Portrait of The Artist as a Brand
Mads Pedersen
Sciences" (2nd European conference og the international society for
littrerature and science) which takes place at my university campus
(University of Aarhus, Denmark) over the next couple of days.
The presentation by Celia Lury (D.Phil, Reader in Sociology, Goldsmiths
College, University of London, UK) was called "Portrait of the Artist as a
Brand" and was actually quite interesting.
Here is (part of) the abstract - what do you guys think of this?
QUOTE ONE: "I think I've got phenomenal ability to base very important
decisions totally on emotion. If it feels right, 100 per cent, I don't ask
myself why. If I did ask myself why, I wouldn't be able to find out the
answers, and I think that's why a lot of people get stuck. If it feels
right, I just do it." (Hirst, quoted in Leith, 1999)
QUOTE TWO: "If I find out that what I've been doing isn't art," he tells me,
"I don't really care". (Hirst, quoted in Leith, 1999)
QUOTE THREE: "Becoming a brand name is an important part of life," says Mr.
Hirst. "It's the world we live in." (The Economist, February 10, 2001)
In these statements, the artist Damien Hirst proclaims that he just 'does'
it, that what he 'does' might not be art, and that he does not really care
whether it is or not. More than this, Hirst says that he is a brand name,
and thus implies that what he 'does' should be protected by the laws of
trademark as much as, or rather than, by those of copyright, conventionally
the recourse of artists who seek to protect property rights in their work.
[W]hat might be involved in occupying the position of authorship as a brand
- as Hirst suggests he does - produces the author as an effect of the work
at the same time that the object of the work itself remains open to other
investigations, other operations. In this way, it is suggested, occupying
the author function as a brand enables Hirst to challenge the distinction
between art and life, while sustaining the categorical difference between
art and commodity culture. Indeed, it will be suggested that it may also
enable him to challenge the distinction between art and science.
// Mads
----------------------------------
.: http://www.madspedersen.com
.: http://www.doubleloop.dk
Stan Wojda
from probably the oposite point of view.
In my view an artist is a craftsman who uses learned skills to evoke
responses. Myself as a "commercial" artist uses these skill sets to evoke
responses on behalf those who have commisioned me to do that work.
I make no pretention that what I do is art with a capitol "A". However I do
see myself as ligitimatly claiming the title "artist" because I have become
skilled in the use of my craft and have provoked the desired response in
those who have been in contact with my "art" In fact I have choosen to
specialize in the field of direct response advertising primarily because I
can readily judge my skill and effectivenes.
Hirst view that becoming a brand name is an important part of life is right
on the money. Just another way of defining reputation. I survive on the fact
that my reputation (brand) proceeds me. The client is purchasing a known
product when they commision me to produce a mailing for them. In that sense
hireing a "Stan Wojda" to do a design for you is no different than going to
a store and buying a can of soup. (Andy Warhol reference) You many not know
exactly what's in it, you may not know how it was made, and you may not know
if it will satisfy you after you've eaten it, but your willing to try
because of a positive experience purchasing it before, or upon the
recomendation of others.
Where I think Hirst an I would split apart is in the distinction between
"fine" and "commercial art". In my mind the destinction is non-exsistant.
Both survive on their own merit. The "art" is a product of the viewer or
recipiant of the effort of the artist. Not a function of the artist. That is
why fields as divirgent, as say, dance, painting, acting, can claim the
title "art form" because the deciding factor is the effect the artists
effort on the recipiant of the "art". I can be inspired by a Da Vince
painting, or be entertained by the Spiderman movie. Both have served their
role as art form because of their effect on me.
Mads Pedersen wrote
Gordon Moat
Why not have the ability to trademark yourself? An individual can be a
commodity just like any product, or group of individuals acting together.
Somehow it seems that M. Hirst may be trying to use it to attract attention,
rather than as a serious gesture. I wonder how successful his implementation of
this idea will develop.
As I understand it, individual works fixed to a tangible medium can be
copyrighted. Putting a brand or mark (trademark) onto that same item provides a
different protection. I cannot see a reason to do just the mark, without also
getting the protection of copyright.
If it is my work, then copyright is more important to me. Creating my own brand
just seems like marketing to me, and not more important than the substance of
my work.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html>
Mads Pedersen
I'm not quite sure I agree with you completely on the last part of your
post.
> Where I think Hirst an I would split apart is in the distinction between
> "fine" and "commercial art". In my mind the destinction is non-exsistant.
> Both survive on their own merit. The "art" is a product of the viewer or
> recipiant of the effort of the artist. Not a function of the artist. That is
> why fields as divirgent, as say, dance, painting, acting, can claim the
> title "art form" because the deciding factor is the effect the artists
> effort on the recipiant of the "art". I can be inspired by a Da Vince
> painting, or be entertained by the Spiderman movie. Both have served their
> role as art form because of their effect on me.
