Don't Be Inspired. This is Copyrighted.

Is it creativity if it is built on someone else's work? Well, I am not really sure how one is supposed to be creative unless he is building off of someone else's work, however distant the connection may be. I do not believe there truly is something as original thought, which if why I believe that any create piece of work which has been created, whether it be a piece or art, a song, or a story has to have been inspired, at least in part, by someone else. What I cannot quite seem to figure out is where one would draw the line between being "inspired" and "stealing" someone else's ideas. Needless to say, anyone who has ever created a masterpiece of any kind has been inspired by someone else's work. Everyone knows that some of Shakespeare's greatest works were not his original ideas, but adaptations from other works. Where would the literary world be today if there had been such stringent copyright laws back then, and Shakespeare had been prevented from adding his own spin to someone else's work?

Although I do believe that copyright laws are there for logical reason, I believe that they need to be altered to fit today's world of ever changing technology and ideas. With the internet allowing for ideas to be shared at light speed with people from all corners of the world, it seems ridiculous to halt the creative ideas of so many because another author or musician has a piece of work which resembles yours in even the slightest way. Such copyright laws are preventing many from reaching their full potential and becoming the next Shakespeare, Cezanne, or Buckethead.

Clearly, it is wrong to steal another's work. However, it is another thing completely if one gets his inspiration from a particular source and samples a small piece of that work and reworks it to make it his own new, creative piece. If we continue blocking the inspirational paths of so many because someone else has had an idea that in some way resembles a small part of it, we are soon going to be left with nothing. Eventually, there is going to come a time where unless we start putting a new spin on old works, we are going to be stuck in a world with the same stories, music, and art.

True artists, those that create because they love what they are doing and they want to share with others what has inspired them, are willing to let others use their works to create something of their own. However, artists, musicians, producers, authors, and anyone else who has something to offer the mass public, are rarely left to their own devices. They have managers and publishers and executives and a slew of others to whom they must answer. Because the power has been taken out of the hands of the artists and instead rests with those who own them, money has become the central issue around which copyright laws exists. Something clearly needs to be done to maintain that an author or musician gets credit for his work, but that the same protection that is extended to the author or musician does not hinder the creative works of others.

Fonts- Then and Now

I, much like others in our class, must admit that I had previously never given much thought to typography before. I have always seen letters as blocks of symbols with greater the intention of creating words. Never before had I really thought to look at the art behind the fonts that make up my words. As we started discussing the different types of typography and its evolution throughout the years, one question that piqued everyone's interest was "Is one particular type better than another?" Although a few people seem to think that we appreciate the font that is more commonly used today as opposed to Venetian type is because we are more used to seeing it, I am inclined to disagree. I believe that we are more inclined towards the fonts of today's age because it is systematically easier to read, and not because this is the type font with which we have been trained to read and write. Because the typography of today is much less intricate and elegant, it makes it easier for the eye to recognize the letters. Since less attention is focused on the ornateness of the letter, one's attention can afford to focus on the actual text itself. Yes, the “art” behind the font gets lost, one does not pick up a novel to appreciate art. One picks up a novel to comprehend the story represented by the letters.

One may ask 'what is wrong with a more elaborate text for modern writing?' and my answer to that is that it takes up valuable time. In today's world where there do not seem to be enough hours in a day to accomplish all that one needs to do, the last thing anyone wants is to have his attention diverted by the script of their morning newspaper, business report, or financial forms. When I pick up my Organic Chemistry textbook, I do so with the intention to understand the context of what is written, not to dwell on how lovely and artistic the text is. If I want art, I will go to a museum, not my textbook.

I do not believe I am alone in my harsher assessment of the more classical types of font. I can appreciate the beautiful typography when I deem the medium appropriate, such as a wedding invitation. However, I will feel much differently about the same type if it is used by a fellow colleague to give me a business update, or by a friend sending me an email. There is a correct time and place for everything, and this includes typography. There is a reason why the font that is used today is being utilized as opposed to the fonts of manuscripts all of those years ago: it is simply easier and faster to read. Such a way of thinking is so pivotal to today's demographic that when I was being taught how to present a proper report, whether it be by email, Powerpoint, or handout, I was informed on the many “do nots” of a presentation. These included fonts to avoid using, colors that drained on the page, sizes that were deemed to be slightly better or worse for the general public to read, and even that if one types the same twice, once using all capital letters and once all in lower case, the majority of people will take 13% longer to read the sentence written in all capitals. And in a world where time is money, no one wants to waste precious minutes.

