I'm sure, by now, many of you have seen the relatively new line of Levi's commercial's featuring poetry from America's indefinite and undeclared poet laureate, Walt Whitman. If not, here is a link to one of these commercials which features a reading (allegedly done by Whitman himself) of Whitman's iconic poem, "America".
The question I raise here (and I'd love to hear what people think) is whether this blending of advertising and poetry is ethical. Having been deceased for over a century, there is no way Whitman could have signed off on this project. On the other hand, Levi's is a quintessentially American company; Whitman has certainly become one of the greatest figureheads of America. Also, Levi's were in fact a company making jeans during the time Whitman was living and writing poetry.
There is nothing (that I can see) flagrantly offensive about the content of the commercial, nothing which spits in the face of Whitman's message or work. The commercial certainly has a historical feel to it and an attitude of independence and rugged individualism that is often associated with historic America. Still, the question remains, is this misappropriation of Walt Whitman's poetry? My question extends beyond just this commercial, which I am referencing as a departure point.
Does literature exist as one of the (relatively) unexplored frontiers of commercialism? When is it okay to mix media this way, to juxtapose an individual poem and individual video to create new meaning? How sacred do we hold the author's intentions and work? What responsibility to we owe to our great late authors? The forerunners of modern literature? And perhaps most importantly: Did Walt Whitman wear Levi's?
-Todd Petty
Good question! Once a writer has been dead for 75 years (I think!), his or her work is in the public domain. You would get yourself in big legal trouble if you used Maya Angelou to sell Levis, but Walt Whitman's heirs are no longer in control of his image or body of work. Like any good English person, I can see both sides of any issue. On the one hand, I love that Shakespeare's plays are in the public domain, and that today's theatre people can create all sorts of interpretations of Shakespeare -- Victorian Twelfth Nights, or Merchants of Venice set in pre-WW2 Venice. On the other hand, a Merry Wife of Windsor selling laundry soap would strike me as a bit crass.
ReplyDeleteWalt Whitman's poetry and Levi blue jeans are both, in their own ways, deeply American. Europeans would not take an item of clothing designed for blue collar working men and make it an expensive high fashion icon because they are much less likely to glorify their working class people.
From Song of Myself -- stanza 9
The big doors of the country barn stand open and ready,
The dried grass of the harvest-time loads the slow-drawn wagon,
The clear light plays on the brown gray and green intertinged,
The armfuls are pack'd to the sagging mow.
I am there, I help, I came stretch'd atop of the load,
I felt its soft jolts, one leg reclined on the other,
I jump from the cross-beams and seize the clover and timothy,
And roll head over heels and tangle my hair full of wisps.
Diane Steinberg
Interesting view of this Todd, and I like that you've made me question it. I actually thought it was surprisingly intelligent for the usual shallow advertisers who seem completely over focused on selling sex instead of jeans. To use Whitman seemed a moment of genius and is accessing a public consciousness about poetry I thought was dead.
ReplyDeleteI think that anyway in which poetry (or any upper level literature people dont typically read) is made available to the public just for the sake of awareness is fantastic. I hope that some teen who never heard of Whitman googled that poem because of that commercial :)
Still... What Would Whitman Do?
Cara
To quote Daddy Warbucks from the musical Annie: "Wait a minute, I just did a damn commerial!" [exit right swiftly.] It's funny that some works are so sacred that any "interpretation" doesn't seem to speak back to the original in a way that can alter it's intent or spirit. Shakespeare is just too big to corrupt. Whitman, on the other hand, was much more recent and while canonical, perhaps is much less deified. The names of some historical figures are applied to different contexts, even commercial ones, all the time. Einstein is one of these. His name is invoked all the time, even as an eponym, as a general marker of genius, and yet when his name is applied, it does not raise questions of Einstein's intent nor does it reflect back on his work. When a great writer becomes a household name, it has escaped the realm of intellectual property and copyright and becomes, in a way, the property of everyone- whether or not the laws reflect that. The works of a well known writer are used and interpreted and disseminated in a thousand different ways every day. I tend to want to think of the canonized writers as people, not deities whose works are beyond question or reproach. The simple fact is, a long dead man no longer owns his name and image. It's fair game. It is up to the audience to accept or reject Levi's characterization and use of Whitman's works. (Believe me, more terrible things have been done to Shakespeare. See "Tromeo and Juliet.)
ReplyDelete