Though filled with supported stories, the whole article merely questions one thing: “Are original works truly original?” The answer, when putting in the context of contemporary arts, is no. Literature traces its reference back to previous pieces, painting steals ideas from masters, “appropriation has always play a key role in Dylan’s music”…Little of what we admire in arts is deserved to be praised as entirely new.
Actually, this is not a new phenomenon. As arts are eagerly plunder the ideas of early works and get inspirations from limited amount of resources in human life, arts re-creation is more like a usual practice rather than the shameful plagiarism. A typical field where people are even proud of the “plagiarism” is the fashion industry. This year, the Dior’s new collection is the saddle bags, which has been a trend of fashion one hundred years ago. Dior called it as “resurrection”.
Hence, it is quite sarcastic that the writer points out the issue of copyright, which is defined by him as “government-granted monopoly on the use of creative results”. A problem is easily recognized that should the government takes this absolute right for granted, protected works of art in a rigid way, the innovation in arts would be greatly restricted. It would be a tragedy saying if the Van Gogh’s Starry Night is registered under governmental protection, and anyone who use the pattern are entitled to large sums of fines. The writer wants to remind people, that we shall achieve a delicate balance between the copyright legal protection and the arts innovation on the basis of ancestors’ ideas and works.