Culture is a way of demonstrating customs and values. Through it, humans seek the space and liberty to express themselves. It gives each of us a feeling of belonging and identity. All forms of expression can take us to our past, allow us to remember our ancestry and tell us their story, our story.
Annu Palakunnathu Matthew does an amazing job trying to address her experience and exposure to different cultures. Her art relates to political, social and transformative issues; in England (where she was born), India (where she grew up), and the United States (where she currently resides), Annu developed her form of art. Her work displays a “parallel reality, their identities and histories”, of each of the three countries she had lived in; showcasing past and present, revealing the underlying connection between the two. One of her works, Bollywood Satirized , “What Will People Think?” focuses on differences in gender and cultural stereotypes in India. However, it can be applied to cultures in other countries as well, such as South American countries.
One of Annu’s digital portfolios has an image that states this message, “Yeah, I’ll lie down and enjoy it, they’ll call you experienced and me a SLUT!” which hits home hard. I was born in The United States, but grew up in Colombia. In Colombia our society teaches us to be male chauvinist, and it is very sad. There are social norms that from a woman’s point of view cannot be ignored. If a woman is unfaithful to her boyfriend she would automatically be called a slut and will be considered worthless. On the other hand, if the man cheats, he is treated as a champion, The Man, and adding to that the society will say it was the women’s fault, that she did not provide everything (attention) her man needed. These gender differences treat women unfairly.

One of the most beautiful concepts to understand from animation is the ability to take an idea, an image and allow it to run free with imagination. How a single image, from thought to paper, can interpret thousands of views, depending on one’s perspective. There is much to tell from a single picture, stories to describe from a single frame, all made possible with the invention of still framing and, due to the advancements of technology, computer animation. This concept of a free imagination demands a brief look into its path of inspiration. The principals of still frame art laid the steel, bringing together a need to evolve from one plain picture image to what we have today, moved to the development of computer animation.
It amazes me how many picture frames comprise a two minute animation video; technology has advanced tremendously. It started from hand drawing frames, placed into big machines, with a camera pointing down, requiring many people to coordinate movements; tiny metric movements were required for each frame. Today, however, animation can require as little as one person to sit in front of a computer, and through coding, create pixel animations. The only thing needed today is a computer operated by an animation specialist using specialty programs.
A way to enhance our imagination, and to allow it to fly free and escape from reality, we went from 2D animation to 3D animation. These enhancements allowed for different angles, going behind the characters, to the side and all around, providing 3d movements, grabbing our imaginations deeper into an imaginary world. In beginning of 2d still frames a popular cartoon in 1911 named “Little Nemo” was created by McCay. Since then we have not looked back. Now we have a company called Pixar creating films such as “Finding Nemo” in 2003, ultimately revolutionizing animation. This proved that the line between our imagination and reality has become very thin.

How can we bring ethical practices into creation? How many restrictions do we have to follow, and after that, what do we have left? How can we possibly express ourselves in an artistic way?
“RIP: a Remix Manifesto” documentary video direct us to the issues of illegality of download of music for free. In one hand we can sympathized with an artist that it is trying to make a living. The constant download of music, despite the author’s hard work and investment to get that single album out to the public, can get any company out of business. However, what happened with the liberty of self-expression. By liberty of self-expression I mean all of those that take segments of other artist music and create a new blended beat. At least they should have the freedom to use it. If it comes to they DJ/mixer should get charged, then a system should be created to have a win win.
Congress has created laws and regulations to protect intellectual property and the works of authors. The enforcement of all these regulations had come a long way, but with room for improvement; the law can be read very broadly. The distinction between what is “fair use” and “infringement” of a copyright work is not always clearly defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may be safely taken without permission, which is why many people abide by the “amount taken test”. In accordance to this test, it argues, the taking of very small parts of a copyright work is considered fair use. For instance, I remember reading about a lawsuit against Star Films, whom was accused of copyright infringement. Things didn’t turn out too well.
The film in which the 15 second clip from Jim Morrison song, “The End” was used in a documentary and in its composition it is totally different from the original work. It should not be considered copyright infringement. “The widely accepted guidelines on the current interpretation of the law are spelled out in a “best practices” statement by American University’s center for Social media. It protects “fair use” of copyrighted material in documentaries in four categories.” Two of these categories support the use of this material. They state:
Category 1: As an object of “social, political or cultural critique.”
Category 2: Quoting Copyrighted works of popular culture to illustrate an argument or point.