One could read your comment to mean that - since art (like beauty) is all in
the eye of the beholder - everything is art. Without getting too far into
the old "what is art, really?"-discussion I would be careful to make such a
broad definition. I would think we can agree that not everything is art.
Where then, would you make the cut. You speak of the effort of the viewer
and the effort of the would-be artist.
- Could art exist solely without the effort of an audience (one investor is
actually said to have paid one million pounds for a scuplture by Hirst,
without even seeing - and Hirst was reportedly quite bothered by this)?
- Could art exist without the effort of the artist (art by accident,
crafts-not-art discussion)?
Ok, enough already. I'm not sure I really want to go into that discussion -
or that I'm practically/theoretically equipped to do so. Still, an
interesting topic that has been/will always be subject to some debate ;-)
All the best,
// Mads
----------------------------------
.: http://www.madspedersen.com
.: http://www.doubleloop.dk
Mads Pedersen
> As I understand it, individual works fixed to a tangible medium can be
> copyrighted. Putting a brand or mark (trademark) onto that same item provides
> a
> different protection. I cannot see a reason to do just the mark, without also
> getting the protection of copyright.
I think the reason Hirst is reluctant to copyright his material is due to
the whole discussion about originality.
Hirst doesn't claim originality for (all) his work. I'm afraid that I can't
remember the name of the piece (maybe it is called "Him" or something like
that) but it is depicting a partly dissassembled male. Hirst explained, when
he peresented the piece, that he got his inspiration from his son's anatomy
kit. "I may actually get prosecuted" he said. And indeed, the makers of the
anatomy set did put forward a claim (when the piece was sold for a million
pounds - see my answer to Gordon) which was settled out of court with Hirst
paying the toy company an undisclosed sum.
So since his art is a combination or recombination of reality (my
interpretation) who is to say what is original or not? Can you copyright
reality? In this view copyright becomes a rather weak concept and the artist
(in Hirst's view) is better served by becoming a trademark.
All the best,
// Mads
----------------------------------
.: http://www.madspedersen.com - brand-building??? ;-)
.: http://www.doubleloop.dk
> From: Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net>
> Organization: Alliance Graphique Studio
> Reply-To: mo...@attglobal.net
> Newsgroups: alt.design.graphics
> Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 10:47:22 -0700
> Subject: Re: Portrait of The Artist as a Brand
>
Gordon Moat
done. Since he had to settle a case about one of his works already, it does seem
that it would be difficult to copyright.
There was a similar recent controversy in the UK, at an awards exhibit. The
winning artist image was extremely similar to a book jacket design done may years
previously. I do not remember the outcome, but it was very controversial.
Perhaps the key is being controversial, whether or not someone's idea is a
"reinterpretation". Many famous older works have been revisited, and given a
modern twist. I have a few paintings that contain elements influenced by existing
works. However, it would be difficult for any of us to do any creative works
without being influenced in some way.
Copyright in general is a confusing concept, and occasionally very frustrating. I
have had one copyright battle in the past. It almost made me give up creative work
entirely, though the current laws were on my side, and I prevailed.
Another issue recently appearing is that some who have fought for a copyright
infringement of their works, and won, have then been "blacklisted" for further
work. The larger groups and corporations have the ability to not use your work,
and influence others to do the same. It makes me wonder if fighting is worth any
effort . . . .
Mads Pedersen
> Perhaps the key is being controversial, whether or not someone's idea is a
> "reinterpretation". Many famous older works have been revisited, and given a
> modern twist. I have a few paintings that contain elements influenced by
> existing
> works. However, it would be difficult for any of us to do any creative works
> without being influenced in some way.
> Another issue recently appearing is that some who have fought for a copyright
> infringement of their works, and won, have then been "blacklisted" for further
> work. The larger groups and corporations have the ability to not use your
> work,
> and influence others to do the same. It makes me wonder if fighting is worth
> any
> effort . . . .
A good question indeed. I guess many people would be better off
concentrating on making more good stuff that worrying about other people
stealing their stuff. Still the line has to be drwan somewhere.
// Mads
----------------------------------
.: http://www.madspedersen.com
.: http://www.doubleloop.dk
Gordon Moat
> > From: Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net>
> However, it would be difficult for any of us to do any creative works
> > without being influenced in some way.
> Or put in another way - real artists steal!
>
LOL . . . I guess there are no new ideas . . . .
>
> > Another issue recently appearing is that some who have fought for a copyright
> > infringement of their works, and won, have then been "blacklisted" for further
> > work. The larger groups and corporations have the ability to not use your
> > work,
> > and influence others to do the same. It makes me wonder if fighting is worth
> > any
> > effort . . . .
> A good question indeed. I guess many people would be better off
> concentrating on making more good stuff that worrying about other people
> stealing their stuff.
