The question is though, have they been taught to feel dirty and ashamed of this cultural liberty?
I suspect it is often that shame and the stigma of infringing the artist’s holy copyright that inhibits coming out of the closet about it – unabashedly admitting and naming the artists who they’ve so loved. Certainly, there’s no obligation to reel a list of names each or any time – it would soon become tedious. However, in this transition between copying as a crime and copying as love, it is intriguing to know whether the copier felt themselves to be felonious or flirtatious, guilty or innocent, wicked or pure of heart.
I just saw Sita Sings the Blues … twice at a row and I LOVE IT!!!! thank you for such a wonderful piece of art!!! It’s awesome!!!!
What’s also fun is how she’s been modified. Sita has not only reproduced, she has mutated.
What is the context? It looks like some kind of insurance or health savings ad from a magazine. Do you know the name of the magazine?
The question is though, have they been taught to feel dirty and ashamed of this cultural liberty?
I suspect it is often that shame and the stigma of infringing the artist’s holy copyright that inhibits coming out of the closet about it – unabashedly admitting and naming the artists who they’ve so loved. Certainly, there’s no obligation to reel a list of names each or any time – it would soon become tedious. However, in this transition between copying as a crime and copying as love, it is intriguing to know whether the copier felt themselves to be felonious or flirtatious, guilty or innocent, wicked or pure of heart.
I just saw Sita Sings the Blues … twice at a row and I LOVE IT!!!! thank you for such a wonderful piece of art!!! It’s awesome!!!!
What’s also fun is how she’s been modified. Sita has not only reproduced, she has mutated.
What is the context? It looks like some kind of insurance or health savings ad from a magazine. Do you know the name of the magazine?