...
| Panel |
|---|
H Hunt Bradley III |
| Panel |
|---|
Daniel Chazen The readings for today showed me an artist, William Hogarth, who was not willing to sit back and allow his work, especially engravings, to be pirated. Almost 300 years ago, he realized something that I think is still true for many consumers – namely that "a copy is as good as the original" (Paulson, 36). However, with the reproduction of artwork by printing and engraving having come into existence by the eighteenth century, it was going to present a problem for Hogarth in terms of making money from his work as England only had a law dealing with the copying of books, but not for artwork. He realized that his method of "engraving-etching" could not limit the amount of impressions (Paulson, 6). After he had completed his well-known paintings based on the 1728 play The Beggar's Opera, he went on to create some of his most important works, including Harlot's Progress, A Midnight Modern Conversation, and A Rake's Progress (Simon 2007). But piracies of all kinds started to appear as early as 11 days after he completed A Midnight Modern Conversation. If that was not bad enough, pirated copies of some of his other works were available before they were published (Simon, 2007). Copies of his work were selling for a fraction of the original's price (Paulson, 36). (There is also a possibility that one of the well-known paintings from the Beggar's Opera was not his as described by Simon). He obviously was not happy about the piracy and even delayed the original publication of A Rake's Progress until a law could be passed to protect his work. So in 1733, he created a subscription on terms and petitioned Parliament – which came to be known as the Engraver's Act, also known as Hogarth's Act. He understood that he had the right to legal ownership and financial profit in his work, but he needed legal protection. And given, for example, the piracy of his work, I understand why he was motivated to pursue the Act, especially given that "he made most of his money through the sale of engravings rather than original paintings" (Simon, 2007). Interestingly, Hogarth never engraved The Beggar's Opera, by which which he probably could have made a lot of money given the popularity of the play. Maybe he was concerned about offending people with the satire of the Italian Opera, or maybe he was afraid of piracy. I can't figure it out. Anyone have thoughts on this? What I found also very interesting is how Hogarth went about getting his Act passed. He kind of campaigned like a modern day politician and basically brought about a discussion of fakes and forgeries and their affect on the art market. He created a pamphlet describing the issue as the "oppressed artist against the monopolistic printsellers" (Paulson, 38). He also said that the only way the arts could be improved in England is if artists got their just profits with "good" engravings, not "shabby copies" (Paulson 38). He basically used the oppressed artist (which I'm not sure he was) and the issue of quality to get his Act passed; and it worked as the petition passed in 1734. His Act is what likely laid the foundation for modern copyright laws that protect artists and their work from piracy. Without copyright protection, it would be very hard for any artist to make a living or for the value of their work to be maintained. I would even say that Hogarth's work in getting the Engraver's Act passed is more important today than it was in the eighteenth century. Modern day machines are better at duplicating original and licensed print reproductions of artwork – sometimes to the point that forgeries are difficult to detect by even the experts. |
| Panel |
|---|
Kwame Nana-Atoo |
| Panel |
|---|
June Shin The Engravers' Copyright Act is often referred to as the Hogarth's Act for William Hogarth's active involvement in its campaign. With the Progress of a Rake, he had first devised the subscription system to "...prevent the Publick being imposed upon by base Copies, before he can reap the reasonable Advantage of his own Performance..." However, the print sellers' exploitation of Hogarth's works continued, and their selling their copies at low prices damaged his sale of the originals, which, along with the low quality of these copies, led him to become the promoter of the enactment of Hogarth's Act. It was fundamentally an extension of the regulations of the Literary Act of 1709 to prints. It granted the copyright period of 14 years at first (Later, it was increased to 28 years at Hogarth's widow's appeal). I think that the petition to the Parliament was especially powerful because he brought up the matter of the overall quality of England's art as a whole. It argued that protecting the rights of the artists would lead them to produce more innovative works of higher quality and benefit not only them but also the buyers as well as print sellers. Hogarth deliberately postponed the publication of his long-awaited Rake's Progress print series to benefit from the Act, which took some time to be in effect. Once in effect, the Act reduced the number of instances of piracy, although it did not eliminate it. Hogarth had available smaller copies at a cheaper price for those who could not afford the original and allowed copies of his prints but only once authorized by him. What I found interesting is Hogarth's definition of property being inclusive of the artist's control of the meaning of his work. He feared that the print sellers' evil doings were making it impossible for him to control the context, and thus the meaning, of his art. This notion seems to have faded over time. The works of modern and contemporary artists are deliberately ambiguous in meaning (even form). Controlling the meaning of their work does not concern these artists, as many celebrate ambiguity and flexibility of meaning as their works' essence. Thus, today's and the 18th century's definitions of property seem to be different. Hogarth also brought about a discussion about fake and forgeries, as he denounced the forgers as well as the forgeries they produced as inferior to his own authentic work. The problem of authenticity in art is still present today. Modern and contemporary artists often appropriate objects or even other artists' works into theirs as their own. A notable example is Andy Warhol, who took the image of Campbell's soup can to use in his art. Most people would agree, however, that Warhol's works are his. But how much appropriation is too much appropriation? Consider Sherrie Levine, who is known for her reproductions of other artists' works of art. In one of her shows, she re-photographed Walker Evans' Depression Era photographs, re-named them, and claimed them as her own. Although Levine's intention in appropriating other people's works is one deeper than that of the forgers of Hogarth's works, both raise the question of artistic originality, authenticity and authorship. Thankfully for many artists and appalling for others, art copyright laws exist today to protect artists' copyright. Sherrie Levine, Untitled (After Walker Evans), 1980. |
...