Melinda

The most interesting point the video we watched in class brought up is what happens to art when computers can have them easily recreated. I feel like that although technology does pose a threat to artists, it is still the original piece that has much more value than the digital replicated pieces. However advanced technology may develop to be, it is still very unlikely in the near future that it could have a thinking mind that that operates and processes in a way that it could actually create art. Technology such as computers can be a handy tool that could assist in the creation of art, but it can never be a source of creation. It is still the person, the artist that does the active thinking behind what a piece of work shows. In some cases, the artist would like to have duplicates made because they could sell them for more and make more profit. However, most of the time I feel like that the artist or buyer who created or possesses the original piece would want their piece to be unique and take means to protect their rights. Maybe there would be something like a patent law that would effectively regulate such a problem.

Another point that caught my attention is that everything is a remix and nothing is original. I agree with the fact that no idea is simply conjured out of thin air. Remixing, in my opinion is a form of originality because no one else has remixed in such a way. We are always inspired or influenced in some way either consciously or subconsciously when we create our works. There should be nothing to be ashamed of if hints of others’ works are detected. Even if you believe you are the first and only to have come up with a unique idea, you never know if there is someone out there somewhere who happens to have the exact same idea just by coincidence.