Innovation and Plagiarism vs. Copying Without Variation 

           Though rationales to convey messages are the same, the 20^th and 21^st 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.