About being copywise

Copywise I copy as I please. Because.

My art teacher was wrong. The piece of art that I had showcased, an object of mere immaculateness, was deemed less than excellent. Slightly less, according to her. Why award it full points if perverse scrutinity can reveal a certain familiarity about the object, that defies a full orgasm? In her mind. Familiarity. Is that bad? Is it bad to copy the world, anything in it?

Well, do I learn by not copying? We live in a world with many standards. We often speak words that sound silly, but since they are standard, we use them. Not silly anymore, only standard silliness that is.

The airplanes we fly are built according to certain standards in the construction plans. Our language is a code of standards, even a very flexible one. When I first glimpsed the light of day I was already endowed with a set of standards. Innate to me and innate to humans by and large. Because evolution thinks it's good.

As I gradually got accustomed to the light of day and even got routinely accustomed to it over a little lifetime, I acquired more standards, more beliefs, more things we do because they are familiar and lubricate the flow of life. In fact I copy unintentionally. I copy because I assimilate life from what is around me, and around you. I copy from you if I think what you do appeals to me. I am because I copy. And the more you share the more I may copy from you. Simply copyludical in concludical.

I am talking about preconceived ideas. Ideas that have beeen thought and have been spoken already. Ideas that have turned into artefacts. Others that have died again. The realm of knowledge that has been accessed and processed by us human bravehearts. It is a safe bet to assume that any thought spinning inside your skull has been thought before, anywhere, anytime, on this planet or beyond.

I am not talking about dreams not yet heard of. None of these dreamgleams are apparent yet, least not tangible. Dreams cannot be copied, or maybe only among twins or some kind of split-egg or mutli-egg envois.

Why do people think that copying is bad? Leave aside copyrights. Why did my art teacher deny to value up the familiartiy she found, and instead short-cut to depreciate it as a lack of originality? Maybe because she got side-tracked into art and teaching while all the while her true vocation called her to become a higher priest in a long forgotten religious temple. No braveheart.

Sweetheart, originality and copycality go hand in hand. The original set of standards bestowed on you at birth is not enough to survive. We need to aquire ever more ways of expression and movement. In fact we have to copy. Copying is surviving. Peer-to-peer networks cater to our need to share and inspire. No doubt music fills the heart. In sharing music we share hearty things.

Am I less original because I copy? Just a matter of degree? Whoever was first sets the standard?

Take the many femals rushing to plastic surgery, zealously faking the ideal of breasts, round and firm. Assembled to ping ideals in the heads of men. They copy to conform, to adhere to the original ideal of Eve, beauty of beauties. Copying is natural. The fact that technologies enable stunning, strange, previously unthinkable manipulations is just that, strange. Strangeness then might be a function of originality.