Read, watch links, and post response to your blog. Be sure to send me the url – a) Jonathan Lethem’s The Ecstacy of Influence: A Plagiarism; b) On the Rights of the Molotov Man: Appropriation and the Art of Context; c) Watch/Read Allergy to Originality and d) Kirby Ferguson’s Embrace the Remix
After reading and watching the four website, the above words kept singing in my head. Gene has two specialties. The first is to replicate themselves in order to maintain the basic characteristics of the original organisms; the second is gene can do mutation and variation in order to gain various kinds of offspring.
The four articles are discussing about the same theme, can someone really own certain ideas? There is a word in the first article that I considered a common sense of the entire human-beings, cryptomnesia. I was wondering before, that why one could come up with exactly the same idea with the other even though they could never have relation to each other. I think a line in the above TED talk explains it well, that creativities come from without not from within. We absorb and share the same nature world and human history. We also have originally common genes. It means that there is a chance that your knowledge and experiences and genes happens to partially overlap with someone else`s and then all of a sudden, you have similar ideas! It is not your fault or the other`s. Because either of your ideas is your response to the outside world. It all means that you want to make some changes to the world and it comes out from a good intension.
Before I read the article “On the rights of Molotov Man”, I was very impressed by the line which describes Dylan`s music as encoding a knowledge of past sources that might otherwise have little home in contemporary culture. It is such a warm and understandable form of inherit that make me believe that remix is like a collage, it is a form of inheriting and it is acceptable. But after I read the last paragraph of the “On the rights of Molotov Man”, I have a more dialectical thinking.
“I never did sue Joy in the end, nor did I collect any licensing fees. But I still feel strongly, as I watch Pablo Arauz’s context being stripped away-as I watch him being converted into the emblem of an abstract riot-that it would be a betrayal of him if I did not at least protest the diminishment of his act of defiance.” –SUSAN MEISELAS
It is like the controversial feature of gene. It wants to keep the original organisms. But at the same time, it is pushed to spread out. It is also like the law of entropy that an isolated system will spontaneously proceed towards its maximum entropy. I still have not figure out whether it is right or not to remake a piece of artwork that in the opposite way of its context. Should we consider a artwork only from its apparent expression, for example, visual expression, or should we always combine its apparent expression with its content.