A Conceptual Artist on an Initial Art Theory and Legal Theory of Your Conceptual Ownership of Art
Adam Daley Wilson
Adam Daley Wilson is a contemporary conceptual artist represented by Engage Projects Gallery in Chicago. His first two solo shows (2021, 2023) were listed by Artforum Magazine as ‘Must See.” Additionally, the second solo show, This Is Text Based Art, was also a curator-selected exhibit by Mousse Magazine.
Daley Wilson first explored the ideas in this short essay as documented in November 2018 in New York City, when he offered a site-specific installation accompanied by performance art to enable over one-hundred viewers to become conceptual co-owners with him of the installation and performance with him at The Other Art Fair where he had been invited to present this experimental artwork.
April 17, 2023
Overview—Meaning-Making In Art as An Act Of Creation That Can Be Intellectual Property
When you interpret a piece of art, you created that interpretation—you as the viewer, as distinct from the artist, whose act and intend ended upon the finally step of showing, or offering, the art for possible interpretation—by any viewer—or any listener—whomever might view it, or hear it—anywhere in the world—for as long as the work still exists to be viewed or heard—or for as long as even one interpretation still lasts and is still known by a human—because still new interpretations of art can be made from other interpretations themselves.
Artworks that can be interpreted by those who experience them—be they received by eye or ear or touch, and be they interpreted by the brain (a thought) or the heart (a feeling, an emotion) or both—are like great ancestors at the start of a lineage of dozens or perhaps hundreds or even thousands of successive interpretations—evolving, moving, migrating, expanding, contracting—artworks that can be interpreted by those who experience them are DNA—and the offspring of that DNA can manifest for centuries in almost countless combinations.
And your interpretation is one of them. You created it. And in both the creative sense of the word and in the legal sense of the word, you own your interpretation; it’s your property. Which, as I suggest at the end, is something that will be helpful to all humanity. Here is what I mean.
The Possible Steps of Artist-Viewer / Listener Meaning-Making
The process, or steps, appear to be simple; they don’t need to be complex.
(1) The artist shares an artistic creation—any type, any medium. This can be thought of as “an offer.” Not in any kind of contract sense, think of it like in the sense of sharing, or giving—offering in the sense of this: The artist can’t make anyone do anything; the artist can only ask you to consider—if you want.
(2) The act of sharing, this offer, means that now another person (or really any animal that can perceive and interpret) has choices—specifically, if they want, they can “consider” the artist’s “offer,” or, if they want, they don’t have to. It is entirely up to the head and the heart of the viewer—or listener. Think for a moment the power that the receiver has—can the art even be art unless a viewer or listener elects to receive it and then further elects to interpret it in their most personal parts of their body and soul, their mind and their heart?
(3) This moment of sharing-receiving—it is a mutual act—a symbiotic act—some sort of connection even thought likely the artist and receiver will never meet. It doesn’t matter whether or not it is direct—it can be live, in person, at a museum, or a gallery—or it can be on a screen, or in a book, in a movie—or even just something you overhear someone talking about. Any of these give you—here, for this essay, you’re the viewer—the chance to consider and choose if you want to receive—or “accept” the artist’s offer—even if relayed by a third-party—to feel something or think something, or both, about the art. If you do, there is now this mutual momentary arguably magical act—the artist provided their part; you have decided to now add your part—and now there is a chance that an interpretation will be made. And an interpretation is nothing but this: There is now a chance that meaning-making will take place. There is now a chance that some thought, some feeling, some emotion, something—will be made.
(4) So, say the viewer decides to accept the artist’s invitation—and that mutual intangible act by both artist and receiver is made—and you start to take in the art, you start to absorb it into you, in any way, to any amount—when that happens, that act becomes some type of interpretation, some type of meaning-feeling making.
(5) Here again, it doesn’t need to be complex or profound. It could be simply, “I like it”—or “I don’t like it”—or “Whatever, so what, who cares?”—or even “I don’t get it.” Or, it could be a feeling or thought about the art that has already been commonly accepted—maybe your interpretation isn’t new; maybe there is no additional different thought or feeling from anyone else before—maybe the interpretations you have, your feelings, your thoughts, have already been done a thousand times before, always exactly the same way.
