Monthly Archives: October 2015

Plagiarism, the printing press and something about recording.

I keep seeing connections that pop up in my different classes at GMU.  The most recent, and relative, one has to do with content ownership and distributing media to the masses.

In my Northern Renaissance art history class we discussed the invention of the printing press and how it enabled artistic content to reach large masses of people outside of where the artist lived. It was with the invention of the printing press that plagiarism became much more apparent. Before the printing press artists often copied other artists, or at least copied aspects of certain styles. Back then it wasn’t considered stealing, it was a way for the community of artists to learn from one another and build off of what the previous generation of artists had left behind. Things changed quite a bit when artists were able to create a printing plate that thousands of copies could be made from. The plate, made from copper, would eventually wear down enough that you couldn’t get any more clear copies from it and some were just thrown away. This gave artists the opportunity to steal plates, re-etch some of the worn down lines and make thousands of copies of another artists work. Plagiarism seems to have had a correlation with an invention that allows artistic content to be broadly distributed, handled by many, and that profits the distributing artist, not necessarily the creating artist.

The printing press has a lot in common with the inventions that led to music recording. The printing press and music recording techniques found a way to take an artists creativity and turn it into a commodity. When music started to be recorded, a lot more people could listen to an artists song. Being able to record music made it easier for that music to travel in different circles, and reach a different audience, as opposed to a single musician only being able to reach those he was in close proximity to. Without a way for an artist to have their music rapidly spread throughout a wide population, plagiarism was hard to pinpoint. I don’t think these inventions cause plagiarism, but it makes it more lucrative for plagiarizers and it makes it easier to find those who copy other peoples content.

My thoughts aren’t 100% formed on this subject yet, I think there is more to plagiarism and the correlation with mass media inventions, I am just having a hard time connecting it all right now. More processing and rolling thoughts around in my head is in order

In the meantime, here I am sitting in a Korean bakery, called “Tous les Jours”, that serves traditional French pastries, listening to Asian rap coming through the speakers.

but they don’t know that we know that they know.

Hopefully I can talk about how we know things, I mean really know things, without getting all, “What does it mean to really know something.” There are very few things that we can without a doubt 100% know. We have to take what evidence we are given and use that to figure out things, or there are beliefs that don’t require knowing, but believing.

People who work with numbers have it a bit easier, for instance a banker knows the terms they can offer for a home mortgage, and that is based off of interest rates and so forth, that are relatively knowable. As for historians, they have to rely on sources, primary and secondary sources. If you don’t know what those are then, click here. Even with first hand accounts of an event or subject, you can’t ever 100% be sure. What is the author’s motive, when was it recorded, very few accounts can occur without bias. Historians have to piece together information from sources and their years of expertise to come up with possibilities. Some things are fact, such as who were the kings and queens of England, although an actual king Arthur is debatable. It’s also usually the case that the history of the victors, and the wealthy/rulers, gets recorded more often. We usually miss a large chunk of what everyday life was like for the poor folk, or the losers of a war, entire peoples have been wiped out of existence that we will never learn about

Even with our modern technologies and ability to record, in video no less, events happening there can still be doubt. Can you always believe what your eyes see? Was it doctored? Context is very important for understanding events and why they happened, and that isn’t always available, in modern times and for the whole of history.

Thankfully, there are people who excel, or have excelled, in researching and collecting data to give us a pretty accurate picture of historical events, yay historians!

With such inventions as the internet, the non expert has access to vast amounts of historical data, and the history noob can peruse Wikipedia and come up with their own ideas about what happened during certain events. Is this a bad thing, to allow the uneducated, or somewhat educated, researcher to piece together internet findings to form a theory? I think it brings up new challenges for the world of history, you can’t believe everything you read on the internet.

I can’t seem to ever decide if something is ever just “good” or “bad”. Good can come of bad, good things can be used for evil. Is it people that make things good or bad? I think so. I don’t think human beings make good or bad, or else nothing would be morally standard.

