The value of artistic legacy
My initial reaction to cloud_loud's post about the upcoming Winnie the Pooh slasher movie was viscerally negative - my gut feeling is that my life would be objectively better without a movie like this in the world tainting a treasured childhood memory for millions of people.
Then I thought back to my reaction to the Wednesday Addams trailer and it became immediately clear to me that it was just a 'me problem' - I had no sentimental ties to the Addams Family as a kid, but Winnie the Pooh was one of my mum's bedtime story staples. I trust Tim Burton based on his track record to bring a high-quality rendition of Wednesday to the screen, but these nameless & faceless filmmakers were suddenly antagonists in my mind for turning an innocent story about a talking teddy bear into a trashy slasher. But apples & oranges comparison aside, just like how there will be people against the idea of Burton's vision of the Addams family or Tom Hanks' portrayal of Mr. Rogers, there most likely will be people who enjoy this movie when it releases - it just won't be my cup of tea.
I then started thinking about the implications of franchises reaching public domain like in this scenario - for better or worse, creators can now build upon, remix or bastardize the world and characters of Winnie the Pooh. I recently had a conversation here on Tildes about the necessity of copyright, patent and intellectual property law where @archevel raised the question of whether a person/entity should be able to 'own' an idea, and on the surface the immediate answer is a resounding "no". But thinking deeper about it (especially in this context) pushed me down a different path, calling someone's creation simply an 'idea' is very reductionist. To me, an idea is 'a honey-obsessed talking teddy bear' - there's no characterisation to that, no soul, no story, no sense of being. An idea is a I-V-VI-IV chord progression (and thus holds no legal protections), but shouldn't the artistic integrity of Journey's Don't Stop Believing be protected even after the creators are gone? Why are we so indifferent towards parodies like this when it could just as easily be something more offensive like this that can harm the legacy of the creator just by association? I've always been a proponent of free speech/freedom of expression but thinking about it from this perspective is fascinating to me.
That's not inherently an issue of something becoming public domain though, it's an issue of preserving the creator's legacy. Copyright doesn't just protect the creator's means to compensation, it protects their right to control their creations - the right to control their artistic integrity and the legacy they leave behind. Knowing that Milne and Shepard created Pooh to entertain children in a wholesome way, I think it's fairly safe to say they would not be happy with a slasher adaptation if they were still alive. If these filmmakers were using Pooh's likeness to parody Xi Jinping and push a communist agenda, would we care more about preserving Milne's legacy then?
All that brought me to the question of decency - whose moral compass should we guide ourselves by? Where is the line between socially-acceptable satire and obscenity? Western culture has been extremely cagey about some of the most natural things like nudity and sexuality, but here in Australia our government has no issue plastering billboards, bus stops and cigarette cartons with images of nicotine-stained teeth, abscessed mouths and diseased organs in an attempt to warn people of the dangers of smoking & excess sugar consumption - all in the name of public health. Everybody has genitals, why is our government happy to tell us that seeing boobs on a billboard could be potentially shocking for children to see when kids are exposed to NSFL images just by walking past the cigarette shelf in a store or a discarded carton in the street? When our cultural morality is so cagey about something as innocuous as a natural human body, why are we so unconcerned when someone perverts the life's work of a creator just because it's turned public domain? Should the creator have the right to protect their work from beyond the grave?
I'm willing to bet when Mickey Mouse turns public domain in 2024 the internet will be flooded with Beeple-style grotesqueries (NSFW) and everyone will get sick of profane parodies very quickly.
Just wanted to post a frame-by-frame analysis of the philosophical rabbit hole I went down today and hopefully stir up a conversation - I know these are fairly deep questions that none of us can really answer definitively but I still love to hear different people's thoughts and perspectives regardless :)
I believe that the opinions of long-dead people shouldn't count anymore, so I don't care what A.A. Milne would have thought. If there's something wrong with the way an author's creation is used, it's because it matters to all the people who have read the book or seen the movie and feel a connection to it. But given reasonable content warnings, it should be easy to avoid watching a movie?
This is just a difference in opinion, but I was raised to respect the dead since all that remains of them in this world are the memories and legacy they left with us, and that's something to be valued highly and preserved where possible.
A quote from Milne himself if you're wondering whether he would have cared about what he was remembered for:
Well, "respect for the dead" can be interpreted in many ways.
