It is easy to assume that a painting, a novel, or a symphony is composed by one single person and the creativity is a reflection of that one person. It is easily forgotten that without other aspects of technology and trained craftspeople, the art would be nothing more than a creative thought in the mind of an artist. In his article, Becker says that artwork is made up of a network of people who cooperate to produce that work. Ridiculous at first glance, but it has to be considered that without editors, publishers, publicists, advertisers, printers, and let's not forget the technology used in the artistic process. Where a writer may be excellent with the pen, spelling may be questionable. Just as a painter can work a brush, speaking to endorsers may be a difficult task.
It is easier to accept that film is a collective work. Although authored by one individual, the creative team is announce with equal or more credit. The first scene is presented along with key actors, director, and producers. The writer/author is an afterthought. They are credited at the end or at the end of the list of the rest of the creative force.
A book has the title and author on the cover; front and center. The rest of the team is listed inside. The editor (the actual person that makes corrections) is a ghost. The illustrator of the cover, if their is one, is credited on the back cover unless the illustrations are part of the story as in children's books. In that instance, the illustrator is credited with the author on the front cover.
The more I thought about this, the more bothersome it became. How important is the author by anything other than his or her name? Who allows them such value? If a novel is a collective work, why are they not as important as the author? On film, they are as important. I think that's why authors fear computers. It seems that when it comes to visual technology and authorship, the visual is more important than the author. Google a story such as Cinderella. Several versions, including movies will come up. Technology seems to dilute the author. The author takes a backseat to the text itself. The visual arts tend to do the same.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Using the example of J. K. Rowling, authorship may depend on the initiative and tenacity of the author.
You must consider the profit motive as well. The title of Author may mean millions, or in the case of Rowling, billions.
Printing brought fear in the hearts of the manuscript writers, fearing the end of the world, but they eventually adapted. We writers will have to do the same with the challenges and joys of computers.
"Where a writer may be excellent with the pen, spelling may be questionable. Just as a painter can work a brush, speaking to endorsers may be a difficult task."
[do these tools (the pen, the brush) shape creative possibilities or are they mere utensils used by creative individuals?]
Post a Comment