Referencing the BIG QUESTION. | HEY LIAO!: Referencing the BIG QUESTION.


Referencing the BIG QUESTION.

Pisces illustration by Jenny Liz Rome

The first "thing" we are taught when we start studying and writing essays is that "copy right" and "referencing" is vital. 

I agree with that, of course, if you have been inspired, influenced by the particular source, you have to reference. BUT. what if you weren't inspired by them? Everything in this world is stolen, borrowed, or at the least influenced. The big question I am asking here is. It seems to me that if you have a PHD written an article actually published it you are a proper source, while others are not. (Do correct me if I am wrong.)

HOW is that valid? 

What if I wasn't inspired by a particular authorized source but instead inspired by a monk at a temple? How do I reference that? If the article I wrote up or a painting I painted was a direct influence of this monk at the temple how do I source? In all honesty I should probably source that person, if the correct procedure is to source the main influence. 

I was thinking about this because while one is traveling, meeting other people, getting into brain stimulating conversations; we learn and gain insight into "things";  those thoughts although influenced and sparked by conversation which most likely had a core influence was not in fact a direct influence so you shouldn't have a source to source. There would be too many "sources". 

Although I believe referencing is important and a correct procedure to take, I do not agree with "forced" referencing. 

A few months back I was on The Furry Little Peache's blog. I saw a few comments that told her that her style must have obviously been linked to this other artist.  She replied that it was not inspired by that artist in particular but by a bunch of other artists but she can see the similarities. Yet some people still accused her of not admitting to the truth. To me it was such an invasion of personal creativity to be forced to think/believe that your works are direct links of another whom you haven't even seen before. It all boils down to who is more famous and has a bigger fan base.

Another example is, I attended a typography event a year and a half ago and a speaker came up and spoke about the posters he designed.  He said "EVERYTHING" "he had come up with" could be "sued for"and was about to be sued for because the other artist had "copy right", he said it was so frustrating! So he decided instead to write "THIS IS MY ORIGINAL DESIGN" on the poster lol 

It's really quite ridiculous. 

I wrote up a proposal plan a few months back, and I was influenced by many things these past 3 years mostly from just life experiences and from speaking to people, from reading up on blogs snippets here and there and pinterest, but when I wrote this plan it was more about how I like/would like to live my life;  to make it "valid" and "professional" however I have to find sources to put down, proper sources just for "protection sake" I know it's important because people need to be protected for their works, I understand that many peoples works and ideas are "stolen" but sometimes you can't stop but think how annoying it is. 

This inequality- richness, fame, a phd= authorized source and everything else needs to be linked "back" to them. 

It may come to a point sometime in the future that I will have to put down sources which have not inspired me first hand but are authorized sources, just because it's the "right" thing to do "safe thing" but just wanted to get it out that, I do have my own thoughts, many of them. 


No comments:

Post a Comment