Law in Contemporary Society

View   r4  >  r3  ...
AnaCorrea-SecondPaper 4 - 04 Apr 2008 - Main.AnaCorrea
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="WebPreferences"
Line: 11 to 11
 I want to examine the tension between owner's rights and artist's rights where the two disagree on the ultimate fate of the artwork. The Visual Arts Rights Act of 1990 (VARA) seemed to address this tension by attempting to protect rights of the creators over those of the acquirers, favoring the David artists over the Goliath property owners. Despite, and sometimes because of, VARA, however, recent court decisions have returned the power of destruction back to the fee holders. Of course, decisions such as these could reflect the greater political strength of property owners versus those of artists. As the plaintiff artist in Phillips v. Pembrooke Real Estate later observed: “It was probably very naive […] to think that artist rights would prevail over real estate and power." Perhaps, however, a more productive inquiry is dependent less on this discussion of power and more on one of the aesthetics, audience, and aim of the artwork.

Aesthetics

Changed:
<
<
If beauty is in the eye of the beholder what happens when the beholder changes her mind about the beautiful object in question? Does it cease to be beautiful? An objective aesthetic theory would dictate that an object's beauty is independent of its audience. Human perception plays no part in whether something is beautiful or not.
>
>
If beauty is in the eye of the beholder what happens when the beholder changes her mind about the beautiful object in question? Does it cease to be beautiful? An objective aesthetic theory would dictate that an object's beauty is independent of its audience. Human perception plays no part in whether something is beautiful or not. A subjective theory of beauty, however, demands the input of the audience. In that case, beauty is indeed determined by the opinion of the beholder.

A discussion of aesthetics seems out of place in reference to a statute like VARA that purports to protect artwork whether “beautiful” or “ugly.” On the other hand, value judgments are certainly present in the statute. First, the Act only protects works of “visual art” and excludes audiovisual and other mixed-media works. Additionally, the Courts have also excluded works for hire no matter the media and site-specific art. By privileging the protection of traditional forms of art over more modern expressions, the Courts and drafters of the Act are inherently making value judgments about what is and is not worthy of protection. Second, the Act protects works of “recognized stature” from destruction and mutilation. What constitutes recognized stature is undoubtedly a subjective judgment. Thus, these provisions suggest that VARA adopts a subjective aesthetic theory.

 
Deleted:
<
<
Aesthetics seems out of place in the discussion of a statute like VARA that purports to protect art, whether “beautiful” or “ugly.”
 

Audience


Revision 4r4 - 04 Apr 2008 - 14:50:06 - AnaCorrea
Revision 3r3 - 31 Mar 2008 - 21:05:00 - AnaCorrea
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
Syndicate this site RSSATOM