A recent article by Pulitzer Prize winning art critic Jerry Saltz demonstrates the gap between the artistic process and the rhetoric of copyright policy. In “How to be an Artist,” Saltz provides 33 lessons “to take you from clueless amateur to generational talent.” The lessons underscore the importance of imitation and non-financial incentives to a fulfilling creative life.
Lesson 3 is “feel free to imitate.” Saltz notes that “we all start as copycats, people who make pastiches of other people’s work. Fine! Do that.” He explains that “when you do this, focus, start to feel the sense of possibility in making all these things your own—even when the ideas, tools, and moves come from other artists.”
Lesson 10 is “find your own voice. Then exaggerate it.” Saltz advises, “if someone says your work looks like someone else’s, and you should stop making it, I say don’t stop doing it. Do it again. Do it 100 times or 1,000 times.” Saltz explains that through this process, your own voice might emerge. If it doesn’t, “try another path.”
Lesson 13 is “Scavange.” Saltz observes that “life is your syllabus: gather from everywhere.” He states that originality can be found by “looking for overlooked periods of art history, disliked and discredited styles, and forgotten ideas, images, and objects. Then work them into your own art 100 times or 1,000 times.”
Lesson 17 is “See as much as you can.” Saltz notes that when artists look at other works of art, they get very close to the works to inspect every detail. The artists say that they are seeing how the works are made, but Saltz says they are stealing. “You can steal from anything. You should! You better!”
Fortunately, copyright law contains limitations such as the idea/expression dichotomy, the fair use doctrine, and defined terms of protection that permit much of this copying. But the rhetoric of copyright policy discourages this imitation and implies that it is both illegal and immoral.
Saltz then turns to finances. Lesson 20 is “accept that you likely will be poor.” He reminds the would-be artist that “only one percent of one percent of one percent of all artists become rich off their artwork.” He says that “you may feel overlooked, underrecognized, underpaid. Too bad. Stop feeling sorry for yourself; that’s not why you are doing this.”
Lesson 21, “define success” continues in this vein. He opines that the real definition of success is “time to do your work.” Saltz states that you will start out working full time to make a living, resentful, frustrated, envious and depressed that you don’t have enough time to create art. But if you are “a sneaky, resourceful artist,” you’ll eventually figure out a way to work only four days a week, giving you more time to create. On Sunday nights, though, you’ll be depressed again because “your ride-to-nowhere job” is still taking up too much of your time. However, if you are really sneaky and resourceful, “you scam a way to work an only-three-days-a-week job.” Examples include working at a gallery or a museum, or as a teacher, art critic, bookkeeper or proofreader. You now have time to make your work—so “get to work. Or quit being an artist.”
These lessons relating to finances are antithetical to the U.S. incentive-based rationale for copyright. They recognize the reality that virtually all artists would continue to create even if there was no possibility that they would ever earn a single penny from their art.
Lesson 30 is “artists do not own the meaning of their work.” Saltz asserts “Remember: anyone may use your art—any art—in any way that works for them.”
This lesson calls out the hypocrisy of some artists who are perfectly happy to borrow from other artists but cry copyright infringement when anyone borrows from them.
Why does the rhetoric of copyright policy diverge so far from the practices and lifestyles of actual artists? Artists copy constantly, and rarely rely on copyright’s economic incentive. One explanation is that copyright really isn’t directed at promoting the creation of art; rather, it’s true objective is protecting the business models of publishers and distributors of copyrighted works. Media companies, however, are not as sympathetic beneficiaries of copyright legislation as individual artists, and thus hide behind artists when promoting their agenda.
To be sure, copyright plays a significant role in promoting the creation of works that are expensive to produce, such as motion pictures. But nuanced policymaking should not confuse the needs of movie studios with those of individual artists.
Moreover, because digital networks have dramatically lowered the cost of publishing and distributing works, copyright now is less critical to promoting these activities. While overly broad copyright laws may help large media companies preserve their profitability, they aren’t necessary to ensure that the public has access to creative works.
