Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Appropriation, in terms of art, refers to an artist “borrowing” an idea or already fabricated project and incorporating it in their own art to convey a meaning that somehow plays upon the image or idea that they borrowed. Appropriation, in this way, skirts the line of almost being considered a kind of plagiarism or even cheating as far as personal creativity is concerned. However, I consider appropriation to be something far from anything as sordid as cheating or plagiarism.
Appropriation differs from plagiarism in terms of sheer thought. Appropriation is in fact using the idea of others to source the creativity of one’s own work, however it also relies heavily on the artists personal expression. Plagiarism simply rips the ideas of others and presents them as their own without incorporating them with an alternative meaning, this is true especially in all of the art that implores aspects of appropriation.
Ultimately, it would be absurd to outlaw something like appropriation, mostly because humans derive nearly all of their thoughts on the patterns and ideas of people before them. “Copy-cating,” for lack of a better term, is simply part of human nature; when a person likes and understands the idea or actions of another person they often implore them in their own work. Again, this is especially true in art. Certain aspects of art have remained recognizable throughout history and are often so definite that they are easily associated with the era or genre from which they were derived.
Appropriation in terms of Internet use seems like something that would be very difficult to control. Seeing that the Internet is global and utilized by billions of people, billions of times on a daily basis, a means for appropriation is definitely assessable. However, this doesn’t necessarily make it wrong. I feel that when a person posts their work on the Internet it then is subject to the kind of manipulation that appropriation could be accused of.
It would be unfair or place restraints on something like appropriating, at least in terms of art. Because ultimately, the message of an artist can only be materialized by the artist himself or herself; inhibiting something like this would be wrong.
Appropriation differs from plagiarism in terms of sheer thought. Appropriation is in fact using the idea of others to source the creativity of one’s own work, however it also relies heavily on the artists personal expression. Plagiarism simply rips the ideas of others and presents them as their own without incorporating them with an alternative meaning, this is true especially in all of the art that implores aspects of appropriation.
Ultimately, it would be absurd to outlaw something like appropriation, mostly because humans derive nearly all of their thoughts on the patterns and ideas of people before them. “Copy-cating,” for lack of a better term, is simply part of human nature; when a person likes and understands the idea or actions of another person they often implore them in their own work. Again, this is especially true in art. Certain aspects of art have remained recognizable throughout history and are often so definite that they are easily associated with the era or genre from which they were derived.
Appropriation in terms of Internet use seems like something that would be very difficult to control. Seeing that the Internet is global and utilized by billions of people, billions of times on a daily basis, a means for appropriation is definitely assessable. However, this doesn’t necessarily make it wrong. I feel that when a person posts their work on the Internet it then is subject to the kind of manipulation that appropriation could be accused of.
It would be unfair or place restraints on something like appropriating, at least in terms of art. Because ultimately, the message of an artist can only be materialized by the artist himself or herself; inhibiting something like this would be wrong.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
