This reading was more like a story to me. It offered so much structure and for the reader, it gave us diverse examples to understand the beauty of art: paintings, animations, the free market, etc. To me, the reading simply focuses on the influence of art and the inspiration it draws out from creators, thinkers, dreamers, artists. However, there is a catch: plagiarism or “stealing” of someone else’s original ideas. A common thought is that in order for one to be creative, everything needs to be “original” and the ideas can stem from previous works however the outcome cannot. Although what I got from this reading (as well as the Molotov Man reading) is that even the most profound and globally acknowledged artists and companies make their work based on previous popular art.
As I stated previously, the author offers examples to help the reader better understand what the article is trying to portray. In the beginning of the article, he mentions how jazz and blues musicians actually integrate pre-existing melodies into their own songs, as well as how animation is literally built on the inspiration of characters and scenes used before. He was basically trying to say that without that type of influence to inspire and influence, there would be no grand mastery art that we see now.
He also later then explains how “Copyright is an ongoing social negotiation; a necessary evil”, the words plagiarism and copyright were made up from society and commonly holds a negative connotation, when it actually is an important part of inspiration for artists to produce works and let their own creativity flow. It may be similar content, but the ideas about it may be totally different from the original artist (however, by the end of this reading I am convinced that there is no original artist because other people can take that content and turn it into something totally different that holds a totally different meaning). He acknowledges this fact by explaining that attacking artists creativity because the inspiration is based off of previous works will eventually hurt artists of future generations because it suppresses their creativity when creativity isn’t something to be categorized or labeled. It’s a free flow that is unique to each and one’s their own. However, he does mention the notion of imperial plagiarism, however to my opinion that is still looked at negatively and gaining inspiration should never be labeled or categorized or put in a Good or Bad corner.
Later on throughout the article he does talk about how art can be a gift and commodity exchange. Meaning that although it can be bought and sold in the market, it still gives the buyer a personal touch or feeling. For example, when someone buys cheese, most likely there is no personal connection to it other than it being the topping of your baked potato. With art, you can still purchase it, but the most interesting thing is that it holds a more personable effect and meaning that is different for everyone. Lastly, he mentions public commons or public commonalities. “The world of art and culture is a vast commons”, meaning that no one is in charge of it, or owns it, but it is a shared experience that brings people together, that creates a language people can use to communicate, to understand, to make relationships and connections.
Basically, creativity is not necessarily all original…it does stem from somewhere, in some time period, from someone else. Without this influence & inspiration, what would the foundation of creativity be? Without this vital platform and foundation, it’s hard to plant the seed to grow ideas and create amazing works that we see nowadays.