Thursday, March 25, 2004
Robert Bresson
I recently watched Bresson's "A Man Escaped from Death or The Wind Will Blow Where it Wants". It's a wonderful movie, one of the most memorable I have ever seen. The film very nicely straddles the fence between an existentialist view of reality oriented towards individual action, and a christian view where Providence has great import. If time allows over the weekend, I may say something about it in a little more depth. For now, I must be off. I have to come to some sort of understanding of Deleuze's "Image-mouvement" for my presentation tomorrow.
Sunday, March 07, 2004
Amnesty International Toes the Wrong Line
In a recent report entitled "It's in our Hands: Stop Violence Against Women", Amnesty International has come out in favour of voluntary censorship. As an article from the Globe and Mail online says:
Amnesty says it is not officially condemning Kill Bill, a film about an ex-assassin betrayed by her boss who swears revenge on her former master, or calling for censorship of Hollywood films.
Instead, the human-rights group, which also lobbies for freedom of expression, is calling on filmmakers, entertainers and the media to be more responsible in their depiction of women.
"People should think when they compose music or lyrics how their attitudes towards women may contribute to violence against women," said Gita Sahgal, who is with Amnesty's international secretariat. "We are not calling for a ban on films, or for more controls. The film industry contributes to a tolerance of violence towards women. We urge those in popular culture to think about ways they might be stereotyping women."
My problem is this:
I don't believe we need anyone handing Lieberman, Gore, and their future ilk (Liberal and Conservative alike) anymore fodder for pushing through censorship legislation (or anthing similar in Canada). In supporting the view that popular culture determines peoples' belief structure (I'm just making up terms here) and, hence (to some extent), their consequent action, Amnesty has given that movement (pro-censorship) greater credence and a larger voice. The problem is that politicians tend not towards voluntary arrangements, but to legislation and its consequent laws. As conceivable as it is that Amnesty and other censorship minded politicians may be right about the deleterious effect of pop culture on morality, the risk of government censhorship is a far greater evil than the possible consequences of any cultural artifact (books, movie, music, etc.). Though Amnesty states that they "are not calling" for censorship, their position on the underlying issue cannot but advance the cause of the would be censors.
An afterthought:
Having stated the case as I believe it needs to be, I am willing to admit that I was perhaps too polemical in arguing the above. Though I did admit that it is conceivable that art has a direct influence on morality, I didn't give any reasons as to why. This is in part because I haven't the faintest idea myself, at least not in any coherent articulable manner. But I will at least add here that some notable philosophers believe art to have a rather powerful ability in the domain of moral education/analysis. Both Martha Nussbaum and the late Iris Murdoch have written about the literary text as a focus for ethical issues. The former has asserted, controversially, that novels can themselves be works of moral philosophy.
If a text can elucidate morality, can it not then also obfuscate it, perhaps hampering it and bringing about a regression in moral aptitude? Could this not also be true of other mediums of communication (other arts). It seems rather odd to speak of moral aptitude. Being that I am not ethicist, I may have framed the question wrong, though in Mrs. Murdoch's view it would be my ignorance of metaphysics that has left me unable to formulate the proper question. If the question interests you, here are a couple of journals worth looking at (I haven't read them, but they were cited more than occasionally in my cursory research):
"Symposium on Morality and Literature" in Ethics, Vol. 98, No. 2 (January, 1988)
"Literature and/as Moral Philosophy" in New Literary History, Vol. XV, No. 1 (Autumn, 1983)
Amnesty says it is not officially condemning Kill Bill, a film about an ex-assassin betrayed by her boss who swears revenge on her former master, or calling for censorship of Hollywood films.
Instead, the human-rights group, which also lobbies for freedom of expression, is calling on filmmakers, entertainers and the media to be more responsible in their depiction of women.
"People should think when they compose music or lyrics how their attitudes towards women may contribute to violence against women," said Gita Sahgal, who is with Amnesty's international secretariat. "We are not calling for a ban on films, or for more controls. The film industry contributes to a tolerance of violence towards women. We urge those in popular culture to think about ways they might be stereotyping women."
