In the most general sense, a multimedia author seems to be a person who simply either writes an original work or creates an original version of a compilation of various works while using some type of medium other than paper and pencil. For example, a multimedia author could be someone who creates a video on YouTube, writes a blog on this very website, or even videos twenty-five people singing the vocal track from a CD of a famous singer and displays those videos on plasma displays.
Although I am not sure I would agree on labeling someone who writes a text message or creates a status on Twitter a multimedia author, I do respect Candice Breitz's version of multimedia authorship, whether she chose to be labled that or not. I think it is a very interesting idea to actually look into the lives that various artists have touched simply by having those people sing songs of the artists they love.
The claim on authorship, or basically receiving a copywright for one's work so that it or any part of it cannot be copied, seems to be growing more and more essential as technology and the idea of the multimedia author grows. With every knew medium that is created and improved upon, more and more people are able to simply take pieces of others' works and mold it into what they want it to be. Therefore, I believe Lessig is right in saying that "no artist works in a vacuum." And that "every artist reflects - consciously or not - on what has come before."
It is completely understandable for an author and/or artist to want their works to be copywrighted. However, I am not sure if it is always necessarily a bad thing if someone wishes to take a piece of that author's and/or artist's work and use it in their own creative way. Who knows, they could end up using that piece of work in a way in which that author/artist never thought of before. For example, in poetry, it is sometimes very useful to see your own creative line or entire stanza displayed in a completely different manner.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Laura, great post and ideas here! Your initial, general definition seems right on. Certainly, it's in line with non-multimedia authorship; of course, in that older situation, access and publication was restricted, so authorship appeared a more specialized domain. By emphasizing creation of the artifact, your definition allows a YouTube video - which may not strictly be writing - to fit within the domain of authorship. We might say that the act of "authorization" is the point. Your second paragraph equivocates on whether a text or a tweet is authorship - is the issue size? ephemerality? lack of attribution? - but aligns your views with Breitz. She emphasizes reception and amateur production. So, we might look at projects that take received tweets and re-work them; these might be acts of authorship? Your last paragraph address the difficult problem of authors on the want hand wanting the incentive and legal protection of copyright, but also wanting their work to be distributed and enjoyed. What do you think of Creative Commons? You might look closely at it - would this be a way of solving the problem?
ReplyDelete