Art and Theft in Bob Dylan's 1960S Trilogy. Imaginations: Journal of Cross Cultural Image Studies, 3 (1)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Rodgers, Michael (2012) Relationships of ownership : art and theft in Bob Dylan's 1960s trilogy. Imaginations: Journal of Cross Cultural Image Studies, 3 (1). pp. 17-29. ISSN 1918-8439 , This version is available at http://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/47943/ Strathprints is designed to allow users to access the research output of the University of Strathclyde. Unless otherwise explicitly stated on the manuscript, Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Please check the manuscript for details of any other licences that may have been applied. You may not engage in further distribution of the material for any profitmaking activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute both the url (http://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/) and the content of this paper for research or private study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge. Any correspondence concerning this service should be sent to the Strathprints administrator: [email protected] The Strathprints institutional repository (http://strathprints.strath.ac.uk) is a digital archive of University of Strathclyde research outputs. It has been developed to disseminate open access research outputs, expose data about those outputs, and enable the management and persistent access to Strathclyde's intellectual output. MICHAEL RODGERS RElATIONShIpS Of OwNERShIp: ART ANd ThEfT IN BOB dylAN’S 1960S’ TRIlOGy MIChAEl ROdGERS, UNIVERSITy Of STRAThClydE Abstract Résumé Bob Dylan’s corpus is one continually engaged with L’œuvre de Bob Dylan continue à être sujette à appropriation and pilfering. This paper will look, l’appropriation et au pillage. Cet article évalue, predominantly, at three songs from his 1960s’ trilogy principalement, trois chansons qui font partie de la – ‘She Belongs To Me’ from Bringing It All Back Home trilogie d’albums parue pendant les années 60 – She (1965), ‘Visions of Johanna’ from Blonde on Blonde Belongs To Me de l’album Bringing It All Back Home (1966), and ‘Desolation Row’ from Highway 61 (1965), Visions of Johanna de Blonde on Blonde (1966), Revisited (1965) – arguing that, in these songs, Dylan et Desolation Row de Highway 61 Revisited (1965). problematizes the interrelationship between art, theft, Je cherche soutenir qu’à travers ces chansons Dylan and ownership. I argue that, similar to the urban artist propose des nouveaux problèmes quant à l’interrelation Banksy, Dylan challenges, toys with, and appropriates entre l’art, le vol et la propriété. Mon argument est que, cultural images in order to continually question the à l’instar de l’artiste urbain Banksy, Dylan joue avec concept of proprietorship whilst rescuing cultural les images culturelles et se les appropries en même images from esoterica and attempting to put them back temps qu’il les met à l’épreuve ain de mettre en doute into the public domain. le concept de propriété. À travers ses œuvres, Dylan récupère ces images à partir de leur marginalité, pour les replacer dans un espace publique. 17 • ISSUE 3-1, 2012 • IMAGINATIONS RELATIONSHIPS OF OWNERSHIP: ART AND THEFT IN BOB DYLAN’S 1960S’ TRILOGY In the sleeve note to Bringing It All Back Home (1965), Bob Dylan, in his Ginsbergian free-form poem, claims that “the Great books’ve been written. the Great sayings have all been said” (6). Dylan, however, seems too self-assured an artist to accept this idea, too fertile an artist to accept the inality of artistic output. Instead, Dylan appears to rebel against the notion of closure through interweaving the themes of art and theft—letting (what seem to be) apparent antonyms complement one another as a way of creating new work. This paper will argue that Dylan’s corpus challenges, toys with, and appropriates cultural images, in order to continually question the concept of ownership. Rather than be content with letting images set, Dylan seems to avoid allowing artistic icons, images, and rebuses to stagnate or become ixed and, instead, subjects them to radical metamorphoses and proffers phantasmagorical alternatives or adaptations. What is problematic, however, is whether the radically altered forms he presents belong to Dylan himself, act simply as tools for his poetic expression, or are an ensemble of others’ work. This paper will look, predominantly, at three songs from his 1960s’ trilogy (“She Belongs To Me” from Bringing It All Back Home, “Visions of Johanna” from Blonde on Blonde (1966), and “Desolation Row” from Highway 61 Revisited (1965)) arguing that, in these songs, Dylan is theorizing the topics of art, theft, and ownership.In doing so, I argue that Dylan appropriates and rescues cultural images from esoterica and attempts to put them back into the public domain. Dylan’s imagistic lyrics are integral to the ways in For Dylan, however, this accessibility