Copying is an act of love is a post on Copyheart.org by Nina. I commented there I agree and I do, but must explain what exactly I mean.
If I copy a work of art I appreciate it at least. I copy because I value the work. I pay homage to the author and I appreciate the author’s job. It implies that the author understands what I need and responds to this need. Does the described relationship amount to love?
Not exactly. Love is unconditional acceptance of something or somebody as a whole, in entirety. This is not exactly the case when we copy a work of art. It can be love, like the love at the first sight, but not necessarily is. We can quite safely state that copying bears potential of love, expects it, presumes it, but is not necessarily actual act of love. It is quite similar to relationship between two in becoming. They may like each other, may hope for love, but…
The another important aspect to this is what is the work on the author’s side. I discuss this in detail in the book (Chapter 2. Inquiry on the Nature of Arts), but the aspect of love was missing, so I am grateful to Nina and am happy to bring this up now.
What is meant here? In the book I asserted that an author actually creates his new audience with the new work. Thus, we see it almost by definition that the author does love the audience! The author creates his loved subjects by the very act of creation. Every single creator, no matter what he or she creates is in Jeppetto’s shoes, who made Pinocchio to be his loved and responding with love son. And as soon as the audience shows up it responds to this love of the creator.
One more point and I stop. When an “author” says someone “steals” from him by “unauthorized copying” he signs a psychological death verdict for himself, because it is plainly impossible to love and create for thieves.