Holy Alphabet

"Since God or the gods invented the alphabet- everyone believed it to be divine intervention- the letters were holy. Since it was letters that formed words, the words were equally holy...Letters and words were miraculous in origin and therefore were the stuff of magic." I always knew that words were powerful, but I never knew they were Holy. No wonder the clergy had such an influence over even the highest of authorities back then. If they were the only members of society who knew how to read and write, it would stand to reason that they would yield a significant amount of power over anyone who had need of the written word for any number of purposes. I was unaware that people back then not only thought of the words as magical, but that the words themselves, and not what they represented, were what was seen as so powerful. The fact that these powers extended into the medicinal aspects and this is why people would wear pieces of parchment around their necks in order to relieve any number of ailments struck me as really bizarre. Granted, the way of thinking now is quite different than the way of people back when these philosophies were practiced, but this seems, even for the mentality of people back then, strange. It is one thing to worship God, but to worship the writings themselves, seems backwards, and perhaps even sacrilegious. However, to take the value of the words as so Holy that as Diebert states, "In 1022 a group of heretics were burned in Orleans for referring to the clergy's knowledge as human fabrications "written on animal skins" as opposed to what the heretics believed was the "law written on the inner man by the Holy spirit". It seems as if the Church made sure to make known the sanctity of the written word just to maintain their own levels of power and to be the undisputed source of information. If no one else had the ability to refute anything they were saying, they would remain as the highest source of authority on essentially everything. As Diebert makes known, the aristocracy had to rely on the clergy as much as they did on their servants. Even the greats of the day, such as William of Normandy, had to rely on the Church "to organize a wiser and more prudent administration of the crown's holdings." With all of the other duties that seemed to become associated with the clergy, such as monks being chancellors, ministers, and state advisers, it is no wonder that people started to fear that the Church was actually pulling away from the Holy aspects associated with it, and conducting itself more like a business or administration. It seems that by today's standards, or the standards of a few hundred years ago, that people believe a Church should be run as a Church and not a corporation. It seems that this is the safest way to prevent corruption and keep the Church focused on the more spiritual aspects of life, as opposed to the financial, power-driven world.

To Copy and To Obey

"The printed book is made of paper, and like paper, will quickly disappear." Really? As far as I can tell, books have been around for countless years and will be here for many more to come. Despite making such a bold claim, Trithemius makes no effort to back it up or provide any factual evidence for such an extreme opinion. Instead, it seems as if Trimethius is willing to make any sort of claim, regardless of outrageous it may be, merely in the hopes of scaring- and essentially controlling- monks into acting in a manner which he deems "appropriate". Using fear as a tactic may be effective in the short term, although in the long run, it does not have the desired effect that one may want since the understanding of why one is doing certain things is not there.

Although I do not agree with Trimethius' logic, it is easy to understand how monks of this particular time could be swayed by such an argument. Even though people now may think a better way to show devotion to God is to go out and spread the word of the Bible to people around the country instead of sitting in a cold monestary, the monks back then probably considered the scribing they did a very important part of conserving God's message. However, to try to control monks by making them copy scriptures so as to make sure they do not indulge in “dangerous unchecked liberties” seems the equivalent of giving a child busy work so as to make sure he does not get into any mischief. If this was Trimethius' way of controlling the monks, it would seem to me that although the monks may have been going through the motions of copying a text, if they were not doing so because they had the desire to do so, they would eventually rebel in some way, even if it was just having their minds wander and think about the “unchecked liberties” while they were copying scriptures.

While reading this article, I could not help but make the comparison between the monks' scribing to my taking notes for my history class. I know that after half an hour, my mind starts to wander and even though I may still be copying my notes, I am most definitely not paying attention to what I am doing. This was probably my biggest problem with the argument set forth by Trimethius that one got closer to the Lord by copying His messages day in and day out. If anything, it seems to me that unless one was scribing because he truly wanted to and had “the calling”, he would eventually come to resent his work and if anything, distance himself from the Lord.