I do have an interest in history, which includes being curious about how long-gone people lived and what they believed. Historical artifacts are often irreplaceable sources of information. Also, there is the idea of "Chesterton's fence," which is basically that it would be wise to try to understand why something was built before changing it.
But I don't think it should be binding. Often their beliefs were strange, mistaken, or even abhorrent by modern standards and then we should trust our judgement over theirs, since we know about modern times and they didn't. In particular, treating the beliefs of ancestors as sacred or unquestionable mysteries rather than something to be curious about seems like the wrong attitude towards history.
But in practice, I think people will often bring up the beliefs of ancestors when they agree with them? It can be a political tactic.
I think that we honor the dead not for their sake but our own, so that we know that we ourselves can build and leave behind a legacy that'll be somewhat honored in the way we intend.
Of course, we cannot be beholden to the past: it is a balancing act between past and future and future-becoming-past; between the needs of the alive and yet-to-be-born and the hopes and dreams of those-who-will-die-someday — all of whom are the same.
By honoring the dead, we construct a social reality where the dead can be present in a way. In doing so, we hope that our own selves can extend past our own deaths: while we're alive, we can imagine having a place in the future when we're dead, that death isn't utterly complete and total oblivion.
I have the strong feeling that if we set our culture to not honor the past, then we create a future that won't honor our present — so people may feel less compelled to honor a future they won't be alive for.
This probably hinges on what you mean by “honor.”
I don’t see why I would want the people of the future to trust my judgement over theirs? I don’t know what the future will bring, and many of my beliefs will likely turn out to be badly wrong in retrospect.
But maybe you mean something else? “Honor” and “legacy” are abstract terms and maybe coming up with specific examples would clarify things.
I suppose the most basic form of respect would be to spend time learning about and understanding the past, as historians do?
Let's say, for argument sake, that the last human dies in 2050 due to... whatever. Climate change seems a good candidate to knock out the whole enterprise. Something to be "valued highly and preserved" becomes absolutely meaningless, and anyone shooting for immortality comes off as extremely neurotic, at the very least. How many humans from 30,000 years ago do we tell stories about?
This brings up one of my favourite thing to remind myself of the futility of seeking fame for the sake of fame:
One day even Socrates will be forgotten.
That was a really interesting read, thanks for sharing!
Personally, I don't think the existence of something profane has to tarnish an idea or a creative work. I think it's our responsibility to distinguish derivatives from their source and not necessarily tarnish by association. I completely agree with your views on gore vs nudity and the crazy imbalance between what is appropriate when it comes to them. I think there might be an element of bias to your presentation of billboards and the like though; whilst I think those images on billboards are a bit far, gratuitous nudity on billboards would probably be a bit far too, I think those images on cigarette packets are appropriate and do more good than harm.
I think it comes down to audience and setting in a way. I think a Winnie the Pooh slasher has the potential to be a laudable creative work that doesn't have to tarnish the Winnie the Pooh name/brand/legacy at all, but much like any slasher should be kept well away from young audiences. So long as it is treated with care, I see no problem with it being made and being a cult classic, if that's what it turns out to be.
I think the other thing to keep in mind is works like Winnie the Pooh transcend the author. It means so much more to so many people than the author could ever have fathomed, and so much of the life of the character is what we each breathed into it when we were reading/being read to. I think there comes a point where a creator has to step back and understand that whilst the meadow they see before them happened as a result of the small cluster of flowers they created, there is more to it than their input and they should respect that.
Take Star Trek for instance: I was having a conversation about Star Trek recently in a different ~, and one of the things we talked about was The Orville. It could be argued that was (or at least started as) a bastardisation of the show, but ultimately I think it's done far more good than harm for the marque, even if you wouldn't have thought so at the initial pitch meeting and the owners of the Star Trek brand could probably have it shut down if they wished.
We might sit here and think the Winnie the Pooh slasher is a terrible idea or not something we'd ever want to see, but I could see a world in which it turns out to be a love letter to Pooh and what it meant to the writers told through the lens of their preferred genre, even if at the surface it seems more likely to be cashing in on a big brand who's protections expired. If it turns out to not do justice to its source (a la Eragon, Artemis Fowl, Percy Jackson, etc.), that doesn't mean it should never have got off the floor in my opinion, because the good something that builds and adds to the original work does far exceeds the bad a crappy adaption does, in my opinion.
