Corporate Authorship

Corporate authorship hires artists, musicians, writers (etc.) to create projects in keeping with an overarching corporate agenda. In the past, it could be said that the Roman Catholic Church participated in corporate authorship by hiring architects and artists to design, construct and adorn its houses of worship, echoing and supporting the church’s values and image. During the Hollywood studio system, individual studios would hire individuals on every tier of film production to create movies which were hopefully going to turn a profit for the studio, in keeping with its overall image and ethos.

How corporate authorship is similar to traditional concepts of authorship is that the products can still be purchased and enjoyed by many, many people. How it is different is that virtually all of the decisions made are by committee and maintain an eye on the over all corporate goal at all times.

One way cultural authorship can differ from cultural intermediaries discussed last week is that sometimes intermediaries stumble upon a product that’s already created outside of its existence, yet try to adapt to it in order to benefit from it. The work of David Mamet, for instance was what it was outside of the marketer’s hands, but they had to work with each of Mamet’s financial successes or failures in order to market the next piece. The Beatles already was an act before manager Brian Epstein came along and worked on their image. Epstein didn’t have a corporate entity originally set up before he managed The Beatles; the group’s basic talent was already there, their goals were in place yet Brian Epstein approached them to change their image from more rough-and-tumble to suits. Once however, Epstein had achieved success through The Beatles, subsequent acts he booked followed “suit.”

Sammond’s book about the corporate manufacturing of the ideal American child is a very interesting idea, as I think these notions feed directly into the era that I am most interested in--the 60’s. I really think that a lot of adult Americans were broadsided by what happened during the mid to late 60s because they must have believed this image of the ideal child and didn’t expect a rebellion from it. Social conformity was so important at this time because the atomic bomb and communism were looming on the horizon and superficial conformity made it easier for patriotic Americans to spot those who didn’t agree.

I think that corporate authorship is found everywhere-- in academic settings, scientific communities, religious denominations, political parties, private corporations and anywhere unity is needed for furthering of power and/or sustainability.

Week 4- part 2

I should have included a segment of the play... Here are the first 7 pages:
Please forgive that the formatting didn't carry over. This week's assignment can be found below it. Yes, it's long, but I don't have a link where I could have placed the content.
Mr. Smith

SEMI-DETACHED
a play in three acts
by D. Cooke
April 25, 2007
Copyright © 2007 by D. Cooke
XXXX XXXXX XXXXX XX
Virginia Beach, VA 23464
757.XXX.XXXX
WGA No. VLCA1D090EBD


