« People Who Need People | Home | I Hate You, Don’t Leave Me »
Promiscuous Materials Project
By Corvus | March 14, 2007
Jonathan Lethem remains a favorite author and is one of the few I buy in hardcover without question. Only Haruki Murakami and Margaret Atwood so consistently impress.
Not only is Lethem’s prose witty, his characters well rendered, and his themes at times challenging, but the man himself has a lot to say on the topic of creativity and the role of the storyteller. I recently heard him interviewed on NPR about his newest (graphic) novel, You Don’t Love Me Yet. The novel deals with the nature of intellectual property and sounds fascinating. Of even more interest is a project he’s calling the Promiscuous Materials Project. I’m going to let Jonathan explain the thinking behind the project himself:
I like art that comes from other art, and I like seeing my stories adapted into other forms. My writing has always been strongly sourced in other voices, and I’m a fan of adaptations, appropriations, collage, and sampling.
I recently explored some of these ideas in an essay for Harper’s Magazine. As I researched that essay I came more and more to believe that artists should ideally find ways to make material free and available for reuse. This project is a (first) attempt to make my own art practice reflect that belief.
My thinking along these lines has been strongly influenced by Open Source theory and the Free Culture movement, and by Lewis Hyde’s book, The Gift.
text ripped from Jonathan Lethem’s official site (link).
I think this is an incredible thing. Not only are many of his short stories available, but song lyrics he wrote as well. The Second Longest Night, for example, has already been song-i-fied by such diverse folks as John Linnell, the lyrical half of They Might Be Giants and the indie rock band, Haunt. There are many short films in the works, as well as many more music tracks to explore on his site.
You know what would be great to see in the mix? An animated short. Or a musical interpretation of one of the available short stories. Or, and I’m only listing it last so you can feel smarter than me for thinking of it first, a game.
What I’d like equally as much is to have a film, animation, or game design instructor who finds themselves leading a project management class make converting one of Lethem’s available works the goal of the class project. I know that many animation students suffer from a dearth of available, appealing, free material to base their work on. Well, here’s exactly what they need — well written, deep, and quirky tales from the bent mind of the author who brought us Gun With Occasional Music, Motherless Brooklyn and The Fortress of Solitude. Not only is the material open for your interpretation, but having your work posted on Lethem’s site isn’t going to suck either.
What impresses me most about this move is that Lethem doesn’t need this sort of event to boost his popularity. He’s working within the system and earning a living from it. Ed Norton wants to make a movie based on his work, for goodness sake. Even though Lethem is, by all accounts, a successful writer, he’s still participating in the culture that supports him. The fact that he’s made this work in a way that doesn’t upset his publishers is an astonishing limbo act that I’d love to be privy to.
Brian Green has an interesting post today about a subject that’s tangentially related to this. He heard that at a GDC audio panel advised musicians to try and retain rights to their game soundtracks. Brian concedes that this sounds like a great idea, but asks, “How?” (link).
My first thought on this topic concerns someone I hold in equally high esteem as Jonathan Lethem — Jim Jarmusch. Jarmusch offers soundtrack deals to musicians which allow them to retain the rights to their compositions. All they must do when publishing the work in the future is reference the movie which the piece was created for. This reduces his costs and increases the earning potential for any artists who works with him.
It’s possible to make such a system work on a broader scale and in other industries. All it takes is someone doing it. As Brian points out later in his article, the short term profits will probably be lower. But surely even if the publishers are focused on tomorrow’s stock price, we as developers would be better off focusing on the long term, right? Especially if we’re indie and plan on staying that way. I challenge you to think of ways you can change the model, strengthen the indie movement, and ensure a stronger future for yourselves and others, rather than merely a paycheck just for you tomorrow.
I have an answer to Brian’s, “How?” It a simple answer really. Foolish and totally Tao. It’s sure to be scoffed at by seasoned vets and the “realistic” and “level headed” developers who, although they too suffer the wounds and scars of the industry’s lumbering, re-enforce “the way things are” at every step. But when it comes down to it, the simplest way to initiate change is to do it. One small, independent, crazy, risky, exhilarating, challenging, powerful, and empowering step at a time.
Break the mold. I know you can.
Tagged:Film, Industry, Music, Social, storytelling. | 4 Comments »
March 14th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Intellectual property rights has always been a waffling point for me. I’ve shifted from complete and utter uncaring to die-hard zealot ( on both protecting IP and freeing up IP ) a number of times. In most creative industries the only way one can survive as a company is to have some sort of control over your intellectual property. Games, music, literature, IP is -THE- critical asset. Countries like France protect the living tar out of a creators IP with legislation that is sadly missing here in North America.
The flaming socialist in me has all sorts of solutions, but the pragmatic ( and sometimes greedy ) business person wants to horde and protect and tell the Open Source community to take a leap. We are lucky in our company, we’ve got an open source zealot and a paranoid android, and I fall in the middle. We have found a happy middle ground that works for us quite well. And isn’t that what it is all about? Finding the middle path?
This was a bit tangental, but not by much.
March 14th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Look everyone, it’s Marcus from Verse!
Marcus, I’m the last person to throw the tangential stone around here.
Our situation is this — our product and art assets are going to be open source. Because they’re of my design and I say so. Fortunately, I’m just self interested enough that I’m willing to work with Wayne and Rachel to ensure we’ll still be able to turn a profit. We’ve hit on a solution that we feel will work well. We ought to have a long conversation about that at some point, eh?
March 15th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Corvus, your usually the _first_ person to throw a tengenital stone. Throwing things tangenitally is the best way to hit unusual and unexpected topics (or targets).
Anyway… as someone who has yet to create something or value, I’ve always struggled with the ideas and implementations of open vs closed source. I like the ideals of open work, and its innate ability to build community and momentum around itself. However, there is always the fear of losing something close and personal when unscrupulous people find your material interesting enough to steal. It’s a hard line to walk when the world remains fraught with ethical pitfals.
March 15th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
*eltrohc* Guilty as charged!