Fine Print

American Law and Celebrity Culture or,

Celebrity Law and American Culture
During a recent argument about copyright law and its alleged
negative impact on appropriation art in the United States, a
friend asked me if I thought Chinese artists would feel similarly
constrained by American copyright law. I thought this was a
particularly dumb question to ask given that, in general, I dont
think China gives two hoots about American intellectualproperty law or, for that matter, US laws in general. I would not
fault you, the reader, for questioning the intelligence of my
friends or for advising me to seek out smarter ones. However,
in my defense, I would remind you that, as any good teacher
will tell you, there is no such thing as a dumb question.
Adumb person perhaps, but not a dumb question.
I realized that what my friend was really asking was whether
the US cared about its own application and enforcement of
its laws, and how its approach to enforcement was viewed by
the rest of the world. Edward Snowdens recent revelations
regarding the US National Security Agency eavesdropping on
American citizensand on half of this planetmakes this an
obvious and pertinent question. What is not so immediately
apparent is how a recent US copyright decision, Cariou v.
Prince, also reveals quite a bit about contemporary American
values and, sadly, the pretensions of the American legal system.
If youre like me, the last place you would look for an
answer to these questions would be the sardonic yet poignant
writings of Chuck Klosterman. What could Pamela Andersons
bosom, Joe DiMaggios athletic ability and the 2002 NBA
playoffs possibly tell us about the American judicial mind-set?
But, before we get to that, I want to give a brief overview
of the copyright case I am referencing, Cariou v. Prince. The
lower-court case was initially and overwhelmingly decided
in favor of the artist Patrick Cariou, establishing that in
order for appropriated material to constitute fair use, it must
critically reference the appropriated content. That decision
was appealed by Richard Prince. This past April, the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals pretty much vacated the lower courts
ruling and single-handedly decided that 25 out of 30 paintings
Prince created from images made by and copyrighted to
Cariou were, as a matter of law, fair use.
Why did the appellate courts decision differ so wildly
from the lower courts decision? There are quite a few reasons
(most having little to do with complex legal analysis), but the
one I want to focus on is the appellate courts obsession with
celebrity culture. During oral arguments, and in their written
opinions, the three appellate judges seemed fascinated by
Princes wealthy and famous collector base, citing how his
dinner parties included luminaries such as Jay-Z, Beyonc
Knowles, Jeff Koons, Anna Wintour, Brad Pitt and Angelina
Jolie. Judge Barrington D. Parker exhibited his analytical
prowess during oral arguments: Carious audience attends
Yankees baseball games, while Princes attends the Met
(alluding to New Yorks cultural apex, the Metropolitan Museum
of Art). Princes audience resides in Manhattan, Judge Parker
added, while Carious resides across the river, in Brooklyn.
Every now and then I crave reading material that doesnt
contain mind-numbing and archaic terminology such as
Foucauldian, capitalist and phallocentric. I seek these

texts because, sometimes, just sometimes, there are simpler

ways of making observations. In Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs,
published in 2003, Klostermanwith ample amounts of
witsuccinctly dissects the state of American culture and
values. Klosterman argues that, although Marilyn Monroe and
Pamela Anderson couldnt be more differentMonroe being a
sex symbol and Anderson being about nothing but sexwhat
makes them alike is that Anderson tells us (Americans) as
much about ourselves as Monroe tells us about our parents
generation. Men in the 1950s wanted Monroe because she
made love to the men they respected and wanted to be (JFK,
Arthur Miller, Joe DiMaggio . . . ), but modern men want
Anderson because she makes love to the concept of celebrity.
Theres no way Anderson could date a Joe DiMaggio,
Klosterman points outDiMaggio was the greatest baseball
player of his day, embodying what was noble and beautiful
about the game (he was classically great on the field, and
his rags-to-riches story defined what Americans claimed to
love about democracy). On the contrary, Klosterman adds,
Andersons greatest love, rock star Tommy Lee, is famous
for being famous, not having had a hit album since 1989.
(Incidentally, the same can be said of Richard Prince; his latest
hits happened sometime during the Reagan administration.)
Todays DiMaggio, Michael Jordan, could never date
Pamela Anderson, Klosterman argues, because in the eyes
of people who obsess over celebrities . . . Jordan would be
dating a slut. For Klosterman, Jordan cant be the hero to an
eight-year-old boy in Duluth and the paramour to a 107-pound
public orgasmatron. Similarly, unless you want to be the
judicial version of Dennis Rodman, you cant be a federal
judge and roll in the hay with celebrities and commodity
culture. You can, however, act like a judge and resist the
temptation to be like Pamela Anderson and thus socially
obligated to deliver [your] most intimate gifts to those who
represent contemporary America.
You might argue that the Michael Jordan example is outdated,
but that would just lend credibility to my argument that we
no longer exist in a noble and beautiful world; rather, we exist
in a world inhabited by the concept of celebrity. You might
also think that Im all sour grapes; that Im upset that Cariou
didnt prevail. But you would be wrong. Its the methods used
by the court to arrive at this outcome, not that its ridiculous
and dishonest. I can live with the score so long as the referees
act with impartiality. What I cant live with, and where I depart
from Klosterman, is state-sponsored cheating. I dont want to
assume that basketball, or any sport, is always fixed. I dont
want to concede that certain marquee players or celebrities are
going to get preferential treatment for no valid reason. I want
to believe that, unlike basketball, there are no faceless puppet
masters pulling strings and manipulating the purity of justice.
I know life isnt fair. And that belief stands when the person
in front of me buys the last ticket to a sold-out show. But I
really dont want to think that law, like sports, is always rigged,
and consequently, that that is why the American judiciary is
becoming exactly like American culture.
SERGIO MUOZ SARMIENTO

Fine Print artasiapacific.com

Reviews artasiapacific.com

175

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.