Jonathan Lethem

Brooke Marcy

 

Summery of the article The Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagiarism, by Jonathan Lethem

 

In his article, The Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagiarism, Jonathan Lethem examines the conscious, or unconscious, borrowing of ideas and themes in literature, movies, music, etc….  He begins by writing about a childhood experience. He looks at the disappointment he experienced when discovering that his favorite author William S. Burroughs had borrowed from others writers. The disappointment, however, was short lived as he came to the realization that appropriation was a valuable part of Burroughs process, better enabling him to realize his finished product. With this experience in mind, Lethem uses other examples of artistic appropriation to support his argument that art is not about trying to forget what you know, but it is about taking knowledge and transforming into your own voice.

 

By placing everyday objects in a different context the surrealists were able to reveal to the audience the true nature of the object.  They wanted the viewer to reevaluate they’re surroundings and see the intrinsic qualities found in objects normally judged by their usefulness.  Lethem looks at how in the age of pop-culture the audience is bombarded by images and rarely sees beyond the logos, products and commercials. Our environment numbs us, and it is the job of the artist, no matter what the medium, to “make the familiar strange”, and reveal to the audience the realities hidden beneath chaos.

 

Copyright has turned ideas into “intellectual property”, and though it has given artists control over their work, the incessant amount of suing over infringement has created fear. The artists, who might have made use of the ideas of others, are now afraid of being persecuted, putting a stop to further development of ideas. Over the years, the terms of copyright have expanded to include a broad range of expression including daily correspondence and random doodles. With the advancements of technology, regulating copyright has become almost impossible. Lethem suggests that we look at copyright for what it really is, “ a government-granted monopoly on the use of creative results.” He notes that this definition makes copyrights as limiting as they are helpful.

 

Lethem then looks at the possibility of transformation that occurs when an artist sells their work. Once sold, the art enters the realm of the audience, allowing others to appropriate ideas and manipulate the work, giving it new life and longevity.  He points out that artists who do not allow this transformation to occur are alienating their audience and limiting their own work.

 

Lethem next examines the dichotomy created when artists and corporations who appropriate others ideas in the creation of their own work, fiercely protect their work from influencing others. He uses Disney as an example and compares their “corporate ownership” to the “source hypocrisy” used by privileged artist freely borrowing styles from third world countries.

 

There are two separate forms of economy, “a market economy and a gift economy.”  Lethem defines the difference as being; the gift of a commodity establishes a connection, while the sale of a commodity results in no connection.  Art combines both commodities, it is bought and sold, and yet, a bond is created between audience and artist.  This duel concept is difficult for some to understand, but without the bond created when experiencing art, there would be no art.  Another way of examining a “gift economy” is to look at it as a “public commons”, which Lethem defines as a space belonging to everyone and controlled by society as a whole.  Lethem points out that almost all commons are encroached upon and that it is the public’s responsibility to protect our common grounds from those who wish to profit.

 

Lethem brings up a question by equating art to science.  He uses the example of a scientist looking for a cure to a disease.  Instead of doing his own research, the scientist pieced together others discoveries to find the cure.  He realized that the cure already existed; someone just needed to tie together information.  Lethem suggests that perhaps the same approach is necessary in art.  Instead of creating the new, he proposes exploring, recognizing and reconfiguring what already exists.

 

Lethem then examines an experience he had when trying to see a movie by the Iranian filmmaker Dariush Mehrjui. When he arrived at the theater the doors were closed with a sign indicating that the movie, an adaptation of a J.D. Salinger work, would not be shown because of legal threat.  Lethem questions Salinger’s motives behind the threat, seeing the movie as homage not plagiarism.  He asks the question, why would he care?

 

Lethem next supports his hypothesis by creating new rules when looking at authorship.  For example, he states that authors and corporations should view all appropriations of their work as an honor. Copyright should protect an author’s original work, but promote the use of the ideas freely. All text is plagiarism and there is no true originality, “old and new make up everything.” If artists don’t keep in mind the gift aspect of their work, then the work is nothing more that “advertisements for themselves.”

 

Finally, Lethem tells the reader that his article has been an appropriation of other people’s writings, and he goes on to highlight in red where he has first used others words.