Over at Another Line of Flight, Michael and I are having a great conversation about the intensification of intellectual property and the further expansion of capital into creativity.
In the most recent development, a quick and dirty taxonomy of speculation and creativity:
Speculation and financialisation of:
1. Past, “public domain” works: here there are works that sneakily resist easy domestication. They are part of an “old school” way of thinking IP. Thus, they are kind of “grandfathered” in as universally accessible, part of an antiquated notion of serving the public good. But, they can be appropriated by capital for the cultural capital that accrues through their use. Case in point, many of the musical selections used in period pieces (I’m thinking Boardwalk Empire here). Also, such pieces can be used free of charge to create new works, which are made in the context of current IP frameworks and are thus more easily integrated into the profit machine. Speculation and financialisation can occur on future creative uses of older works. In this scenario, these stubborn old works must be tweaked in order to fit the needs of property.
2. Royalties on Past Works: as you say, tried and true and currently informing things like the Bowie Bonds and the SBCEA. Here, the global juridical apparatus is ensuring the future profitability of creative works that have already proven their viability, and betting on continued viability. The vast catalogues of recorded music already form a large part of the stock value of major labels and media companies. Here, the property referred to in intellectual property retains a tangibility. A song can be said to exist, and thus it can be made into property.
3. Future Economic Success: …of yet to be known creative work. Here’s where your Idol analogy seems to fit. A populist speculation in which the audiences of the idol show provide, free of charge of course, the “ethnographic” market research needed to determine future preferences. What is a talent show but the (emotional or financial) investment in one or another performer to win? Add some healthy betting and odds to this and you’ve got speculation on future success. Here, the wager builds on the notion of a mental property that exists, but as yet has no specific form. The bet is that it will take form, and that form will have some success according to the logic of exchange in the market for actualised creativity.
4. Future Potential Creativity: this is where marketisation is fully internalised, such that the very potential extant in every human being is what speculated on. From birth, bets are waged as to whether or not an individual will actualise that creative potential at all, or whether they won’t, and this is done regardless of form or potential for success in the market for acutalised creativity. Here the wager is on the moments between thought and action, on the affect itself. Thus, an investor stands to gain if a person steps into some predefined creative role as such: makes a recording, paints a painting, dances, etc. (Or stands to gain if they invest in the default swap option, where the bet is on the non-expression of the creativity.) Here the juridical apparatus takes steps to define and track creativity in order that they be accurately catalogued and reported back to the investment houses. First, through campaigns to achieve the full hegemony of the notion of intellectual property are waged so as to ensure that creativity itself is understood as a property before it takes on a form. Second, through the creation and maintenance of a marketplace for that property, a mental stock exchange if you will, in which potential creative actors are speculated upon. This could be with or without their knowledge, of course.
@paaitken