Week 10 Lab: Creative Life
For this week's storytelling assignment, I decided to do the story laboratory option because I love studying theories and then seeing their applications to real life. This week, I watched two TED talk videos about creative life, A New Theory of Human Intelligence by Scott Kaufman and Copyright is Brain Damage by Nina Paley.
I thought the concept of twice-exceptional children was really interesting and I found myself recognizing some of the listed traits in myself. I've always done pretty well in school and am generally creative and curious, but also struggle with being stubborn, argumentative, and not knowing exactly how to navigate social interactions, and I've had to work really hard to be more receptive to criticism.
I found it really inspiring that Kaufman reframed these challenges as strengths in the right situation. I also liked how Kaufman emphasized that children are worth more than just their intelligence and academic achievement, even in the context of the classroom where academic achievement tends to be what most people think is the only goal of education. I think moving education towards teaching children how to be skilled in a number of areas and live fulfilling lives is just as important as teaching traditional academic disciplines like math, science, history, language arts, etc.
One last thing that I really liked about Kaufman's talk was that he seemed to emphasize the student's interest and drives as the force that should lead the classroom. I think the idea of empowering students to accomplish their goals, instead of telling students what their goals should be, is a really great way to get students more engaged in the classroom.
Before watching Nina Paley's talk, I was prepared to completely disagree with her. After hearing her talk, I definitely began questioning the effectiveness of copyright, but I don't agree that copyright or the concept of intellectual property should be abolished all together.
I found Paley's way of dealing with copyright to be rather immature. Rather than work to change the laws surrounding copyright so that the system can be improved, she declares proudly that she just ignores it. To me, this doesn't benefit anyone besides Paley. If Paley worked to change the law, then even though reform might not be achieved in her lifetime, it would benefit future generations of artists.
I also don't think that copyright really inhibits culture in a significant way. Copyright doesn't really inhibit communication of information, it just inhibits how that information can be presented and who can profit off of its presentation. I think a good example of this is the way that intellectual property & artistic works can be used for educational purposes and parody even if they're copyrighted.
Additionally, there are other forms of copyright like Creative Commons licenses that don't prohibit people from using the intellectual property. Instead, the author/creator just sets the terms on how the intellectual property can be used. One photographer might say that anyone can use their photo as long as they attribute the original photographer, while a different painter might say they would only like people to use the painting with permission from the painter for each specific scenario.
One point that I did agree with Paley about was that I do think it seems rather silly for companies to be allowed to retroactively extend the copyright claim after the original creator is dead. I think the terms of copyrights should only be allowed to be set or modified by the original creator, so if the copyright is to extend past the creator's death, the terms surrounding that extension must be detailed in the will of the creator, or through some other means before the creator passes away.
On another note, I found it somewhat hypocritical that Paley is extremely in favor of free speech and free use of intellectual property, but also extremely transphobic. It seems strange that she would feel so strongly that "culture" is inhibited by copyright, but also feel that she has the right to dictate what cultures should be accepted and who is correct in their expression. I'm not sure that my wording is doing a great job of articulating my thoughts, but hopefully that makes sense. Natalie also discussed her feelings about Paley's transphobia on her blog, and I think her thoughts about it are really interesting!
I thought the concept of twice-exceptional children was really interesting and I found myself recognizing some of the listed traits in myself. I've always done pretty well in school and am generally creative and curious, but also struggle with being stubborn, argumentative, and not knowing exactly how to navigate social interactions, and I've had to work really hard to be more receptive to criticism.
I found it really inspiring that Kaufman reframed these challenges as strengths in the right situation. I also liked how Kaufman emphasized that children are worth more than just their intelligence and academic achievement, even in the context of the classroom where academic achievement tends to be what most people think is the only goal of education. I think moving education towards teaching children how to be skilled in a number of areas and live fulfilling lives is just as important as teaching traditional academic disciplines like math, science, history, language arts, etc.
One last thing that I really liked about Kaufman's talk was that he seemed to emphasize the student's interest and drives as the force that should lead the classroom. I think the idea of empowering students to accomplish their goals, instead of telling students what their goals should be, is a really great way to get students more engaged in the classroom.
Before watching Nina Paley's talk, I was prepared to completely disagree with her. After hearing her talk, I definitely began questioning the effectiveness of copyright, but I don't agree that copyright or the concept of intellectual property should be abolished all together.
I found Paley's way of dealing with copyright to be rather immature. Rather than work to change the laws surrounding copyright so that the system can be improved, she declares proudly that she just ignores it. To me, this doesn't benefit anyone besides Paley. If Paley worked to change the law, then even though reform might not be achieved in her lifetime, it would benefit future generations of artists.
I also don't think that copyright really inhibits culture in a significant way. Copyright doesn't really inhibit communication of information, it just inhibits how that information can be presented and who can profit off of its presentation. I think a good example of this is the way that intellectual property & artistic works can be used for educational purposes and parody even if they're copyrighted.
Additionally, there are other forms of copyright like Creative Commons licenses that don't prohibit people from using the intellectual property. Instead, the author/creator just sets the terms on how the intellectual property can be used. One photographer might say that anyone can use their photo as long as they attribute the original photographer, while a different painter might say they would only like people to use the painting with permission from the painter for each specific scenario.
One point that I did agree with Paley about was that I do think it seems rather silly for companies to be allowed to retroactively extend the copyright claim after the original creator is dead. I think the terms of copyrights should only be allowed to be set or modified by the original creator, so if the copyright is to extend past the creator's death, the terms surrounding that extension must be detailed in the will of the creator, or through some other means before the creator passes away.
On another note, I found it somewhat hypocritical that Paley is extremely in favor of free speech and free use of intellectual property, but also extremely transphobic. It seems strange that she would feel so strongly that "culture" is inhibited by copyright, but also feel that she has the right to dictate what cultures should be accepted and who is correct in their expression. I'm not sure that my wording is doing a great job of articulating my thoughts, but hopefully that makes sense. Natalie also discussed her feelings about Paley's transphobia on her blog, and I think her thoughts about it are really interesting!
A great idea requires creativity!
(Image source: Raw Pixel)
Comments
Post a Comment