Do you believe that art (in this case music) belongs to the artist or to society?
"In some societies, people think that art belongs to the person who made it. They think that the artist put his or her "talent" into the art. In this view, the art is the property of the artist.
In other societies, people think that art belongs to no one. They think that society has put its social capital into the artist and the artist's work. In this view, society is a collective that has made the art, through the artist." - Wikipedia
2007-09-14 12:08:11 · 19 answers · asked by rukrym 4 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Music ➔ Other - Music
Just to be clear, this isn't a rhetorical question, and I'm not saying that I think it should be free. I just want to know what other people think.
2007-09-14 12:15:24 · update #1
MachPen:
What I mean is not who literally owns the music (I completely agree with you that the art belongs to the artists in the sense of intellectual property), but whether people should have free and unrestricted access to, and rights to share with others, the art. So, yes, I suppose it really comes down to peer-to-peer file sharing etc.
2007-09-14 12:35:08 · update #2
luvnrckets:
Yeah, I'm not entirely sold on the whole idea of society putting social capital into the artist either. Although one could argue that a specific piece of art will be necessarily influenced by other art. I don't think any musician could really claim that their music is not inspired, at the very least in a generic sense, by other music.
2007-09-14 13:08:45 · update #3
And yes, Metallica have become quite lame, lol...
2007-09-14 13:10:29 · update #4
Well, I don't think it's necessarily a socialist view if someone believes that music should be free; and by "free" I'm assuming we are discussing the issue of peer-to-peer file sharing, right? If not, please clarify.
If that is what you're hitting upon here, then I'd have to say that there are nuanced arguments that suggest music can be shared under creative commons law in this manner (at least in the states -- don't know about the UK). As if to say that John Doe bought "such and such" album, and decided to share it with Jane Doe, so that Jane could burn a copy of it (in the virtual sense). So the hypothetical argument is: Did Jane Doe really steal it? Or did she merely just borrow something that was already paid for by someone else?
If you're literally talking about art being the property of a country, in the socialist sense, as we see in Cuba, then I completely disagree with that. No one should be the sole proprietor of your art, but YOU.
2007-09-14 12:17:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Art should belong to the individual. If you were to take the hard line approach of dictating that art belongs to no one, who is to say that artist doesn't retain the right to "shut it down?" Should that occur, society gets zilch. Also, it's ridiculous to think that society has put "social capital" into the artist. I would like to see an income statement on that. That being said, I don't have a problem with peer to peer file sharing. If you really like an artist, most people will still pony up the cash for the album and not just settle for downloads. Metallica was the group that had the big fit over this when Napster got huge. Perhaps they were concerned that once their fans realized how lame they had become, they wouldn't sell as many albums anymore.
2007-09-14 19:41:37 · answer #2 · answered by Rckets 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
An intersting question and I feel in terms of the benefit that art has both on the individual and on the society it should be free, but the artist has to eat! In ancient (and possibly in modern[?]) tribal cultures the artist has special status and does not have to hunt or gather because they have a different role to play within the society. Often this is (was) for recording of group experiences, story-telling, relating histories or 'religious' tales. In Western culture we seem to be more focused on individual rather than tribal experience. In this case I feel that art can become self-absorbed and therefore needs to find an audience. If the audience is widespread and reflects a common experience, feeling, zeitgeist even, then it needs to be shared and thus free. If it has a limited audience of 'culture vultures' then let them pay for their own pleasures.
2007-09-14 19:28:51 · answer #3 · answered by kazl_1999 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, it depends... If the artist is making this for a purpose to the community or is recording something everyone knows or sees then I think it should be seen by everyone.
But, if they are making something personal to them... or for someone else, or of someone else, thats not in public eye (Exceptions could be a naked portrait of a hooker) then it should belong to them
They bought the paint, the paper, the equipment, they spent their time creating it... it should be theres.
You wouldn't tell a builder that the building they built doesn't belong to them, so they shouldn't be paid.
Oh, I could just imagine it!!
2007-09-14 19:20:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is important to pay artists for their work because otherwise they wouldn't be able to create; they'd be too busy trying to put food into their mouths. When we pay artists for their work we give them the freedom to create more art for society as a whole. Therefore, it is in the interest of society to pay for art.
The reading that I've done on copyright law has shown that art flourishes in societies with copyright laws in comparison to those who don't have as strong of laws.
2007-09-14 19:12:14 · answer #5 · answered by drshorty 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Music IS free. It's the recordings which are bought and sold. Visual art is free. It's the paintings (et al) which are bought and sold. Art is free. You cannot buy it or sell it. You can only buy and sell the medium by which the art has been recorded.
But then there are the performing arts... geez! Never mind.
2007-09-14 19:19:14 · answer #6 · answered by The Babe is Armed! 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you wrote a song and recorded it - put it onto a CD and it became massively popular with millions of people worldwide having a copy without paying you anything for it - would you be a bit miffed?
I know I would. If someone makes a piece of music then it is their property - the creative rights are theirs - in my view.
2007-09-14 19:17:10 · answer #7 · answered by Nexus6 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
For all the rubbish....not so sure
If it was free, many so called artists would be in the business and certainly only true passionate people would remain. In that sens, it would be a great step forward...
2007-09-14 19:19:21 · answer #8 · answered by Ana-Vrin 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Intellectual property...does it exist or not?
Paul McCartney once said that when the Beatles first came to London they thought that songs couldn't be owned, that they were just in the air!!!!!
Would it have been fair given the world we live in, for the composers of those wonderful songs to be denied the benefits of having composed them??????
2007-09-14 19:14:51 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Music you hear on radio should be free
Music you buy for your own collection should be paid for.
Also, live performances should be paid for, to compensate the performers for all their effort and practice and skill, and stage-fright...
Artists should be rewarded for quality creations
2007-09-14 19:19:06 · answer #10 · answered by million$gon 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