...
| 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. It seems that what Hogarth's Act stipulated back in the 18th century persisted over time, as today's copyright law, just like Hogarth's Act, grants the artist ownership of his works and the exclusive right to their reproduction for certain amount of time.
|
...