A form of open content is valid in today’s society. This alternative to copyrighting has the potential to allow for an honest approach to appropriation. I am most certainly in favor of this idea of the democratization of knowledge. The copyright seems to limit a collective, creative consciousness. It creates boundaries and gives permission to only an elite few who can pay for this privilege of use. However, taking away all personal, intellectual rights devalues individual creativity. Utilizing the space in between these two extremes of individual and collective ideas, allows for respect of the individual and openness to collaboration.
Many times people are unconsciously influenced by a song, image, or phrase. These are forms of communication. The spoken tradition of storytelling brings us back to the roots of sharing, which is found in these like writing, music, and visual arts. This experience of sharing ideas is common to people of society.
I have observed that it is very common for young people to be unaware of the volume of borrowing in which they engage. In addition, there is a lack of consciousness to the history, which influences their claimed identity. I believe that all people should be privileged in having access to information and an understanding of history, as it encourages respect of the individual. Open content has its challenges such as promoting a weak work ethic and a lack of education. I think that people should recognize the history of the lyrics of a song, or iconic images and pay due respect to the original creators. Breaking the laws, and piracy are becoming more of the norm, like that of prohibition. It seems that there needs to be a shift in this system, which would allow for more freedom, honesty and an understanding for the past. This would promote remixing or reusing in a genuine way.
While open source devalues the monopoly of one individual, or closed organization, it allows for collaboration and empowerment of people through accessibility. Restricting freedom leads to breaking laws and dishonesty. Alternatives such as free culture allow people to make honest choices. The rise of the Internet and consumer culture already permits accessibility, which contradicts the restrictive nature of copyright and intellectual property. Originally copyright was put in place to protect the artist from another claming their work to gain recognition or earned income. Executives need a means for control and got carried away because they felt their power slipping away with the accessibility of media.
This open context of intellectual property does pose challenge for the artist to take credit for their labor. Stolen property is not the solution, but respectful borrowing of ideas should be acceptable. This would take a redefinition of antiquated copyright laws. Redefining what is acceptable in terms of copyright is appropriate. Creative Commons provides a good balance between these polar opposites of open content and copyright.
Imitation is a sincere form of plagiarism. It allows for creativity to sprout with respect to what is being imitated and allows for growth beyond this initial creative inspiration. It is like looking up to a role model, or learning from the past. In my mind, there is still much to be learned from the past and applied to the present.
Shepard Fairey’s work is a great example of appropriation. He began by using Andre the Giant as an authoritative figure in his work that critiques propaganda. This iconic figure is connected to a message that reads “Obey.” His images draw from the past and are placed in a new form within a contemporary framing. In this way he reminds us of the history of social issues, such as war, and places them in society like past propaganda art that promoted war. A difference lies in the message to the public. Fairey is asking society to question the acceptance of issues like war through his appropriation of war images. This is unlike the politicians’ who use propaganda as a brainwashing technique to bombard the public with images that promote war.
Through another lens, Fairey’s iconic images recall the message of Lessig, as he suggests that people make art, not war. This message echoes the idea that instead of fussing and fighting over territory, (literally speaking or metaphorically speaking in terms of an icon on cyber space), it would be more productive to allow others to creatively remix or collaborate. Creative expression is freedom. This freedom is empowering and this power creates a struggle for control in the war against open content.
Remixing in my creative work has occurred naturally. Just as any creative being, I am influenced by other artists. Recently, during two separate occasions, I was given opportunities to work closely with some of my favorite artists. We shared fundamental values and thematic issues in our work. On both of these occasions, these artists suggested for me to reuse their approaches in my work, which felt uncomfortable as first. Then, I remembered times when I observed a peer remixing ideas that I had shared into their own work. On occasion, I heard, “I guess, you inspired me.” This acknowledgement melted my bitterness away. This is the best response and the intent behind my creative endeavors. To inspire thinking is a great achievement and a goal of my work as an artist. I rather not take another person’s creative endeavors or achievement personal, even if it hits close to home. Even if we try, we cannot be anyone but ourselves. Sharing ideas and values with another can be an empowering experience when treated with respect and integrity. This openness permits innovation.
No comments:
Post a Comment