Creative Licenses...

A discussion on the lack of creativity.

I apologize to any of my readers who might have been expecting a witty phrase that would be discussed, then shown to vaguely relate back to the topic of the evening. Officially I can say there will be no such phrase this week; and thusly you will be forced to be met with my crazy at the door, as it were. The problem with the way that I use my phrases, is that with most of my phrases I misrepresent them, or at the very least I misrepresent the way these phrases are forced to interact with society. The reason this is a problem is because I have no inherent right to take these phrases, and twist their definitions until they provide a solid base for my article of the hour. Most of these phrase are what would be considered "open source," that being their is no direct ownership, and is therefore free to any and technically, all to use. However, I do believe there could be a line where an "open source" material could be so distorted that it has lost it's original element. It is not a mystery on a practical level of how an open source element could be distorted, but it does beg the question of should this distortion occur. But the issue then shifts to seeking an explanation as to why an original element would be distorted, open source or otherwise. And so it is with much ado that I present this evening's topic, creative license. 

Now, as we begin, allow me to take some creative license with the definition, merely for irony. As I discuss this concept, it is only in the manner of taking work that has previously existed either in public or privatized domains. The reason for limiting the definition in this manner, is that I think it portrays those who engage in this practice as more villainous. I feel as if I am showing a few of the cards in my hand, a bit earlier, in throwing out the idea of villainy, but the taking creative license is not a subject that should lack passion. Therefore, an understanding of what taking creative license means is at this point, essential. Taking creative license is simply taking another creation, whether artistic or belonging to another classification, and manipulating. Most often times this is done with text, where pieces of screen-plays are edited by an actor to fit more of what the actor feels comfortable with. This can happen within proses works as well, where someone will distort something that another has written, either to prove a point, or simply because they feel they have a better way to structure something. With these examples of creative licensing, there is some over stepping of the boundary lines, but yet the respect to the creator remains virtually intact. As we exit this realm and descend even further we reach those who will use existing text in place of original text. Those in the academic world refer to this as plagiarism. This is attempting to melde existing work with something original, in such a way that it is seamless. This, I believe, still falls under the creative license category, due to the qualifications previously described in that; it is distortion to create a work. Yet this distortion has taken even more from the creator, and therefore there is less respect being shown to the creator and the work itself. Traveling down to the depths of this depravity we find such individuals who take existing artistic creations, and so distort them that they are able to manipulate the public into seeing it as original. As I understand it, those who either agree with this practice, or engage in it, see anything that has been created as fair game to be spliced and distorted to create something on top of the actual, in the name of creative license.

At this point, I feel that it is important to establish that I am not an old crank, or at the very least I'm not trying to be. I have no issue with drawing from other artists (within reason) to improve one's artwork, and there are even times when emulation is the best sign of respect. Even when that occurs there is a separation between emulating out of respect, and copying due to lack of creativity. As we lose more and more creativity, we rely more heavily on other's inspiration. The complete concept is, that the idea of creative license is allowing for more and more distortions to be made to a work, which is occurring because of a lack of creativity. The generation that is suppose to be creating new things is busy destroying old things to make something new-ish. I've actually heard people at an art school (not a good one, but nonetheless a school of art) state that there was nothing new to create. To quote a man dead for 1900 years, "men and brethren this ought not to be." There is something wrong with the core of our society, if the younger generations are not believing that there are still things to be created. And I do mean create, I'm not talking about taking large portions of existing songs, and throwing a beat underneath them to where any message is barely discernable. If that is the existent of our creativity then we have stagnated. For a society to continue there has to be a contingent that questions the boundaries, and defies expectations. Creative licensing is the easy way out of truly creating.