From the TED talks video, “Laws That Choke Creativity”, my interest had been stimulated and curious when Larry Lessig says at that “common sense has not revolted against the laws that restrict creativity” (13:35). To me, I think that it depends on the point of view when considering how art as evolved over time. As time has gone on, I feel that more and more art have pushed and continue to push boundaries conceptually and legally as the freedom of speech is used more often as a backup to radical art. By using this amendment (freedom of speech) as an claim for creativity, I would say art definitely has been revolting.
Remix Discussion
Published by
Dexter I thought you had a really good analysis of the Ted Talk. I feel that your findings were very well thought out and well executed. Particularly when you addressed how art has evolved as a whole. With the freedom of speech, I think that art has accumulated in a sense that it can interpret many points of views. It assures that the freedom of speech allows many individuals the ability to expresses themselves in a constructive and positive manner. Overall I think this was very well thought out and you did a great job. One question I would ask you is how things would be without the importance of freedom of speech?
A specific case is that there would not be a strong democracy without the freedom of speech. The freedom to express ourselves and speak our minds is an inextricable part of a strong democracy. When you have a government directed by its citizens, it is critical that those citizens be engaged and informed. Indeed, our founding fathers recognized the critical need for the free flow of information.It is equally important that citizens have the freedom and the avenue to challenge the government and its representatives, discuss key issues, and be absolutely assured that their voices are heard.
I agree with you that using the amendment of freedom of speech has been a form of revolt in art works. I would say that this occurs especially with artists whose art has a political agenda where they use the freedom of speech to push boundaries and to express their creativity over the issues they feel are important through art. I was thinking about the quote from Lessig that you included and it had me thinking that while these laws can be restricting creativity in instances, they may also be, in some small way, feeding creativity. If say an artist wants to use another artists piece but copyright law makes it illegal, it forces that artist to re-think the art and produce something new or to create something that is far enough away from the other arts piece so as not to be copyrighting. It presents another opportunity to be creative.
-Michelle
I agree with the point you made that art has constantly been evolving over time. I has passed many boundaries to become what it is today. Art in the past had a different meaning then it does today. Today art can be seen in pretty much everything. When it comes to the idea of copy right law it is important to create your own idea but I believe that it is not wrong to share and advance other peoples ideas. This can bee looked at in many different ways but the main purpose is to see a creation in a different point of view