preview

Hey Jude Analysis

Good Essays

Is an imitation of an already existing artwork a separate artwork in itself? Some philosophers consider would consider saying yes to this question such as Davies from the theory of multiple artworks while others may say no such as Collingwood in his differentiation of a true artwork as contrasted with a craft. There are many instances of artwork that are only imitations but the credit for its appreciation are given to different people. For example, would a cover for “Hey Jude” by the Beatles in Youtube be considered an instance of the musical work “Hey Jude” or would it be considered an entirely separate artwork? The title of the song that is being sung remains “Hey Jude” but the appreciation of the performance now belongs to the one who made …show more content…

The problem Davies does not address is how similar the instance of multiple artworks must be for it to be even considered an instance of the original. Again, back to the “Hamlet” example, a performance of that play in the dialect used during the 16th-17th century may be considered an instance of the original play script and thus still be called “Hamlet”. Let us then say that there was a performance of “Hamlet” that was translated into modern English. We could still claim that it was another instance of the original. Now, in a more extreme case, let us say that some settings were changed to cater to a contemporary favoring audience. Would the change in location and language be the tipping point for the play “Hamlet” to gain the status of original? Here, the difference between what can be considered an instance of an artwork among multiple artworks and a separate artwork can be attributed to the intent of the creator. In each instance of multiple artworks, the performer(s) and person(s) in charge of the performance are intending for the performance to be regarded as the original. If however, the performer(s) or the person(s) in charge of the performance intends for the multiple artwork to be a parody of the original, then it should be considered a separate original artwork. This is assuming that there is a certain level of similarity between the instance …show more content…

For example, a man singing “Yellow” by Coldplay would be a co-author of his own performance along with Coldplay but only if they intended to imitate the song in its original form. Even without all the instruments present, if the intent is there to imitate the song “Yellow” with the best of his abilities, then they would be in a joint authorship. However, if the intent is for there to be a change to the original, then the imitation artist would be comparable to a ready-made artist such as Duchamp. Joint authorship according to Livingston requires that the authors “share the aim for contributing to the making of a single… work” and in this case, the aim of the imitation author would not be sharing the same aim in contributing to that work as the original artist intended. In the case of Duchamp’s “L.H.O.O.Q.”, he did not intend for the work to be regarded in the same manner as Da Vinci’s “Mona Lisa”. In the same way that the “Fountain” does not give credit to the creator of the urinal itself in the role of being an artwork as it is to be regarded in a different manner than of a normal urinal, Duchamp’s “L.H.O.O.Q.” only gives proper credit to the creator, Duchamp and not Da Vinci. This can be applied to covers in Youtube and other mediums where the imitator

Get Access