Yeah. I think in some ways we are communicating on different levels here. Something close to the debate between practical activism vs. radical ideology.
I agree that it is entirely possible that retaining control of the "meaning" of dissenting art and symbolism for a time may be a step that is needed to get us to the place where we can dump this whole idea that meaning needs to be controlled. Just we need to be mindful or else we end up reinforcing the patterns of oppression - including those times we happen to change the particulars for some people.
On the other hand, reality carries more meaning than words, and putting something out there with the only "message" attached being "you may not dictate how anyone else uses this" is pretty damned powerful.
Perhaps enough of both need to go on for things to come together?
As far as creativity 2.0 goes, I guess the fairest answer I can think of to your concerns involves a sort of reciprocity. The more an artist wants to dictate meaning in an on-going creative dialogue, the more they would be obliged to use the stories/language/symbols/etc that elicit that particular meaning/reaction in the fans. Basically letting outside influences have more say in the how's of how the message is gotten across. Because really, the only way to demand that your message be gotten across in your (uhm, by your, I'm meaning the artist, not you specifically) voice, is to say your voice is the correct one. Unless you limit your co-creation pool to a small number of very like minded people, it may be possible to hold on to the message or the voice. To demand both is not collaboration. It is a dictatorship.
I guess the flip side would be altering your message to gain popularity. That is the entertainment franchise, which is about profit, no matter how much they try to disguise it as art or message.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: part one
Date: 2010-07-12 11:58 pm (UTC)I agree that it is entirely possible that retaining control of the "meaning" of dissenting art and symbolism for a time may be a step that is needed to get us to the place where we can dump this whole idea that meaning needs to be controlled. Just we need to be mindful or else we end up reinforcing the patterns of oppression - including those times we happen to change the particulars for some people.
On the other hand, reality carries more meaning than words, and putting something out there with the only "message" attached being "you may not dictate how anyone else uses this" is pretty damned powerful.
Perhaps enough of both need to go on for things to come together?
As far as creativity 2.0 goes, I guess the fairest answer I can think of to your concerns involves a sort of reciprocity. The more an artist wants to dictate meaning in an on-going creative dialogue, the more they would be obliged to use the stories/language/symbols/etc that elicit that particular meaning/reaction in the fans. Basically letting outside influences have more say in the how's of how the message is gotten across. Because really, the only way to demand that your message be gotten across in your (uhm, by your, I'm meaning the artist, not you specifically) voice, is to say your voice is the correct one. Unless you limit your co-creation pool to a small number of very like minded people, it may be possible to hold on to the message or the voice. To demand both is not collaboration. It is a dictatorship.
I guess the flip side would be altering your message to gain popularity. That is the entertainment franchise, which is about profit, no matter how much they try to disguise it as art or message.