Even with something as offensive as that Mona Lisa you posted, I'd argue it's still art and whilst I wouldn't put it up on a wall or in a gallery, I think there are some redeemable elements to it; part of the Mona Lisa's fame comes from the mystery behind her smile and the different emotions people extrapolate from it, and the commentary provided by that offensive adaption at least urges the viewer to consider that there is more than just the face value of a person, and even a despicable person is still a human being.
Perhaps I have a more charitable outlook than a lot of people when it comes to art, but I think if everyone focused on the positives and gave things the benefit of the doubt, overall we'd have a better time. Let people do their thing and be happy for the people that enjoy it, I say! (Even if I prefer not to see the result😉)
My thoughts mirror much in this post. The one thing I think would be a problem is if someone claims a piece of work is someone else's. E.g a painting claiming to be done by Da Vinci, but was actually made by Alice to make a quick buck. Or in this case claiming the "Winnie the Pooh - Blood and Honey" movie was in fact based on a newly discovered movie manuscript by A.A. Milne. Authenticity/Identity needs protection, but subject matter, ideas, etc do not.
Music is one of the oldest artforms. Only in the modern era, with the advent of recording, did an artist have control over their song after it was out there.
It was a dynamic, living, art....one that is on life support in favor of the production/consumption model.
Some utterly fantasic creations either sample other songs heavily, or just straight up copy them (well-done mashups and remixes). And these are, generally, considered illegal by default.
Art is best when we are active participants in it....no matter how amateur or professional.
It's why I agree that attribution is important (and why PGP signing should be taught as a basic computer skill). And at the same time, feel control of work after creation is not.
This is the one of the issues I was questioning though - when I first saw the title "Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey" I (probably like many others) assumed it was an officially-licensed work since it bore the official Winnie the Pooh title (which was most likely why I was sorely disappointed by what I saw in the trailer haha). Even if the filmmakers aren't claiming this to be Milne's work it can still damage the original creator's work just by association.
When brands are offered protections like trademarks to mitigate negative brand connotations coming from third parties or inauthentic goods, why aren't creators offered similar protections to preserve the integrity of their work - especially when they're no longer with us and therefore unable to defend it for themselves? Even for living creators the rules are muddled at best, I remember reading when Trump was on the campaign trail that his team was issued a C&D from Katy Perry's management because they were playing her music at political rallies and she didn't want herself or her music to hold any affiliation with Trump, but beyond that there wasn't anything they could really legally enforce.
Except they are. The rule (in American law, other jurisdictions differ) is 70 years after author's death or 95 years after publication (the latter being the case for Winnie the Pooh).
Considering all the great art that has come from adapting, without permission, various old novels, folk stories, fairy tales, and mythology, it's difficult to argue that intellectual property should be protected in perpetuity. Whether or not you and I personally like it, when the author's been dead for more than half a decade and the original was published nearly 100 years ago, it should be fairly reasonable to assume that not every adaptation that comes out now has the blessing of the original creator.
I have a hard time with this reasoning. How does the filmmakers work diminish or damage the original? Sure for you if you see the movie it could forever tarnish your experience of Winnie the Pooh, but the film doesn't change anything about the original work.
As for the case with Trump campaign and Katy Perry I think Trump should be able to use her recordings and songs. It would be a dock move to do that without the artists impression, but I still think it should be allowed (it is a bit of a strange take perhaps?). I would take issue if they had used a Katy Perry look alike performing the song and trying to give the impression that Katy Perry herself infact endorses Trump (i.e. without some pretty clear statements that the singer was not infact Katy).
I mean, there's a bit of a discriminatory aspect to restricting who can/can't license a piece of work for public play. I don't think it's that controversial to say an artist can't recind that kind of licensing without also recinding it universally.
Is Katy Perry being able to ban Trump from playing her music tangibly different from her being able to say no to a gay pride parade from using it? Yanking it from all publications and saying "Because Trump refused" is valid in a more tangible way IMO.
