Without a project this week, I challengd myself to better understand remixing. I’ve always known that “originality” is a deeply philosophical concept, but this week, I started to grasp just how extensive this idea can be.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Interestingly enough, as I mentioned in class, remixing brought a scene from Heretic<\/em><\/a> to mind. Reflecting on this film, alongside this weeks readings, made me realize that remixing isn\u2019t simply a way of extending someone else’s work\u2014it actually serves as a fundamental practice shaping society itself. Religion and myths echo each other across cultures, societal structures mirror and influence one another globally, and the idea of pure originality feels abstract.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Goldsmith\u2019s exploration of ‘appropriation’ especially stuck with me. Appropriation has become a charged term, tied closely to issues of misrepresentation and cultural insensitivity. Goldsmith positions appropriation as a central, even principal, literary practice\u2014particularly heightened in the digital age. His perspective pushed me to confront complex questions: When is appropriation beneficially exploratory, and when does it cross into cultural disconnection or exploitation?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Goldsmith argues for appropriation’s artistic legitimacy, highlighting its historical roots in visual arts and suggesting ways this practice could inform literary practices. Yet, I’m still left wondering about boundaries. How do we navigate the line between respectful exploration and cultural insensitivity?<\/p>\n\n\n\n This week ultimately reminded me why these questions are worth wrestling with. Remixing, originality, appropriation\u2014these concepts are more intertwined and complicated than ever before.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For anyone interested in some relevant clips from Heretic<\/em><\/a>, I’ve included two here. One scene explores how religions can be framed as remixes of each other, and the other explores the copyright saga of “Creep”. <\/p>\n\n\n\n