Appropriation_ Molotov & Ecstasy

In relation to the Molotov Man article I am leaning toward Susan Meisalas opinion however I definitely understand and even agree with both sides. I think in the age of modern media, internet in particular information and art and everything is very readily available. Too readily available many argue. Information is distorted by opinion blogs people assume is journalism (as I am looking at in my media ethics class) and art, like Molotov Man, can be easily lost, and re contextualised.

I definitely feel for Susan, and strongly agree with her argument, that if art is becoming lost amongst the technology of this day and age. We artists should embrace each other, come together as people and respect each other’s ideas. Joy was made aware of the work, and I don’t think she handled the situation as best she could have. Not to say she was wrong entirely, I just feel as though they could have come to an appropriate agreement.

That is I do believe it is ok to recontextualise work, that Molotov Man can still have as much meaning for the original image, even when he is used for different meaning and purpose by Joy. There was no intention for deliberate harm by either or the two artists, they are both right. But I do want to stress that we are as people being overcome by the modern age, maybe we should make a stand and instead of falling and becoming lost, embrace and come together, to respect life, love, people, music and art. There are things much more beautiful than anger, technology and negative notions of disabling our ability to share, that we can focus on in this world.

In relation to ‘The Ecstasy of Influence’ I think, as the reference to Bob Dylan’s music being a paradox; it is very important to consider the idea that appropriation holds a lot of benefits. As it allows the contemporary audience to reflect on the importance of words. Or another positive is focussing on the new meanings that can be created. Hopefully the new artist reusing work does it in a respectful manner to the old, and it is probably in most cases best to still refer to where the idea came from. But the point is that there are a lot of positives about appropriation that should be more often acknowledged, people can find balance, and draw less upon the negative connotations of the word plagiarism or appropriation.

I like how the ecstasy article, explores broad examples with depth, to stir the mind on these matters. The idea of photography’s initial question of plagiarism and the ideas of the want for Plagiarism as it has brought such timeless tales such as Romeo and Juliet and Southpark ha-ha. I love that those two stand next to each other in a sentence by the way. =P

I love the that “when damn near everything presents itself as familiar (in this modern age) – it’s not a surprise that some of today’s most ambitious art is going about trying to make the familiar strange.” An idea referred to earlier in the text, talking about, how art recreates objects “thingness”. A statement I agree with, on the notion of how much we as people miss, or assume to be true, and the ‘things’ we become disembodied with because of our familiarity with them. Association therefore is beneficial in that it resparks old likely forgotten ideas that are still necessary.

I understand the ideas for the need of copyright laws, but I think the ecstasy argument is very true. There are many benefits to appropriation and many disadvantages to copy right, such as (as mentioned in text) not being able to play ground music in public. Music is such a beautiful element, I would much prefer to share than to not. That is a naive statement as I am only considering what I would like, not what is necessary. However the restrictions on students photocopying that could be valid to learning is a better example of a definite, (kind of ridiculous as its likely not a commercial concern) destructive attribute of copyright laws.

Basically I like what Thomas Jefferson said considering copyright ‘a necessary evil’ as “he favoured providing just enough incentive to create, nothing more, and thereafter allowing ideas to flow freely, as nature intended”. Though I do want to add this statement seems a little naive also, as though and I hate to say it, but we do not live in a perfect world, and there are surely benefits for copyright laws to help artists when work is being stolen in a negative manner. This is to say I agree with the article, however like to consider more opinions, as 1. There is never one answer, and 2. I feel as though Jonathan Lethum is little acknowledging the fact that we don’t live in a perfect world. There are people who would use copying in a negative case that copyright laws could protect the innocent: i.e the laws have purpose. But I do believe strongly that one works reuse to create new meaning is a fine and beautiful thing.

And to finish, with irony, by using a quote ha-ha, I again think Thomas Jefferson is on the right track saying “He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.”

_I went on for way to long I’m sorry I’ll end it here. =) Peace


Oh, P.s. want to point out that I feel out free ability to express opinion in blogs without stress on need of a big reference sheet, like in essay writing: has benefited my individual to learning. I enjoy writing, these blogs sparking new thoughts to consider in my mind. I have learnt a lot from these readings and writing the blogs, and I believe it is the ‘freeness’ of it all that has helped me enjoy it, therefore really learn.