Objectives:
- Become acquainted with copyright as a historic, cultural and economic paradigm and its value and pertinence to creative works.
- Explore the changing nature of copyright in the context of “Remix Culture”
- Examine your own and others values and paradigms of ownership and authorship of cultural media.
Original Post:
Lessig, L. (2008). Comparing Cultures. Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy (pp. 84-116). New York: Penguin Press HC, The.
This week’s reading explained the debate between “read only” (RO) culture and “red-write” (RW) culture. Without copyright, there is this allowance for others to “create” who otherwise could not. Lessig makes the point that, “…in protection RO culture, we shouldn’t kill off the potential for RW” (p 90). Copyright supports RO culture and opposes practices of the RW culture. Copyright may be valuable in some senses to preserve original creativity, but it also hinders the creativity of evolving generations. Copyright laws are becoming so restricted that it may reject the use of any sort of copyrighted content. I think copyrights are important to protect artists from others taking their creations in whole, but there needs to be some sort of balance (as explained in the reading, TED talk, and other materials).
In the TED talk, he explains how laws being changed reflect the same type of ideas as a copyright. New technology creates an unsure feeling for people because they are unfamiliar with it. Digital technology is important for celebrating amateur culture (people produce for the love of what their doing and not the money). He explains how today remixing gives access to this culture because you are able to create something enjoyable in your own way. He clarifies that it is not piracy (where you distribute without copyright format or taking it in whole). This new use of culture and the copyright laws make this seem as though we are “trespassers” for using these forms in creativity of remixes. He explains a balance (a private solution) to legalize through competition. Artists can decide that their work can be used toward “amateur” type of work but not freely for commercial type of use.
Lessig states that these forms (remixes) should not be looked at in a negative light, but appreciated because, “You pay respect to tradition by incorporating it”(p 96). I agree that you can still respect a previous work while also being inspired by it and surprising the audience by giving them something they will enjoy. I think with each generation things change. Creations from the past do not need to be forgotten, but they can inspire a new generation to take those ideas and creations and build on them.
- Beauty
- Creativity
- Energy
- Passion
- Color
- Inspiration
- Uniqueness
- Limitless
- Imagination
- Fun
This image seemed to represent my first five elements of my description of art. I enjoyed this activity a lot because I felt like I was fulfilling a lot of the elements I described when I thought about art and the work of an artist. Dissanayake explains how “art” is usually referred to as an object (paintings, pictures, sculptures, dances, etc.), but works of art are the result of an artist’s behavior. When art is regarded as making something special, we can see it in many different forms (things we cook, an outfit we wear, rituals in everyday life). Dissanayake says, when we look at art this way, we are making the things we care about special. (pg.24). For this reason, I most definitely believe that these collages are a perfect representation of art. I think almost anything can be considered art. “Art” is in the opinion of the viewer/artist and how we feel as individuals.
Dissanayake, E. (1991). What is art for? In K. C. Caroll (Ed.). Keynote adresses 1991 (NAEA Convention), (pp.15-26). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Reflection:
I chose this image and my own image above to represent remix and remixing culture. This idea has become more relevant in today’s society. Original works of art could have never been remixed without newer technology. I still agree with some ideas from my post. I think that remixing is an art form and should be considered one. While i think that remixing is an art-form, this does not mean that piracy or stealing a completed work is an art-form. I agree that copyright is important to protect an artist and their original work, but it should not limit pieces of their work influencing another artist. Technology has led to a sort of “amateur culture” who create art through inspiration. I still agree with the points made in the TED talk about artist’s being able to choose where pieces of their work may go. They can decide if they will allow a form of their work to be a part of this amateur creation but not for commercial use. I think it is important that people are not limited in the way they wish to represent themselves. Remixing is a new form of art and they should not be limited because of their enjoyment in other artist’s works. If done in the right way, these remixes are simply taking a piece of work and creating their own while building off of a previous generation of work or style. Restriction and limitations should apply, but it should depend on the situation and the artists themselves.
Future:
I am certain that remixing will continue. I am also sure that it will progress and I cannot wait to see how. In our society artists are always looking for a way to be unique. Remixing gives you the opportunity to do that. You may have been interested by a previous style and then that may lead to a creation of your own. Remixers should not be punished for that (although restrictions should apply).