Um... no. (Destiny)

by Cody Miller @, Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Tuesday, January 15, 2019, 14:00 (33 days ago) @ Claude Errera
edited by Cody Miller, Tuesday, January 15, 2019, 14:03

The idea that art is somehow the audience’s is absurd unless the artist explicitly states it. An audience is free to interpret, enjoy, hate, etc. art, but it’s not theirs to own. It’s not theirs to dictate how it should be viewed or used.

I disagree. At some point the art becomes a part of the society and culture. At that point it belongs to everyone.

That's even codified into copyright law: you get a period of exclusivity, then it belongs to the public.

It doesn't 'belong' to the public - when a copyright runs out, the public is allowed to USE it. That's a completely different thing.

Art belongs to the creator. If you take someone else's art, and you make something new with it, you've now created something yourself... and that belongs to you. But the original? That still 'belongs' to the creator.

I don't see how it is completely different. When something is public domain you can:

1. Copy and distribute it at will
2. Modify it
3. Use its elements in something new

How is that functionally different than it 'belonging' to the artist? It's pragmatically the same thing.

Also P.S. art virtually never 'belongs' to its creator in this day and age. Ask JJ Abrams if he owns Force Awakens or if Disney does. Also who does a work 'belong' to when hundreds of people worked on it?

Authorship and ownership are not equivalent.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread