Dear Everyone,
Here's my last post. Has your perspective on the ethical nature of translating others' works of art changed? This can include historical, cultural, or other changes between a translation and an original. What works (you can refer to some outside of class, too) got you thinking about this and why?
How is art interconnected between genres and in history? When do you feel a translation is "stealing" someone's work versus "borrowing"? How much does the original work matter?
This seemed to be an area where there was some disagreement and a lot of good ideas, so I wanted to give everyone one last chance to discuss.
Thank you for the semester!
Laura
9 comments:
I think I have gained a new respect for adaptations despite their changes and flaws. However, there is thin line between being an adapter and being unethical. I found that in particular "Diving Bell and the Butterfly" the adaptation was in fact unethical because people in the story were completely changed. Particularly the girlfriend. They distorted her personality and character which I think is wrong since she is a real person and the movie was based on real happenings.
My overall thought on ethical nature in adaptations is that it depends on the original creator. If the original author or creator lets the adapter have full reign then it isn't unethical for the plot or idea to be a little changed. This is seen in "Wicked." The musical was very different from the original book but the author let that happen. In the case of "300" the author did not let adapters take complete control, therefore the overall adaptation really followed the graphic novel. I think it is stealing once the adapter take something without permission and approval of the original creator. The original work really matters when it comes to creating translations. If they didn't, we may not be able to recognize what the translation was based on in the first place. The original story is a base for the next translation and it was originally someone's idea. Sure people should have their own ideas for art, but they cannot take credit for someone's original work.
My perspective has changed a lot on changes made to good books when they are made into movies. Sometimes its good to see a change from the book to the movie, as long as the original author doesn't mind. It's a nice little surprise when watching the movie and something happens that wasn't in the book. There is always a reason why the director decided to make the change, sometimes it's a good one and sometimes it's not, but because they are translating it into their own adaptation they can do this. When I was doing my translation I questioned myself a lot on how I should draw my pictures and if they matched the book, but then I realized it was my translation of the book and they didn't have to match the exact scenes in the book as long as it was what I had imagined when reading the book.
Going back to the translation of historical events, I actually read some comments on youtube where some people were unhappy with the portrayal of the Persians in "300," but they understood that it was just a movie. It's really hard to make changes to an event without offending somebody. That's why I think it's the translating author's responsibility to let the audience know when something isn't true or has been altered. The same goes for taking somebody else's work and translating it into something else, the audience should always be informed that it is a translation. When this information is withheld from the audience, then that is when it is "stealing."
I think I became much more accepting of the rights a person has to change the original. I believe that when it comes to art, anything goes. Yeah, some people might be offended, but a good piece of art leaves people talking and makes them think about it long after it is no longer in front of them. Translations are just that, and they should be allowed to go against the norm and provide for a bigger imagination. I think that the best thing that could come out of a piece is the inspiration to create something more, and whether that means that they change the original, with permission form the original creator, or whether they create something new all together, more props for them! Art should be constantly evolving and in my opinion it should never stay the same. Whenever you are translating something its important to keep in mind the original plot line, but details are up to you! The change of roles in “The diving bell and the butterfly” was odd, and it did provide talk and disappointment, but I liked it a lot better than if it had been exactly what I had pictured in my mind in the first place. I don't think that because a piece happened in history that there should be a big difference there either. It is up to the artist to make his or her new piece, and it is up to the audience to understand that it is a translation, and because there has already been an original, whether it be a book or a song, there can't be another “original” and by not accepting the translation as it is, that is what they are getting at, they want the original to be reproduced as what they saw or heard the first time.
I still have mixed feelings about the translation of another artists work. Part of me feels as though the original artist's work should be respected, and the other part of me knows that the translations that have been created have been enjoyed, and the world is a better place with them here. For example, with "Wicked", the book was the original work, and although it may have been popular, it is clear that the world is a better place with "Wicked", the musical, in it, regardless of how drastic the changes made were. Another example of an adaptation I liked was the modern movie version of Romeo and Juliet, with Leonardo DiCaprio (love him). Despite the presence of Leo, I really appreciated this adaptation; although they changed the context, they did not change the actual words of shakespeare and I really respect that. I believe that that movie is a perfect example of how adaptations should be; perhaps a modern twist is necessary, but all of the credit still goes to the original author.
