Is art democratic?

The new Amazon Studios, which so aggressively supports young screenwriters and filmmakers in many ways, includes an option that troubles me, no doubt because I am "old school" on an issue that's been emerging in the culture, slowly for some time now. What does it mean to be "an author"? Recent studies have shown that students writing papers "borrow" from material they find on the net without hesitation. Indeed, I've done this myself, taking clips from YouTube for my films, most often with the original source unknown. Students don't understand, or respond to, the traditional notion of "intellectual property" and so don't believe they are doing anything wrong when they cut and paste material on the net into their own papers. At least according to this study I read.

At Amazon Studios, anyone can download anyone else's screenplay and revise it and upload it again. This is a remarkable option! Granted, this in fact mirrors a certain reality in Hollywood. At the same time, the blasts to kingdom come any traditional notion of "authorship" and this is what I'm not prepared to embrace.

In the documentary Dreams On Spec screenwriter Ed Solomon makes the case that most successful films, both financially and critically, are created by "a single vision." Not 3 or 4 writers but one. This appears to be true with a number of my favorite films that come to mind: Harold Pinter's French Lt's Woman, John Guare's Atlantic City. A single author.

Yet there does, in fact, appear to be a trend embracing a kind of "democratic art" in which many authors freely contribute. Note this is not exactly collaboration. If I download a script from Amazon Studios and heavily rewrite it, I am not doing so in collaboration with the author. I am doing so because I think I am "better" than the author and can improve his story. Which happens all the time in Hollywood except that a "single vision," a producer, oversees the activity and chooses (and pays) the participants.

A student who pointed out this option at Amazon also has qualms about it. He is a young filmmaker and doesn't like the idea of throwing his  work out there to be revised by just anyone. I don't blame him.

Herein is the plot for a thriller, of course. The original author's revenge and all that. Trouble is, a stranger may revise it so it becomes unrecognizable.

p.s. I grew up in the tradition of the artist as seer, as unique visionary, as special, as singular. I don't buy that any more and haven't for a long time. But I do believe in single authorship, the notion of author, which is the root of authority. I believe there can be, and often are, too many cooks in the kitchen.