Hush-Hush: Silent Echos or Artists Under the Influence?
One of those common myths of UK music industry is that under
something termed ‘fair use’ anyone can legally 'sample' a copyrighted song (as
opposed to a royalty free one) without permission as long as the excerpt
recorded is shorter than 30 seconds. Whilst aspects of this might apply to
certain rights of replaying short clips of commercial music in their original
state, this is an urban myth as far as modified sampling is concerned.
Adaptation of any original work for however long without permission infringes
intrinsic intellectual property and can lead to potential lawsuits. No need to
tell this to Ed Sheeran who found this out to his cost in 2017 via a £16m
lawsuit settlement over plagiarism and involving his own song Photograph
[1]. The singer
was accused of unabashedly copying “note-for-note” by the writers of a song
called Amazing, released by X-Factor winner Matt Cardle 5 years earlier.
In 2018 he had to defend yet another copyright claim, this time in £76 million
lawsuit brought by the estate of Marvin Gaye. Thinking out Loud: Let’s
get it on, had argued Ed [2].
So how does the same concept of 'sampling' the intellectual
property of visual artists and sculptors stack up in terms of their copyright?
In other creative industries like software development, the free redistribution
of ‘open source’ intellectual property is today often actively encouraged;
Similarly, the wider notion of ‘derivative work’ in art is accepted as a
conscious expressive creation that deliberately embraces major copyrightable
elements; Some might call this a ‘remix’ like in Glenn Brown’s fully
acknowledged literal appropriation of the 1974 book cover illustration of Doublestar
by Tony Roberts in his Turner Prize entry Loves of Shepherds in 2000 [3] ; Others might
call it an act of studious R&D, such as in 2005 when Scottish painter Jack
Vettriano was accused of copying illustrations he had sourced in an artist
figure reference manual in his 1992 painting The Singing Butler [4]. Whatever the
jury’s verdict was on him, his painting was still later voted as Britains third
most popular artwork of all time in a Samsung nationwide poll of 2017. Rather
perversely, it was placed behind ultimate stealth street artist winner Banksy
with his Balloon Girl and John Constable’s The Hay Wain [5].
Indeed, was it Banksy’s critical commentary when he directly
sampled Vettriano in turn in 2005, in his own Crude Oil exhibition that
featured the same dancing figures in his Toxic Beach painting? Possibly,
but then Banksy has anyway since been accused himself of plagiarism in some of
his own works as well. He had also recently won a legal case in Italy to stop
unauthorised merchandising of his work, despite having been quoted earlier as
saying “copyright was for losers”. Somewhat of an anarchistic irony there [6].
About to be unveiled this summer over 17 days, between 19 July and
4 August, is a temporary land art installation at Bales Hush, County Durham
that is somewhat reminiscent of key elements from the major work of artists
Christo Yavacheff and Jeanne-Claude [7], and seemingly unattributed as such.
Here, the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Partnership
have commissioned landscape artist, Steve Messam to install his creation of a
400 metre long tensile and fabric artwork along the exposed mineral vein of a
19th century lead mine on the Raby Estate in Upper Teesdale. Called Hush
[8], the
work is inspired by the unique geology, mining history and landscape of the
AONB, along with it’s UNESCO Global Geopark status, linked to important Earth
heritage. The work comprises 5 kilometres of recyclable saffron yellow fabric,
cut into hundreds of suspended sheets - all flailing in the wind like the
soul-seeking Buddhist prayer flags called Lung ta (Wind Horses)
of the Himalayas.
Bulgarian Christo Yavacheff and his late wife, the French artist
Jeanne-Claude were better known as Christo and Jeanne-Claude and probably most
renowned for their signature art intervention of 1995 in Berlin called Wrapped
Reichstag. However in particular it is their monumental U.S works Valley
Curtain[9],
Running Fence[10]
and The Gates [11]
that most seem to have influenced Messam as appropriator-in-chief in Hush.
Valley Curtain was installed in 1972 between two
Colorado mountain slopes. Made from 18,600 square meters of woven nylon fabric
and dyed saffron, it lasted 28 hours before a gale necessitated it’s rapid
removal; Running Fence was a longer 14-day land art installation in
1979, involving an 18-foot high ‘veiled fence’ installed over 40 kilometres
across the rolling hills of northern California. It comprised over 2,000 panels
of white nylon hung off steel cables; More recently, The Gates,
inspired by their Running Fence, was a 37-kilometre long temporary public
artwork installed in New York Central Park finally in 2005 after many decades
of artistic development, negotiation and fundraising. Here, from each of the
7,500 gates, hung a panel of saffron-coloured nylon. Albert Maysles’s HBO film
on The Gates [12]
recorded the work for posterity and won a Peabody Award in 2008.
