About a year ago, I read American Gothic by Steven Biel and the book
has left a surprising lasting impression on me. The book describes the
background, history, and life of "American Gothic: America's most
famous painting" by Grant Wood. Even if you don't recognize the name
"American Gothic", you are likely to recognize the picture or the scene.
The book is a serious and -- as far as I can tell -- reasonably
comprehensive treatment of the subject that is interesting, insightful
at points, and a breeze to read.
Of course, the book is not actually about the painting that hangs in the
Art Institute of Chicago -- although it will certainly teach you more
than you probably ever wanted to know about that painting, its subjects,
its settings, etc. The book is really the story of how that paining has
been received, understood, and used. Nearly half of the book focuses on
examples of people who have remixed, reworked, reimagined, and
reproduced the painting in myriad forms, formats, settings, and ways.
The book contains scores of photographs of celebrities posing in
American Gothic style settings, dozens of political cartoons based on
the paintings, images of talk shows, magazine covers, Broadway plays,
product advertisements, toys, gifts, kitch, and more, done up in
recognizeable representations of the basic American Gothic form. There
is a very incomplete of references to American Gothic in popular
culture at Wikipedia that can give a tiny taste of what is out there.
The last chapter of the book is devoted to these "parodies" and there's
some brief talk of issues around copyright and control of the image.
Wood's sister Nan was the owner of the copyright for much of the second
half of the twentieth century and is also the woman in the painting. She
famously charged several makers of more lurid take-offs with defamation
and successfully blocked a number of remixes. In 1988, Nan transferred
ownership to the Visual Artists and Galleries Association (VAGA) which
will hold the copyright until 2025. VAGA also claims "rights of
publicity" in Nan's image which will last until 2060. VAGA takes a very
expansive view of its copyright claims and argues that it has both veto
power and royalty rights to any recognizably similar work. For example,
VAGA does not want the American Gothic image used in alcohol
advertisements and has successfully had such ads pulled. Biel's book
contains no reference to the amount of money made from licensing the
work but one can only conclude that it must be massive. VAGA blocked a
plan by Iowa to use the picture on the back of the Iowa state
quarter due to licensing disagreements; instead Iowa used a different
Wood painting that was clearly in the public domain.
What struck me most about Biel's book is related to just how deeply
ingrained in American culture the American Gothic image has become. The
book cites simple surveys that show that almost every American
recognizes the painting (although only a small fraction know the
painting's name or who painted it). The thousands of parodies that the
book documents are testament to the fact that the painting has become a
way of representing something essential about American culture and its
values. But in a strange way, the painting's popularity and incessant
reuse has also made it part of the culture that it so effectively
captured.
We can think of culture as a set of shared values and references that
help us related to each other and to communicate. Just like idioms in
language, culture helps us communicate more effectively, certainly, but
also lets us communicate messages that would not be communicable
otherwise. When Out Magazine, Coors, or any of several dozen others
replace the figures in American Gothic with a gay or lesbian couple,
they are succinctly sending a message about homosexual relationships and
American traditional values that could not be made any other way. In
this way, American Gothic -- both the painting and Biel's book --
represent a strong argument for free culture.
If American Society has infused American Gothic with so much value, how
can it be fair to let one person or organization own it? Are they not
owning an essential mode through which a society can relate, experience,
and communicate? I can't help but conclude that it shouldn't matter if
VAGA does not like alcohol, advertisements, homosexuality, or wants to
make a some money every time someone makes a cartoon parody. These are
trivial concerns next to the importance of our society's need to
communicate about these issues. If doing so requires the use of a shared
cultural reference in VAGA's painting, I find it hard to justify VAGA's
position of control.
We need to be able to reproduce and reimagine American Gothic because it
has become part of us. It's a striking example of the way that art
becomes culture and the reason that truly free culture is the only
appropriate response. We can't afford to let our experience of the world
and each other -- to let ourselves at a very fundamental level -- be
owned and controlled.
