Illegal Use of Intellectual property
The online project by Michael Mandiberg is unique and fascinating. The project manifests great lengths of originality, authorship and object hood. However, these are not his original works. Mandiberg is presenting the work of Evans. This form of ownership is being described presently as illegal. This is because the current artist assumes all the benefits accrued from the sale and use of these art pieces. Evans is among the great artists who revealed to the world how life in Alabama was. Through this art piece, the world has come to understand that people in Alabama were living in destitution and misery. In addition to making these photos available, Mandiberg has corrupted its protection. This allows anybody to print the photos and sign as their authentic work. This is inconsiderate of him as the poor people are not honored in any way through this work. Evans should still be honored as he greatly contributed to the history of the world through his artistic work. Mandiberg has made to the public available, a once protected by copyright artwork. This has watered down the efforts to bring originality to the main author. Such artworks have thus lost the original taste to the audience. Mandiberg’s actions are not a mere work of appropriation but it is in its true sense, a work of forgery. This bears a challenge to authorship and originality. By this act, Mandiberg is eroding away the previous culture of artwork. He is introducing a new form of culture where the audiences have the option of authenticating another work without any honor to the previous artist. This alienates the former authority copy write had over the documents that were protected through it. By assuming authorship of the art works, Mandiberg implies that the original author’s occupation was provisional; a culture that believes that when one author dies, another one is born to take the position.
Mandiberg is killing the authors. Mandiberg fails to give credit where it is due. He is acting against the rule of authorship. This rule gives credit where necessary. In addition to this, the author has the liberty to edit and change the art without any required permission. In addition to his actions, he has made this work available to all internet users. He is openly stealing from Levine and Evans. The income that Evans and Levine were supposed to enjoy is straight away channeled to Mandiberg. Mandiberg’s actions are not a mere work of appropriation but it is in its true sense a work of forgery. This bears a challenge to authorship and originality. By this act, Mandiberg is eroding away the previous culture of artwork. He is introducing a new form of culture where the audiences have the option of authenticating another work without any honor to the previous artist. This alienates the former authority copy write had over the documents that were protected through it. Visitors in his website can print any desirable image and authenticate them by adhering to the set rules rather than the copyright rules. This implies that another connotation to the authenticity is introduced.
The artwork loses the comprehensibility and transmissibility it previously had. This was obtained through the cultural order of the times. It further loses authenticity. This implies that liberty through its ethical and social importance has been separated from the social order. In addition to that the utilitarian value has been eroded. Aesthetic pleasure is therefore derived from the quotation rather than the hereditary tradition. Mandiberg joins the revolutionary artists who have brought some new kind of life though appropriation and quotation. By allowing the audience to have the art pieces and authenticate them, Mandiberg is said to increase its market value. This is however contradicting. This is because the artwork loses its economic value. The printed version receives an appraisal of the market value.