Though there are outlier examples (found poetry comes to mind), why do you think categories like music and architecture (the two examples mentioned by Johnson-Eilola and Selber) were more quick to accept the concept of remixing than in the world of composition or academia?
Selber's example of syllabi being plagiarized (also echoed by Lessig) was one of the most relatable examples for
me. Despite my last question alluding to music embracing remixing, there is obviously still contention in artists appropriating or sampling other songs
(even if mainstream and common), yet there is often little controversy in shared
syllabi or programming code. Is it because these categories of creation are perceived
as non-artistic or less artistic? Are they considered a more communal resource due to
necessity? Or is the root always profit?
It's interesting how your second question sort of provides a counter-example to what you are getting at in the first question (we don't accept remix in comp, but we do accept borrowing and remixing of assignments and prompts, especially in house amongst direct colleagues). It's an interesting question. I think it really gets to profit, as you suggest in your final question.
ReplyDeleteGirltalk, the mashup artist that Lessig discusses, states that the music industry has got to stop looking at music as a product and instead look at it as a game.
I think that the question of who does the art belong to is moot. While interesting, I doubt it is ever being considered. It's simply lawyers arguing points to make money.