YH1

Shreyas Y H

Expository Writing IL

Professor William Schwartz

Paper 3 (Final Draft)

03/05/2020

Obstruction in the growth of Artistic Knowledge

The advancements in the technical and the managerial aspects of the corporate world

have played a significant role in shaping our current art culture. The artists of today’s society are

greatly influenced by the profound corporate ideologies of some of the businesses. Franklin

Foer, in his article, ‘Mark Zuckerberg’s War on Free Will’ talks about Facebook’s ideologies and

how it plans to use its powerful algorithms to induce mechanical thinking, i.e. the automation of

thinking and reasoning; among its users to give effect to its corporate visions. Joseph E. Stiglitz,

in his article, ‘Rent Seeking and the Making of an Unequal Society’ talks about how a few

groups of people, who are in the top level of the societal hierarchy, circumvent the laws and the

regulations set by the government to create an imbalance in the social returns and private

rewards which in turn has a negative impact on the wellbeing of the society. Jonathan Lethem, in

his article, ‘The Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagiarism’, talks about how the usage of one’s work

should be considered as a source of inspiration rather than plagiarism and how monopolies in the

art world obstruct the flow of artistic knowledge. Plagiarism is defined as the act of taking

another person's work or thoughts and passing them off as one’s own. Newton’s famous

statement ‘…standing on the shoulders of giants…’ clearly explains Lethem’s view of the robust
 YH2

artistic marketplace as it refers to the usage of other’s artistic works as the building blocks for

creating new artistic knowledge. The algorithm-based digital platforms and rent seeking

capitalists threaten the artistic marketplace that Lethem envisions, by removing the idea of

creativity from the public minds and through monopolistic control, thereby hindering the growth

of artistic knowledge.

Artistic knowledge is a vast common. Commons are something that belongs to everyone

and no one i.e. the use of commons requires public consent. Lethem, in his article, states,

‘Honoring the commons is not a matter of moral exhortation. It is a practical necessity.’ [CITATION

Jon \p 244 \l 1033 ]. The commons are being continuously invaded by the monopolies which

usually go unnoticed as the general public fails to view the complete picture. In terms of artistic

knowledge, the privatization of art, through copyrights; is leading to growing remunerations for a

few artists at the expense of the society as the privatization prevents the sharing of art and

thereby destroys its values. Artistic knowledge continuously develops only when it is constantly

exchanged among artists and is solely dependent on creating value. Therefore, the idea of

commons is essential for fulfilling Lethem’s view of a robust artistic marketplace which is being

threatened by the very idea of privatization by monopolies.

Monopolies are profitable due to the absence of potential competitors. Monopolies exist

when the corporate businesses have exclusive possession over the trade of a certain idea, good or

a service. Stiglitz, in his article, states ‘The simplest way to sustainable monopoly is getting the

government to give you one’[CITATION Jos12 \p 398 \l 1033 ]. The easiest manner for creating and

sustaining a monopoly is by getting a patent over an innovation for certain duration. Rent

seeking capitalists use patents as a way of preventing innovations from being accessible by all; in

terms of production. By eliminating competition, the monopolists are able to exhibit their rent
 YH3

seeking behavior by creating an imbalance between the private returns and social contributions.

Stiglitz calls this the ‘negative sum game’ [CITATION Jos12 \p 391 \l 1033 ] which refers to the

reaping of rewards by a few at the expense of destroying the societal wealth. These rent seeking

capitalists affect the society by not contributing adequately to the community.

The rent seeking capitalistic hinder the sharing of the artistic knowledge through

monopolies. Lethem, in his article, states, ‘This (copyrights) was a balancing act between

creators and society as a whole; second comers might do a much better job that the originators

with the original idea.’[CITATION Jon \p 238 \l 1033 ] . Lethem’s view of the dynamic artistic

marketplace constitutes basing the development of the artistic knowledge on the art that already

exists. However, these copyrights give the artists an opportunity to create a monopoly over the

use of creative results; also known as “usemonopoly” [CITATION Jon \p 239 \l 1033 ]. These

copyrights threaten the very idea of artistic marketplace that Lethem envisions as the artists use

these as a medium to increase their remunerations. This action prevents the others from using the

particular copyrighted piece of art thereby preventing them from coming up new art. Therefore,

these copyrights hinder the growth of creativity by limiting the artists’ access to the present art.

Lethem proves this idea by further providing an example of the Walt Disney Company, which

used the copyrights over the Mickey Mouse, to amass huge fortunes by preventing the use of this

character by other cartoons. Therefore, the rent seeking capitalists use copyrights to create

monopolies that prevent the sharing of art which contradicts Lethem’s view of the artistic

marketplace.

