Depending on how you define innovation - as something original, or just something new - remixerrs can be considered both innovators and thieves. Fortunately for my consideration, those terms are not necessarily contradictory.
 |
| (A remix of Picasso's quote by Banksy http://www.flickriver.com/photos/hisgett/3762597413/) |
It's easy to argue that the re-presentation of a piece of work is piracy when you assume that the original is just that: original. But is anything really original. Pablo Picasso even once said that "good artists copy, great artists steal". Advances in almost any category are inspired by something else. Almost everything these days is a copy of a copy, a reinterpretation of an interpretation. For Lawrence Lessig, "creators here and everywhere are always and at all times building upon creativity that went before and that surrounds them now" (2004: 29). Younger generations especially have replaced the top down consumption model of culture, and instead "increasingly understand culture as something they make, or something they remake and remix...through the tools of technology" (Lessig in Work Foundation, 2007: 75). Art, and more broadly, culture, is often derivative in a way that enables its growth.
Theft is a tricky concept in this debate that, for me, requires specificity. If you consider it in legal terms then it is fairly black and white with only some shades of grey: does 'theft' mean not paying royalties, or just not attributing/acknowledging original ownership? I would argue now, however, that even if the content is stolen, derivative, or has been influenced, the product can still be innovative, new and different. Maybe they're innovators if they add something to or better the original and pirates if they don't: "In music, good remixes make the original tracks more popular" and therefore add value (Mason, The Guardian, 10 May 2008).
U.K street artist Banksy provides an interesting argument for ownership/piracy debates in terms of advertising - a medium which is often derivative and woven with intertextuality:
 |
| (http://binaryzeromusic.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/banksy-fuck-that.html) |
His quote was then remixed by artist Karina Nurdinova. Banksy himself often employs recognisable symbols in his work but the medium used and elements added alters or parodies the original meaning.
For example:
For example:
Remixers of any medium of art are not always innovator, but neither are they necessarily thieves. Artists can create something new, based on something old, without leading the way of innovation.
References:
Binary Zero 2012, 'Banksy: Fuck That', Binary Zero, Friday March 16, >http://binaryzeromusic.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/banksy-fuck-that.html<
Lessig, L 2004, 'Free Culture', The Penguin Press, New York
Mason, M 2008, 'Live and Let DIY', The Guardian, Saturday 10 May >http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2008/may/10/popandrock.piracy<
Sanyal, D 2011, 'Spiel Province: One Nation Under Banksy', Blogger, Friday 8 July >http://spielprovince.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/one-nation-under-banksy.html<
Work Foundation 2007, 'Staying Ahead: The Economic Performance of the UK's Creative Industries', Department of Culture, Media and Sport, London
Hi Claire, I really enjoyed reading this post and the images used throughout. I completely agree with your argument that if a product is new, innovative or different from the original then it shouldn't be classified as 'theft. The images included throughout, including the Pulp Fiction and Nintendo images, were apt examples of how an original work can be remixed yet provide a completely different meaning to the original piece. A mix of rational discussion and clever use of images to back up your argument made this an enjoyable post to read.
ReplyDeleteHi Claire
ReplyDeleteI like the way you put all the reference together and how you argue the concept of theft requiring a specific context. In my case I think stealing a piece of art would be breaking into a museum getting the pieces of art from it and take it back home and put it in my living room without telling anybody. If you talk about a design, changing the words using the same design like your Coca-Cola photo or your Nintendo photo will make me think that you want to use the original popularity of the brand to gain attention for the new design making it popular but also giving the original design credit for it because at the end everybody knows that´s Coca-Cola or that´s Nintendo.