Innovation and Plagiarism vs. Copying Without Variation
Though rationales to convey messages are the same, the 20th
and 21st centuries are unique in the amount of resources we have to
convey messages to one another. In the context of today’s world, people’s
attention is gained through advertising, media and art. In this stream of
messaging, there is a rush for originality, and new outlets to convey messages.
It seems that many people think if it is not new it is not good.
There are problems with this
statement, but also truths with this statement. In my opinion, humans are
natural innovators that strive to improve their environment, and are always
solving problems. In conveying messages to one another, I think that creative
solutions to the problem of sending messages are the most interesting to
receive. Plagiarism seems to be the reusing of someone else’s method of message
making while transmitting the exact same message.
Using the same method of
transmitting a message as someone before you, without changing the message that person conveyed, is not
living up to the innovation that humans are capable of. There are however
different messages that can be sent using the exact same method of sending
messages. This type of “plagiarism” is acceptable and creative in my opinion.
Take painting and the example of
splattering paint onto a canvas or surface. Pollock, arguably the innovator of
the practice, may have invented that aesthetic, but has by no means exhausted
the different messages splattered paint upon a canvas can convey to a viewer.
For example within the genera of street art, becoming seriously popular within
the last 5 to 10 years also employs the use of spattered paint on canvas and
surfaces quite extensively to convey a completely different message to the
viewer.
