Reworking Art
Material from earlier theatre can be brought into a production in the same way as personal material is brought in. Just as the performer refines, distorts, condenses, and selects from his life experiences, so fragments from earlier dramas can be worked into the play at hand. Only since the intrusion of stupid laws and notions regarding originality has this rich vein of creativity been stopped. Shakespeare and Moliere without their plagiarisms would be much poorer playwrights. An art that is in essence transformational and transmutational should not surrender any of its sources, its deep springs. The modern idea of originality is a lawyer-capitalist construction geared to protecting private property and promoting money-making. It is anti-creative, and inhibits the reworking of old themes in the light of new experience. It is the constant reworking and elaboration of old material- call it plagiarism if you like- that is the strongest sinew of tradition.
– Richard Schechner, Environmental Theatre, published 1973.1
Good artists copy, great artists steal.
– Steve Jobs, Interview in 1994.
via The AtlanticTwo separate incidents happened this week which I found to be interesting when juxtaposed against each other.
- Samsung was found guilty in the case of copying the iPhone.
- Cecilia Gimenez ruined a 100 year old fresco.
One of these acts was mocked openly and laughed at; the other had people laughing at one party, and fearful of what would happen with the other.
One of these acts basically destroyed a work of art; the other stole ideas to create something new.
One of these acts was a forgivable offense; the other is going to send a tsunami of repercussions that will not be completely felt for years.
The punishment brought down against Samsung is pretty negligible considering the size Apple is now. The final fine they have to pay is over 1 billion dollars. Which sounds like a lot, but Apple is profiting around 30 billion dollars a year from just the iPhone alone (does not include the iPad, Mac, iPod, etc).2 Apple doesn’t even know what to do with the cash they have on hand now, so I find it puzzling that they were concerned about what Samsung was doing.
Meanwhile, Cecilia Gimenez ruined a fresco, because she was upset about the way it had been deteriorating over the years. She isn’t being punished, because the city believes she acted with “good intentions.” The fresco is unlikely to be recovered to its original form, but that hasn’t stopped people poking fun at the problem (see image above).
It could be argued that Samsung was acting with “good intentions,” as well. I don’t believe Samsung (or Google, the makers of the Android operating system) were trying to make an exact copy of the iPhone to fool people, but rather are in the process of reworking the original iPhone design. The same can be said of Apple reworking some of the features from Android, most noticeably the notification center (check out this post from Android Police).
I think Steve sums up my thoughts exactly in his comment at the bottom of that article:
I, for one, am sick of the running legal battles. We, as customers, benefit from the innovations that occur from the competitive atmosphere. Our products improve with the minor attempts at reverse engineering, making our devices improve at a rate not possible in a less competitive environment. They win over customers with superior products, not great legal presentations. Wave the white flags, guys, and get back to doing business.
Apple set out to reinvent the phone, they succeeded in doing that, but the iPhone is not as widely accessible as most of Samsung’s phones. Android phones come in a variety of sizes and feature sets, plus various prices from pre-paid to premium phones. iPhones are still trapped in one size, and are only now starting to branch off into all price tiers.
I wonder if the mobile world would have exploded like it has the past five years without Samsung’s work on smartphones.
- Excerpt available in The Director in a Changing Theatre ↩
- Business Insider, The iPhone is 5 Years Old ↩
Aug 27, 2012 @ 07:09:18
The main differences between all five, widely recognized artists on the one hand, and Mrs Gimenez, on the other, are:
1. She destroyed an original, albeit with good intentions.
2. Her work is not intended as commentary or parody of the original. It is an attempt at restoration, but a misguided one at that.
3. Cecilia Gimenez’s work is not informed by specific training or an understanding of (erudite) art history. It lies on a continuum of popular/folk/naive art which does not document/study itself (i.e., the study of folk art is usually conducted by outside observers; folk artists being interested in praxis, not theory).
There are interesting parallels with the Apple/Samsung case:
1. No originals were destroyed.
2. Samsung’s work is not intended as a commentary or parody of the original. It is either a copy, an adaptation, a reiteration, or all of these simultaneously. At one point it becomes impossible to decide which is which, because Apple seems to want a design monopoly on rectangles/rounded rectangles as well. This complicates matters.
3. Samsung’s work is seemingly not informed by an understanding of what kind of work it takes to achieve effective design (or so I’m told), eschewing successive iterations for downright plagiarism (again, I’m just reproducing the argument I’ve read). Its work does not appear to be informed by a love of good design but effective market penetration at all costs.
However:
Apple has monopolistic ambitions of its own, is fiercely territorial, and acts like an apex predator. Its insistence on good design is not driven by a love of art or an understanding of art history. Design is always instrumentalized for effective market penetration. Aesthetic pleasure/costumer delight are means through which market penetration and dominance are achieved.
My take: Apple leaders are ticked off that somebody else would crib from their notes and reach into their bag of tricks. Apple is not a disinterested, naive artist whose only goal is to make you go ooh and aah.
Samsung was one of their principal vendors for years. I don’t know what they expected, honestly.
Aug 27, 2012 @ 11:51:40
Very well said.
I never intended to compare her to the other great artists, because I know her actions should not and cannot be compared to the time and effort they put into their works. I have enjoyed seeing her “master piece” turn into an internet meme (having the monkey face show up in pieces like the Mona Lisa).
The relationship between Samsung and Apple is interesting to me because of how long they have been working together previously. Samsung has been manufacturing several parts for the iPhone that have been placed into Samsung devices around the same time (the camera, video chip, and others). I’m sure Samsung realized that they would be able to put together their own phone together rather quickly because they had all the parts ready and working, and it wouldn’t take much effort to modify the Android operating system to make it look better (i.e. more like iOS). It was a gamble on their part, but they were probably thinking along the lines of, “Would Apple sue on of their biggest suppliers?” Even if they were sued, they would come out ahead. I don’t think the general consumer is going to care whether Samsung copied Apple or not, they just want a good phone. And now when people think “good phone,” they think of Samsung and Apple.
Apple certainly does copy a lot of other people’s work and implements it in a similar way (mainly on the Mac OS, Spotlight and Reader in Safari are a few examples). It reminds me of some people’s behaviour: the rules are in place, it’s okay if I break the rules, or you break them without me involved, but don’t break them if I am involved.
Aug 29, 2012 @ 08:02:22
You put it better and simpler than I could.
What you say is quite true — I have been associating Samsung with “good phone” lately, and I don’t even own a smart phone. (Not a real necessity when you work from home like I do.)