Julianna Yau’s blog

Today, Cory Doctorow had an article published in Information Week about How Big Media’s Copyright Campaigns Threaten Internet Free Expression. Although he did mention galleries in the article, I couldn’t help but feel left out (as usual) as a visual artist.

The players in music and movie industries have been the main focus of most of the recent discussions regarding copyright, copyright reform, piracy and the internet. But what about visual artists?

Although I love the internet, I still struggle with how it can be used effectively for a visual artist to do away with galleries and agents–particularly if the artist is, like me, dealing with a traditional medium. Is it even desireable to remove the artist-gallery/agent relationship?

I have a website for my sculptures which I maintain regularly with updates on my sculpting progress and photos of new sculptures. I also have a profile with sculpture.org. And while I haven’t spent as much as I could on promotion of my website (or promotion of my sculptures through my website), all of my sales have been made to people who saw the sculptures in person (either firstly or only). My website and profile with sculpture.org has only resulted in emails targeting me for shipping/cheque scams.

I’ve seen discussions on good ideas for using technology for creating promotional materials for artwork, but many discussions on sales of artwork through websites have returned negative results (here, here and here). The group of patrons for visual artists is small (something which also needs to change), and the creative community for visual artists doesn’t work in exactly the same way as that of music or movies. Because the nature of visual art is much different from that of music or movies, many of the experiments being made by creators in those industries are not easily translated to visual artists. Writers have also received much less attention recently (except in relation to the movie industry), and have their own unique set of challenges and opportunities.

It’s entirely likely that my perspective is limited because of where I’m getting my information, and I would love to be proven wrong. It’s also likely that visual artists, like many our musical or preformative counterparts, are simply not stretching our creativity enough when it comes to marketing. Then again, most of our creative energies are strongest for creating art, not for creating marketing techniques. And isn’t that where those galleries and agents are supposed to come in?

Since the throne speech was delivered last month, there has been much talk of the possibility of copyright reform because copyright was mentioned. Today, I was at the ACTRA website in search of something else and noticed their press release response to the throne speech, which reflected on the absence of culture from the throne speech.

The absence of culture from the throne speech is unfortunate, but not entirely surprising on its own. After all, I can see why issues such as war, crime and the environment would enjoy more time in the limelight than culture. What I did find surprising is that copyright can be mentioned without any mention of culture. This disconnect is alarming in light of some of the warnings by others about the direction copyright reform might take.

The copyright act exists primarily to protect and encourage the creation of the very things which most people consider to be the essential aspects of culture. By mentioning copyright without any mention of culture, it’s obvious that “copyright reform” is currently headed toward changes which will provide some stakeholders with more income and leave the encouragement of creation by the wayside.

As a technology enthusiast and a visual artist, I have a strong interest in copyright reform. But copyright reform (even if it can be made to benefit the actual creators of copyrightable works) can not alone ensure that quality work continues to be made. Creators undoubtedly need to be able to sustain themselves financially from their creations, and although copyright can play a part in securing that financial support, copyright alone can not be the source of a creator’s income.

The innovations in technology have allowed people to enjoy culture in entirely new ways which were never before imaginable. And while some have decided to try to discourage private practises which they see as harmful (some of these ideas recently being challenged), they’re ignoring the fact that there are longstanding commercial practises which take advantage of creators. These things can not be fixed by simply fortifying the copyright act against new technologies and perceived threats.