Now, some people might object, so I will address objections some may have
- "Collectivization destroys individuality!"
This completely misconstrues what collectivization of art is. Collectivization of art does not mean that all art will look the same/have the same message/etc. Collectivization of art does mean that the people as a collective have the right to use, redistribute, and derive art made by the people.
- "But isn't this stealing?"
Let me ask you something. If I had a "make a bicycle" button that magically creates a bicycle out of thin air, then would it be "stealing" for you to press the "make a bicycle" button and keep the bicycle for yourself? Stealing something involves an intent to deprive someone of something, and what are you depriving me of? Bicycles? It is utterly absurd to say that I am being deprived of bicycles when I can just press the "make a bicycle" button and have as many bicycles as I wish. But, say that I create a "make a bicycle" button and then Mike decides to tell everyone that only he can press the "make a bicycle" button. This action now deprives the people of bicycles, and is thus much closer to stealing than you pressing the "make a bicycle" button.
- "But how will you earn money?"
Do you really think the optimal way to earn money off of the art to produce is to sell it off piecemeal by creating artificial scarcity? A collectivized system of art would require a vastly different system of compensation compared to the current privatized art that exists today. The system of payment for collectivized art requires socialist planning. When an artist publishes a work of art, they will be given a government grant equivalent to the amount of labor that was put in in exchange for the art being able to be used and derived by the public. This is a much more equitable and fair system of production and distribution of art.
- "But what if someone takes credit for your art?"
Collectivization of art does not mean removing credit from the original author. Redistributing art in a collectivized system would still require the redistributor to credit the original creator. The person's art will still be protected by a trademark, not a copyright. This means that the art will always be linked to the original creator, and the original creator will still be able to take action against people who fail to credit them/intentionally take unauthorized credit.
- "But what about freedom? Should I not have the freedom to choose who can distribute my art?"
This idea, although it may seem like human nature to liberals, has only arisen when publishers, the real thieves of art, have created strict copyright laws to protect themselves, not the creators. Before the age of publishers, these ideas did not exist, as there was no material justification for these ideas to arise. Just as these ideas have arrived with privatized art, they will also leave with privatized art. This argument falls in the same category as the "communism goes against human nature" category, as they both use the justifications the current system creates for itself as "evidence" against alternative, and superior, systems.
If you have any counterpoints, please comment them below! ^^
I'm not talking about the creation of art as "pressing a button and presto". I'm talking about the idea that when you have the digital art on your computer, you can spread it to multiple computers.
And how was that art created? Magically?
Also you still avoided the question on physical art.
No. Labor was put into the art, in the same way labor was put into the "create a bicycle" button. The bicycles are not the art themselves, they are meant to be stand-ins for the valueless copies of digital art. (This is not saying that digital art is not valuable, this is merely saying that copying digital art to another device creates no value) Regarding physical art, while it is naturally scarce, the IP of the art is not the same as the physical art piece itself. The advent of digital art is what created the contradiction between artists getting paid and derivative works being made. This post is not about collectivizing the physical pieces of art, it is about collectivizing the intellectual property created by making art.
Then why not say that your post is about IP? IP includes more then just art and avoids the entire confusing mess of questions that I had in my reply.
Also the bicycle example still doesn't make sense. Who is preventing you from sharing, saving, or distributing copies of digital art? I can "save as" any piece I come across. The problem comes in when people try to claim it as their own or profit off of it without the artist receiving any compensation. Compensation should go beyond just the labour value of a piece of art too. If more people wish to use an IP or piece of art, that should be allowed, but that also demonstrates that the IP holds more value then another that garners less interest. Increased compensation on top of the baseline given simply for the labour value of a piece, and should be a good form of motivation to create more unique, interesting, and impressive pieces of work/IP.
The problem with IP is how it is gatekept and the copyright refused. That should not be the case as IP should be open beyond the protections of a trademark from plagiarism, however the artist should not be left in the dirt in the case that they create a successful piece of art.
"Who is preventing you from distributing digital art?"
With a .png file, nobody. But not all digital art boils down to just saving a .png file. Try redistributing Nintendo video games (also a form of art) and avoiding a lawsuit.
"They should not be left in the dirt if they make a successful piece of art" So... they should be treated differently if many people remix their art? You didn't somehow magically put value into an art piece when someone remixes it. When someone remixes your art, they are the sole people adding value to the already-generated value created when you make art. The number of people being interested/uninterested in your art doesn't randomly change how much work you put into it.
I agree with your second point, I’m not arguing that artists shouldn’t be allowed to build off of the work of others. I’m saying that in that case the art original artist should receive additional stipends in exchange for the interest their original work generated. That doesn’t mean that that additional compensation is at the expense of the second artist however.
Also I’m confused what you mean by “remix”. Art is already allowed to be used for “remixing” without the second artist needing to pay the original artist. That’s the entire point of “Creative Commons” and other such protections.
If you mean “remix” in the sense of what AI does, then that is vile and I will never agree on that point. That is blatant plagiarism that is scraping the work of others and then mashing it together to create soulless amalgamations.
I mean "remixing" in the sense of creating your own derivative work. Computer-generated images have no labor added, so therefore have no value. The idea that the artist should receive additional stipends for derivative works made relies on the fact that under capitalism, digital artists cannot receive compensation in whole. The original artist did not put any labor into having others make derivative works.