My problem is this:
I don't believe we need anyone handing Lieberman, Gore, and their future ilk (Liberal and Conservative alike) anymore fodder for pushing through censorship legislation (or anthing similar in Canada). In supporting the view that popular culture determines peoples' belief structure (I'm just making up terms here) and, hence (to some extent), their consequent action, Amnesty has given that movement (pro-censorship) greater credence and a larger voice. The problem is that politicians tend not towards voluntary arrangements, but to legislation and its consequent laws. As conceivable as it is that Amnesty and other censorship minded politicians may be right about the deleterious effect of pop culture on morality, the risk of government censhorship is a far greater evil than the possible consequences of any cultural artifact (books, movie, music, etc.). Though Amnesty states that they "are not calling" for censorship, their position on the underlying issue cannot but advance the cause of the would be censors.
An afterthought:
Having stated the case as I believe it needs to be, I am willing to admit that I was perhaps too polemical in arguing the above. Though I did admit that it is conceivable that art has a direct influence on morality, I didn't give any reasons as to why. This is in part because I haven't the faintest idea myself, at least not in any coherent articulable manner. But I will at least add here that some notable philosophers believe art to have a rather powerful ability in the domain of moral education/analysis. Both Martha Nussbaum and the late Iris Murdoch have written about the literary text as a focus for ethical issues. The former has asserted, controversially, that novels can themselves be works of moral philosophy.
If a text can elucidate morality, can it not then also obfuscate it, perhaps hampering it and bringing about a regression in moral aptitude? Could this not also be true of other mediums of communication (other arts). It seems rather odd to speak of moral aptitude. Being that I am not ethicist, I may have framed the question wrong, though in Mrs. Murdoch's view it would be my ignorance of metaphysics that has left me unable to formulate the proper question. If the question interests you, here are a couple of journals worth looking at (I haven't read them, but they were cited more than occasionally in my cursory research):
"Symposium on Morality and Literature" in Ethics, Vol. 98, No. 2 (January, 1988)
"Literature and/as Moral Philosophy" in New Literary History, Vol. XV, No. 1 (Autumn, 1983)
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
Check it out
CBC Radio 3 site.
Some of you may have noticed that a link was recently added to the CBC radio 3 website. I was introduced to this site by the autralian philosopher when I was last in Vancouver. The reason I'm pointing out the link is that I think it represents an advance in the manner in which information is disseminated on the web. "Advance" is perhaps not the right word. What's immediately striking about the site is it's graphic design and user interface. Most every page is eye catching, and many are elegantly laid out. Probably the coolest element of the interface is the streaming audio. When you first press play, it selects (randomly?) a song, but if you don't like the song, you can skip to the next one. And you can do this again and again and again. If you are particularly impressed by anything you're listening to, you can connect to a web page about the artist that contains a bio and discography (often with more music available for listening). These two taken together, good design and cool implementation of technology, already make for an enjoyable web site. For the most part, the music playing has no relation to the content on the page (some pages will play their own music, but not many), and what I find particularly interesting (and called an 'advance' up above) is the way the content is organized. Roughly speaking, you browse (or surf) through the site as you would a magazine, clicking on a page icon on the upper right hand corner to symbolically turn the page. There is however no table of contents. There's no sitemap page that splits all of the content into broad categories and then further subdivides them to expedite your information gathering. I referred to this as an advance above because I think it is one of the first sites (first site I've seen) to actually make use of the way in which many people surf the web. Perhaps I am part of a small minority, but I often find myself almost randomly going from page to page with no particular goal in mind, simply following my whim. It is not information of any specific category that I am looking for, but simply interesting information. Some might say that it is to its detriment that this site forces you to relinquish the sense of control inherent in following your own whim, but I think it is rather interesting.
