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) .

the relationship between power and art

The old adage goes: The more things change, the more they stay the same. This week's readings on the relationship between art and business, between cultural producers and cultural consumers at first glance would seem to be a new way of looking at art in our contemporary culture. However, I would like to begin by pointing out the essential and probably timeless relationship between art and power, where the latter is always tied in some manor to money.

Here we have an image of Michelangelo's David. Indeed, he is recognized as a great artist. However, is it possible to speak of Michelangelo's work without invoking the names of patrons? His art would have been impossible without financial support. His art was supported because it met the needs of the wealthy to display their wealth and power to others. Incidentally, this display also worked to enhance their power among the people and other wealthy individuals.

This is not to say that art cannot be appreciated alone, but this appreciation will always be tied to power. How so? If this sculpture has no worth outside of its intrinsic beauty, then it should not matter where it is displayed. If its worth is just artistic, then the Italian government should not care if this piece stays in their country. Indeed, we could argue that it should be moved to another, better display site.

I believe that what has changed in the relationship between power and art is the way that balance of economic power has shifted in some senses away from the individual multimillionaire to an "audience." Whereas even in the early 20th century the wealthy few could have a great impact on the tastes of the many (television/radio networks, publishing houses, movie studios, etc) the advent of the internet and other digital technology is having/will have the effect of fragmenting these mass audiences into specialized, albeit still numerous, niche audiences.

unofficial authors

Is there such a thing as an unofficial author? I believe that there is and some of the best examples can be seen in Youtube.

Last semesteer, one of my stress relieving hobbies was seaching youtube for music videos created by putting together clips of one of my favorite shows (Doctor Who) with genres of music that I enjoy. While avoiding work, I searched for and watched probably around a hundred little videos. During my time watching, I evolved a set of criteria that were the mark of what I consdered to be an excetpional music videoauthored by a series fan:

1) The video is relatively free of editing problems and displays a clear video quality (including a lack of subtitles or other marks on the video)
2) The song chosen seems to have a clear connection with the overall series as well as the individual clips.
3) Clips chosen resonate in some fashion with the lyrics of the song.
4) Clips chosen make little use of charaters speaking especially while the song's muics and lyrics are glossing over.
5) The cutting or length of the clips matches the beats of the song.
6) Although not strictly necessary, the best seem to tell or retell some kind of story about one or more of the characters.

The video included below is one that I consider to be an excellent example of the above criteria titled "Back To The Start - Dr Who Music Video" by MisterAnderson71 (FYI- the actor protraying one of the main characters-the doctor- changes mid way through the video as the actor changed between the 1st and 2nd series)




This is, by my standards, a well composed video because the video was put together rather professionally (better that I could do for sure). It does a fantastic job of matching the song with the selected clips in both the lyrics and the beat. For example, at the very beginning of the video, note how the cutting of the first clips (from the first episode of the new Dr. Who episode) shifts along with the beat of the music. At 0:39 seconds we can see an early example of a clip working with the song lyrics as with the words "come up to meet you" sung in the background, one character, "the Doctor" walks up next to the other character "Rose." At 1:18 there is another great example with the phrase "running in circles" sung as the character run across the screen in front of the milennium wheel in London. In addition, most clips avoid showing the charaters speaking, which would be out od snyc with the song. Finally, the video tells a definite story about the two. According to the author, this video is "An emotionally based vid that centers around the relationship between The Doctor & Rose. One filled with both happy & sad times. And the connection between them is so strong, that they find a way to be together...forever -- back to the start of all their adventures." Indeed, the last half or so sends the characters literally back to the very beginning of their relationship.

If you would like to see another example of this author's work that I enjoyed, I recommend this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuIKOkPeWT8. In this example, the author does use character dialoge, but mathes it almost seamlessly with the song's lyrics.

In a slightly different vein, I'd also like to draw your attention to another youtube video. In this case "Scattered" meets all of the criteria listed above with the exception that it is not trying to tell a specific story but instead present "The docotor" in a darker tone through the use of numerous clips.



What is really neat about this video is the way that the pace of the clips bounces back and forth between the different beats of the song. As you can see if you watch the video, sometimes the clips are very short and at other times they are long. At the beginning of the video, note the way that the charater's movement within the clips is in sync with the melodic line of the song's instrumental beginning. Later on, when the song's lyrics come in, the charater is more likely to be shown in a close-up shot concentrating on his expression.

Although each of the "authors" discussed deny ownership of the songs or the shows they take clips from, there is a definite element of originality in each of these productions that deserves the title, if not the legal santion, of authorship. Thus, unofficial authors.

humanisim and materialism / author and subject

Personally, on the scale of humanisim and materialism, where the former posits a single creative genius and the latter the death of the author, I am more interested in the materialist aspect. However, I can see where both perspectives can be useful in gaining some kind of understanding of the world we live in.

I can understand the humanist/author position because I am a product of my own culture. As Glass Points out in his introduction to his book Authors Inc., Focult and Barthes who declared the death of the author were themselves elevated to that position of solitary creative genius. In my own work, I have over the past few years been very taken with the writings of Walter Ong. And, by writings, I am not limiting it to just his published works but also include materials from the Walter J. Ong archive recently made available online. For my, I find a great deal of inspiration for my own thinking from both Ong's published and unpublished works. That is, works on a particular topic of interest to me for my interests do not encapsulate the entirity of his writings.

Of course, it could be that my interest in Ong's work is a result of the fact that his ideas on orality and literacy have opened a new discurisive space, although not I think on the same level as Marx or Freud. Thus, despite my interest in the humanist viewpoint, I find myslef leaning more towards the materialist end of the specturm. In reading Focult's "What is an Author?," I found myslef argreeing with many of his view points. I believe that authoriship is, by and large, a product of the discourse communities that it appears in. I find it very interesting that authorship in the literary community became a big deal only with the invention of printing and its subsequent entanglement with property rights.

Focult's more materialistic or author as subject viewpoint, I believe, has potential to help us understand the complexities of modern media authorship, which, as Kompare notes, can be difficult to pintpoint by literary standards and often seems to be awarded based on the need for an author-brand. At the same time, it appears that out current society still feels the need to atribute some kind of authorship to mutlimedia productions. I think that this need underscores the essential discursive nature of authorship for, even when in television authoriship is so obviously shared, there is still this cultural need to limit it to a few individuals.

Relating back to last week's discussion on authroship and structionalism, I believe that Focult's discursively created author fits in with Becker, and to an extent, Benjamin view of the author as a product of his or her times and culture. It is even possible for an individual to momentarily escape the current system, such as in the case brought up earlier with Marx and Freud.

If I understand Fouclt correctly in a broader sense thought, he states that all knowledge is situatied. In other words, we can only know something in realtion to other things and institutions. Likewise, our concept of aithorship is an ideological creation situated in our current discursive practices.