Homework 6

Why do you think "writing about what you know" leads to terrible stories?
Writing about what you know only leads to stories that fall flat. If you're only working with existing content, then you won't be able to expand creatively because you're constrained by someone else's.

Within your chosen major or career path, how can you make better stories? Or, what are some of your ideas to progress stories that you think are not finished?
Within communications, I think better stories stem from expectations not met. My ideas flow most when I come across something and it falls short of what I expect from high caliber productions. Mostly, it comes back to what I as a person, not a communications major, would want to come from something versus immersing myself completely as a communications major.

Within a creative practice, is working in a physical and/or non-digital way important to you? Describe how you do creative work (any writing, drawing, photography, playing sports -anything) independently from a computer. How does a computer enhance or take away from your creative process?
I feel similarly to Kleon in that I get more joy from physically experiencing something than observing it from behind a screen. I think the more I'm independent from my computer, iPhone and TV, the more creatively inclined I become. Being outside and without digital access is important to me because it forces me to revert to other means, which isn't exactly always obvious. In other words, it forces me to take the initiative to do.

What are the things you use to procrastinate? How do they then feed into the other areas of what you do or what you study?
I use TV to procrastinate a lot. I also find sleeping and socializing a good way to procrastinate. I relate a lot of my studies to things I've witnessed on different shows I watch and find that is my most relative way of thinking. Sleeping doesn't help much but I do compare studies and theories in Communications to how my everyday life works.

Project 3

So I fooled around with Illustrator for a long time before I settled on A Rush of Blood to the Head album cover by Coldpay. I've come across different art and tattoos that are composed strictly of geometric shapes that are different sizes and thought I'd give it a go.

Homework 5

• What are your standards for yourself when you decide something is worth "stealing" or appropriating?

Appropriating something for me means that I must alternate the original piece into something with an entirely new perspective/meaning because that's the only way I'd feel comfortable doing so.

• How do you think this text relates to the idea of postmodernism?

I think the first two chapters relate to postmodernism because it stresses recycling ideas and putting perspective on old art.

• Is the idea of "nothing being original" indeed depressing? Or is it freeing? Why or why not?

I think that the idea of 'nothing being original' is freeing because it takes the inventive weight off artist's shoulders. It's comforting to know that artists feel this way because I know I'm not nearly as creative.

• What is the difference between creative hoarding and creative collecting?

Hoarders collect indiscriminately, artists collect things that they love selectively.

• What does Marcel Duchamp mean when he says that he doesn't believe in art, but he believes in artists?

Duchamp means to say that you should consume the genealogy of your most admired artist/writer/activist. You'll be much more fulfilled by studying individuals and who inspired them, and who inspired the individuals that inspired them than trying to digest the history of artists.

• Who are Patti Smith and Robert Mapplethorpe? How do you think they "faked it until they made it"? Do you think it worked for them?

Patti Smith is a musician and Robert Mapplethorpe is a photographer. Apparently, they assumed different identities by dressing up and pretending to be something other than they were to the point where other strangers were convinced. Considering they both achieved a celebrity status of sorts, I would say it worked out pretty well for them.

• What's the difference between "practice" versus "plagiarism"?

Plagiarism is trying to pass someone else's work off as your own practicing copying is about taking something to interpret it as you see fit.

• What's the difference between imitation vs. emulation?

Imitation is about copying and emulation is when imitation goes one step further to break into your own creation.

Who is one of your creative thinker "heroes" that you gravitate towards? Give us the name of one person, then start a small genealogy tree - who are three of their creative thinker heroes?
Chris Martin, the lead singer of Coldplay, is one of my favorite musicians. He says the band and himself are largely influenced by Travis, U2 and Radiohead.

How do you think what Kleon says is relatable directly to you and your chosen major? How can you apply what he is saying to your own field of interest?
When it comes to communications, I understand how emulation and creative collecting can benefit my work and legacy. However, it's a very sensitive subject in communications to appropriate anybody's work. It seems to be a large part of my education revolves around how NOT to take other people's work. Obviously I have to practice and learn from other people in my field at some point, but I definitely think the circumstances are different here.

Project 2

Homework 4

  Appropriation is taking one thing and stripping of it's associated meaning to use as one pleases with a new purpose. Fair use is any copying of copy-righted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. Appropriation and fair use would be considered enemies in my opinion, as appropriation carries a negative connotation of "taking something" and fair use has a positive connotation of "legitimate borrowing". Donn Zaretsky asks, “How do you decide whether something is transformative or just not quite transformative enough?” This is difficult to answer because I think the truth comes from how each version of the art makes you feel and if there is a difference. Articulating a vibe of feeling you receive from different artworks is strenuous. And much of this depends on a person and their experience or perception of art in general. What is grey about the court decision is that they ruled that an reasonable observer should make the distinction on wether or not the work was transformative, but that's all rather vague. 

  The New York Times called appropriation "a controversial but longstanding postmodern artistic strategy". But to me, appropriation is a negative word and doesn't entirely express what happens when an artist makes something new using existing materials. I really have no idea how to make a hard line in the distinction of transformative, which makes defining it all the more harder for legal matters. I think Barbara Kruger's method of appropriation is more accepted than Richard Prince's. Kruger makes an obvious distinction between the original photo by adding her own text that literally states her new message she's trying to deliver. I wouldn't say her form of appropriation is more valid, but it is more obvious and probably easier to understand than Prince's interpretation of appropriating. 

  Richard Prince sucks. Overall, his instagram installation just makes me angry. Who is buying these massive screenshots for $90,000? Why aren't they just replicating them like Suicide Girls? Besides the impracticality of it, it seems like a cheap way to create a gallery and sell it. It angers me that people want to be a part of his collection because they already have his collection, available to anyone with an Instagram account. It's not appropriation to me because a comment doesn't send a message that changes the photo. It just made Prince look sleazy, like the Huffington Post said. I guess to me, appropriation should be obvious. The only way I would accept Prince's installment of one of my Instagram photos would be if they were actually altered. The idea that he sells them for so much too is infuriating. To me, the price of the "art" just tells me that he's in it for the money and is trying to put his name brand on anything and everything to sell it.