The Ownership of Creativity...

[softgrey]

holy crap...


ok... ...now i'm going back to actually read that...

 

[helena]

oh no - it was a bit of a ramble....sorry.

 

[softgrey]

right...that was actually very easy to read and understand...thank you for laying it all out so clearly helena...

so while i get all of that...and the idea of allowing pre-existing ideas to develop...it could also have the opposite effect of making designers lazy, no? ...always 'borrowing' and not really 'ennovating'...this is my issue and concern...

because i feel like that is what is actually going on more often than not...most designers who 'borrow' their ideas don't push them very much farther...

you know what i mean?...so maybe in an effort to foster progress it really stunts its growth??..

hope i'm making sense...faust has got me paranoid now...
LOL...not enough sleep and not enough coffee....

 

[helena]

no that does make sense.... but do you think thats because the law doesn't reward innovation enough? Its not always down to the law though (being protective here) - free /novel thinking is more easily encouraged through education I think. The law rewards it rather than incentivises it. ...I think. Imagination needs to be developed in other ways.

I know what you mean - its easy to copy a jacket & change it about a bit & hey presto - new mj collection done. I understand that.

are these conversations going round in circles...i find myself thinking about nature/nurure/cult of fashionality over aesthetics again......?

 

[softgrey]

hey...it's all related...we just broke it down so it's easier to analyse...

but it is a vicious circle...one that's been going round and round for years...
i think the copycat sndrome has definitely gotten worse in recent years however...

you know what i keep thinking about?...
the effect of aids on the fashion industry and society...
i had a conversation with a desigher friend just the other day....and we agreed that everything has dramatically changed since the eighties ...and that is one of the major events...the gay community was dessimated...

that included so many people in the fashion industry...but also the art world...
i think i've decided that that is when soho and ny really started to die...
i think my whole generation was lost and much of the generation before who would have inspired them...

 

[helena]

i know - it would be good to figure it out though - to be able to say please miss I have the answer!

 

[softgrey]

i think so too...i've been thinking about these kinds of things for ages...
and everyone basically agrees that it's a vicious cycle...

so what's the answer...
where is the inspiration...?


maybe that's the next question...what inspires you???

 

[helena]

is that the next thread?

 

[softgrey]

...maybe...

 

[faust]

I don't know how the law could protect an idea or 'creativity' any further than it does already - surely its not possible to always create something entirely new. Most things are derived from developing other ideas one stage further - if 'creators' weren't allowed (by law) to use another idea as a starting point then how could things progress?

hope i am not boring you with this.....

Hell, no! Keep it coming! Straight out of my class notes

That's the big current argument, isn't it? The IP laws have been increasingly stifling creativity and development by steadily lengthening the copyright terms (in the US, the copyright extends 70years after the author's DEATH, which sounds a little ridiculous, if you ask me). I think it's even more irresponsible with the patent laws, where everyone is trying to patent everything and thus discourages and monopolizes important scientifice and pharmacutical developments (Bristol-Mayers, for example, claims that their researchers are unable to pursue 50(!) potential avenues for finding cure for cancer, because of patent holding by other entities).

 

[faust]

I know what you mean - its easy to copy a jacket & change it about a bit & hey presto - new mj collection done.

Spot on!

 

[daworth]

inspriration is a funny word here. Most artists learn the rudiments of the craft, as has been mentioned in this thread already I believe, by exactly copying other artists works. They'd project images on walls using candles and pinhole silks to trace things perfectly etc.

To me, it feels like you are looking for a black and white line to draw regarding borrowing/inspiration/plagiarism, and not only do I think there can be no such line, I think the desire to have this line, is an interesting product of our times. What I mean is, we simply want to punish those who steal, and praise those who lead. I don't need the government's help to do that for me.

Plus, the sad fact is that if you allow corporations to own these ideas, all that will happen is whats happened in every other media: Ill hire you to design for my corporation, and since you are a struggling artist, you will give me all the rights to your work in exchange for a small salary, and now because I am wealthy and you are not, I will own your ideas, which is even better than me copying them and much cheaper. Oh, and you think my ficticious company must hire only the greatest minds in fashion to succeed and this will force my corporation to pay you even close to what you think you are worth, then I'd ask you to look at movies. Clearly (insert sarcastic tone) only the best and brightest actors & directors are at work these days, same with Music! Even if talented people were actually hired, how many signed bands own the music they wrote?

Copyright laws hurt artists, stunt innovation (how many types of jeans are there? how many would there be if levi's had pattented denim?), and in the end will suffocate a capitalist society.

