Midterm Project - Digital Memes

https://webfiles.colorado.edu/towlea/www/hatofartMIDTERM.html

CopyRight CopyWrong

Where is the balance in protecting ones "original" creative output versus opening up the collective's creative output imagined by some as freely accessible source material for active reconfiguration?

        This question is one I debate frequently when talking about free culture and open source.  It racks my brain because this is just about the only topic that I don’t have an exact opinion for.  It is tough, where IS the balance?  Of course any type of artist or creator wants recognition for what they make, and of course your name will be associated with the piece even if there isn’t a copyright law; but for how long?  Throughout the semester we have been discussing how, especially now with digital artists, it is extremely difficult to stay recognized and not go unnoticed.  We talked about how artists are recognized through other people, who at the time just think they are posting blogs or making websites for fun, are actually becoming curators and deciding what is important and what is not.  Eventually the artists work is pushed further and further back into the archives.  As if the struggle to stay afloat isn’t enough, the absence of copyright would only make the struggle harder.  Everyone wants recognition and a large part of that is held in copyright laws.  

        On the other hand, as Lawrence Lessig has written, digital technology has made it easy to create new works from existing art.  In my digital art classes, or even just for fun on my own time, I use others works to make it into something new.  Not only is this easily accessible, but many times, this type of work is specifically what people want to do and enjoy doing.  Yet again you have to ask, where is the balance?  How much should you have to change something to make it your own?  And should you be required to give recognition to the original artist?  I’m not sure how I would feel if someone took my work, made a few changes, and called it their own.  Perhaps I would be extremely unhappy receiving no credit, even though the others persons work would not have been possible without my original; or perhaps I would feel proud and honored that someone enjoyed my work so much that they felt compelled to do something with it on their own.  These are all things to think about debating something as important as free culture and copyright.  It is practically impossible to come up with a balance between protecting ones "original" creative output while having the ability to open up the collective's creative output for active reconfiguration, which everyone will agree on.  

        In my Digital Art 1 class, one project I was assigned was to take any famous work and make it my own.  I chose Odalisque by Henri Matisse.  

Would Matisse have been upset by this work? Again, has it been reconfigured enough for him to appreciate my work?  Or would he be offended?  As the artist of this work, I feel like I was clearly remixing/post-producing/reconfiguring this source material, yet, as I have been debating, I don’t know if everyone would see it this way.