Some of you may have noticed that a link was recently added to the CBC radio 3 website. I was introduced to this site by the autralian philosopher when I was last in Vancouver. The reason I'm pointing out the link is that I think it represents an advance in the manner in which information is disseminated on the web. "Advance" is perhaps not the right word. What's immediately striking about the site is it's graphic design and user interface. Most every page is eye catching, and many are elegantly laid out. Probably the coolest element of the interface is the streaming audio. When you first press play, it selects (randomly?) a song, but if you don't like the song, you can skip to the next one. And you can do this again and again and again. If you are particularly impressed by anything you're listening to, you can connect to a web page about the artist that contains a bio and discography (often with more music available for listening). These two taken together, good design and cool implementation of technology, already make for an enjoyable web site. For the most part, the music playing has no relation to the content on the page (some pages will play their own music, but not many), and what I find particularly interesting (and called an 'advance' up above) is the way the content is organized. Roughly speaking, you browse (or surf) through the site as you would a magazine, clicking on a page icon on the upper right hand corner to symbolically turn the page. There is however no table of contents. There's no sitemap page that splits all of the content into broad categories and then further subdivides them to expedite your information gathering. I referred to this as an advance above because I think it is one of the first sites (first site I've seen) to actually make use of the way in which many people surf the web. Perhaps I am part of a small minority, but I often find myself almost randomly going from page to page with no particular goal in mind, simply following my whim. It is not information of any specific category that I am looking for, but simply interesting information. Some might say that it is to its detriment that this site forces you to relinquish the sense of control inherent in following your own whim, but I think it is rather interesting.
Sunday, February 29, 2004
"Constitutional Amendments are Gay" II
A witty, well-penned slogan that was recently posted on Echoland. The argument that follows it is however not as strong as the slogan is hilarious. The problem is that courts in the US do not decide the definition of marriage on judgements (or scientific fact) of behaviour v. biology. The much more likely criteria are freedom of expression, privacy concerning personal family relationships and, in the case of polygamy, freedom of religion. I wholeheartedly support gay marriage. However it is foolhardy to argue that there is no link between the issue of gay marriage and polygamist marriage. Richard Goldstein writes an interesting article on the issue for the Village Voice.
Hopefully Bush will smarten up and forget the whole Constitutional amendment idea. Beyond those of us who find it a vile and discriminatory proposition, there are many people in his own camp who either think the constitution to be inviolable, or who, considering the more pressing issues facing the nation, believe the whole thing to be a waste of time. What we can hope for is the continued fight for same-sex marriage rights at the state level. Nothing good can come from this going to the Supreme Court, not yet. Either we lose, or we win and a much too large proportion of the nation becomes alienated from the highest court in the land and armed insurrection breaks out. Though I do jest, I think there is a genuine concern regarding a likely increase in hate crimes. Perhaps we think it's worth the risk to have a speedy pro gay marriage resolution, perhaps not. Luckily the Supreme Court gets to choose which cases it hears.
Hopefully Bush will smarten up and forget the whole Constitutional amendment idea. Beyond those of us who find it a vile and discriminatory proposition, there are many people in his own camp who either think the constitution to be inviolable, or who, considering the more pressing issues facing the nation, believe the whole thing to be a waste of time. What we can hope for is the continued fight for same-sex marriage rights at the state level. Nothing good can come from this going to the Supreme Court, not yet. Either we lose, or we win and a much too large proportion of the nation becomes alienated from the highest court in the land and armed insurrection breaks out. Though I do jest, I think there is a genuine concern regarding a likely increase in hate crimes. Perhaps we think it's worth the risk to have a speedy pro gay marriage resolution, perhaps not. Luckily the Supreme Court gets to choose which cases it hears.
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
The Absurdity in Copyright Laws
Let me preface this post with the statement that I am not a raving anti-establishment anarchist. On the whole, I think well-defined property rights are necessary for the effective functioning of any free society (one might suggest viable alternatives, but I suspect their effective domain will always be small groups). However sometimes the delineation and definition of property rights goes too far.
