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.

The Theory of Animation

This was one of the most interesting articles that I have ever read. I was amzed at the analytical approach the author took to the subject of animation. Most of my life, I always had this passion for cartoons but after reading the article, I look at cartoons and other forms of animation from a new perspective.
The author basically broke down animation into two groups: orthodox animation and experimental animation. Orthodox animation is what most audiences are familiar with. Cartoons featuring Disney characters or those made by Warner Brothers are in line with the orthodox tradition. This tradition is rooted in the sense that cartoons carry a certain aesthetic that most of us are familiar with. Cel animated cartoons are the most traditional form of animation. These animated films are just like regular films shown in the movie theatre. They are scripted, storboarded, and their dialogues are performed by actors in a recording studio. The Disney studios are probably the first to come up with this sort of concept I'm not really sure. However, Disney revolutionized the process of this type of animation and it would become duplicated by other studios such as Warner Brothers.
The author describes several concepts that are associated with orthodox animation. One is the human being and the animal. I'm not quite sure what the author was trying to say when he mentioned this; but I interpreted it as animals with human qualities. The example that I would use is my favorite all time cartoon character: Woody Woodpecker. He is simply a bird who can speak and is able to thick logically; particulary in a sense that he can always outsmart another character who wishes to do him harm. It also makes for great slapsick comedy.
Personally I ask myself why the author decided to do such a thourough analysis oo animation. What was the point is he trying to make. Animation I feel was just another form of filmmaking that was less expensive. Why pay actors if you can draw them? Also, I think it was just another attempt at establishing a form of entertainment that was very profitable. However, the author seems to have the gift of being able to analyze the different modes of animation. I've been watching cartoons most of my life and I never really realized some of these things. But when the author touches on some of the elements I find myself going 'yes, of course.'
I want to touch on the reading just a little bit more. I want to talk about the author's analysis of the dialogue.

Response to Clip

The clip that we watched in class was okay. I didn't really become aquainted with avant-garde material until last semester during a showing in Luminer Theatre. Some of them I found to be very interesting some of them I did not. The one in class really did not peak my interest. However, I must admit that I did find the music in the piece to be very enticing. I was also mesmerized by the wide range of colors that were present in the piece. Overall, I really was not that much into it. However, that should not suggest that I am one that is very difficult to please. I'm sure that I will see clips that would be more interesting to me and maybe I can provide a longer response. Until then, I will say that the piece would suffice me until the next showing.