I read this week that once again Jeff Koons has been found guilty of appropriation and heavily fined. The list of copyright offenders is long and peopled by prestigious names like Prinz and Richter. Now I have no sympathy for Koons and nor do I much care for his art but behind the public headlines lies something else. Just what will be allowed as subject matter in the future given the current laws and attitudes and the zeal to implement them?
At the beginning of photography in 1815, or thereabouts, with the invention of the camera, no one was in the least concerned with being the subject of a photograph, something that continued into the era of moving film. The visual record we have from the Lumiere Brothers of life in France in the late 19th. entury– albeit without sound- is an invaluable historic record. The same is true of any number of iconic photographs of surf lifesavers and a bronzed sunbaker on Bondi Beach in Sydney from the 1920s. Today none of that is possible without the express consent of the people in the photograph under privacy laws. Now don’t get me wrong, privacy law is very important and everyone has the right to have their privacy respected for all sorts of reasons but to have an historical record that tells the tale of our times you have to look not to photography which is hamstrung, but to television which is of course manipulated, idealised and inherently false – little short of propaganda. The story of these times will look very strange to future generations just as those who thought the Brady Bunch represented a version of society in the 1960s and which looks quaint and naïve now. At least when the Lumiere Brothers pointed a camera they got authentic reactions – until people learned to act up for the camera whether it was moving or still.
Much the same can be said about figurative sculpture. Qualms about bodily exposure, emotional exposure and gender specific idealism as seen through advertising has increasingly ensured that the only public figurative sculpture is commemorative and largely confined to sporting heroes. In fact, the destruction of commemorative sculpture of historical figures even made the news headlines in recent times as such figures were vandalised and destroyed in an attempt to rewrite history. Nonetheless we are highly unlikely to see the kind of nude figures so prevalent during the Renaissance adorning our public spaces just in case someone should be offended by nakedness and genitalia and have the legal means to prosecute. I am always amused by the story of a particular Pope who found nudity so offensive that he had all of the genitalia of Vatican statuary removed by masons and stored in a box in the basement. Finding that box may well prove to be more alarming than confronting the original statuary. But then who are we to argue with a figure who commands the attention of half of the world.
It looks as though the only public sculpture in the future in Adelaide at least will be joke pigs and the totally abstract. If you’d said a century ago that abstraction would be the go -to genre, any number of members of the public and the art establishment would have been up in arms. Now it is the safest option. Neither photography nor sculpture can afford to go anywhere near depictions of people.
But, not to digress too much, let’s get back to Koons. However his work might be viewed in terms of originality or impact, every time he ‘quotes’ another artist or something recognisable, he is in trouble. His theft of intellectual property is blatant but to an extent every artist is a thief. To say that you are influenced by Rothko is surely leaving yourself open to censure. Rothko owns Rothko and the statute of limitations hasn’t run out yet even with the man dead for half a century or more. Given the structures of copyright, anything resembling Rothko’s stripes and colour palette is covered. There have been enough cases through the courts of musicians advertently or inadvertently copying phrases or tunes to suggest that this is no different. Most classical composers could have sued the advertising and pop industries many times over by now to say nothing of those who put together movie soundtracks with winning tunes stolen directly from a Beethoven back catalogue. Essentially, what is the difference? Quoting from artists in any medium or genre could be construed as theft.
Let’s take this a step further. Painters of landscape or cityscape in oil, pastel or watercolour are taking their subject matter from land or buildings owned by someone or designed by someone. While architecture seems to be regarded as the poor relation in this case, is there any difference to what Koons is doing when you stand your husband/wife/son/ daughter in front of a landmark to take a picture or indeed paint one. While it is encouraged in the case of Sydney Harbour Bridge, try doing that in some former eastern block countries where every public building and statue is regarded as a military object from which you will be politely moved on by the attendant armed guards who regard all tourists with cameras as spies. Espionage notwithstanding, the owners of the building or view don’t need to prove copyright – it is automatic. As a tourist you may be hard pressed finding out just who owns what in terms of seeking permission but if Koon’s type fines are possible in one sphere, surely they are in every other.
So, what is left to the artist? In terms of photography – selfies and photos of friends. In sculpture anonymous bits of wood and rock [a as long as you didn’t find them on private property of protected sites]. In painting – better stick to abstraction just in case you offend someone with figuration and – keep thee Stan behind me – ideas or personal visions of alternate worlds. For just as Plato banned the haptic arts from his Republic, future philosophers might do the same thing.