Recently, this problem has been most in evidence in the realm of intellectual-property. In 1998, fearing the demise of Mickey "the cash cow" Mouse (and numerous other characters), the Walt Disney Company approached Congress requesting an extension of their copyright. Congress responded with, and Clinton signed, the Copyright Term Extension Act (this was by no means the first time that Congress had extended copyrights at the behest of businesses and their associations). The CTEA extends copyright to life plus seventy for works copyrighted by individuals, and to 95 years for works made by or for corporations. A little more than a year ago (Jan 15 2003) the Supreme court held up the CTEA saying that it neither infringed on free speech, nor had Congress overstepped its bounds in passing it (Justices Stevens and Breyer dissented).
The basic argument for intellectual copyright is that it engenders innovation. The idea is that if people can't make any money off of their creativity, then they won't be creative. Within the domain of science and technology, I think this argument holds great force (though I might suggest some specific changes, see below). It has been shown that even with a strong copyright, companies do not accrue all of the benefits of their technological innovations and scientific discoveries. I don't have the research at hand, but my fuzzy brain says they get something less than half of the total benefit to society (total benefit to society includes the benefit to the company). However, in the realm of the arts, I don't find that the argument has much sway. At a certain level, artists produce art because it is what they like to do. They should certainly be compensated, and should certainly have a limited monopoly over their work for a period of time. However it is not at all clear that one hundred years and up is in any way reasonable.
It's also worth looking at all the great art that, had it been produced under today's copyright laws, would constitute theft:
Shakespeare:
-His "Romeo and Juliet" owes a great deal to a poem by the same name written a mere thirty years earlier (by Arthur Brooke)
-Many of his historical plays would infringe on Holingshead's "Chronicles of England"
Disney:
Cinderella,Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Pinocchio, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Alice in Wonderland, and others were based on works in the Public Domain. And of course, Mickey himself was based on another cartoon character.
Music:
Both Jazz and, especially, Hip Hop developed a great deal through the interpretation and sampling of other peoples' music.
This all brings me to the more current events of DJ Danger Mouse vs. the EMI. Not too long ago, Mr. Danger Mouse released the critically acclaimed "Grey Album". It is, as one might guess, a remix of the Beatle's "White Album" and Jay-Z's "Black Album". I'm not going to summarize the particulars of the case here as this is done more than adequately elsewhere (see links below). I will however say that I think the terms of copyright need to be relaxed on artwork in general. This is a difficult issue. A few years back the Verve Symphony released a song whose entire melody was lifted from a Rolling Stones song. The Stones permitted the use in exchange for all of the royalties from that song. That is a bit excessive, but the Stones melody made what would have otherwise been a hollow and vapid song a success. And therein lies the crux of the issue. I don't think future artists should be able to repackage existing genius and turn a profit; I am however all for the reinterpretation and transformative use of existing material. How do we differentiate the two? I am inclined to think that this ideal is not really possible. We must, to some extent, choose one side or the other. The question is which side, and to what degree. As I've said, I think copyright law is currently too restrictive. To pick a number out of the sky, I'd say that the copyright on a work of art should be no more than fifty years from the date of creation (I'd concede an extension on this in the case of outright and entire duplication). After fifty years, a work should be mostly, if not entirely, in the public domain. Additionally, I'd like to see an expansion of the fair use guidelines so a to allow works such as the "Grey Album" (some have claimed that fair use already allows such works, but I'm not convinced these claims will stand up in court) to circulate unimpeded by spurious claims of ownership.
Links
DJ Danger Mouse
Illegal Art
Grey Tuesday
Eldred V. Ashcroft (the CTEA Supreme Court decision)
This is the see below: A friend of mine recently suggested that the copyright on scientific journal articles be limited to about four months. As it is, access to journals is very expensive, and it is thus very difficult to find all the information one might want in a given subject area. If I may, let me present an idealized vision: a grand database containing all of the research ever published nicely organized and crossreferenced. Alas, journals have become a money tree, and this seems unlikely.
