plagiarism, appropriation, lifting, copying, stealing, riffing, capturing\u2026 la dee da. <\/p>\n
Tbh, I\u2019m slightly overwhelmed by all the things I want to say about the readings\/videos we had to watch this week. I got a little into the idea of copying\/replication in my ICM Wk 1 HW <\/a>, so I was immediately intrigued by our selection of readings. So as a disclaimer, I\u2019m not sure I\u2019m going to get to everything that I want to say in here (nor say it as eloquently as I would like), but, I\u2019ll try my darndest. So, outlined below are some of my major thoughts regarding the material:<\/p>\n 1. Walter Benjamin and Art\u2019s Aura<\/b> Still, worth mentioning that traditionally in other societies around the world, art did not occupy such a prestigious position. There\u2019s some very interesting reading out there regarding intellectual property rights and commodification of Australian Aboriginal art, an art form that has only recently become commercialized (Fred Myers<\/a> is an Anthro Dept. Prof at NYU and his book, Painting Culture: The Making of an Aboriginal High Art<\/i><\/a> is what I\u2019m referring to). <\/p>\n 2. Mytho-Artist\/Genius\/Auteur<\/b> 3. \u201cImperial Plagiarism\u201d and white boyz stealing and profiting <\/b> 4. Jungian ideas of archetypes<\/b> 5. Virality, meme-ification, new forms of profit-making<\/b> The video really went viral after a guy named Charlie Murphy uploaded to Vine. Have you contacted him? What\u2019s the deal there?<\/b> So, are you trying to get him to take his copy of the video down?<\/b> When I first read this I was like, dude, what is Viral Hog? Woah, they have found a market for distributing and licensing viral videos. This is a thing. This is the world we live in. Film a video of wheezing ducks and suddenly that\u2019s protected property. <\/p>\n There was also recently a hub bub about Internet star comedian THE FAT JEW and how he was accused of plagiarism for reposting content to his social media accounts without proper attribution. Comics get fired up about that shit. Look! Forbes even wrote an article entitled, \u201cThe Fat Jew, Plagiarism and Copyright Law\u201d<\/a>. According to my friend who just started following him on Instagram, he now properly cites his sources. <\/p>\n 6. lastly \u2013 <\/b> plagiarism, appropriation, lifting, copying, stealing, riffing, capturing\u2026 la dee da. Tbh, I\u2019m slightly overwhelmed by all the things I want to say about the readings\/videos we had to watch this week. I got a little into the idea of copying\/replication … Continue reading
\nMuch of the discussion surrounding copyright is predicated on this notion (and assumption, really) of art having this special position in our (western) society. Lethem argues that art exists as both something inalienable yet still able to be commodified. Of course, couldn\u2019t help but think of Walter Benjamin\u2019s essay, \u2018The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,\u2019<\/a> which I haven\u2019t read in several years but do recall that it had a lot to do the belief that art has a certain aura<\/i> that imbues it with mystical properties and revered status. I think a lot of notions about the need to \u201cprotect\u201d certain artistic pieces from pirating, remixing and the like comes from this notion of art as a supernatural creation. People find accusations of plagiarism troubling because it puts into question philosophical notions of artistic integrity and the \u201ccreative genius.\u201d What\u2019s interesting to me is the specific historical, political, cultural context that copyright infringement really became an issue AKA rise and maturation of capitalism. As mentioned in Drew Christie\u2019s \u201cAllergy to Originality\u201d piece<\/a>, originality didn\u2019t become a concept until the late 18th century. As art became seen increasingly as a commodity and a signifier of prestige (cue: Bourdieu\u2019s concept of Cultural Capital) and we just became obsessed with generating profit from anything that we could, of course people are going to eke out as much money as they can from an object or event. So while Disney gorged himself on classic fairy tales, those iterations are for that corporation\u2019s profit and their\u2019s alone. <\/p>\n
\nA piece of art\u2019s aura extends to its creator, who is often given an almost god-like appraisal. These artists become a way through which the public can both humanize an artistic creation, but also deify its creator. This also gets into our (Western) obsession with individuality, divine invention while sidelining more historically-accurate narratives of communal efforts and workshop productions. I think we like the story of the lone wolf artist because we can empathize and try to emulate that type of effort. Every time they mentioned Bob Dylan\u2019s name in these pieces, this is what popped into my brain. <\/p>\n
\nOn thing I found troubling about this pro-pirating, etc. rhetoric that was especially pervasive in the Lethem and Ferguson pieces was that many times these instances of \u201cborrowing\u201d occur in the form of a person in a position of privilege taking from those without, and then receiving credit and financial renumeration. This subject also gets touched on in the \u201cOn the Rights of Molotov Man\u201d piece, as one artist notes, \u201cWho owns the rights to this man\u2019s struggle?\u201d and Meiselas specifically notes that the painting diminishes the subject\u2019s act of defiance. Our society casts the artist (often white, often male) as prophet and genius, even while they are blatantly stealing\/co-opting the narratives and styles of minorities. Amandla Sternberg\u2019s great video <\/a> does a solid job at explaining this phenomenon and provides plenty of examples. But suffice to say, there\u2019s a long history of people in positions of power cribbing from sources of compromised people and making money off of it. I think this is also based in Western ideals of racial bias and the industry\u2019s notion of how we can make things more consumable to a racial majority. <\/p>\n
\nAgain, reaching back to some long ago reading, but didn\u2019t Jung have notions about a shared cultural knowledge in our DNA? That certain archetypes exist and get passed on from generation? Certainly we can look at Joseph Campbell\u2019s Hero Cycle and note how many tales follow a similar pattern, or even how certain folk tales have the exact same plot. Just look at the myth of Cupid and Psyche<\/i><\/a> and compare it to the fairy tales East of the Sun, West of the Moon<\/i><\/a> and Beauty and the Beast<\/i><\/a>. See any familiarities? <\/p>\n
\nSo as new forms of (social) media proliferate, of course people are finding new ways of making money off of them, while also making moves to protect their \u201cintellectual\u201d property. A recent case that exemplifies this most interestingly was the Wheezing Duck vine<\/a>. Vice did an interview<\/a> with the guy who made the video and they specifically get into how the video went viral because someone else copied it<\/i>. A quick excerpt:<\/p>\n
\nI\u2019ve never done anything like this before, but I expected it to be stolen. Charlie has made people so interested in the video, so I can\u2019t be angry about that. But I hope he remembers who the original owner is. It was posted without permission from me and Viral Hog<\/a>.<\/p>\n
\nI understand Viral Hog has reached out to him. They asked me if they should get the video removed or if I wanted Charlie\u2019s version on the internet. We came to the conclusion that keeping it online was the best thing for the video.<\/p>\n
\ndid ya see The New inquiry\u2019s latest issue (.pdf), Counterfeit?<\/a> The content fits in well to this discussion. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"