Category: Leon Eckert

This essay inspires me to think about the differences between “plagiarism” and “inspiration”. We support good artworks but when it comes to renovated pieces, we categorize them as plagiarized pieces and they should be disgusted. But judging the masterpieces in the history, Shakespeare for example, his Romeo and Juliet’s plot is similar to an ancient Babylonian story yet people still respect Shakespeare for his composing.

In this case, we should question ourselves, are divine authors being spared from the crime of plagiarism while the ordinary others are the main targets being watched? The renovation we make is inspired by original works but hardly not considered as “stealing” others’ ideas. The line between inspiration and plagiarism is murky and there isn’t a clear definition for either term. In my opinion, we should embrace all recreation works instead of judging them, even when the recreated version is similar to the original one, we should refer it as a better change, or a failed change of the original piece.

This essay discusses the appropriation of artworks. The photo which was originally taken by Susan reveals the important moment in the history of Nicaragua but was later adopted by artist Garnett to express another artistic feeling without citing the sources. Therefore Susan sued Garnett for his “stealing” of her work and claimed that although everyone can have their own comprehension of artworks, people need to have the awareness of ownership.

Personally, I strongly consider ownership as a critical issue. Indeed, an artwork can have different dimensions of meanings and can be expressed through multiple ways, lots of artists may argue that if the ownership of artwork is over-regarded, it might limit the recreation of this artwork and therefore limit the creativity of various artists. However, in my opinion, the recreation of previously-existed artworks actually limits the creations in total. As Oswald once said: “Although people, in general, are making more noise than ever before, fewer people are making more of the total noise.” This sentence is referring to the “plagiarism” in music, especially recordings where musicians take the original music and make a few adjustments and label it as a new track. Oswald explains that we need to increase the amount of music in total, not creating new music by changing the old ones. Art is the same, I think that by protecting the ownership of original works, we can also inspire new artworks.

In the “Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagarism” by Jonathan Letham, he discusses the definition of copyright over time and how today it has affected the culture industry. Artists are typically brought to their own gifts in art through discovering the work of someone who is already a master of it. It was interesting when Letham quoted, “Finding one’s voice isn’t just an emptying and purifying oneself of the words of others but an adopting and embracing of filiations, communities, and discourses. ” As by us being inspired by others artwork, we are able to take what we’ve learned from their art and turn it into art from our own unique perspective. 

Although, copyright is leaving our art and culture with a stagnation in growth. Thomas Jefferson believed it was a “necessary evil,” as nowadays it’s almost impossible to regulate technology and media. The culture industry can no longer control the use of its art. For example, he even explains how Disney (with a very extreme situation with their levity in copyright laws) has taken inspiration from past artists like Shakespeare. With no regulation on this, generations are now forced with responding to the “same mixture of intoxication, resentment, lust, and glee that characterizes all artistic successors.” In turn, by reproducing and copying ideas off of each other’s art, we are only making the world smaller and never growing our culture to something more. In my perspective while I think this is very true, I do believe that if we make copyright more strict, then it will limit the inspiration given to artists now. There would be less of. culture industry if we aren’t allowed to be creative with the work of others. 

Lethan also goes into the commons of a language and how it isn’t the community in which owns something, but the people as a whole. It is owned by nobody. I question what he actually means by this and if this is considered a bad or positive aspect of the culture industry. After reading this, I now question whether todays copyright situation is actually beneficial to the culture industry or if it is actually hurting it, making it more and more just a reproduction of the past.

After reading “On the Rights of Molotov Man,” it made me realize how art today is so easily reproduced and decontextualized online. It seems like you can take just about any photo from the internet, instagram, facebook, and more without needing any sort of credit to use it. By screenshooting or copy & pasting it, it’s yours to use. Even if the author didn’t want someone using it, by putting it online for everyone to see, it is still super easy for someone to replicate without the author ever knowing. As stated in this reading, the artist needs to reclaim the context of their work. Nowadays with technology and social media, doing this seems almost impossible. 

I also thought it was very interesting when they were discussing the Molotov painting’s copyright. Nmazca asked, “Who owns the rights to this mans struggle?” I think she brings up an interesting point about how maybe it isn’t about the person who took the photo or painted the picture, but who was behind it. While everyone else is discussing the rights of the photograph or painting, nobody was really discussing the man within it and his story (or context). It is as if Pablo’s context was “stripped away” from him, nobody knew his story and were just replicating it over and over for their own use. Who can use and replicate these kinds of art then comes into question