CHARACTERS
JENNIFER MITCHELL, 45
THOMAS PAXTON, 59
JONATHAN PAXTON, 55, THOMAS' BROTHER
KATHRYN BELILES-PAXTON, 40-50, JONATHAN'S WIFE
ANNIE DALRYMPLE/FAN, 40, ESTATE AGENT
BRIAN BEARSDLEY/FAN, 40, JENNIFER'S FIANC…
IRENE WOLFORD/FAN, 70, A NEIGHBOR
CAMERON, 40s, A FAN WITH A CAMERA AND A WEBSITE
TIME
May 2002
PLACE
A Victorian semidetached home (aka duplex) in Egham, England.
The exterior is a standard middle-class English neighborhood.
SYNOPSIS OF SCENES
Act 1
Scene 1- front of duplex - late morning
Scene 2- Jennifer's kitchen - 4 hours later
Scene 3- Jennifer's living room - continuing
Scene 4- front of duplex - continuing
Scene 5- front of duplex - continuing
Scene 6- front of duplex - continuing
Scene 7- front of duplex - 2 hours later
Scene 8- Thomas' living room evening (6:30-ish) - continuing
Scene 9- Thomas' living room - (noonish) - the next day
Act 2
Scene 1- Thomas' living room- morning - a few days later
Scene 2- Front of duplex- Thomas' side - morning - a few days later
Scene 3- Jennifer's living room - morning - a few days later
Scene 4- Back of duplex - evening - later that day
Scene 5- Front of duplex - afternoon - one day later
Scene 6- Thomas' living room - continuing
Scene 7- Thomas' living room - a few days later
Scene 8- Park (Thomas) - 10 minutes later
Act 3
Scene 1- Thomas' living room- 10 minutes later
ACT ONE
SCENE 1
(Lights come up on a duplex [semidetached]. The two mirroring flats are built on a single platform which turns in the center stage. The front and back have exterior walls, the sides are open, revealing the interiors of both flats. The set starts with both front doors facing the audience. There is a low stone wall which can pull away from center stage as needed. CAMERON, a fan, holds a CAMERA and sits on the wall as THOMAS PAXTON shuffles to his flat with a couple of plastic GROCERY BAGS.
Thomas, in his 50's, is good looking, but is disheveled. His hands and old clothes have splatters of different colored paint on them. If he hadn't pulled out his keys, we might have mistaken him for a homeless man. He walks with difficulty. His flat has no number on it. The stage-left flat has a 34 on the door.
Cameron jumps up to take a picture. Fumbling with his keys, Thomas rushes up the stage-right walkway and into the house, dropping one of the bags midway up the walkway to his flat. Cameron hesitates. He decides to retrieve the bag. JENNIFER MITCHELL carries a ROLLING SUITCASE and a small piece of PAPER, obviously tired and looking for the right house. She shuffles up the path to the door of the other flat. Cameron stiffens and turns around to leave without the bag. Jennifer smiles at Cameron)
JENNIFER
(cheerfully)
Hello.
(Cameron doesn't acknowledge her and quickly leaves. Jennifer frowns and looks at her paper. She looks at the house and sees 34 on her door. She fumbles for her KEYS and notices the bag of groceries in Thomas' yard. She looks around and puts the suitcase down and cautiously approaches the divide of the yard. She deliberates what to do. Hesitantly and still with her keys in one hand, she goes and picks up the bag and looks at its contents. Thomas opens his door just as she's looking through it. Jennifer stops)
JENNIFER (CONT'D)
Oh, h-hi! I'm sorry to... I know this looks really bad.
(She stops looking and walks to him. Thomas comes out. Jennifer holds the bag to him, accidentally dropping her keys in the bag)
JENNIFER (CONT'D)
I'm not being nosey, honest. I just saw the bag in your yard. I didn't know if someone forgot it or what.
(Thomas grabs the bag from her)
THOMAS
(slowly and cold)
You may get off my lawn.
JENNIFER
(nods)
Sorry.
(She walks back over to her side of the yard. Thomas makes a beeline for his door and slams it behind him)
JENNIFER (CONT'D)
(sighs)
Great.
Jennifer picks up suitcase and fumbles for keys. They are nowhere)
JENNIFER (CONT'D)
Oh no.
(She sets the suitcase back down and feels through her purse, her pockets and looks around on the ground. No luck)
JENNIFER (CONT'D)
I just had them!
(She retraces her steps in her mind to when she had the bag. She freezes and slowly looks up to Thomas' front door. She shakes her head and mumbles to herself as she approaches Thomas' door)
JENNIFER (CONT'D)
(mumbling)
Great. Hi. I just gave you my keys!
(She pauses and taps on Thomas' door. Nothing happens)
JENNIFER (CONT'D)
Hello?
(She taps again)
JENNIFER (CONT'D)
Hello?!...
(She gets on her knees and speaks through the mail drop in the door)
JENNIFER (CONT'D)
Look I hate to trouble you, but... I'm afraid I can't leave as I've just given you my keys!...
(She looks into the mail drop and alternately talks)
JENNIFER (CONT'D)
Please check the bag I just handed you? I think they're in there. Please? Can you hear me?
(She gets up and walks over to a window next to his front door. Thomas quietly opens the door and stands silently in the doorway. His eyes are steel. Jennifer taps on the window)
JENNIFER (CONT'D)
Look, I just arrived in England and I have nowhere to go... without my keys!
(Jennifer turns back to Thomas' front door and gasps)
JENNIFER (CONT'D)
I'm sorry, I didn't know you were there. Were they in the bag?
THOMAS
Very clever...
(He reveals keys to her and throws them onto his front walk)
THOMAS (CONT'D)
(livid)
Get out!
(Thomas slams door. Jennifer hesitates and storms up to his door, stooping in front of his mail drop)
JENNIFER
(yells loudly into mail drop)
Nice to meet you too!
(She tries to slam the mail drop. She pinches her finger in the drop)
JENNIFER (CONT'D)
Ow! Dang it!
(She starts back to her door, stops, then remembers to go pick up the keys)
JENNIFER (CONT'D)
Off to a great start! I need food. And a shower. And a nap.
(She goes up to her front door. She puts key in lock and pulls and pulls. The door won't budge. Finally she pushes and it gracefully opens)
JENNIFER (CONT'D)
(mumbles)
D'oh.
(She disappears inside. We hear her yell)
JENNIFER (CONT'D)
Brian Beardsley! You are so dead meat!
(She slams the door as the lights go out. The duplex turns clockwise to reveal her side of the structure)
End of Scene 1.

Week 4- Corporate Gatekeepers

This week we read about those corporate gatekeepers in the various arts “fields” (to use Bourdieu’s term)—literary editors, social networks, traditions which would be appropriately termed “industrial auteurship.”