(5) But what if there is something new in your interpretation? Your feelings; your thoughts; your identity; your experiences; your unique mix of everything that is you—can anybody really have the same interpretations, same thoughts, same feelings about a painting or a piece of music or a poem as you? The first assertion of this essay is that any receiver of any art—unless they are able to instantly and completely succeed in blocking it—interprets it, in some way, for at least a fraction of a section. The second assertion of this essay is that any receiver of any part who takes that additional step—who chooses, by their head or their heart or both, to receive the art and let themselves feel from it, think from it, feel and think about it—they have made an interpretation that is unique and singular in all senses of the word—they have made a meaning-feeling about the art that has completed the art—for you—in a one-of-a-kind way.
The Process Appears To Apply To All Human Artist-Viewer / Listener Meaning-Making—And Feeling-Making—Worldwide
The above seem to be the process, or steps, to becoming the conceptual co-owner of a piece of art—a painting, a piece of music, a video—anything—no matter where you are in the world, or you identity, or your beliefs, or your experiences. Arguably, this process—these artist-receiver acts—are universal. (That idea will be explored in later papers, particularly in relation to art forms that combine language with visual images or sound, such as music. In visual art, it’s called text-based art; in music, the shorthand may be non-instrumental music or music with vocals).
What Happens When Artists and Viewers / Listeners Engage In This Process—And The Meaning-Making That Can Result
In theory, your act as a receiver—a viewer, a listener—is not just a symbiotic act of completion, in that you have completed the missing part of the art, as described above—you have also engaged in your own act of creation—you have acted to have an idea, a discernable, distinct, identifiable thought—about something you have seen or heard, or heard about—but your idea stands independent of the underlying art itself—that’s one part of the theory, but it may not be the best part of the theory.
Isn’t the best part of the theory something like this: If you subscribe to the theory that art can never have meaning until the receiver provides the completing element—the receiver’s interpretation in the head, the receiver’s interpretation in the heart—then it may follow that, upon making a unique interpretation unique to you—that is now fused in some way with the underlying art—you and the artist now both own something new that did not exist until both of you did your respective parts. And if that follows, then it may also follow that, as among all viewers or listeners who have already done this with an artist’s work—and as among all who will in the future—everyone who has (a) their own interpretation of the art is (b) not just a conceptual co-owner with the artist but also (c) a conceptual co-owner with every other human, past, present, and future (and really any animal that can perceive and interpret) who has engaged in their own meaning-feeling-making with the art. And perhaps the more ambiguous the work by an artist, the more unclear and yet the more able to reach us by ears or eyes as to both our heads and hearts, thereby allowing for more interpretations, it seems to follow that then the more co-owners there will be.
Are We All Co-Owners of The Mona Lisa Along With Leonardo Da Vinci—And Everyone Else Who Has Made A Feeling or A Thought About It?
The theories in this brief initial essay suggest that we are all co-owners with Leonardo Da Vinci of the Mona Lisa, one of the most seen, ambiguous, and interpreted artworks in the world, interpreted in the sense of both the head as well as the heart and wonderful conflations of both. Sure, some person or some corporation “owns” the painting in the legal sense, as property that can be bought or sold, and that great art museum, the Louvre, has “possession” of the painting in the legal sense—but no one owns—or can stop—the painting from reaching you, to make that offer—and no one can stop you—or anyone—from accepting the offer of that painting to complete it by your interpretations of it in your head and your heart.
The Intersection with Global Intellectual Property Regimes and Norms
In global notions and constructions of “intellectual property law,” what a viewer or listener does, upon completing the meaning and feelings of a painting, or a piece of music—or a music video—or almost anything—does not grant the viewer or listener any rights of possession as to the underlying work, nor does it grant that person (or animal) any right as to physical ownership or ownership in the “I can buy it / I can sell it” sense. This initial art theory and legal theory of your being a conceptual co-owner of the Mona Lisa with both Leonardo Da Vinci and the hundreds of millions who have seen it in the centuries so far, and hopefully will for centuries more—this is not about possession or ownership or money in any sense. It’s about an idea—that’s conceptual art, in its essence, in three words just like that.