My background is in computers. When I first got on the internet it was in '89. the web, dot.com's, etc didnt exist yet. There were hundreds of thousands of users daily, not billions or whatever it is now. My point is that there was innovation almost daily back then, new things came out so fast (gopher, cmcu, icq, etc), it was really an incredibly happy and exciting time. Then corporations came in and halted nearly all of that, and the innovations started to trickle out seasonally in very planned and marketed ways. In my mind, this happened as a result of a small group of people taking the reins of something and controlling it. Which to me is bad.

Perhaps clothing hasn't been visited by the copyright faeries yet, because they are too busy patenting the world's food supply:

http://members.tripod.com/nvikas/genetic-exchg.html

 

[softgrey]

hey daworth...welcome to tfs...
great points...interesting comparison with the internet...
maybe fashion is already too insitutionalized to allow any real innovation...

at least on a large scale...

 

[faust]

i think so too...i've been thinking about these kinds of things for ages...
and everyone basically agrees that it's a vicious cycle...

so what's the answer...
where is the inspiration...?


maybe that's the next question...what inspires you???

Well, I think we are now entering a realm of "talent." Like I pointed out above, a lonely poet creating things out of thin air is a myth. One possesses a certain collective knowledge, based on which he operates. If the creator is talented enough, he will not copy the pre-existing ideas, but expand or change them. I think that's the difference between the true creator and a copycat.

In fashion, for example, the Antwerp Six clothes was incredibly fresh and different, yet they always said how they were inspired by Rei, Yohji, etc. So, it's not like they made something from zero. They took what they were taught, applied their own talent, and the peculiarity of their countries cultuer, and BAM - beautiful clothes

 

[luxmode]

Well, I think we are now entering a realm of "talent." Like I pointed out above, a lonely poet creating things out of thin air is a myth. One possesses a certain collective knowledge, based on which he operates. If the creator is talented enough, he will not copy the pre-existing ideas, but expand or change them. I think that's the difference between the true creator and a copycat.

Thanks Faust. This is exactly what I have been thinking while reading this thread...You can be inspired by someone else's work but you have to make it your own. Even the most boring cliche can be turned into something wonderful with a little imagination.

 

[softgrey]

yes...i feel the same way...
i'd expand ...but i'm shattered...

 

[*Happiness*]

I would have to agree with the ideas and dresses, etc being copywritten as well as songs....but one thing is a song there is no economic divide when it comes to music but in fashion there is. People in different socio-economic groups will purchase according to their own financial picture. For instance, there are some people who don't care if the perfume they purchased is "inspired by stella mccartney" instead of buying the real deal. I told myself if I can't have the real thing I don't want it. I don't want a knock off of ANYTHING. It just feels cheap.

 

[helena]

Hell, no! Keep it coming! Straight out of my class notes

That's the big current argument, isn't it? The IP laws have been increasingly stifling creativity and development by steadily lengthening the copyright terms (in the US, the copyright extends 70years after the author's DEATH, which sounds a little ridiculous, if you ask me). I think it's even more irresponsible with the patent laws, where everyone is trying to patent everything and thus discourages and monopolizes important scientifice and pharmacutical developments (Bristol-Mayers, for example, claims that their researchers are unable to pursue 50(!) potential avenues for finding cure for cancer, because of patent holding by other entities).

faust - I think its 40 years after the author's death here. i would have been surprised if it had been less in the US - but whaddya know its more! go figure!

agree completely about the pharmaceuticals - no wonder millions in africa have AIDS - they can't afford the drugs because the big globals hold all the patents & therefore the monopoly. Its terrible! I think its imporatnt to reward those who develop new drugs by protecting the product but surely sometimes there are factors (such as the decimation of the population) to override $$$$.

is there not pressure on Bush in the US to do something about this? or did i make that up?

 

[faust]

faust - I think its 40 years after the author's death here. i would have been surprised if it had been less in the US - but whaddya know its more! go figure!

agree completely about the pharmaceuticals - no wonder millions in africa have AIDS - they can't afford the drugs because the big globals hold all the patents & therefore the monopoly. Its terrible! I think its imporatnt to reward those who develop new drugs by protecting the product but surely sometimes there are factors (such as the decimation of the population) to override $$$$.

is there not pressure on Bush in the US to do something about this? or did i make that up?

Ehhh, I don't think pressure and Bush go together in the same sentence...

But it's time other countries started to stand up against this, the way Brazil and India have been.

 

[helena]

no maybe i did only imagine that....proposterous idea....