Response to the Ectasy of Influence

I want to respond to this article from two different viewpoints. I will first speak on behalf of the artist who feel its okay to borrow from another artist and claimed to be influenced. Second, I will speak on behalf of the artists who feel its important to distinguish themselves from one another.
While I was reading this article, I asked myself one question. Can an artist truly be original. The answer to that questions lies in the history of all the performing arts throughout the world. Every painting that's painted, every record that's played, every film that's made, and every novel that's written is built upon elements that came from another point in time. The contemporary artist cannot be truly original because he or she is taught to follow and learn from the original artists who laid the groundwork. Bands such as The Rolling Stones and the Beatles borrowed heavily from from blues and r&b artist such Muddy Waters and the Isley Brothers. Rhythm and Blues fueled the invention of that world wide phenomenon called Hip Hop. Granted, I understand that society places a great deal of respect on someone who can be original in whatever art they participate in. However, if an art history teacher were to look at a painting that was painted yesterday, they would probably compare it to a master that lived so many years ago.
Speaking of the ecstasy of influence, I want to turn my attention to hip hop music. Hip Hop music is tr he most dominant musical medium in the entertainment industry. Rap music, which is part of the Hip Hop culture, is a good example of the concept of the "ecstasy of influence." Rap borrows heavily from other musical genres, especially R&B music. May rap artist claim that they are helping to preserve the musical legacy that came before them, and many of them do acknowledge that rap music is based on sampling other musical artist. However, that is not always the case. There are many talented rap artist who have found a way to be very creative and be original in their work. Andre Young aka. Dr. Dre, is one of the most sought after producers in hip hop. Although he has sampled, he has become known to create sounds and rhythms that no other producer can match. He is known as the Godfather of Gangster Rap.
I now want to respond to the articles section of "The beauty of second use." Most artist become inspired to create when they view art created by someone else. I believe this is the purpose of creating a work of art. Picasso simply did not paint a picture if someone was not going have some type of emotional involvement. Second use can be very beautiful especially if the artist does something much better with it. For example. The Star Spangled Banner has been sung by thousands of people for over two hundred years. But it became a number one hit for Whitney Houston; selling over two million copies. Imitation is the greatest form of flattery for an artist. The original artist of a work, whether it is a play, a novel, or a painting, should not be compelled to sue someone because another person took their work of art and spun it into something special. This only reflects the appreciation of the art itself on behalf of the artist.
Thomas Jefferson had the idea of protecting the works of artist, which is enshrined in the United Sates Constitution. Jefferson's proposal was that Congress grant protection to copyrighted works for fourteen years plus another fourteen years if the person lived. After that, the works would fall into public use. Jefferson felt that ideas should flow freely like nature and not just limited to one person. This supports the view that art should be copied and spun into something that can be more beautiful than the original. However, that does not always happen. Sometimes an original work of art can be so great that it cannot be surpassed. William Shakespeare is considered the greatest playwright to ever live. Countless movies have been made based on his work.
Now. I want to take the view of the artist. When I say artist, I mean the originator of the work. Many artist want to make a name for themselves. They do this by being original, and creative. The artist puts a lot of hard work and effort into his or her creation; only to be appreciated and not copied. Is it really fair to say that it is wrong for artist to sue over the second use of their work? Well, I do not know. But it must really hurt to have an idea taken and spun into something else. Years ago, a manager can take credit for writing a hit record even though they had nothing to do with the writing of the song. Many if these artist now are suing for back royalties. Also, what does it say for the artist use takes the original artwork and use it. Does that make him creative? Does it make him a genius? When an artist remakes a well known piece of art, someone with any knowledge of art will compare to another artist, thus giving credit to them. Anyone who is trying to make it in the world of art makes the effort of being original. Whether its a painting , a poem, a novel, or music, the originality is that artist top priority.
I'm taking both sides of the issue because I really don not have an opinion to whether it is okay to plagiarize or not. I do know that gift is an art and was meant to be cherished by everyone. Whether if its original or copied we cannot really put a price on it. It's too bad that Thomas Jefferson is not here, he can probably figure it out.