Copyrighting the Brushstrokes

I found this experience of creating more artistic definitions of copyright to be provocative in several different dimensions. First of all, it forces one to truly look at how they feel with regards to copyright law. I feel that I had to examine my thoughts quite carefully in order to effectively translate them into a visual format without the aid of words for explanation. I feel that showing a viewpoint is much more difficult than simply stating it, but also much more interesting. Also, the project forced those who undertook it to deal with the problem of deciding if derivative works, which use copyrighted materials, can be considered works of art. I feel that there can be artwork which is created using previously created material as a basis. However, it is difficult to draw the line between what would be considered an artistic use of copyrighted material and what would simply constitute copying. When you look at the situation literally, using copyrighted material to create a derivative work is analogous to plagiarism. However, for some reason that is hard to define, I feel like derivative works have a far greater potential for creative value than does plagiarism.

I tend to feel that copyright often allows for a larger entity to, for all intents and purposes, tread on the individual. It seems that those who have expressed creativity in a way which creates some form of derivative work are usually fervently pursued by copyright-holding corporations who claim to have lost enormous sums of money. These companies usually desire compensation and attempt to strong arm individuals into fairly lucrative settlements ( from the company's standpoint). More disturbing, in my mind, than the attempts to stifle those who would build off of existing ideas is the fairly prevalent trend of forsaking creativity for profitability. It seems that many of the art forms of today, including music and movies, tend to create products rather than art. Music, for example, seems to be produced from a formula for chart success. once something is found which sells, creativity is abandoned in favor of reproducing the tried and tested profit-producing formula. It seems that there are fewer and fewer artists who are willing to exhibit truly original expression mainly because it just isn't as profitable as "manufacturing art." This, I feel, is the biggest shortcoming of the copyright system. It encourages artists to abandon themselves, what they stand for, and, often, their most loyal fan base. Overall, I feel that copyright is an institution which is based upon procuring profit for the production of marketable thoughts, ideas, and creations. It is an unavoidable condition of capitalism. However, I do feel that the protection it provides to creative works of all kinds is, to some degree, necessary.

For the project, I tried to illustrate the implicit connection between copyright law and monetary gain. Also, I attempted to illustrate what I feel are the effects of copyright and money on the creative spirit. I Feel that the first work, which used any image, was easier to create. This is mainly due to the fact that there were enormous amounts of ready-made images at my disposal. The second work, however, was able to maintain the point of the first work fairly well. I feel that the first project is currently a more effective statement, but had I sketched original artwork or taken original photographs, I feel that the second could have potentially been more powerful. This is mainly because I would have been able to create my own images solely for the purpose of illustrating my point, as opposed to recycling images and attempting to make them fit. As a whole, the project helped me to further understand the value of derivative works as legitimate creative entities.