.gif)
.gif)
Saturday, September 27, 2014
Thursday, September 25, 2014
.gif)
Monday, September 15, 2014
.jpg)
Tuesday, September 9, 2014
Monday, September 8, 2014
A Summary of 'The Ecstasy of Influence'
Original article here.
There is often a blurred line between what is original and what is not. It can be said many works take inspiration from older works, either directly or indirectly. For instance, quotes from other authors can appear in newer works, possibly being left unattributed. The practice is so common in all forms of art, and it may be possible to find it in works where the author claims otherwise. It's not really a bad thing, as works of old have greatly influenced major works today, and those works of old were influenced by even older works. The art mediums of photography and film can even be described as wholly stealing from whatever they capture.
Art always changes to adapt to the events of now, but still remains tethered to the past due to what could simply be cited as "plagiarism." As a result, things feel new but gain a sense of familiarity after close examination, a nation that perhaps gave birth to surrealism. While plagiarism is supposed to be a dreaded thing, it's shaped more of our culture than we realize. Yet, the idea of copyright goes rather unquestioned, but that is because we all see it necessary. Yet it could be argued that copyright stifles the newest artistic generation, or that the lack thereof makes works too easily available, and so you are left with a central gray area to keep things sane on both ends. The aim of this is to spur on the newest artistic generation, but still keep the sanctity of the older ones.
Works of art exist in both the present market economy, and in what can be called a gift economy. They can be bought and sold but have more personal investment in them than normal consumer goods. Gift economies themselves are able to exist almost anywhere, but are often considered obtuse by those heavily invested in the market. Resources in gift economies can also be seen as shared public resources, belonging to everyone and no one. They exist due to the unspoken consent between all. Art is a fine example of the public commons, and so too is language, in that they are altered and expanded upon by everyone. However, sometimes these commons are encroached on by the market, and it is not beneficial.
A phenomenon known as "undiscovered public knowledge," first exhibited when a library scientist went through past biomedical literature to find a cause for a disease, can give hope for those who wonder whether originality still exists. It makes us question if a work is truly its own or if there is a major influence behind the scenes. Perhaps, then, is to give creators the ability to draw on more influences without much hassle from copyright. Copyright would still exist, but stick more closely to its original purpose of "promoting the Progess of Science and useful Arts."
It can be assumed that nothing is original, that everything is plagiarized in some way. Some works more than others, most indirectly, but all done before. And yet it spurs on the continuation of art itself.
There is often a blurred line between what is original and what is not. It can be said many works take inspiration from older works, either directly or indirectly. For instance, quotes from other authors can appear in newer works, possibly being left unattributed. The practice is so common in all forms of art, and it may be possible to find it in works where the author claims otherwise. It's not really a bad thing, as works of old have greatly influenced major works today, and those works of old were influenced by even older works. The art mediums of photography and film can even be described as wholly stealing from whatever they capture.
Art always changes to adapt to the events of now, but still remains tethered to the past due to what could simply be cited as "plagiarism." As a result, things feel new but gain a sense of familiarity after close examination, a nation that perhaps gave birth to surrealism. While plagiarism is supposed to be a dreaded thing, it's shaped more of our culture than we realize. Yet, the idea of copyright goes rather unquestioned, but that is because we all see it necessary. Yet it could be argued that copyright stifles the newest artistic generation, or that the lack thereof makes works too easily available, and so you are left with a central gray area to keep things sane on both ends. The aim of this is to spur on the newest artistic generation, but still keep the sanctity of the older ones.
Works of art exist in both the present market economy, and in what can be called a gift economy. They can be bought and sold but have more personal investment in them than normal consumer goods. Gift economies themselves are able to exist almost anywhere, but are often considered obtuse by those heavily invested in the market. Resources in gift economies can also be seen as shared public resources, belonging to everyone and no one. They exist due to the unspoken consent between all. Art is a fine example of the public commons, and so too is language, in that they are altered and expanded upon by everyone. However, sometimes these commons are encroached on by the market, and it is not beneficial.
A phenomenon known as "undiscovered public knowledge," first exhibited when a library scientist went through past biomedical literature to find a cause for a disease, can give hope for those who wonder whether originality still exists. It makes us question if a work is truly its own or if there is a major influence behind the scenes. Perhaps, then, is to give creators the ability to draw on more influences without much hassle from copyright. Copyright would still exist, but stick more closely to its original purpose of "promoting the Progess of Science and useful Arts."
It can be assumed that nothing is original, that everything is plagiarized in some way. Some works more than others, most indirectly, but all done before. And yet it spurs on the continuation of art itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)