The artistic appropriations doesn’t end there either. The visual
and contextual similarities of Steve Messam’s 2015 red PaperBridge [13] in Cumbria
to the 1999 red sandstone Arch and 2002 Striding Arches [14] by
artist Andy Goldsworthy in SW Scotland are also quite striking, (although of
course the relative built materials differ entirely). Some form of creative
acknowledgement though is made by the artist to the ‘feather-light’ paper
bridge structures of Tokyo architect Siguru Ban, although the visual
referencing here are far more tenuous. In turn, any artistic debt owed to
Goldsworthy seems to go either unacknowledged or unrecognised.
A BBC article from 2014 repeated the old adage that “Good artists
copy, great artists steal” [15]
, and to showcase this maxim highlighted an exhibition at New York’s MoMA
featuring meticulous copies of famous art. The piece first asked us the
question: “is originality really that important?” and later concluded that:
“Artists make art, out of whatever materials they need, and never in a vacuum”.
So is there ever such a thing as a completely original thought in
art? Mark Twain [16]
thought all new ideas impossible, whether art-based or otherwise. All ideas he
said were second-hand, consciously and unconsciously plagiarised, being drawn
from a million outside sources: "The kernel, the soul, let us go further
and say the substance, the bulk, the actual and valuable material of all human
utterances is plagiarism,” he said.
As already mentioned, in modern times, derivative work is already
used freely in many other creative industries anyway, be that by open source
collaborators, meme writers, graffiti copyists, hip hop musicians, literary
translators, screenwriters and dramatists. Despite this, the right to create
separately owned derivative works remains an increasingly common yet often
misunderstood conundrum within copyright law for visual artists. Essentially
though, and with nothing to hide, the first rule of using any creative
influence is the simple professional courtesy of just giving ‘credit where
credit is due’. Unless of course that influence is argued as being a totally
unconscious one, which is a convenient claim used sometimes as a great ‘get out
of jail card’ to potentially avoid claims of trademark infringement. Whenever
genuine though, it comes in the whispered, subliminal influence of the
so-called ‘Echophenomenon’, known even more obscurely as the mouthful:
‘automatic imitative action without explicit awareness’.
So should Steve Messam be hung out to dry like the
saffron-coloured washing lines of his Hush installation? Of course not,
and any artistic argument over this is rightly subjective anyway. But if any
derivative was ever admitted to, then due credit given to the origins of
Christo and Jeanne-Claude’s pioneering art of the 1970’s, would not go amis I believe.
Difficult to see how some form of homage could not be the case, but then a bit
like the shamanistic origins of the Tibetan Lung ta, these new orange Wind
Horses are similarly timeless. They evoke their own heart-felt celebration
of community well-being and our tiny place set in time, within a greater
universe.
Despite this, artists (as well as commissioners and funders alike)
need to act more professionally and simply be mindful of the need for both
honest expediency and due diligence in acknowledging any debt of creative
originality. There is no need to be afraid of admitting this in good faith, and
money need not be the driver of it - although it sometimes can be, and to great
cost. Just ask Ed Sheeran.
- [1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/music/news/ed-sheeran-settles-lawsuit-copied-hit-song-photograph/
- [2] https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/music/ed-sheeran-face-trial-over-marvin-gaye-plagiarism-lawsuit-n954686
- [3] https://www.theguardian.com/turner2000/article/0,,404008,00.html
- [4] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singing_Butler
- [5] https://news.samsung.com/uk/streets-ahead-graffiti-triumphs-over-classics-as-the-art-of-the-nation
- [6] http://theconversation.com/banksy-finally-goes-to-court-to-stop-unauthorised-merchandising-despite-saying-copyright-is-for-losers-112390
- [7] https://christojeanneclaude.net/artworks/realized-projects
- [8] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-49038841
- [9] https://christojeanneclaude.net/projects/valley-curtain
- [10] https://christojeanneclaude.net/projects/running-fence
- [11] https://christojeanneclaude.net/projects/the-gates
- [12] https://youtu.be/Iho9IbPP8uo
- [13] http://www.stevemessam.co.uk/paperbridge/
- [14] http://www.stridingarches.com/
- [15] http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20141112-great-artists-steal
- [16] https://unicheck.com/blog/mark-twain