Pablo Picasso once famously remaked that 'good artists copy; great artists steal'. T.S Eliot also quipped that 'good writers borrow, great writers steal.' Today we celebrate both as harbingers of originality, of pushing their respective forms to new frontiers and changing the landscape forever. David Hume wrote that 'beauty in things exists merely in the mind which contemplates them.' So what does it all mean? What determines this idea of legitimate/good/beautiful? As we have moved into the 21st century it seems that more and more 'works of art' or 'important art' can be shown to clearly derive from a previous work or works. It's as if the well of inspiration, as opposed to deepening, is merely widening, and that nods to past inspirations are almost intentionally placed for all to see. The notion that all art is derivative is in fact an obvious statement and one that essentially all artists will freely admit. For as we've remarked on in class- it is necessary to have something to revolt or rebuke in order to attempt to create something new. At the same time, as we move further into the future, it can be argued that it becomes more and more difficult to create something that doesn't somehow link itself to something that came before. In our new information age and with the recent and profound proliferation of ideas, images, videos, music, art, fashion etc. via the internet it is seemingly unavoidable that anything new can somehow be traced back to something that came before. Everyday there are lawsuits filed that claim this idea ripped off that idea, sometimes unwittingly, sometimes not. So are we running out of authenticity? Are we headed for a time where we resign ourselves to the fact that everything we create will inevitably be a reworking of something that came before? And if so- is that a bad thing? Let's look at a couple famous examples of creative rehashing shall we?

  In this clip below from the documentary Religulous by Bill Maher, he interviews an actor who plays Jesus at a theme park in Orlando called The Holyland Experience. Now just the very fact that there is a place that attempts to recreate the world in which Jesus walked and hires actors to impersonate holy figures from one of the most popular religions on Earth whilst at the same time trying to turn a profit is a whole other basket of goodies. However, in this interview, Maher points out that almost all of the major tenants of the creation story existed previously in older belief systems. Could it be that something as 'sacred' as the Bible is just another early example of the repurposing of previous ideas and creativity? Enjoy.

So if we accept that many of the ideas from the Bible were stolen from previous belief systems does it tarnish or weaken the importance of the Bible? My suspicions tell me absolutely not. Again, so much of this goes back to perception. Like Hume said- the importance lies in the eye of the beholder. If I believe something to be beautiful and important perhaps that's all that matters at the end of the day.

  In the Ted Talk below by Kirby Ferguson he argues that may examples of modern creative outburst are examples of what he calls 'creative remix'. It's a compelling argument and one he backs up with some interesting examples.

   

 So yeah- I think it's safe to say that the argument that many many examples of creative explosion can be shown to have traceable roots back to a source material that it was either expanding upon, repackaging, or rebelling against. However- I think it's also important to point out one simple truth; whoever did the do did it- and that's what is important. We will never celebrate a counter-fitter. We only celebrate what we perceive as new, invigorating, challenging, earth-shattering. Direct copies that attempt to pass themselves off as the original are a sham and are never as good as the original. Because karaoke.