musings on culture and corporate authorship

This week's readings on Disney and the question of corporate authorship really challenge one to reconsider the idea of authorship and its relationship to larger cultural circles. So,

What is corporate authorship?

The only answer I can come up with is to envision authorship as occurring on a scale. At one end, we have the solitary genius that attempts to resist all popular (perhaps current) influence on his or her work. At the very least, attempts to resist conscious influence of others (i.e. critics, fans, and those pesky cultural intermediaries).

At the other end of this imaginary spectrum, we have corporate authorship and the example, from the readings, of the Disney juggernaut. It is obvious that the Disney corporation authors multiple forms of media with reoccurring certain themes of childhood. This takes care of the authorship, but what makes it corporate authorship?

I'd argue that what makes for corporate authorship is that a corporation, made up of many individuals, operates as a distinct discourse community. These corporate discourse communities share a common language (speak a similar jargon) and share in the history of the corporation. This is not to discount the influence of Walt Disney himself, for it was certainly significant in establishing the corporation culture; but, even as the corporate culture influences the employees, so the employees, as they contribute to the corporate products, influence the culture as well. Furthermore, whereas it may be possible to better distinguish an individual author's output, with corporate authorship it is all but impossible to distinguish the line between internal cultural intermediaries (corporate employees) and the artists and writers."

For a little more perspective, let's take a look back at the issue of film authorship. Although films are assigned an author, generally the director in America, I would argue that on a scale of authorship an individual film is closer to corporate authorship. Those working on a film share a common language and participate in the subculture of film-making. However, each modern film represents only a "temporary" sort of corporation, which lacks a long shared history and a certain amount of stability in its members. In contrast, the studio system of bygone years is probably closest to the corporate authorship ideal.

On a side note, I wonder how much of a modern director's authorship and reoccurring themes is due to their ability to re-hire and work with many of the same individuals over time? For example, the (successful) work of Kevin Smith (director/writer below-right) is marked not only by the reappearance of certain themes (e.g. comic books, weed, relationships), but also by a "relatively" consistent staff of assistants and actors. In contrast, his other work as an actor etc. has only recently (in my uneducated opinion), begun to gain notice outside of his trademark production and roles (silent Bob-left below) .