Author: NORA HUNT

In the art world, it’s understood that no artwork is entirely original—every artist is influenced by past works and often “remixes” them to fit their own style and vision. This concept applies to music as well, yet it seems the music industry is treated differently. In both the fine arts and music, inspiration is drawn from others’ work, and artists transform these influences into something new. To me, this is no different from remixing in the art world, where so often artists take elements of the past and create something original.

Plagiarism only occurs when someone directly copies and claims another’s work as their own without any changes or acknowledgment. But when an artist is inspired by another’s song and remixes it with their own unique touch, it’s not plagiarism—it’s a part of the creative process. Think about when artists make collages. We don’t see graphics artists hounding down that person for a royalty on using the piece of the page layout they designed. So, why does the music industry have such strict rules and regulations, while other art forms have more freedom to build upon the past? It seems that the industry cares more about money and control, often exploiting artists in the process.

Laurence Lesik, the person who wrote the manifesto that inspired the film states “theres no way to kill technology, we can only criminalize its [technologies] use,” meaning that as media become more and more widespread so do the regulations and limitations on its users. In turn with a wider range of data to pull from, artists are thrown into this regulation game that in the end only stifles them. This idea of remixing also applies to writing, where we often cite quotes from other authors. While we take their words directly, we’re not “copywriting” every essay we write, as long as we acknowledge the source. Likewise, remixing in music can pay homage to its origins without requiring the rigid systems of copyrighting that seem to stifle creativity. In the end, the rules around music copyright should be reconsidered, as many other forms of art already embrace the idea of building on what came before.

---

The principle of variability stood out to me in the way Manovich described it. He explains that digital objects exist in multiple versions allowing for customization, interactivity, and adaptability. This is what makes digital media so different from traditional forms like books or films—which are fixed, but digital content is always changing. A website isn’t just a static page; it updates, personalizes itself to users, and shifts based on external inputs. This flexibility makes digital media feel more alive, constantly evolving with the people who interact with it. A great example of variability is social media. No two people see the same exact feed, because each algorithm is tailored to that person’s interactions. Each experience is unique for everyone, making the platform feel more personal. Video games even do something similar to this where they’re able to generate different environments, interactions and storylines depending on the choices of the player, creating distinct experiences per user. Artists experiment with randomness and manipulation to create visuals that are never exactly the same twice. This goes against the normal idea that artwork has a single and final form. Variability is what makes digital media so fluid and interactive. Instead of simply experiencing a single, final piece of media, we are shape it and adapt it in real time.

Lesson 4: “Art Is Not About Understanding. Or Mastery” and Lesson 5: “Work, Work, Work” stood out to me in particular. These sections resonated with me because they reflect the core of what it means to be an artist–working and pushing forward despite uncertainty, fear, and the need for immediate understanding. The idea that all art comes from love initially confused me, but after some thought, I came to understand that what they mean is creating art is about engaging with the world, questioning it, and pushing the boundaries of perception.

I found the discussion of imagination v. understanding to be interesting as well. In our world where people often seek clear meanings of things, the reminder that not everything needs to be understood is freeing. Art doesn’t need an explanation to be felt. This concept aligns with my poster series capstone project where glitch art and typography distort narratives to challenge conventional storytelling.

Corita Kent’s quote about working hard for one’s art reinforces something I have come to realize—creativity isn’t something that simply appears; it is something discovered through persistence. Earlier in my life, much of my art consisted of imitations of what I saw around me, which I don’t see as a problem. However, as I matured, I experienced a shift in perception. I realized that inspiration was not just in external things but within me, shaped by how I see and interact with the world. This shift has allowed me to develop my own artistic voice rather than merely replicating what already exists. Ultimately, this article reinforced the necessity of action. Uncertainty, exhaustion, and fear are all inevitable parts of the creative process, but they are temporary. Through consistent effort, these challenges pass, pushing the work forward and allowing true artistic growth.