God Bless America is a great example of a song being misused heavily, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find even a significant minority that would approve reigning that in.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, lots to think about :) I'm well aware that much of what I wrote about is just down to my own bias/subjective beliefs, but it's easy to say that in a dismissive way and not place enough importance on it despite the fact that's how people typically function. When something with the title "Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey" is released to the world we immediately associate it with the original work involuntarily, there's no concious process for us to switch off that mental association. If the filmmakers had gone the way of The Orville and made no mention of the inspirational work in their branding and kept it identifiably separate that would be a different case, but here the issue rises from directly taking the life's work of someone else and (subjectively speaking) bastardizing it in a way the original creator would never have stood for, using the exact branding, story and characters as the original.
I mentioned some potential parallels about trademark law in my other reply in this thread if you care to read it for context, but I would equate a situation like this to a company creating a search engine platform called Google 2: Electric Boogaloo that only served links to and images of violent/gore content and Google somehow having no legal grounds to preserve their brand image or enforce their trademark.
The comparison to the Eragon/Artemis Fowl/Percy Jackson movie adaptations doesn't make a lot of sense to me honestly, they may well have been crappy adaptations (subjectively speaking!) but they were well-intentioned attempts at something faithful to the spirit of the original writing - they just missed the mark and that's perfectly forgiveable. Here we have a case where the filmmakers are deliberately violating the spirit of the original work by turning it into violent shock content - something that anyone with common sense can recognise is polar opposite to the values expressed in Milne's work and more so intended to shock & offend than tell a story. To reference my Mickey Mouse speculation in my post, I can fairly confidently say that many of those porn-y/gory Mickey parodies we'll be seeing in the not-too-distant future will be both posted and popularised by many people wanting to get their digs at Disney (corporation, not person) by violating their family-friendly brand image.
That being said I do always try my best to separate art from artist and let people enjoy art despite my own opinions, I just wanted to post my little philosophical experience here and get a grasp on some other perspectives :) I'm not a conservative at all but I found it really fascinating that I was feeling more understanding about certain conservative/'pearl-clutching'-type thoughts as a result of this.
I have a mirror example to the Winnie the Pooh one. We've had loads of different Dracula over the years (well, decades). Horrific ones, tragic ones, a miserable pile of secrets one... up to control freak dad with teenagers issues, and the puppet one that love counting.
But we all still think of Dracula as this mysterious, suave, and dangerous aristocrat.
I don't think we'll ever change our view of him, except if there's a massive alternate usage of it. Just as the Phrygian cap is a French symbol even thought it's, well, from Phrygia (a place in now Turkey).
My pleasure, thanks for your post! Sorry I've taken a while to reply on this, I've had a busy few days!
I appreciate your insight; I think it's really interesting to examine places where our personal beliefs differ and exploring another's point of view. For the most part, I think I understand where you're coming from and respect your opinion, even if it differs from my own, though there are a few points you made that I'd be interested in exploring further:
I find this really interesting, because I have the same instinctive connection of the two works, but not the same instinctive attribution. When I see Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey, it - of course - makes me think of Winnie the Pooh, but I think that at the same time instinctively feels separate and distinct to me, because it is such a dissonant feel from that of Winnie the Pooh.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. It was an imperfect comparison; I think I was coming at it more from a "they did damage to the brand" independent of intent, rather than a comparison as a whole. I think I was more intending to highlight that if the owners of the original work had been able to forsee the finished product and the reception to it, they would have likely not have chosen to authorise it. With the Winnie the Pooh film, it could end up almost the opposite: whilst Milne might have been appaulled by the concept and would never have authorised it if he still controlled the original work, it could turn out to be a loving homage to the characters told through the lens of a different genre, which could be something that builds adds to Winnie the Pooh as a whole, rather than sullying it. Even if that is unlikely, I think my point was more that we can't predict the outcome of a work, and that in general good does more good than bad does bad, if that makes sense.
I think you bring up a really interesting point here, because this is actually one of the main reasons I think people should be able to make movies like this. Precisely because anyone with common sense is able to recognise it as such, I think there should be little danger of it sullying Milne and Winnie the Pooh as a result. I think I would have more of a problem if someone created a Winnie the Pooh story where it had the same vibe and values as Winnie the Pooh, but during the episode one of the characters murdered another in cold blood and all the characters proceeded to treat it as a minor mistake that could be brushed under the rug. I think that would have the potential to damage Winnie the Pooh and Milne's legacy, far more than a slasher film, if that makes sense.
I think the question of how much we should reasonably expect people to be able to separate art from artist is a really interesting question, as is the one of how we should balance protecting the legacy and reputation of an artist vs letting people have creative freedom.