The copyrights prevent the functioning of the gift economies. Gift economies refer to the

economy in which a transaction establishes a relation-bond between two people [CITATION Jon \p

242 \l 1033 ]. Lethem, in his article, states, ‘Art that matters to us – which moves the heart, or
 YH4

revives the soul, or delights the senses – is received as a gift is received’ [CITATION Jon \p 242 \l

1033 ]. In a gift economy, the artists use each other’s art to develop something magical i.e. by

coming up with new art. This idea of gift economy establishes a relation between the arts of two

different artists. However, when some of the artists indulge in the use of copyrights for their own

personal gain, the very foundational idea of the gift economy is disrupted as there is a barrier

now between the two artists preventing the sharing of art. Therefore, the use of copyrights, which

are similar to the monopolistic control exercised by the rent seeking capitalists, threatens

Lethem’s vision of the robust artistic marketplace by disturbing the functioning of a gift

economy and hindering the development of new artistic knowledge.

Surrealists try to rejuvenate the intensities associated to the everyday objects. These

surrealists feel that each and every object in this world is associated with some inexpressible

mysteriousness that has been dulled due to common usage in the everyday life. Surrealists plan

to use art as a medium for giving effect to their vision. Lethem states, ‘it’s not a surprise that

some of today’s most ambitious art is going about trying to make the familiar strange.’ [CITATION

Jon \p 237 \l 1033 ]. The surrealists believe that the general public has lost the appreciation for the

common objects by merely viewing them for their utility and they hope to reposition the

mysteries associated with the objects in the minds of the general public. They believe that art,

namely photographs, cinema and novels; can be greatly influential for this purpose. By doing so,

the surrealists hope to change the general perspective through the concept of randomness in the

art which changes the perspective and leads an individual to view the art differently.

Surrealism plays a critical role in the creation of art. Lethem, in his article, raises and

important question ‘Was the photographer stealing from the person or building whose

photograph he shot, pirating something of private and certifiable value?’ [CITATION Jon \p 236 \l
 YH5

1033 ]. The idea of surrealism revolves around the basic idea of the commons and gift economy

i.e. taking from and giving back to the society. This is central to Lethem’s view of the artistic

marketplace as the artists draw from the commons and gift economy to ignite their creative

minds that enables them to develop the artistic knowledge and share it with the other artist. Thus,

surrealism leads to the creation of new art by basing it on the art that already exists which links

to Lethem’s view of the marketplace.

Facebook’s paternalistic corporate ideology induces mechanical thinking among its users.

Facebook uses its algorithms, a set of rules which when followed blindly leads to the solving of

problem; to force its users to think in a particular manner. Foer, in his article, states, ‘The

problem is that when we outsource thinking to machines, we are really outsourcing thinking to

the organizations that run the machines’[CITATION Fra \p 72 \l 1033 ]. Foer argues that the

outsourcing of thinking to the machines is limiting the free will of the people, as it is taking away

the people’s right to be creative and making important decisions. This paternalistic view enables

Facebook to make decisions on the users’ behalf and nudge them in the direction that it wants by

limiting the users’ thinking ability and creativity. This idea could threaten the idea of surrealism

that Lethem believes is central for the existence of the artistic marketplace.

Facebook’s idea of mechanical thinking disrupts the growth of artistic knowledge. Facebook

uses its algorithms to control its users by deciding what the users see. By inducing mechanical

thinking in the minds of its users, Facebook is constantly shaping the way the users view the

world. This contradicts Lethem’s views on surrealism and creation of art as Foer, in his article,

states, ‘If algorithms can replicate the process of creativity, then there’s little reason to nurture

human creativity.’[CITATION Fra \p 76 \l 1033 ]. The mechanical thinking limits the users from

being creative as they are forced to view the world in a particular manner which goes against the
 YH6

very objective of the surrealists as they plan to reposition the perspective of the people through

the idea of randomness of creativity. Therefore, it can be assumed that Facebook threatens the

development of the artistic knowledge by removing the creativity from the minds of the users

and preventing the development of art.

The artistic marketplace that Lethem envisions is threatened by the mechanical thinking that

is induced by the algorithm based digital media and the monopolistic control that the rent

seeking capitalists use. These factors prevent the growth and distribution of artistic knowledge as

the mechanical thinking confines the people to think in a specific way and the monopolistic

control prevents the flow of art by limiting the future artists from accessing a particular piece of

art. Art is a common that grows only when shared and these hindering factors only lead to its

obsolescence which is very dangerous for the future of the art.

Works Cited

Foer, Franklin. "Mark Zuckerber's War on Free Will."

Lethem, Jonathan. "The Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagiarism."

Stiglitz, Joseph E. "Rent Seeking and the Making of an Unequal Society." (2012).