After reading On The Rights of Molotov Man, I feel like it is related to what we have just read this week, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. The latter tells us that mechanical reproduction is about the creation, the great user experience brought to us, which is good as well as exciting. However, this reading tells us a story which is also about reproduction, but bring problems and questions.
First, to a piece of work, it is easy to have a reproduction on it, thanks to the technology and amazing internet. Also, there are also many ways to do it. In the reading, we can see that the original work has been transferred into several styles with photoshop, such as the mirror style, Joywar and so on. Therefore, it is also difficult for us to define whether a piece of work actually violent another’s copyright, since maybe the work is different from the original one not only in ways but also in the emotion it brings.
Further, what I have just discussed lead to another problem. Just as Susan has said, “Joy’s practice of decontextualizing an image as a painter is precisely the opposite of my own hope as a photographer to contextualize an image.”, because her expectation is to do what she can to respect the individuality of the people she photographs, who owns the rights to this man’s struggle? This question is also raised by in the reading for us to think about. Therefore, it is not just about the painter and the photographer, but also the people in the work we should consider about.
To me, I think if we think too sticky on this question, it will be hard for us to create something. Creation itself is about put something together and create a new one. Honestly, everything in the world is on the basis of the previous ones, so it is difficult for us to tell whether an artist is creating something according to an original one. I think the meaning can even be destroyed, like the aura can be destroyed to create a new style. It all depends on our mind and imagination. Maybe sometimes the law will not allow us to do it, so it brings another question, which is also raised in this reading—can copyright law, as it stands, function in any way except as a gag order?