I still think that our personal preferences hold the ultimate persuasion when we decide whether or not we think a work is a "good" or acceptable translation. However, after seeing how many different types of translations there are (I had never really thought about it before) I think I am more open to creative influences based off of other works. For instance, Wicked really bothered me at first, because I absolutely love the original Wizard of Oz by Frank L. Baum, and I really didn't want to know the politics of the land or the unfortunate past of the Wicked Witch. She was just supposed to be evil, no story. After doing my final project though, and realizing how much one idea can influence another idea, and how difficult the process of translating can be, I was ok with Wicked. I needed to discover that for myself and I'm glad I had a class to do it in!
As for art and history, I think history is the ultimate influence on new art. Good vs Evil, Love Conquers All, The Quest, (and other themes) will always be repeated, redone, and stamped with a personal note from one artist or another in a variety of mediums. Direct translations of history, like 300, keep history alive, and can inspire the audience to find out the facts for themselves.
I still think that an artist should work to maintain the integrity of the original work, a simple disclaimer saying "this is what I think, not what they wrote" doesn't quite cut it as ethical adapting for me. I think the range of how far a person can take a translation is greater in fantasy genres, as we saw with Wicked, and more limited in non-fiction genres, as we saw with The Diving Bell and the Butterfly.
Really, I think translations are an integral part of our culture; we constantly build off of each other's work and ideas.
Inspiration comes from everywhere. The places we go, the people we know, the books we read, the art we see.We can't help but be influenced by our environment and we naturally incorporate that into what we create. If I read a book and am incredibly inspired by it, I want to have the freedom to use that inspiration to create my response to it or my translation of it. And there is a difference between translating and ripping off someone's work. If you respect the original, than you have every right to make your own version. In general, I think it's probably the case that adaptors don't go about adapting a work that they hate or just kind of don't care about. To put that much work into creating an adaptations the new author probably has an incredible about of love for the original. I think that most people who put work out there should be open to the idea of having people respond to it in whatever manner they see fit. By putting your art in the public sphere you are relinquishing your right to control it. it has it's own life now.
My perspective has changed regarding translated art. Some ways positive and other ways negative.
Some genres work better than others, like novels to film. Something I don't like about this translation is that sometimes selling the product, or the importance of success on film weighs the value of the original piece. Many changes are taken into action, sometimes providing the audience with a false representation of the original work.
Another translation that I found negative is Wicked. I just do not understand how it is even considered a translation if the translated piece does not even resemble the original.
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly was a fantastic film, but when I found out that the plot changed, I lost respect.
I like it when the translations stay true to the original piece. Otherwise it is not really a translation, it is just a rip off. I liked The Crucible and 300 because they did stay true to the originals.
The art to poetry translation is respectable because it is a celebration of an artwork using words. We are all supposed to look at a piece of art, or a poem for that matter, and translate our own meanings.
Throughout this course, I would definitely say that my perspective has changed on the ethical nature of translating another’s work. This came when I was making my own adaptation. I worked really hard on it and tried to make it mine. This really made me think. All of this trouble and hard work I was putting into my project could easily be manipulated so that someone else can create their own. Some aspects came easy because I kept some of the same themes or dialogue. Adapting an original can be easy if you’re keeping some things the same. Others aspects called for more creativity. This creativity I hold dearly. I know that I would be mad if my creativity was adapted and passed as someone elses work. This made me think about how other originators feel when others adapt their materials. All of their hard work is now copied… Then again, it is flattering. Someone out there thinks your ideas are so good that they choose to keep them.
Art is forever a part of our culture and has been for many years. As much as I would like to give credit to the human race, sometimes it easier to copy what’s already there. As long as there is art, there will be adaptations. I think the difference between stealing and borrowing is greatly tied with the adapters’ intentions. If the adapter wants to translate a medium but wants to give credit to the original, then that is borrowing. For someone to completely take an original and pass it on as theirs is stealing.
My opinions haven’t really changed, but the have certainly evolved. Before taking this class, I hadn’t really given more than just passing thought to the topic. I might go see a movie and be annoyed by some change, or amused by another change, or confused, or happy. I might think about it for a minute, but not enough to really, really care. I like adaptations in general. I do not hold any unrelenting or strong opinions about haw closely, or distantly, the new version follows the original. There are changes that will bother me very badly, yet the formula to find out what will set me off is not terribly stable. If the adaptation is good—by my standards, that pretty much means that all it needs to do is entertain me without any severe mishaps—it can go in whatever direction the new creator takes it. Sometimes a nearly exact copy of the original is to be desired above some highly out there interpretation. Sometimes the opposite is true. Often the middle ground is more neutrally acceptable. If it can be done well, the level of adherence is not necessarily key. I personally prefer to see respect shown to the original work. Mocking tends to irk me. Everything else is fair game. I am free to like or dislike the new version as I please.
Post a Comment