A ‘Swipe File’ Controversy and the Anxiety of Influence

I am about to link you to a comment section on somebody else’s blog, in which I am hilariously informed by Andrew Weiss that I belong in ‘The Directory of Internet Martyrs forthcoming from Who Gives a Shit Press’. The comment was sharply written, and not far off the mark.

Are you surprised that I am telling you this? If so, then I have a bone to pick with you that is similar to the bone I have to pick with those who are outraged (those being Dave Ex Machina, et. al.) that a well-known comics critic (Rich Johnston) has been rather cavalierly finding similar pieces of art, posting them side-by-side, and calling it ‘Swipe File’.

The Dave Ex Machina post and comments are chock full of pointless legalistic wrangling over what is the traditional interpretation of ‘swipe file’, which you can cut through, if you care, in about a minute by googling variations of phrases containing ‘swipe file’ to discover that copywriters (like, say… Rich Johnston, and myself), have a particularly non-pejorative view of the phrase, ‘swipe file’.

But what I am concerned with is not who interprets this specific phrase how, which I think is irrelevant. What gets to me is this prevailing attitude among participants of this thread that pointing out similarities between artworks and calling it a ‘swipe’ or a say, a ‘borrow’ is treading close to some imaginary ethical line that is then heinously crossed the minute it is shown that the two artworks could not have directly influenced each other, or that the influence trajectory might have been reversed. And just the thought of what is so wrong about this attitude, finally, pulled me back into the comments thread to get it ‘out there’, wherever ‘there’ happens to be today…

This is an ethical issue, not a legal issue. And if I had written this article, I would now feel morally conflicted over all the hits and attention coming to this page. There is a hair’s breadth of difference, if any, between what this page is doing to Rich Johnston, and what it alleges he did with ‘Swipe File’. There is no need for this hypocrisy. The more morally consistent and incidentally, far socially smarter position, is to be open to people criticising you even when you think they are obviously wrong and the things they say make you sound like a wanker or a ripoff artist — those things are not crimes, so critical appraisals alleging such are not crimes, either. And no it is not comparable to accusing someone of murder, that is obviously an idea that is totally off its meds.

It is not hard to clear your conscience when you dash off an opinion of a fellow artist [or critic] — all you need to do is give the same liberties that you require for your own expression. I find that most of the opinions on this page do not measure up to this standard.

The Brits have it right. It might be just the online Brits, but I have found them much more comfortable with this sort of thing, and it’s a richer environment more conducive to learning – i.e. I think it’s superior to everyone being ready to take umbrage, because criticism needs to be justified or something. I don’t want to offend everyone but this is the truth so there it is, whether shits are given is incidental.

[Submitted by Paul Laroquod.]