Run away brain. Choo Choo…

When Does Emulation Become Appropriation?

I have been having issues with this question for the past few weeks. This is outlet where I feel comfortable enough to even voice the question to be honest. I am a huge fan of cultural appreciation, I love learning about different cultures  and what makes them unique.  I am also a big supporter of sharing culture as well.

The best example I can use from my life is dance styles. I have taken many different kinds of dance styles, Bally Dance, Hip Hop and Bollywood. I love to dance and I enjoy researching different styles of dance. Most dances have some sort of culture or even race associated with them. It’s a common practice in dance to experiment with style fusion, like Flamenco and Belly dance, or ballet and hip hop *coughsavethelastdancecough*. It’s also common for dancers of different cultural backgrounds to want to share their culture through dance.

I just don’t know where the line is, my approach is just to avoid getting anywhere near where a line may be. Can I enjoy rap music? Can I dance to rap music in my house? What about dancing to rap music in my car? Or on a stage? Would I  cross the line If i wanted to rap myself? Is there a difference between rapping in my room and rapping on a stage for people? Does appropriation only happen when there is an audience? Or if there is profit involved? What about for people who are light skinned, but of African descent and they want to rap, would they be accused of appropriation? Or just accused until there lineage was proven? I can’t wear cornrows but I can wear my hair in a crown braid, which is a Swedish hairstyle and I am not Swedish. Aren’t they just both different kinds of braided hair styles? Why is speaking foreign languages not appropriation?

Like I said, I would never talk about this with anyone. I don’t want this to come across as “poor little white girl can’t have cornrows.”, I am just curious, as a lover of different cultures. This doesn’t cover celebrities who will do anything for an extra 15 minutes of news coverage and a twitter hashtag. I know there isn’t an answer, everyone probably has their own personal checklist for what is appropriation vs. appreciation.

Hopefully now that I have this down in ink, er… pixels, I can get rid of that uncomfortable feeling that come when one is dealing with race issues. As uncomfortable as these last few weeks has been with dealing with singing blackfaced white american men, I think asking ourselves difficult questions and bringing up crazy things people did in the past is beneficial in some way. I don’t know exactly in what way, but sometimes it’s good to remind ourselves that we aren’t better than they were, we just have different circumstances. If I was born in the late 19th century I probably would have been enjoying the minstrel shows along with everyone else.

Those scary, scary minstrel shows.

Where I repeatedly read the “N” word and hope no one sees

I was reading “Where Dead Voices Gather” while I waited for my first class to begin. This book discusses early american music, and the evolution of minstrel shows. The “n” (“N”?) word is used repeatedly  throughout the book, not from the author exactly, but from listing songs and other popular elements from early american music. I kept feeling self conscious as I was reading, hoping no one was reading over my shoulder or glancing at a page. I was worried because while I had context in which the word was used, onlookers would have no such context. I don’t mind reading Tosches book, it’s very informative about a large piece of american pop culture I never knew existed. Why does it bother me to be seen reading books with the “n” word but it doesn’t bother me to read it? Why do I choose to never use that word in speech or conversation but I can think about the word, and think the word, in my head without flinching? Does context make certain words and ideas less racist? If context can turn a racist word into just a historical term, what does that mean about the word itself? It’s way more complicated than just “this is racist” and “that’s not racist”, especially in a historical context. What I consider a terrible and derogatory term to be used in conversation can be extracted and studied in a historical light.

I am bothered about the fact that “blacking up” and humiliating an entire race was considered good american fun at one point, but I am also bothered about the fact that it isn’t often taught about, I think, for not wanting to bring up a sore subject.  I don’t mind learning about the minstrel show and all the performers that were in it, but it can be very uncomfortable discussing it outside of class. I think where you discuss these topics can be just as important as context when it comes to how they will be received.

Why can I read the “n” word, but not write it in my blog post? I think it’s a good thing, I just don’t fully understand the why.