does not equate which notions of theft and ownership are theorized. to easiness. Although he asks his listeners to work hard for particular references, importantly, he rewards them The degree to which Dylan’s songs ‘steal’, or borrow, if they are prepared to do so. In allowing his listeners can be seen, for example, in the similarities between to contribute to the songs through their own cultural “I Dreamed I Saw St Augustine” (1975) and Alfred knowledge, in defamiliarizing and lampooning normal Hayes’s poem “I Dreamed I Saw Joe Hill Last Night” perspectives and preconceptions, and in modifying (1930), and “A Hard Rain’s A-Gonna Fall” (1962) and images, Dylan persistently alludes throughout his works the ballad of “Lord Randall” (Trager 234). Jon Pareles to what he calls “relationships of ownership” in “Gates of details one particularly alert Dylan fan who noticed Eden” (1965). As Jonathan Lethem argues, “It becomes numerous references between Love and Theft and apparent that appropriation, mimicry, quotation, Junichi Saga’s Confessions of a Yakuza (1991) (1). The allusion, and sublimated collaboration consist of a title itself comes from Eric Lott’s study of minstrelsy kind of sine qua non of the creative act, cutting across (Lethem 59). However, this topic is not always talked forms and genres in the realm of cultural production” about disparagingly. Often, theft is one equated with (60). Ultimately, I wish to illustrate the extent to which humour, justiication, delight even. What is interesting is IMAGINATIONS • ISSUE 3-1, 2012 • 18 MICHAEL RODGERS that the topics of art and theft appear to be completely will be the result if you act without a moral schema”). dichotomous—art is something that one makes, creates, Such didactic iction, however, sits alongside other and gives, whereas theft entails taking, stealing, and (predominantly twentieth-century) novels that present appropriating. In this respect, Jonathan Lethem argues that: ambiguous denouements and “let-offs” for culprits— which is a lot harder for readers to deal with (arguably, The cardinal difference between gift and commodity because the moral laws that we are governed by do not exchange is that a gift establishes a feeling-bond take effect). Aristotle, espousing the opposing view that between two people, whereas the sale of a commodity literature has a beneicial role to play in our lives, argues leaves no necessary connection…Art that matters that literature allows the temptation in our lives to be to us – which moves the heart, or revives the soul, alleviated so that we can live out or experience such or delights the senses, or offers courage for living, moral deviance. It can be argued that the realm of art— however we choose to describe the experience – is like that of comedy, say—is exempt from moral law. After received as a gift is received. (65) all, although we have censorship and bowdlerisation for books that contain questionable material (Lady Art theft is a well-known and not uncommon crime, yet Chatterley’s Lover [1928] or Lolita [1955] come to the possibility of art appropriating, or stealing, other art mind), we do not have (at least in the West) something is even more contentious. When art starts to thieve (for resembling the world depicted in Nineteen Eighty-Four example, when it harnesses something already existing (1948), where characters, or authors for that matter, are through pastiche or bricolage such as in ‘Pop Art’), it suppressed in what they are allowed to write about; in is often viewed negatively (as if its worth is somehow other words, we have no moral criteria for what a text impure or mongrelized). The law of intellectual property should contain. Such freedom of speech allows writers may protect a work of art through copyright or patents, and musicians to write about, enact even, scenarios yet the cerebral concept itself cannot be subjected to that would otherwise be forbidden in the real world. proprietorship. As Pareles argues, “Courts are not the best place for aesthetic distinctions” (2). Indeed, for A Dylan song that amalgamates the themes of art, theft, reader-response criticism, once something is published ownership, and morality is “She Belongs to Me” from it can be said to belong to the public domain at large. In Bringing It All Back Home. The image on the front of the light of this, what seems crucial is the interrelationship album cover, containing a distinctive lens-type framed between art, theft, and ownership. Are there limits to shot of Dylan and a mysterious female, surrounded what can be stolen? Should we steal if it has beneicial by a menagerie of magazines, albums, and paintings, or aesthetic merit? Are artists exempt from moral law? serves to immediately articulate the album’s concern with recursion or mise en abyme (the idea of “pictures Art, Stealing, and Morality within pictures”) — something that foregrounds the The relationship between art and morality has been an song’s relationship with theft.