Originality, who goes to Wikipedia to read about it?

The issue of some appears to be appropriation /remix out of their work.

If an artist does not (want to) inspire further with his art, than we should question the art itself.

Set in context is an art piece; Set it in another, makes another art piece.

And copyrights should stand there for branders. An artist claiming copyrights is not more than designer. Artist makes a story and well-spoken one can not leave one being indolent. It inspires.

Inspiring another by your creation; how beautiful that is; how profound.

As the inspiration does not comes from inside but from outside, the only rightful point to be discussed would be the methodology and media; Media in terms of methodology.

The same might be said of all art.

“I knew my teachers would have called plagiarism. Some of these borrowings had been lifted from American science fiction of the Forties and Fifties, adding a secondary shock of recognition for me. By then I knew that this “cut-up method,” as Burroughs called it, was central to whatever he thought he was doing, and that he quite literally believed it to be akin to magic. When he wrote about his process, the hairs on my neck stood up, so palpable was the excitement. Burroughs was interrogating the universe with scissors and a paste pot, and the least imitative of authors was no plagiarist at all.”

// On the Rights of the Molotov Man: Appropriation and the Art of Context                                                    // Kirby Ferguson’s Embrace the Remix

Comments are closed.