on people's art will there come a day when audience member at a play will stand up mid performance and shout "you suck!" if they feel moved to do so? Benjamin also emphasizes that man made art can always be remaid or reconstructed by a man. However, the real roots of art or such sculpture never looses its meaning; such thing could be reproducted or redesigned but will never have the same meaning or value. In other words; Real thing- has alot of value eg. a real Mona Lisa painting by Leonardo Da Vinci has a greater value than a copy of it by another painter. Reproduction- looses value because it is not the first or the real deal. Such picture of REAL Mona Lisa is on the left and the right is the copy but differenly painted to make it more modern and to this day.. As Benjamin argues "It is significant that the existence of the work of art with reference to its aura is never entirely separated from its ritual function. In other words, the unique value of the “authentic” work of art has its basis in ritual, the location of its original use value. This ritualistic basis, however remote, is still recognizable as secularized ritual even in the most profane forms of the cult of beauty." (Benjamin)


 * Free Culture- Property by Lawrence Lessig**

Lessig mentions the "Way Back Machine" the largest archive of human knowledge. Here's the link to check it out: **Way Back Machine**

Lessig also talks about free culture, distinguishing terms like "free as in free beer." A great suggestion that he has talks about to limit to gobs of money and litigation that tie up so many copyright issues is the following:

"The system could simply make it easy for follow-on creators to compensate artists without requiring an army of lawyers to come along: a rule, for example, that says 'the royalty owed the copyright owner of an unregistered work for the derivative resue of his work will be a flat 1 percent of net revenues, to be held in escrow for the copyright owner.' Under this rule, the copyright owner could benefit from some royalty, but he would not have the benefit of a full property right (meaning the right to name his own price) unless he registers the work.

Who could possibly object to this? And what reason would there be for objecting? We're talking about work that is not now being made; which if made, under this plan, would produce new income for artists. What reason would anyone have to oppose it?" (Lessig, Lawrence __Free Culture__. 106.Penguin, 2004).


 * Avatar...Ferngully on steroids?**

Are movie plots considered "fair use"?
As I watched Avatar, the oscar winning, 3D motion picture that the whole country had been raving about, I thought to myself "Wow i feel like i have seen this before..." Soon I realized the plot, setting and characters all matched that of Ferngully, one of my favorite childhood animated movies. As I got further into the movie, I couldn't believe the similarities between these two.

In order to see these similarities begin with this trailer for the movie Avatar, released in 2009

media type="youtube" key="cRdxXPV9GNQ" height="385" width="640"

Now watch this trailer for Ferngully, released in 1992

media type="youtube" key="ccURwir7C_o" height="385" width="480"

Finally, you can really see the similarities between these two movies with this trailer that uses the voice of Avatars trailer and the picture from Ferngully

media type="youtube" key="D-SVpZrnF34" height="385" width="640"

I decided to see what else I could find about the similarities online and came across this discussion on the morning tv show "The View"s website about the similarities between Avatar and Ferngully:

Avatar: Jake is turned into a Na'vi FernGully: Zack is turned into a tiny faerie. Avatar: When Jake runs in the forest it lights up. FernGully: When Zack and Crystal are in the cave running across the water it lit up. Avatar:Jake was working with the enemy FernGully: Zack was working for the enemy Avatar: Neytiri tells Jake to listen to the forest FernGully: Crystal tells Zack to feel and hear the forest. Avatar: Spiritual Mother and Head Father FernGully: Spiritual Mother and Head Father. Avatar: Weird group dancing. FernGully:Weird group flying Avatar: They live in a home tree FernGully: They live in the good tree. Avatar: The home tree is destoryed FernGully: The Bad Tree was destroyed Avatar: Jake get's to ride the dragon things -I don't know the name of these, sorry- FernGully: Zack get's to ride Batty Avatar: Jake and Neytiri defeated the bad guy together Ferngully: Zack and Crystal defeated the bad guy together Avatar: The Forest comes and helps FernGully: The Forest comes and helps Avatar:Big machines come to destroy the Home Tree and the Na'vi FernGully: Machines come to destroy the forest.

**Now some differences between the two:**
Ferngully was released in 1992, and opening weekend made just $3,549,338. It received a rating of 5.9 out of 10 stars, and won only three awards... all of which I have never heard of.

Avatar was released in 2009, and opening weekend made $77,025,481. It received a rating of 8.5 out of 10 stars, and won so many awards I couldn't count... including multiple Oscars.

Can this movie plot be considered "fair use"? Are the creators of Avatar in violation of a copyright? Is this fair that Avatar, using the same plot of a movie made 17 years ago, made so much money and is considered one of the greatest films of today?

**The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction**
Benjamin discusses how art “has always been reproducible”. He goes back to the times when the Greeks were able to reproduce things in quantity which only included Bronzes, terra cottas, and coins. To be able to print things was incredible for them. Eventually lithography came to be. This made reproduction of products even better it “enabled graphic art to illustrate everyday life”. However the invention of photography later happened and the process of using lithography stopped. This was faster better and as we see now in the future is used for many things. But what happens when artist of today gets inspired by a previous artist and creates something similar or a replica of their work? Are they not a unique artist? Benjamin makes it clear that in today's time we have lost are traditional values about art.

There are 2 aspects of proletarianization facism and manifesto...
 * Facism-** "attempts to organize the newly created proletarian masses without affecting the property structure which the masses strive to eliminate. It sees its salvation in giving these masses not their right, but instead a chance to express themselves."
 * Masses- "**have a right to change property relations"