Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Plagiarism, Collaboration, Inspiration?
when musicians jam together, collaborate, build off of one another, are they plagiarizing? can artists create something real without being inspired? nietzsche makes the claim that knowledge is built from multiple perspectives, "there are no facts, only interpretations." lethem cites blatant forms of plagiarism that have been major contributers to current pop culture and the literary world as a whole. would someone be bold enough to say that shakespeare is a cheater? he basically ripped cleopatra straight from plutarch's life of mark antony and to my knowledge, did not include footnotes in any of his plays...what does that mean? where is the line between artistic license and plagiarism? are we as a society ready to forfeit the creation of art to protect copyrights... or are copyrights actually protecting artists? i would argue that the more lawsuit crazy we are, the more art is inhibited... what do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi, I agree. I'm pretty sure that everything is considered plagiarism now. You can use the word "is" and you'll get in trouble for it. And why is plagiarism such a big deal considering so many great things have come of it... like what you wrote...is Shakespeare less credible because he "plagiarized?" no. Shakespeare is Shakespeare. Plagiarism is overrated and it's getting annoying. Musical collaborations are not plagiarism. That's stupid.
ReplyDelete