Art, while commonly attributed to the creation of aesthetic objects, has almost always contained within itself some form of critique: as Tom Porett writes, ‘[art] is intimately linked to the zeitgeist as it gives expression to, or reflection of those deep cultural currents that shape every age’ (Porett, 32). From Marcel Duchamp’s controversial readymade art, such as the Fountain, to Andy Warhol’s use of celebrity images and the mass-produced, to the traditionalist obsession with Truth and Beauty, art has always provided a commentary of our culture. Digital art is no different, and its advent and growth marks a sharp development in the ability for people to express individual opinions and outlooks on the functions of society and the cultures in which we live. Digital art ultimately represents ‘nothing less than a renaissance of relevance and participation’ in the arts (Porett, 33).

But with such a massive pool of digital artworks circulating on the internet, from digitally-altered photography and pseudo-paintings to computer-generated fractals and game-related work, it is beyond the scope of this essay to definitively discuss the cultural impact of digital art in its entirety. Accordingly, this essay will concern itself primarily with digital art developed by fan communities, and thereby investigate issues of copyright and digital economy as well as fan art’s dubious status as art, and its ability – if any – to critique culture in this day and age. In looking to the cultural aspect of fan art, this essay will examine both fan art’s holistic implications for culture, as well as the possible meanings of a noticeable and documented homoerotic theme in fan art, particularly in those fan communities centred around anime and manga.

This essay is necessarily limited in its appreciation of digital art, as mentioned above, but is also circumscribed in several other ways. Not only does the essay focus on fan art, and thereby exclude various other forms of digital art, but it also does not look at the full scope of fans’ artistic creations, particularly music and fan fiction. Instead, this essay views art in a visual context by analysing only pictures and videos created by fans. Admittedly, this eliminates a possible discussion of, among other things, the growth of multimedia hybrid forms of art and the use of the internet as a medium by and of itself. Nevertheless, these limitations provide for fuller discussion of particular aspects of digital art, and the debates that grow around it.

Digital art, at its most basic, ‘refers to the use of digital technology, such as computers, to reproduce or exhibit art forms, whether written, visual or aural – or, as is increasingly the case, in multimedia hybrid forms’ (Bell, 59). Alternatively, Beryl Graham defines digital art as ‘art made with, and for, digital media, including the Internet, digital imaging, or computer-controlled installations’ (Graham, 93).

But such definitions are insufficient in this context: they are too broad to definitively focus the breadth of this essay. But this is perhaps unavoidable: digital art extends itself over several media and categories, using digital technology as tool and/or medium, or reflecting digital themes (Graham, 99), and to seek a comprehensive definition of digital art would be to limit it in its myriad possibilities. Instead, it may be more appropriate to identify the particular microcosm of digital art to be discussed, and seek a practical definition for the aspect of digital art to be analysed.

Fan art can be said to be artistic creations derived from a fan’s experience with a selective media. Fans may ‘[write] new stories, [compose] songs, [make] videos, [and paint] pictures’ to construct fan art (Jenkins, 210). Due to the focus on particular media, fan art creates a ‘particular Art World’, an established network of cooperative links ‘between institutions of artistic production, distribution, consumption, interpretation and evaluation’, thereby producing artworks and assigning them aesthetic value essentially within a world of its own (Jenkins, 210).

If fan art is a ‘drawing on materials from the dominant media and employing them in ways that serve their own interests and facilitate their own pleasures’ then ‘the nature of [such] production is shaped through social norms, aesthetic conventions, interpretive protocols, technological resources and technical competence’ (Jenkins, 224). But what does this mean for fan art’s ability to comment on culture and society? Or does this entail a limited ability to comment solely on its own subculture, or only on the cultures drawn upon in its creation?

The very idea of fan art as creations based around other media denotes a blurring of the lines between producer and audience, and reflects the development of a society critical of, one might even say obsessed with, the media it consumes. Fan art is, essentially, Oedipus to the original media’s Jocasta: tied continuously and inextricably from that which creates it. In this manner, it can be said that fan art may serve as a cultural critique by exposing a cultural obsession with the media, and propagating that obsession of its own virtue.

The growth of fan communities, and of fan art within them, highlights how fans create in order to appreciate: and thus by producing derivative works of the media they underline a fixation with it. For example, NarutoFan, a fan website about the manga/anime Naruto, maintains roughly 1,158 works of art sufficiently altered to be considered digital (possibly more, in other sections such as wallpapers, etc), and DeviantArt, a free internet art community, contains 309,887 works on Naruto, all of which is done by fans, and develops in tandem with the original Naruto storyline. This clearly suggests that fan art, as a genre, propagates the media that creates it, and thereby reflects a relationship that denotes a fixation with the media. But, as Henry Jenkins points out:

‘[fan] texts … do not … provide a very good basis for constructing a theory of
dominant reading practices, since [fan] production reflects the particular
demands and expectations of a subcultural community which are different in kind
as well as degree from the types of semiotic production occurring within the
larger culture.’

