A Complex Conception of “the Author”: “The Historical and Cultural Construction of Attribution”

In this first edition of the TRIBU/A3 seminar “Historical and Cultural Construction of Attribution” hosted by the Sciences Po Law School’s Séverine Dusollier (FR) and Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines University’s Valérie-Laure Benabou, Laurent Pfister, Charlotte Guichard, Alain Pottage (FR) and Géraldine Blanche (FR)—along with various members of the virtual audience—came together to discuss the theoretical aspects of the legal attribution of works of literature and art throughout Western history.

Throughout the event, which was envisioned as a non-hierarchical discussion in which each participant could share ideas after the presentations given by the participating professors, attribution–the recognition of a person as the author of a work of art or literature–was consistently contextualized as a historically constructed concept. Indeed, the attribution of credit to artists, writers, and creators as we know it today is a relatively new phenomenon, although the impulse to “leave one’s mark” has existed throughout recorded history.

An Ebb and Flow Toward Individualism

Throughout “Historical and Cultural Construction of Attribution”, a tension between the individual and the collective within the history of attribution became apparent. As Université Paris 2 Panthéon-Assas' Laurent Pfister noted, as early as the sixteenth century, the use of the signature as a means of legally establishing the author of a work appeared. On 16 April 1571, for example, Chateaubriand stated that “No book may be printed without naming the author…”

It is only later, in the 18th century, that authorly attribution became a matter of intellectual property. The act of creation, as Pfister highlighted, thus became the guiding idea behind attribution, making it so that the work cannot be attributed to anyone other than the person who created it (the author). This is also an era in which the category of “originality” and the idea of authenticity begins to take hold, signaling a movement towards a trend toward individualism.

This was, according to Research Director at CNRS and the Institut d'histoire moderne et contemporaine Charlotte Guichard, also an era in which a market for resale of artistic works began to be normalized. Finding the original author of works thus became a crucial aspect of a work’s “authenticity”. As collector Pierre Jean Mariette put it during this period, “One no longer buys works of art, one buys names.” Nevertheless, the signature remained one means among multiple to establish authorship of a work. As there was a growing awareness that signatures can be falsified, a reticence to attribute a work based on this criteria alone emerged: “There is an aura surrounding the name, but at the same time, there is an expert’s scrutiny that is highly aware of possible falsifications.”

The Role of the Signature

It is also in the 18th century, as Charlotte Guichard noted, that artists began signing their work, not out of legal obligation, but as “a form of their liberty and intentionality.” To Guichard, the trend toward individualism saw the emergence of identification papers, which citizens had to sign to identify themselves. As she notes, “In defining identity and the individual, the signature becomes an important means of identification.”

It was also in this era, as Sciences Po’s Geraldine Blanche added, that the question of the signature reached the fashion industry. According to her research, as industrialization gained ground in England, Charles Worth, the “grandfather of the fashion industry”, bestowed the title of artist upon himself, claiming a narrative of creativity and originality.

The signature that Charles Worth had sown into his clothing thus, in Geraldine Blanche’s conception, “affirmed a status that he hoped to give himself within society.” Although this was first and foremost a social strategy to justify the high prices of his clothing—rather than a legal measure—it nevertheless marked the beginning of reflection on issues of copyright within the fashion industry as it relates to the signature. Indeed, as she notes, “The signature, a mere word stuck on a product is, without a doubt—along with the painter’s signature—one of the most economically and symbolically powerful words there is.”

The Individual vs. The Collective: A Fraught Attribution

How does one attribute a work in the context of a more collective creative experience? This is a question that has been asked for centuries, thinking in terms of the printing press, artist’s workshops, and other collective creative experiences. As Sciences Po Professor Alain Potege noted, “All printed texts create a difficulty in attribution, or rather, they turn attribution into a problem to be solved. This stems from the fact that the book is not written by an author, but is a product produced by a typographer.”

This quote alludes to the slippery nature of authorship when the production of a finished work involves multiple people. Indeed, with the installation of a chain of production, who, ultimately, can be considered the creator of a work? Although there was an unquestionable power of the artist’s name and signature that emerged in tandem with a modern sense of individualism, the concept of artist workshops and “ateliers” complicates matters of historical attribution. As with artists such as Ai Weiwei or Damien Hurst today, throughout history, individual authors have been known to sign works that have been produced by members of their workshops, making it difficult to assign authorship to just one person.

Looking Toward the Future

Ultimately, this trend toward claiming responsibility for the concept rather than the physical production of an artwork is not new—indeed, Raphael has been known to have signed works produced by his apprentices. Although traces of this “atelier mindset” remain in the contemporary art world, Charlotte Guichard notes that it is in the 19th century that we begin to see the signature as an autobiographical gesture. Today for example, works for which Rembrandt claimed responsibility are no longer attributed to him, but rather to the members of his atelier that created them.

This de-attribution works to reaffirm the constructed nature of attribution throughout history, highlighting the ambivalence of authorship in a society that is fundamentally collective. As we move forward, one might ask, will attribution remain individualistic, or will it continue to shift between individual and collective, in a continual push and pull influenced by societal forces? Whatever the answer may be, we need not shy away from its complexity, but rather, continue to reflect on where our current conceptions of “the artist” come from and remain alert to this rich and varied history.

The discussion will continue with another event on the subject of gender and attribution (FR) on the 16th of February.

The Sciences Po Editorial Team

Find out more

• About the Sciences Po Law School
• About “Historical and Cultural Construction of Attribution” (FR)
• About the TRIBU/A3 Seminars (FR)