in the instance that you are discussing here the 'piece of art' is the whole
package, right? a bootlegged copy isn't actually the same artifact so
someone who buys that isn't actually getting the real deal, if indeed
releasing only a few of the actual item is part of the artistic 'statement'.
this statement isn't compromised by producing a 'fake' version, the profits
might be though.
it would be the same as your vase maker making only 5 vases and then someone
piling in with 500 reproductions - in years to come the objects that hold
value (monetary) will be the five originals.
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 15:22:12 -0500
To: "::)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[email protected]>
From: "Matthew MacQueen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: artists vs. bootlegging
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> the bootleggers would have a lot less market if the record were =
repressed
I can't disagree with that logic. BUT... I've been following this =
thread for awhile and a voice I'm not hearing in this debate (that is =
kind of troubling to me, actually) is the rights of the ARTIST. Art is =
not necessarily subject to the same demands as say, any old consumer =
product where the goal is to sell as many as possible (say, toothpaste =
or something). One of the benefits of owning and running your own label =
(or printshop, for example) is to control the trickle - or flood - of =
your art into an art-buyers market -- more control over your own =
destiny. You can still keep things limited or special if, as the =
artist, you feel like that is a part of your 'statement' so to speak, of =
what you have created.=20
When a famous potter makes a vase, and they decide to make 5 of them, =
not 500... it makes that vase unique. You have to think the artist has =
a reason to only make 5 if that's what they choose.
Is everyone forgetting that the artist has a right to release as many or =
as few pieces of art as they feel? Sure there are ramifications of =
releasing few, I'm not denying that: if demand is high enough and the =
art is scarce, it may get bootlegged. That is a risk. =20
But an artist of any medium is certainly never OBLIGED to fill the needs =
of every consumer! That is the artists right. I have detected this =
slight tone of "well if he just would have pressed up more it wouldn't =
matter, he deserved it, etc." -- but the reality is sometimes an artist =
might want LESS of something out there, not more, as part of the =
artistic statement itself. I respect artists who choose to release =
less, not more... even if I can't have a copy myself. But that doesn't =
necessarily mean I'm going to bootleg it (and profit from it) if I can't =
find my copy.=20
peace,
Matt
