The Ecstasy of Influence and The Molotov Man

The article "The Ecstasy of Influence," by Jonathan Lethem poses an interesting question concerning the rights of art and, in fact, how far they can be extended. Obviously, people are influenced immensely, as well as unavoidably, by everything that they have ever encountered in their lives. Much of that influence will, in turn, be reflected in any art that they may create themselves.

Lethem would also, on a few occasions, mention the fact that Disney continues to take their stories from numerous other sources, yet somehow remains untouched where copyright laws are concerned. Personally, I think the conglomerate of Disney has a "free pass" of sorts when it comes to such things. Without getting overly political, Disney nearly gets always with murder with what they're allowed to do simply because they are Disney. For some reason we just continue to expose our children to the Disney experience as if it is actually the "let's all live in peace" corporation that it pretends to be; despite Walt Disney himself being a confirmed anti-Semite. All in all, they are just a corporation who, like so many others, forces the masses to do what they want them to, and we oblige willingly (so long as we are promised a free pair of Mickey ears).

As far as the copyright issue goes, I'm of two minds on the subject. On the one hand, I feel that it becomes increasingly harder to know where the line should be drawn. Do the producers of an old sci-fi flick that I saw only once as a child have a legal right to either cease my actions or make money off of them because I may eventually direct a flick in which the characters costumes resemble the ones in their movie? It is a slippery slope, and I honestly think it will become more so with the ability to transfer data increasing at such an alarming rate.

The flip side of the coin wants me to be able to protect any and all things that I have ever created in my life. The American dream is not to make a classic work of art and better yourself with each attempt that follows, but instead it is to create a marginally decent exhibition whose artistic integrity is far less than the popularity it finds, thus allowing you to live your entire life off of the profits of one thing that you did a long time ago. I'm not saying that that is what I intend to do, but I will not fight it if that is what happens with my career. The majority of "artists" today are not famous for talent and do not really deserve what they have and continue to gain from that one little thing, be it a song they once recorded, or a flick they happened to star in. So, if that is the future that is in store for me, and I can finagle a life of financial competence by strictly guarding the rights to one little thing that I created, then, I guess, so be it.


As for the other article "On the Rights of the Molotov Man." a similar argument is made concerning rights. Does a woman who found an old picture online have a right to use that as the basis of a painting that she created? In my opinion, she does. Going back to what I stated previously, we are all influenced by what we experience, and it is impossible to strictly control influences.

I was, at first, angry when I read how the original photographer reacted with legal action and her "reasoning" behind why she wanted to protect her work. She felt that the man in the photograph deserved to be protected and not altered because of the emotional weight associated with the situation he went through. I can understand wanting to protect someone, but her excuse holds little weight because her taking the picture did exactly the same thing she claims to be protecting the man from. The painter who adapted the picture in no way sought to exploit the situation of the man, nor make fun of him and his struggle. That's not to say that it did to did not eventually happen as the image was scattered about the world, but the painter, Joy Garnett, is certainly not guilty of it. Also, what made me mad was the fact that the photographer, Susan Meiselas, was using the man's emotion to make her argument. Essentially, once again, exploiting the same thing she claims to be protecting by blocking the use of her picture. Since she, ultimately, did not make Garnett pay her or block her painting by way of legal means, I was eased in my anger concerning the issue. Nonetheless, she should, if anything, be honored that her photograph reached so many and is such a huge influence today in Nicaragua. Also, and I know it's all subjective, but I think the painting of the "Molotov Man" was actually more emotional than the gritty photograph (though I don't mean to dismiss the photo in any way). If I were lucky enough to create something that ultimately spawned such a beautiful painting that only intensified the intention of the original work, I'd be hard pressed to find the motivation to stop it from being seen by as many as possible.