The idea of no art ever original is a complex one. For art to be created, there has to be inspiration. As I love to write stories and pieces, I am inspired by a range of different media texts, such as the work of director Wes Anderson to more traditional forms of inspirational texts, such as Margaret Atwood. A wide, and rather different, range of media forms inspire me to create many different pieces that although I am proud of, always without a doubt need some sort of improvement. To put it simply, texts are there to inspire others; does that mean that it creates work that is not original? How is creating a new twist on an old idea not considered “original”? There are many works of media, and art, that are inspired by something. What about all the classical works of art that many take inspiration of today? The vast majority of those were heavily inspired by the bible, or other religious texts. Does this take away the validity of the work of art?
The examples of remix music is a primary example. The sound clip we listened to in class, was difficult for myself to interpret. I could only recognise a handful of songs, and to even guess a few correctly- I really had to concentrate. Yes, original and well know music was used to create music, but they are re-created to be something completely different. The reason why it is more targeted as “copy-right breach” is because to create the music, you need the music source directly. But what is the difference between this, and being inspired by a media text to create a new one? The music source that is used in “remixing” usually sounds different to the original text.
I do agree with the words of Walter Benjamin in context of this:
“Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be…”