Post 04

Figure I

Figure II

Figure III

Remembering back to the class on January 21, I was asked to write down my definition of culture before the instructor talked about the matter. A group of people sharing the same history, which affect their way of behavior, language, tradition, style of living, values…etc. – is my answer at the time. The focus of my definition is history. But when I think it deeper, sharing the same history does not mean sharing the same culture. Though, I still believe culture is built upon history; however, it is not a dead fact of the past, but a process of what Sousa argues, the Read/Write culture (Lessig 3). From the example of the Molotov Man, we see the appropriation through cultures and the creation of new languages, which is different from the original. Figure I is the original documentary photograph taken by Susan Meiselas. Her original thought is to “respect the individuality of the people [she] photograph, all of whom exist in specific times and places,” because “no one can ‘control’ art (Meiselas and Garnett 56).” What Meiselas did is simply documenting a history. And this history passes on to Jay Garnett, who, at the time, has no clue with what history this image carries. He then creates a new language to explain the person’s individuality according to his own understanding, which is shown in Figure II. The appropriation does not stop here. More and more works appear with an adjustment based on Garnett’s version, for example the Figure III. In conclusion, each culture speaks its history, but at the same time is free to Read/Write, constantly creating new language based on the previous one.   

Work Cited

Lessig, Lawrence. excerpt Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. 2008. Print.

Meiselas, Susan and Joy Garnett. “On the Rights of Molotov Man: Apporation and the art of context”. Art History 333 Course Pack. Ed. Randy Cutler and Justin Novak. Vancouver: Emily Carr University of Art + Design, 2012. Print.