Recently, this problem has been most in evidence in the realm of intellectual-property. In 1998, fearing the demise of Mickey "the cash cow" Mouse (and numerous other characters), the Walt Disney Company approached Congress requesting an extension of their copyright. Congress responded with, and Clinton signed, the Copyright Term Extension Act (this was by no means the first time that Congress had extended copyrights at the behest of businesses and their associations). The CTEA extends copyright to life plus seventy for works copyrighted by individuals, and to 95 years for works made by or for corporations. A little more than a year ago (Jan 15 2003) the Supreme court held up the CTEA saying that it neither infringed on free speech, nor had Congress overstepped its bounds in passing it (Justices Stevens and Breyer dissented).
The basic argument for intellectual copyright is that it engenders innovation. The idea is that if people can't make any money off of their creativity, then they won't be creative. Within the domain of science and technology, I think this argument holds great force (though I might suggest some specific changes, see below). It has been shown that even with a strong copyright, companies do not accrue all of the benefits of their technological innovations and scientific discoveries. I don't have the research at hand, but my fuzzy brain says they get something less than half of the total benefit to society (total benefit to society includes the benefit to the company). However, in the realm of the arts, I don't find that the argument has much sway. At a certain level, artists produce art because it is what they like to do. They should certainly be compensated, and should certainly have a limited monopoly over their work for a period of time. However it is not at all clear that one hundred years and up is in any way reasonable.
It's also worth looking at all the great art that, had it been produced under today's copyright laws, would constitute theft:
Shakespeare:
-His "Romeo and Juliet" owes a great deal to a poem by the same name written a mere thirty years earlier (by Arthur Brooke)
-Many of his historical plays would infringe on Holingshead's "Chronicles of England"
Disney:
Cinderella,Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Pinocchio, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Alice in Wonderland, and others were based on works in the Public Domain. And of course, Mickey himself was based on another cartoon character.
Music:
Both Jazz and, especially, Hip Hop developed a great deal through the interpretation and sampling of other peoples' music.
This all brings me to the more current events of DJ Danger Mouse vs. the EMI. Not too long ago, Mr. Danger Mouse released the critically acclaimed "Grey Album". It is, as one might guess, a remix of the Beatle's "White Album" and Jay-Z's "Black Album". I'm not going to summarize the particulars of the case here as this is done more than adequately elsewhere (see links below). I will however say that I think the terms of copyright need to be relaxed on artwork in general. This is a difficult issue. A few years back the Verve Symphony released a song whose entire melody was lifted from a Rolling Stones song. The Stones permitted the use in exchange for all of the royalties from that song. That is a bit excessive, but the Stones melody made what would have otherwise been a hollow and vapid song a success. And therein lies the crux of the issue. I don't think future artists should be able to repackage existing genius and turn a profit; I am however all for the reinterpretation and transformative use of existing material. How do we differentiate the two? I am inclined to think that this ideal is not really possible. We must, to some extent, choose one side or the other. The question is which side, and to what degree. As I've said, I think copyright law is currently too restrictive. To pick a number out of the sky, I'd say that the copyright on a work of art should be no more than fifty years from the date of creation (I'd concede an extension on this in the case of outright and entire duplication). After fifty years, a work should be mostly, if not entirely, in the public domain. Additionally, I'd like to see an expansion of the fair use guidelines so a to allow works such as the "Grey Album" (some have claimed that fair use already allows such works, but I'm not convinced these claims will stand up in court) to circulate unimpeded by spurious claims of ownership.
Links
DJ Danger Mouse
Illegal Art
Grey Tuesday
Eldred V. Ashcroft (the CTEA Supreme Court decision)
This is the see below: A friend of mine recently suggested that the copyright on scientific journal articles be limited to about four months. As it is, access to journals is very expensive, and it is thus very difficult to find all the information one might want in a given subject area. If I may, let me present an idealized vision: a grand database containing all of the research ever published nicely organized and crossreferenced. Alas, journals have become a money tree, and this seems unlikely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)