True . . . tough world out there . . . .
> Still the line has to be drwan somewhere.
I try to keep my drawing to a sketchbook . . . anyway, yes it is a judgement call.
I have a bad situation currently with one client who only paid a portion of an
invoice, and sent me a nasty letter after they had already used the images. Through
various problems, it has come down to the only thing left is copyright
infringement, since I specify on my contracts that rights do not transfer without
payment in full.
I wish I could say more about this, but it is not yet resolved. Sadly, I think it
will be like winning the Lottery if I get any money from this. It is only around
$1000, not much for them, but means a good bit to me.
There are good and bad issues concerning copyright, and trademarks. I got into the
creative business because I wanted to share my work with others, and hopefully make
enough money in the process to continue. I hope it continues to work out.
Mads Pedersen
> Subject: Re: Portrait of The Artist as a Brand
>
> I try to keep my drawing to a sketchbook
Baaah !!!
> I have a bad situation currently with one client who only paid a portion of an
> invoice, and sent me a nasty letter after they had already used the images.
> Through
> various problems, it has come down to the only thing left is copyright
> infringement, since I specify on my contracts that rights do not transfer
> without
> payment in full.
> I wish I could say more about this, but it is not yet resolved. Sadly, I think
> it
> will be like winning the Lottery if I get any money from this. It is only
> around
> $1000, not much for them, but means a good bit to me.
I hope you get your money. I only once had a copyright infringement case. A
newspaper used a photo of mine as part of a collage on the front page and on
a spread without first consulting me. When I found out about it I sent them
a bill which they paid with no hassles. Nice when things can be that simple.
Gordon Moat
Best of luck to you as well.
Ciao!
Giuseppe Carmine De Blasio
Pepe
Milano, Italy
"Mads Pedersen" <ma...@imv.au.dk> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:B9073FC2.3A668%ma...@imv.au.dk...
Mads Pedersen
// Mads
----------------------------------
.: http://www.madspedersen.com
.: http://www.doubleloop.dk
> From: "Giuseppe Carmine De Blasio" <pbl...@libero.it00>
> Newsgroups: alt.design.graphics
> Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 23:03:13 +0200
> Subject: Re: Portrait of The Artist as a Brand
>
Mike Minovski
simple.
Well, I guess this is the main idea of copyright law - to make things
simple... even though it often looks like the opposite <g>
Going back to your initial post, I'd say copyright was conceived as a damper
on the borderline between, as you put it, "art and commodity culture"... of
maybe between (your quote again) "art and life". Else, you can imagine the
clashes that could have been occurring there, in our times of click-easy
precise reproduction of *anything*... indeed, if compared to contemporary
artists, Michelangelo and Rembrandt had very little to bother about being
copied and someone else getting rich from selling their work without their
consent... :)
What's more, the realm of intellectual product has grown much beyond the
sphere of art... art is now only a small part of what Man can produce basing
solely on his inner potential. Intellectual product is continuing to get
deeply integrated into the material world, which makes its value grow...
that's why the aim of copyright law is not only to protects intellectuals
from the big bad commodity world, but also to aid the process of recognizing
the material value of intellectual product, evaluating it and making it an
inherent part of the overall economy.
Actually, Damien Hirst's quotes made me think about an interesting... uhm...
yes, I could call it contradiction.
While in quotes 1 and 2 he speaks as the typical artist ("My art and my way
are all that matters, everything else is unimportant"), in quote 3 he claims
to adopt a part of that 'everything else', and integrate it into 'his
way'... I immediately thought of two reasons:
1) An artist is almost always a 'homo ludens' (the playing man).
Identity/branding is one of the most interesting plays that we all take part
in... hence, it is attractive to 'the artist side' of an artist. I have the
feeling he is much more after the play itself, than after the tangible
benefits he would get from successfully playing it...
2) An artist is an individual. Exposure to him is as vital as air and water.
Waht would be more attractive than to gain and control your own exposure by
setting up, directing and playing your own one-man show called 'my
identity'... in an all-life tour called 'my branding'...? :))
However, even if a (typical) artist manages to adopt - and successfully
use - a winning identity, I still think he/she is - as a rule - much less
aware of the duties that an identity comes with, than a business manager who
has been just as successful.
Not to speak that the majority of strong identities in the art world have
been, if not created, than at least skillfully steered, by businessmen.
Thanks, Mads - it was interesting to give a thought to this.
mike m.
Mads Pedersen <ma...@imv.au.dk> wrote in message
news:B9073FC2.3A668%ma...@imv.au.dk...
Giuseppe Carmine De Blasio
uninformation*
*shrug*
Pepe
MIlano, Italy
PS: yeah...Ekstra Bladet is pretty bad...
"Mads Pedersen" <ma...@imv.au.dk> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:B9075405.3A67E%ma...@imv.au.dk...