Essentially, it may not be entirely correct to extend the commentary inferred from fan art as to society as a whole, because the fan subculture is distinct from the mainstream that spawned it. That being the case, the critique of fan art may be limited to the fan community, or possibly to fan communities in general, because the ‘mainstream’ consumers do not engage in such activity, it would perhaps be inaccurate to implicate them as media-fixated.

One particular trend in fan art, notably in Japanese-based media such as anime and manga, is a reflection, sometimes undeniably explicit, of homoeroticism between male characters. As Sharon Kinsella writes, ‘[the] majority of activists in amateur manga subculture are working-class girls, and what turns them on more than anything else is violent homosexual romance between male hermaphrodites’ (Kinsella, 289). Although she is referring to the underground amateur manga subculture, the attraction among Japanese girls (and homosexual boys) to homoerotic depictions and bishounen in Japanese popular culture extends to the fan art community, and is particularly visible in the works of artists such as orin on DeviantArt which depict homoeroticism among well known anime and animated characters, from shows such as Naruto, Bleach and Sonic the Hedgehog.

Within this subset of fan art then, there exists a cultural commentary that promotes the idea of homosexuality and represents it dually: in the idealised light of shonen-ai (literally meaning ‘boy-love’), a style of manga that romanticises and desexualises young men, and yaoi, a generally more sexually explicit variety. While this commentary exists independently of fan art, its presence amongst the audience, or the masses, who create such overtones where there are none in the original media by remaking artworks produced for one purpose to serve alternative interests, and thereby ‘serve their own interests and facilitate their own pleasures’ (Jenkins, 224), means that a cultural critique is in fact underway, and that it is contemplative of a cultural desire for such media.

Again, the idea of a general cultural critique by fan art needs be circumscribed by the fact that such a critique may not apply to society at large. The homoerotic bent of fan art could belong to the subculture itself, thereby limiting any commentary to that subculture, rather than the hegemonic culture from which it springs.

Fan art raises several distinguishable and fundamental questions about copyrights and the legal status of fan art. Particularly, is the use of characters from the original media, particularly trademarked ones, a breach of copyright law? And is the selling of such art legal? The key issue revolves around the capacity of the internet to make globally accessible much fan content that would otherwise be limited in its public exposure: ‘individuals may distribute those digital works around the world at the speed of light’ (Ku, 264). For some academics, copyrights should permeate ‘into every corner where consumers derive value from literary and artistic works’, ultimately leading to a ‘celestial jukebox’ where individuals can access materials on a pay-per-use basis (Goldstein, 236), while others believe that ‘exceptions to copyright should be recognised under the fair use doctrine for certain uses of digital information’ particularly in light of specific public interests, such as scholarship and other productive uses of information (Ku, 265).

But the law as it stands today is unclear. In the US, fan art generally falls into the category of ‘derivative work’, unless it is a direct reproduction, rather than a unique piece that simply incorporates aspects from a previous work. The broad, hazily defined ‘fair use’ statutory exemption allows for the production, display and distribution of such work. In Australia, the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) has not been clarified by the courts with regard to the appropriate sections. An exception to artworks in a public place may mean fan art is legal, if we consider the virtual public space to be a ‘public place’. However, Patricia Search suggests that ‘[throughout] history, artists have incorporated imagery created by others into their work’ (Search, 193), although not without comment and threat of legal action. Moreover, the cases mentioned by Search indicate the second artwork was substantially and thematically different from the first, whereas fan art is by its nature irrevocably tied to its inspiration. And since today’s society is ‘media-saturated’ to the extent that ‘actual objects, people and activities often symbolise commercial interests’, it would be unsurprising to find digital artists who appropriate work ‘caught in an unforgiving web of intellectual property battles’ (Search, 194).

The law is similarly inconclusive on the sale of fan art for profit. Under US law, even derivative works are not to be sold for profit, and nothing is said on the matter in Australian law. If it is presumed illegal for fans to sell art derived from another media, then there are possibly serious consequences for the selling of fan art, especially as done by websites like DeviantArt, which allows for the purchase of prints if the author so allows. In the case of DeviantArt, where at least 2,059 artwork prints on Naruto can be ordered, the possible legal difficulties are significant. If, however, the selling of fan art is legal, there remain moral questions regarding the use of ‘poached fragments’ (Jenkins, 232) of other media in the manner that fan art generally does.

Ultimately, Search summarises it best when she writes: ‘[copyright] law needs to change in order to clarify existing legal ambiguities concerning the creation and dissemination of electronic information’ (Search, 194). Copyright law needs to adapt to the transmutability of informations and texts in the digital age, and look closely at works that borrow strongly from other works, as fan art does.

Digital art is perhaps the greatest development in art and aesthetics in recent times. This essay highlights how a specific microcosm of the sprawling growth of work that consitututes digital art can act as both cultural commentary and reflect one of the myriad copyright issues facing art in the digital age.