Edwards knocks down the auteur theory stating that it was primarily devised to give an academic framework of discussion, then proceeds to discuss the decisions surrounding David O Selznick’s acquisition and adaptation of “Rebecca” as being firmly grounded in creating a brand for SIP and differentiating its products from other studios.

Schatz too looks at the entire picture surrounding film production and marvels how well-oiled it was for so long. He maintains the executives were what made the system great and what made it work.

Curran too discusses the commerce surrounding artistic decisions but his article should have been called "Why, Oh Why Can't More Scientific Books Get Reviewed: My Friends and I Would Sell a Lot More!"

In this vein of logistical and commercial consideration, I would like to play the part of a theatrical producer who has been handed a script by a little-known playwright named D. Cooke who is hoping the producer's small reparatory theatre would be able to produce her play entitled “Semi-detached.”

Dear Ms. Cooke-

We would like to thank you for your recent submission. However, there are several concerns our company’s production staff has with the current draft of your script, “Semi-detatched.”

1- We are confused by the logistical structure of the set as you have suggested it in your script. We feel that to fully produce the two apartments as being able to move together and apart may prove expensive for the budget of our company. Also, we are a theatre in-the-round and the ideas for your set do not lend themselves to a surrounding audience.
2- We notice that one character, Mrs. Wolford appears only in one scene in the first act, but that Brian only appears in the last scene of Act 2. May we suggest that Mrs. Wolford be changed to her nephew, so that the same actor could portray both characters?
3- We were wondering if you’ve already created the necessary peripheral musical pieces as you did not include them with the script? Do you have recordings of these already, as our staff does not have the resources to replicate the type of music you’ve suggested for Thomas’ character.

Until we can come to an agreement about these logistical concerns, we will not be able to proceed in a production of this piece, although we would like to further discuss ways we could reach a win-win situation.

The general tone and attitude fit well with our company and as you pointed out, we do have actors on hand who fit your characters descriptions and would do well with the material. We would love to see another draft of your work upon further discussion with you.

Thank you again for this submission.

Mr. Smith of
Mr. Smith’s Reparatory Theatre Company

Week 3-- Humanism vs. Structuralism?

It’s difficult to say where I fall on the spectrum of humanism vs. materialism, author and subject (etc.), because whereas the artist in me says that an artist’s/author’s work is valid no matter if she’s commissioned, subsidized, appreciated or ignored, the pragmatist in me says that many artists are motivated by the money offered them via corporate entities and must be driven by the rules in which they operate. Whenever corporate institutions are involved, the purity of the author’s voice is diminished and can even be silenced.

The optimist in me prefers to focus on the artist/author and the way her background influences the types of projects she‘ll take on. I’d like to believe most of the time, an author wouldn’t be involved in a project unless there was some sort of value in it—even if it’s a project they don’t agree with. Even if a friend of theirs asked for their participation… Or perhaps money was tight and they just plain needed the money.

I know that what influences me when I like a piece (usually musical), is a sense of the biography of the one who created it. If I like a piece, I often try to find out something of the creator’s background either in biographical information or if given the opportunity, in person. I really haven’t been surprised by their actual personalities when I’ve met them, as I’ve felt that the work did a good job of revealing the sort of personality behind it.

Because of my experience with artists/musicians, I do believe one’s biography is communicated through one’s work and doesn’t fully ever separate from the originator. To a good extent, I feel that trying to separate the author from the work is a futile and confusing activity. I can see where if when someone is first acquainting themselves with a work, and they don’t know the artist/author at all, then they have to fixate more on the mere text itself. However once the reader begins to assemble meaning out of the work, as sense of the artist begins to form as well.

If I don’t like a piece, I have no interest to find out more about the one who created it.

This week’s readings step slightly away from the complete death and disregard of the author in Foucault’s “What is an Author?” He may side to a degree with the audience as creating the meaning, but at least he posits that the by-line of a work does provide an “author-function” and that going back to the originator of a practice often means having to go back and look at the original author.

Kompare’s essay complicates matters when examining the author in the collaborative setting of television production, which by no means allows pure creation inside a bubble. Kompare definitely echoes Becker, and the necessity of standards and audience expectations.

Glass’ book discusses the somewhat new phenomenon of often introverted authors as mass media celebrities and the different ways in which the author becomes situated within the worlds of intellectual property, mass production, image, changing political and legal ideologies and so on.

In this day and age, it would appear that the author cannot entirely remain a mere faceless name on a book, as publishers have expectations of using the author as a co-promoter of his/her book. Another aspect points to the public, which cannot be told what to buy simply because a publisher puts a book out there or the author show up for a book-selling.