The prasence of the author

The solution of the copyright is in the differentiation of the art and forms of art

There is a babylonian voices in the world of creative. Everyone believes, for everyone else speeches, not only seem to take party but also to know on which side of the barricades, which will be gross from day to day, the good and on which the boses are standing. The situation is much outrageous to the interests of authors, widening and consumers of art, when the political friend enemy thinking makes us troubles to us to impose most of the participants.

Depending on what kind of artwork creates an artist, the situation is very different. Thus, a solution to the copyright, if it should be acceptable for all, are very different in different areas of artistic work.

The first question is the technical reproducibility of art. The second is whether the art is the work of a single or whether it is necessarily product of a team. Of course you can immediately argue that today every work is somehow reproducible, and that no artist can work all alone. But it is worth taking a few simplifications and make some distinctions to see that the problem of copyright can not be considered without differentiation between the types of works and their production models.

Individual artists with single works

Painters and sculptors are individual artists who create individual works. If someone puts a photo of a galawn on the internet, then the painter has no problem. His work is unique and can not be technically reproduced – and if it is done, then it is a false that is punishable and certainly remains punishable. There is no filesharing and no internet something. Painters have no copyright problem. They are prussed in their works, they have themselves handed hand and only if they really have done, it’s overpowering the work. A photo of a gemald is usually not a work of art, but just his image, so to speak a taste of the actual art enjoyment.

It is interesting to look at how photographers have made the method of painters to stay prasent in their works. They have designed the production process so that there can be only a few originals of a photo that are signed. Thus, even more photographers are created, unique works that are copied, photographed and mapped – but also only images arise, the work is not technically multiplied, but only presented.

The actual art enjoyment takes place at the gemalde, the sculpture and also in such photographs, where you meet the real original. The art exhibition is the performance of the factory. The image of the work in buchers, on posters and on the internet may already be ready for enjoyment, but the true art gene pilgrimages to the equivalents of art performance. Who does not believe that, watch the long beating the waiting for the exhibitions of a gerhard richter or the folkwang museum in essen.

The performance of the music

Now you can ask where z.B. In a music piece the performance of the art takes place. Through the decades of production and recovery processes of the music industry, it has become self-consuming to keep the sounds from the radio or the MP3 player for the work. But that is not self-resistant. You could take the horen of a song from the living room speaker or under headhorists also for the foretaste, the blobe image of the work, just like the photo of the gemald on the website of the museum or as the poster I buy in the museum shop, or the catalog, which I can see on the website.

The performance of the music takes place where the artist is prasent. The musician, of course, has the disadvantage that he can not produce his originals in stock that they do not do without his presence. That makes his performance more expensive. On the other hand, he can look out at the photographer, as small and medium editions of works can be used to transport the prasence of the artist. Already a CD cover with personal signature, after the concert with a laughing and a very individual view by hand to hand, is known to be born by no music file from the net.

In this context, it is interesting to remember that music has long been exposed to the risk of copying, more specifically, since the invention and dissemination of the tape device. Although the collecting societies have already summoned the magnetbander as a risk of copyright. The rough black long play plate with its respectable plate cover, however, had a sufficient physical prasence to be aim of the desire of the consumer. Only at the moment in which the highest technical quality of playback was no longer bound by the digitization, the problem arose. But it is above all the fact that the asthetics of the physical product of this industry itself was made laughable and the asthetics of technical perfection was made over everything.

From the fact that to the music enjoyment but more than the pure horen of a technically optimized sound, musicians and producers were able to develop new ideas where the consumer looks at his downloaded or copied file itself than what it is: a simpler taste of the what he really liked. What was the same as the LP will be anything else, but it will be something physical in which the prasence of the musician and the production of the work is still trailable. These things will meet the catalog of the exhibition or the high-quality art print of a gemald, they are not the original, but in them are the original and his shackle still lane, if no longer prasent. They are no longer the art themselves, but they are still acceptable and thus worthy art products.

The real performance in which the musician is prasent is the concert. Even more and more authors of beers discover the opportunities offering personal performance to create new forms of works. The reading does not have to be a sales assistant maaking for the sale of a book, as the concert tour does not have to serve the marketing of the new CD. In both cases it is exactly the other way around: the book and the CD are the foretaste that awakens the desire to experience the actual performance.

Schreiber and speaker

The coarse authors of the past – before the invention of the letterpress – were mainly rough speakers, and the spoken, directly affiliated word was highly scatzed as the written text. With the musicians, it’s, of course, just as well, and the concert is still so high because the time of technical reproducibility of the sound is not as long as the history of book printing. Maybe the time we can hold a dead thing that can be multiplied in a technical process without direct prasence of the artist as often as often as a work of art and dear the close-up prasence of the artist itself neglected, yes, only a predatory episode that soon is over.

Of course, we will continue to read music from speakers and texts on paper or displays. But then no one will see a copyright violation, because they are not the artwork itself, but only his image, which is missing for the real enjoyment the prasence of the artist. And for the experience of this prasence we will – there we remain unless otherwise steady – also properly engage in the pocket.

Undoubtedly, a lot will have to change. Lecturers, producers, technicians, sales people and agents must continue to be paid for high quality art products. Not every author is also a gifted reader and live entertainer. But even today, the best authors are not necessarily the successful, but those that are best present.

If the art enjoyment defines itself by the prasence of artist and not by using a technically reproducible copy of his work, then the gross, unique experience of the artist with his work wins value. This experience, the enjoyment of all the senses is not a copyright, it is not worthwhile by copying or downloading any files at all.