Fan art as a subset of digital art can demonstrate, by virtue of its ability to appropriate elements of a culture and remake them to serve the interests of the fans in question, the cultural milieu of society at large or the fan subculture in general, depending on the distinctions drawn between fans as part of or separate from the mainstream. Moreover, fan art can underline the ambiguities of copyright law in the digital era, particularly in regard to intellectual property rights and the selling of art that draws so heavily upon other work.

Thus, what this essay ultimately seeks to demonstrate is how art has a role ‘generating a critical space within contemporary culture’ (McQuire, 210), and how digital art, despite being an increasingly broad and indefinite form of art, can fulfil this role in even what seems on the surface to be the most banal of art. Therefore, by narrowing the scope of the essay to just fan art, this essay can initiate a more in-depth dialogue about the specific cultural commentary a genre can offer, rather than provide a haphazard glance across the various types and styles of digital art, and the socio-political and/or cultural discourse they offer.

Books

Blais, J. and Ippolito, J. (2006), At the Edge of Art. London: Thames and Hudson.

Cameron, F. and Kenderline, S. (2007), Theorizing Digital Cultural Heritage: A Critical Discourse. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Flew, T. (2005), New Media: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Graham, B. (2007), ‘Redefining Digital Art: Disrupting Borders’, F. Cameron and S Kenderdine, Theorizing Digital Cultural Heritage. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Goldstein, P. (1994) Copyright’s Highway: The law and Lore of Copyright from Gutenberg to the Celestial Jukebox. New York: Hill and Wang.

Hart, A. (1991), Understanding the Media: A Practical Guide. New York: Routledge.

Hartley, J. (1996), Popular Reality: Journalism, Modernity, Popular Culture. New York: Arnold; St. Martin’s Press)

Litman, J (2001), Digital Copyright: Protecting Intellectual Property on the Internet. Amherst: Prometheus Books.

Journals

Binkley, T. (1997), ‘The Vitality of Digital Creation', The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 55(2): 107.
<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8529%28199721%2955%3A2%3C107%3ATVODC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-V >

Bell


Corcoran, M. ‘Digital Transformations of Time: The Aesthetics of the Internet’, Leonardo, 29(5): 375.
<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0024-094X%281996%2929%3A5%3C375%3ADTOTTA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-V>

Dahlberg, L. (2001), ‘Democracy via cyberspace’, New Media and Society 3(2): 157.

Jenkins, H. (1992), ‘‘Strangers No More, We Sing’: Filking and the Social Construction of the Science Fiction Fan Community’ in Lisa Lewis (ed), The Adoring Audience: Fan culture and popular media. New York: Routledge.

Kinsella, S. (1998), ‘Japanese Subculture in the 1990s: Otaku and the Amateur Manga Movement’, Journal of Japanese Studies 24(2): 289.
<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0095-6848%28199822%2924%3A2%3C289%3AJSIT1O%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6>

Ku, R. (2002), ‘The Creative Destruction of Copyright: Napster and the New Economies of Digital Technology’, The University of Chicago Law Review 69(1)
<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0041-9494%28200224%2969%3A1%3C263%3ATCDOCN%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Q>

Marchese S. and Marchese F. (1995), ‘Digital Media and Ephermeralness: Art, Artist, and Viewer’, Leonardo 28(5):443.
<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0024-094X%281995%2928%3A5%3C433%3ADMAEAA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23>

McLean, A. (1998), ‘Media Effects: Marshall McLuhan, Television Culture, and “The X-Files”’, Film Quarterly 51(4): 2.
<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0015-1386%28199822%2951%3A4%3C2%3AMEMMTC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2>

McQuire, S. (2001), ‘When is Art IT?’ in H. Brown, G. Lovink, H. Merrick, N. Rossiter, D. The, and M. Wilson (eds), Fibreculture Reader: Politics of a Digital Present, Melbourne: Fibreculture Publications.

Porett, T. (1994, ‘Cyberart Considerations’, Art Journal 53(3): 32
<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0004-3249%28199423%2953%3A3%3C32%3ACC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Y>

Search, P. (1999), ‘Electronic Art and the Law: Intellectual Property Rights in Cyberspace’, Leonardo, 32(3): 191.
<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0024-094X%281999%2932%3A3%3C191%3AEAATLI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8>

Southard, B. (1982), ‘The Language of Science-Fiction Fan Magazines’, American Speech 57(1): 19.
<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-1283%28198221%2957%3A1%3C19%3ATLOSFM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3>

‘Visual Artists’ Rights in a Digital Age’, (1994) 107 Harvard Law Review 8: 1977.
<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0017-811X%28199406%29107%3A8%3C1977%3AVARIAD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3>

Online Sources

DeviantArt (2007), consulted 29 May.
<http://www.deviantart.com>

NarutoFan (2007), consulted 29 May.
<http://www.narutofan.com>

Yaoi-Con (2007), Frequently Asked Questions, consulted 29 May.
<http://www.yaoicon.com>

Aestheticism (2006), consulted 29 May
<http://www.aestheticism.com/visitors/index.htm>

Legislation

Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)