The idea is that as to any artistic creation offered by any artist, if you’ve seen it, heard it, or even just heard of it—if in any way you’ve received it, with your own eyes or ears, or book or screen, or braille or sign language or any language—if you’ve have had any kind of feeling or thought about anything to do with the painting, you have worked with the artist just as surely if you were in the studio with Leonardo Da Vinci in Italy all those centuries ago—you two are working together. And now, centuries later, you have given a unique, identifiable, separate meaning-making and feeling-making to his work—to complete it—for you. It does not matter what it is. For you, that work could not be completed until you chose to act and let the meaning-making occur in your head and your heart. Resulting in an idea—maybe many ideas, or many feelings—that are now unto themselves, not just theoretically, and not just “conceptually”—as I briefly suggest in the final paragraphs of this brief initial essay.
Future Interpretations of Our Art by Artificial Intelligence and the Ownership of Our Prior Human Interpretations
Say it turns out that someone someday has a new interpretation—a new set of thoughts and feelings—maybe, say a new interpretation not just of thoughts and feelings, but integrated into the context of all of Leonardo Da Vinci’s history. Or all of Italy’s history. Or all of human history. What if someone someday, in the act of interpretation that this essay describes here—what if someone someday were to come up with a new interpretation of the Mona Lisa so insightful, so relevant, so important—that you would want to know what it is. That we all would want to know what it is.
Say that might happen as to any of humanity’s most profound works of art, visual, musical, spoken—on all of our continents, in all of our cultures.
Say that then there were interpretations of art—or predictions about art—all art, in the context of all human history—everything to be known about humans past, present, and predicted future—that were so insightful, so relevant, so important—that humans—and corporations—would want to know what they are.
Such things would be valuable as humans use that term in their economic systems. Valuable as in, worth money to acquire, and as in, able to make money from upon sale. Or licensing. That’s the heart of intellectual property law—a mere idea is worth so much that others will pay for it. And you don’t see the idea as one thing. You can sell the idea a billion times, because it’s value does not diminish. You license it.
Isn’t this what artificial intelligence is going to do? Come up with new interpretations about the most profound human things—art—with the incalculable context of all of human history—providing a type of interpretation that might be of value to at least some?
The Conceptual Co-Ownership Of Human Art Anything But Theory—It May Be A Way To Protect Human Art—And Our Own Human Interpretations Of Our Own Art
This is the final assertion of this initial essay: Your conceptual co-ownership of any work of art, in any medium—including the most profound paintings, pieces of music, oral traditions—anything across the continents and our cultures that humanity has made—and hopefully will make—is, I would argue, at least a theoretical way that humans will be able to maintain at least some public rights—some rights to ensure all humans have access—to even the most incredible new interpretations of our human works of art across cultures and continents that exist so far—and that hopefully will still be made. It is beyond the scope of this initial paper to say more than this: If an art theory, and particularly a legal theory, of co-ownership of the ideas of art is valid, it appears to offer not just the innate joy of knowing that you, me, all of us are owners of the ideas arising from humanity’s collective artworks, no matter the artist, no matter the medium, no matter from where in the world—it also offers the argument—arguably valid under existing global regimes and norms in intellectual property law—that since it our human interpretations that artificial intelligence learns from, we all of us are the property owners of the ideas that artificial intelligence and its corporations may generate and may tell us are so new and unique and profound that they have no choice but to withhold them from humanity, about our own art, our own prior interpretations, unless we pay a license or a fee. But we are co-owners. Co-owners don’t need to pay anybody. It’s already ours. It’s our intellectual property. It can’t be stolen, or misappropriated, or otherwise seized.
* * *
This April 2023 essay incorporates ideas that the artist, a Stanford Lawyer who practiced intellectual property law in San Francisco / Silicon Valley for several years in the early 2000s, has been working on since the summer / fall of 2018 (as documented both in the cloud and by the creation by over one-hundred co-owners / viewers / listeners of meanings and feelings as to a tangible site-specific visual installation and intangible piece of performance art in New York City in November 2018 as a guest artist at The Other Art Fair.