Response to Simon Penny's 1994 article, published in Critical Issues in Electronic Media:
General thoughts on Article:
Interesting point on how plagiarism may be contributing most to cultural enrichment and distribution of ideas. Penny points out this is the age of the recombinant: bodies, gender, texts, culture (I'd add genes as well!); and I hesitantly agree, though I cannot identify what specifically makes 'this era' one of exceptional recombinance, save for rapid technological advancements. I totally love how Penny makes a point of calling out how plagiarism resists privatization of culture that serves the powerful elite, I think this is incredibly topical, especially in the context of information sharing and the press for open access for academic journals, academic content in general, and entertainment (music, film, etc.)--people feel they 'deserve' this information, but the companies (often very wealthy corporations) who own the content resist this ever-increasing demand. Penny radically calls for open access to the whole cultural data base. I don't see how this is practical or sustainable in any context, but that isn't to say I disagree with Penny on an ideological scale, simply that if there is no reward/privatization of information or art, that it may lose significance and an element of prestige that motivates artists/intellectuals to produce more similar content with rigorous demands in creativity (if no one profits from their creations, there could be a decline in quality production). I don't know this for sure, but it's not an issue to disregard, even if it is pessimistic. I think there's a distinct difference between appropriation and plagiarism, wherein appropriation does not claim to be 100% original in its content, but may be more original in its meaning (intended or not), regardless of the interpretation one gleans from it. It could be that the golden rule may be appropriate to consider in this context: if you made something, would you be upset if someone used exactly/changed somewhat your creative content.
If the artist/content creator is unknown and the content is utilized by another person, it makes a difference if the content creator was well known, because others will likely recognize it (Mona Lisa or Dali versus a digital portrait).
Notes during discussion in class:
Also, who is to say the content creator is original? What technology are they using? Where did they learn their craft? Who inspired them?
On the subject on inspiration, where does it become plagiarism?
Whee does apathy and lack of citation/cultural awareness of disdain for plagiarism are unaccounted for?
We're very focused on Western culture in this discussion, not even considering how other cultures (or even hypothetically might) consider appropriation/plagiarism/inspiration.
We aren't questioning why we are so opposed to plagiarism; why we consider it a despicable, dishonorable act. We're just accepting it as it as a bad thing, likely because of how ingrained the import or 'academic honesty' is in this institution/group or institutions in 1st world academic prestige.
I agree with Penny in how so much innovation and progress has occurred due to appropriation/plagiarism; think of how tools/hunting developed, for example.
Postmodernism is the opposite of individualistic, glorifying one's holistic environment instead of an isolated microcosm of existence.
No comments:
Post a Comment