Introduction:

In the ever expanding realm of the internet, where the interactive writing space of web sites have blurred the lines of authorship, we find ourselves in a peculiar situation. For the first time in history, we are forced to re-examine our definition of "author".

Nowhere is this more apparent then in the creation of web sites. To "publish" a web site, there is typically a collaboration between writers, designers, linkers, analysts, and programmers. In this situation, where does the "I" of authorship lay? Does it lay in the hands of the traditionally represented "writer"? What then of the programmer who uses his/her own language to interpret the words, images, and interactivity of the scripts an designs generated by the others? Is he/she not a writer also? This outmoded idea of the author as "I" is beginning to change in this new medium. The internet as publisher offers the possibility to stretch beyond the traditions of the "I" writers and the "them" readers. It is in the mediums need for collaboration that the internet for the first time, is making previously underground links between creator, "author" and inspirer, not only to surface, but the warp into the "we" of authorship prevalent on the internet.

Background:

The idea of authorship is as old as written communication. Although it's current definition is two hundred or so years old. Since prehistoric times artists [authors] have created images to be preserved and seen by others. In all parts of the world this has been true.(Minsky 1984)

The above cave painting is from Lascaux, France. If you look closely to the left of the image, there is evident a symbol, or what is believed to be the artist's [author's] signature. from these stark beginnings of written communication, it becomes apparent that authorship is integral to the dissemination of information. The signature or symbol of the author added credibility to the information being given. Accountability has been at the center of written communication throughout history.

Even the Greek translator/interpreter Plato, spends time in Phaedrus discussing the gift of writing. The argument is made that the written word will be the downfall, "the poison" rather then the cure for the human race. Plato's assertion stems from Socrates strong belief that oral discourse was the true mark of a philosopher, that a sophist would be fleshed out if put to the task of having to immediately argue his point. The written word Plato writes, has the effect of removing the author from the immediate position in front of the viewer/reader/user, causing accountability issues. One cannot challenge the assertions of a book as one can an oral performance.(Plato 100BC) In pre-modern times, this problem manifested itself in the British law requiring both publisher and author be named in every book.(Wittig 1997)

These issues of accountability, have made the occupation of "author" throughout history a very coveted and reviled job to have. And for most of history, it was a j-o-b. It is only in recent history that the idea of author as "a singular genius acting through something the rest of us don't have"(Roche 1987), has become the norm. For most of history, authors [artists] have had several distinctions.

In early times, artists where merely technicians who had achieved a high level of mastery in their craft. Writing was considered a techne, or a technology, much like sculpture, architecture, and pottery. It wasn't until the Christian conversion of the Roman Empire, and their subsequent domination of Western civilization that the idea of author [artist] had changed. During the Middle Ages, the role of artist [author] was given to those who where considered to have a "gift from God"(John 3:16). They worked within the courts of the rich, or where contracted by the church to create in the name of God.

As we reach the Renaissance, the role of artist, was characterized by an ability to do work in many mediums. But even the great Leonardo Da Vinci, who is considered the pre-eminent renaissance man, had a studio full of assistants who did the dirty work, and left the harder more intricate work to Da Vinci himself. He is considered one of the greatest artists of all time, while his workers are never acknowledged.

The artist as genius, became the model of artist [author] that has perpetuated since the late eighteenth century. This belief is very similar to the "inspired by God" model, but contains no relationship to faith. What has fallen away from the original definition, as the arts have diverged, and each medium has become more specialized, was the renaissance in the renaissance man.

Authors [artists] over the last two hundred years have been compartmentalized into one medium. Not only have they been forced in one medium, they have been forced into one particular style. One style and one medium have made it easier to "brand market" an author's [artist's] work, guaranteeing their audience consistent work of consistent quality for an ever increasing price. Familiarity had become the mark of a true and famous artist [author].

Today the idea of author is so well protected on every front, that it is truly hard to get your work excepted by any audience. Many degrees of separation have been created to relieve the artist of accountability. In writing their is the publisher and the editor, in painting and sculpture there is the curator, and the art critic, in the theater and film there is the producer and the director. The business of authorship is hidden behind this thin veil that adds credibility to the author [artist], but removes the work from the person.

As we stand at the beginning of a digital revolution that offers the author, the artist in all of us to stand up and be noticed, we find the traditional definitions of author and artist aren't applicable anymore. Collaboration with many individuals creates a work that has more then one author, more then one artist. Their work is the synergistic result of each part they bring to it. Maybe Da Vinci's apprentices had more to do with his work then we were led to believe? Authorship in the 21st century hinges on the multiple inputs of each individual, where a piece hanging in a gallery is really the collective reactions of every viewer it entertains, disgusts, or bores. We are the author of it's true meaning, we are the ones that decode it's message. There isn't a grand meaning or declaration that is condoned from the publisher, the curator, the director, the critic. They offer only suggestions, not a blueprint. We are the authors.

Thesis: