The ‘Blurred Lines’ of artistic plagiarism

March 27, 2015March 18, 2015 / Elliot Chan / Leave a comment

We are reaching the end of artistic originality

By Elliot Chan, Opinions Editor
Formerly published in The Other Press. March 16, 2015

There is an old saying by Pablo Picasso that I take to heart every time I work on a creative project: “Good artists copy, great artists steal.” While it might sound like Picasso is supporting the notion of plagiarism, I actually believe he is condoning something different; he is saying that great artists are able to take ownership of their creation, which is inspired by a pre-existing work. But isn’t that what Robin Thicke did with the hit single “Blurred Lines”?

After listening to Marvin Gaye’s “Got to Give it Up” from 1977, I am disappointed that the quote I have lived by—that Picasso probably stole from someone he overheard at a bar—had no support in the court of law. It might have seemed like millionaires arguing for a slice of a pie baked from a familiar recipe, but the event that took place will now open the door for many more lawsuits to come.

It’s clear “Got to Give it Up” and “Blurred Lines” share similar beats, but the two songs are not the same. The two songs do not have the same lyrics, the same theme, or the same audience. How many dance clubs are playing Gaye? With each passing generation, artists draw inspiration from works from the past. That is how creativity functions. Creativity does not exist in a vacuum. Artists take pieces from here and there and combine them. Can a cinematographer copyright a camera move? Can a painter copyright the scenery they painted? Can a musician copyright a series of musical notes?

More recently, Sam Smith was on the radar for his song “Stay With Me,” which to many sounding suspiciously similar to a slower version of Tom Petty’s “I Won’t Back Down.” In this case, Smith accepted a settlement and credited Petty as a co-writer. The not-so-petty Petty will now receive a portion of the money for “Stay With Me” and this may be a common trend for the future. Artists will be credited for works which merely influenced, or that coincidence caused the two to clash.

There is more music than there is time to enjoy it. Because of this, notes, rhythm, and melody will be replicated in some form. We call it plagiarism and perhaps it is. But the same way we don’t copy and paste words from Wikipedia, musicians don’t crop and paste music from iTunes. You take the content and you make it your own.

I still believe in the idea that great artists steal, because the artists today will always be standing on the shoulders of giants that preceded them. What’s different now is the system protecting those giants. We as artists need to craft our creative work better so that it doesn’t resemble that from the past. More than ever, we need to make our work our own. If that means adding a banjo, so be it. If that means a sitar, well damn it, play that sitar. If that means more cowbells, well, it’s about time we cure that insatiable thirst for cowbells already. Then we wait for someone else to copy us.

Diversify your reading life

March 26, 2015March 18, 2015 / Elliot Chan / Leave a comment

Attention to apathy

March 24, 2015March 18, 2015 / Elliot Chan / Leave a comment

Why bystander blaming is far from the solution

By Elliot Chan, Opinions Editor
Formerly published by The Other Press. March 10, 2015

Mind your own business and stand up for what is right. Those two contradicting sentiments have led to many problems over the years as they’ve supplied fuel for revolutions and weakness towards authorities. We blame children for letting their peers get bullied; yet we punish them for confronting their demons. It’s a messy world and while awareness may be a method to clean things up, calling out people for not lending a hand is just poison to ourselves.

When it comes to the bystander effect and how we are moulded by it, I often bring up the example of a car accident. You are in a car and the vehicle ahead of you in the next lane merges, striking another car, and careens to the edge of the road. Do you a) stop and assist or b) continue driving? Most of us would like to think that we would choose the first option. It seems like the most reasonable choice, however, less than half of all people in that position would actually stop and help. With every passing moment the likelihood of help from bystanders decreases, and the more public the incident, the less likely anyone will assist at all.

But what does help really mean? We are not professionally trained; we are not a part of an emergency response unit. Should we make a situation worse, we can ultimately be hit with a lawsuit. There is a clear reason why being a bystander often makes sense. We don’t actually know what is happening or the level of severity.

Physical altercations and bullying are two scenarios people love to blame on bystanders for playing the part of spectators. I don’t know if you have ever jumped into a middle of a fistfight before, but it isn’t as easy as removing a magnet from the fridge. In a moment of intensity, people can be unpredictable. You never know if someone is hiding a weapon or is capable of doing physical harm. Social injustice is worth sticking up for, but two drunken people arguing on Granville is none of your business. Get the hell out of there.

Yes, if I was in a dire situation, I would want someone to save me, but would I ever blame a stranger for not stepping in to protect me? I sure hope not. We are all bystanders in someone else’s life. Everybody has problems and some rise to the surface like sweat. You cannot expect people to wipe it off for you.

When your budget won’t budge

March 22, 2015March 18, 2015 / Elliot Chan / Leave a comment

There is a time to budget for a better life

By Elliot Chan, Opinions Editor
Formerly published in The Other Press. March 10, 2015

There is nothing more sobering than dealing with finance. Now that we have accepted the fact that it sucks, let’s figure out how we can make it better, or at least bearable.

When we are budgeting it’s important to consider the reasons why we are saving money. What are our objectives? Without a clear goal, a budget is only a low fence that we can easily jump over with no dire consequences. Consider what you want to do after the budget is established: pay off debt, save up for a vacation, or buy something expensive.

It’s never preferable working paycheque to paycheque. If you find yourself stuck in this vicious circle it’s time to budget your cash flow. We are all dealing with different circumstances so there isn’t one easy solution, but like all goals, it’s better to work in smaller sprints than longer marathons.

Start by preparing a 90-day plan. Calculate your income and expenses and see what the difference is. If the number is wildly under your expectations it’s time to prioritize your needs. Here is where it hurts: for 90 days, you’ll have to be frugal. Spend only on necessities.

Social life can derail your financial plans pretty quickly, so you need to be careful of that too. Schedule your nights out ahead of time. If something comes up without at least a two-week notice (approximately the same time as your paycheque is issued), respectfully decline the invitation. Being spontaneous can be addictive and often it’ll take you two steps back in your plan. If you want to hang out with people, invite them over to your place. Creating a BYOB event and having friends over is much cheaper than a night at the bar.

Don’t think of a budget as a life-long barrier. That attitude can bury your self-worth and confidence pretty quickly. Instead consider a budget as a way to establish some running room for the future. In order to get a better job or pay off some debts you’ll need some help. Like studying for an exam, the result will not be instantaneous. You’ll really need to commit to it, and 90 days is not that long.

After the first quarter of saving, what do you do after? Go back to your opulent lifestyle? No. It’s time to reevaluate your situation. Three months may lead to a lot of changes or none at all and it never hurts to revisit your goals. Are you still burdened with debt or are you further along in the green? Are you closer to affording your vacation? How many semesters of school do you still have?

Once again, everyone’s life is different. The key is to keep in mind that there is a goal to reach. There is a deadline to meet. There will be obstacles and other people will try to tempt and influence you, but you must stay the course. Budgeting is the price you pay for a better life.

The cost of convenience

March 20, 2015March 18, 2015 / Elliot Chan / Leave a comment

How will we cope with all our wasteful products?

By Elliot Chan, Opinions Editor
Formerly published in The Other Press. March 10, 2015

John Sylvan is the inventor of Keurig K-Cups coffee pods. Like Doctor Frankenstein bringing life to his monster, Sylvan caused unintended havoc with coffee pods.

In an interview with the Atlantic, Sylvan openly admitted that although his creation had earned Keurig Green Mountain billions, he regretted it and does not personally consume it himself. It was a rare confession, but one based around a real-world dilemma. Since the inception of coffee pods into the morning routine, people have found it ever more challenging to be waste-conscious.

Environmentalists have condemned coffee pods from day one, but the product is thriving. In 2013, one in three Americans enjoyed a single-serving cup of coffee at work or at home and over 11.6 million coffee pod machines were sold. If there is a problem, we are not dealing it. But should we?

The premium price we place on convenience is hard to ignore. Coffee can be as cheap and as expensive as you want it to be. Instant coffee only requires a few tablespoons from a canister of Nescafé and a little bit of stirring in hot water. It’s not fancy, but it’ll give you the same jolt as a coffee pod. The price of that is approximately $10 for 50 cups. Not bad. For K-Cups, the cost is about a dollar per cup, which is a third cheaper than Starbucks. The price at the moment is in a grey area: reasonable and worth trying.

So what are we actually doing? Is there any logic to using coffee pods or are we all committed to it now that we’ve purchased the ultra-expensive kitchen appliance? We have become dependent on Keurig and other coffee pod machines. Like a home printer, we’ll buy ink just to keep it relevant. Caught in a wave of trendiness, coffee drinkers are now shackled to the machine. And sooner or later, remorse will seep in.

This is not the first product designed for coffee that people deemed wasteful: disposable cups, coffee sleeves, lids, stir sticks, and the like. It seems like everything associated with coffee is somehow wasteful. Should we stop drinking coffee? No. Caffeine is the fuel for our society and that isn’t going to change. What we need to reconfigure is our reason for convenience.

When do we need something convenient? When we are in a rush. When we are too tired to put in the effort. Those are reasonable excuses to use K-Cups. Sure. But when those two scenarios aren’t a factor, make a cup of coffee the old-fashioned way. If it’s not too much trouble, carry a reusable cup with you into a coffee shop.

There is nothing wrong with using products that are convenient. Technology is built to make our lives easier. And if it’ll make you a cup of coffee and help you catch the bus on time, then the bit of waste is worth it. However, if you are just lollygagging and hanging around waiting for the Keurig machine to brew your drink, shame on you. Make a cup of coffee in a less wasteful way. It might actually taste better too.

Let taxes equal charities

March 13, 2015March 6, 2015 / Elliot Chan / Leave a comment

Is it really better to give?

By Elliot Chan, Opinions Editor
Formerly published in The Other Press. March 3, 2015

It’s hard to get excited about taxes. Like having someone reach into your pocket and take whatever they want, tax season often leaves us all feeling a little violated. But for as long as civilized living has existed, taxes have been constant and increasing. It’s clear today that if we want to continue living the Canadian life, we’ll need to pay taxes, and a lot of them.

After you wash away the tears, let’s take a look at all the benefits, because it is all about the benefits. Public safety and services are two popular reasons to pay taxes, and they’re good ones. I’ll be glad to pay taxes if the firefighters put out my burning house or if a policeman arrests the dude who just robbed me. I frequent the library, so I’m happy about the books my tax dollars bought. I drive, so I’m glad there is money left to fill potholes and extend the highway. Let’s call taxes a security for our future, insurance for our way of living, and a charity for the people in our society.

As I progress through life, I have noticed that I’m paying more taxes. I remember there was a time when I received money from the government for simply being alive. Now, I’m required to pay it back—it’s bullshit. But I’m not going to stop working; I’m not going to stop making money. My attitude toward taxes is different. I want to make more money so I can pay more taxes. Rich people get praised all the time for donating to charity, but they get pitied for having to pay significant taxes. No! Don’t pity them. They are rich. If needing to pay taxes is a deterrent for wealth, there is something wrong with your mentality, and that needs to change.

Money creates power and power begets money. Taxes break this pattern. They put responsibility on the wealthy to help provide for their less fortunate peers as they cope with the hardships of life.

We are all in this together, although we might not all agree on where the money should go. Some say the money should be dedicated to slums, others say it should go into renovating a public art gallery. Some want it to build a new transit infrastructure; others want to upgrade the healthcare system. We might never agree, but the thing is, we should be optimistic that wherever our money goes it’s going to good efforts. The same way we have little control once we donate to a charity, is the same way we should approach taxes.

Friendly fire

March 10, 2015March 6, 2015 / Elliot Chan / Leave a comment

When do friendly insults become hurtful?

By Elliot Chan, Opinions Editor
Formerly published in The Other Press. March 3, 2015

While some dub it as a masculine trait, others label it as immaturity. I’m speaking of the act of friendly insults: when we call our friends “losers,” “bitches,” or “idiots” for fun. Even though this type of interaction varies from friend circle to friend circle, and each cultural group reacts differently to name-callings and put-downs, we all have experienced friendly fire at one point or another. The question isn’t if it exists, but when too much is too much.

How fine is the line between bullying and simply being vulgar for the sake of fun? No friendship begins by signing a term of agreement, saying that X amount of name-calling can be accepted. Usually, this type of behaviour evolves over time as comfort levels go up and social barriers go down.

I’ve worked in a restaurant with an all-male back-of-house staff, and that shaped the dynamic of the working environment greatly. I saw how men behaved with each other both as team members, friends, and leaders. At some point in the whole interaction, an individual is highlighted as both easy-going and resilient. That is the one who will become the butt of the joke, the one member of the team everyone is okay calling out without any repercussion.

You want to feel sorry for that lonely individual as others gang up on him. You want to help him or do what the anti-bullying ads advise and step in. But not when it’s friendly fire, not when the dude actually enjoys the attention.

If you find yourself as the guy who everyone is making fun of, know this: nobody will help you, because you’re laughing along with them. You are not in distress. You are not harassed. The interaction between you and your friends from the outside appears to be perfectly normal. If it bugs you, you’ll need to step up and say something.

Or you can stop the insults yourself. This type of interaction is not one-sided. More often than not, people only continue this trend because you are knocking it back into their court. Stop. Recognize that you are dishing as much as you are receiving and stop. Otherwise, it continues to be one vicious cycle.

I enjoy busting balls now and then. It’s a perfectly normal masculine expression of appreciation and tough love. But at some point, we do need to grow up. We need to treat our friends and peers with respect. We cannot go out in public and continue calling out our friends for their shortcomings when we are 40, 50, or 60 years old. At some point, too much is, in fact, too much.

So lame it just might work

March 5, 2015February 27, 2015 / Elliot Chan / Leave a comment

How the stupidest technology can catch on

By Elliot Chan, Opinions Editor
Formerly published in The Other Press. Feb. 24, 2015

This is not a criticism of any individual or organization, but rather the designs that come from an embarrassing collective demand. I’m talking about technology such as the selfie stick. You know, the elongated pole that people use to take pictures of themselves. Honestly I don’t mind it, the same way I don’t mind someone wearing a fanny pack, or socks and sandals. We can all do whatever we want; however, I’m surprised that technology has gone from innovative to awkward.

I’m as comfortable implementing hashtags into my social media posts as I am making cold calls on the phone. There is just something about the action that I still can’t buy into. For lack of a better phrase, when I do use hashtags to further my social media reach, I feel like I’m trying too hard. I feel like I’m trying to show off in an audition, I feel like I’m trying to get the pretty girl to look at me, I feel like I’m knotting a bow tie for a business-casual kind of party. I feel lame.

I know I shouldn’t because it is just technology, and hell everyone is doing it. In fact, some might say I’m stupid for not using selfie sticks to take my pictures and hashtagging my photos #SelfieStick on Instagram. Even that sentence caused me to cringe a bit.

For a while, I watched as some “fortunate” individuals walked around town with Google Glass on their face. They did whatever they did, smiling and explaining what they were doing while they were doing it, and it was all fun and merriment. However, one day Google Glass’s popularity plummeted and now I rarely see it around. Perhaps it was because those who were wearing it were deemed “Glassholes” and that led to problematic interactions. Like Bluetooth earpieces, you cannot look cool wearing it while walking down the street because you just don’t need it. You look stupid, arrogant, and lazy.

Technology, tools, and metadata tags are useful in situations where they are actually necessary. In my mind, there needs to be a purpose for something to be “cool.” It’s not cool hashtagging every word in your Twitter post, even if it’s done ironically, because that post will ultimately affect nobody.

However, if you are expressing your opinion, offering insight, or promoting something of value, then hashtags are great because you give someone who is searching #Cupcakes a place for them to find cupcakes, recipes for cupcakes, or your opinion on a brand of cupcakes. If you are driving a car, Bluetooth is wonderful. If you want to get a group picture without excluding someone, selfie sticks are the grand solution. And if you have other friends with Google Glass, it would be awesome to interact through that wearable platform. However, people are using technology for reasons that are beyond me, and that is why so many of us consider them lame.

You only have one reputation

March 2, 2015February 27, 2015 / Elliot Chan / Leave a comment

Don’t underestimate the destructive force of dishonesty

By Elliot Chan, Opinions Editor
Formerly published in The Other Press. Feb. 24, 2015

Journalists getting into trouble—an old story, yet a frequent one. There is not much you can predict these days except that sooner or later some established media figure will stumble off the pedestal they created for themselves and writhe in the filth of their undoing. What happened to Brian Williams, NBC’s Nightly News anchor, could not have happened to anyone. It was not an honest mistake. He did not misquote a subject. He did not make a typo. He made a conscious decision to lie. And although the public may be forgiving, they will never forget.

A person’s reputation is built upon their competence and integrity. When someone compromises it, as in the case of Williams, that reputation is tarnished. The stakes are the same; it doesn’t matter if the person is a 40-year veteran or a newly hired intern. But what can we learn from this incident? After all, we understood at a very young age not to lie.

The reason we lie is not necessarily because we are evil, lazy, hurtful people. The main motivation for lying comes internally from the person telling it. They may have a lack of confidence, lack of ability, or lack of trust. People lie to themselves first in a fake-it-until-you-make-it sort of way. The lies then snowball and eventually what began as a little confidence boost becomes a rolling, unstoppable stone of trouble.

When Williams was called out for his exaggerated story, he admitted to misremembering the situation. And believe it or not, in his subconscious mind, that is in fact true. If you tell a lie enough, eventually it does become true; however, that doesn’t change reality. We need to be aware of what we are lying about and how far we string our web.

It is time we recognize that there is no such thing as a harmless lie. Whether it’s in a professional, academic, or social environment lying can compromise your reputation and destroy your relationships. We must have confidence in ourselves and own up to our mistakes. People are quick to forget errors. We all make mistakes. We all live pretty normal lives. We all work hard. We should stop allowing lies to be an acceptable norm.

Take a look at your resumé or listen to yourself at a party and try to catch yourself when you stray from the truth. Call yourself out on it. The sooner you know you are a liar, the sooner you can stop. You do need to stop. If you don’t, it will destroy your life. Maybe not today. Maybe not 20 years from now. But one day. Look at all the famous people who are now only recognized for the lies they told and not their accomplishments. You don’t want your name on the career tombstone alongside Brian Williams, do you?

Photoshop challenge

February 28, 2015February 27, 2015 / Elliot Chan / Leave a comment

The impact of retouched images

By Elliot Chan, Opinions Editor
Originally published in The Other Press. Feb 24, 2015

Can a magazine with untouched images of models sell? I don’t know. Every time I have stood in the supermarket checkout line, I’ve noticed the stunning works by digital artists on the front pages of magazines. I must admit; I’m not the demographic for those magazines. There is nothing in there for me except fashion advertisements and regurgitated articles about topics I have no interest in. That leaves me to wonder, how influential was Cindy Crawford’s photoshop-free image that leaked on the Internet? Was it simply a publicity stunt to sell magazines or a true stance against a manipulative industry?

In the April issue of Marie Claire, you will be able to find a picture of the famed supermodel dressed in a bathing suit with all her flaws fully displayed. It’s a bold move that has earned resounding applause. But will it affect the landscape of modelling or the cutthroat world of media? It won’t.

As magazine sales decline dramatically, marketing stunts need to be implemented. Yes it’s brave of Crawford to appear in her humbling form, but it was also brave when Kim Kardashian appeared in Paper Magazine oddly mutated with her giant butt exposed. And there is a certain courageousness to those Instagram girls who take to social media, posting #NoMakeup pictures of themselves. These are apparently the things people need to do to get attention and to sell magazines today. However, models and people are not pioneers, and if they were they would be destroying the very industry that entertained and created them.

It’s clear why the veil of computer modification needs to be pulled down. People are impressionable and photoshopped images corrupt the idea of what beauty—achievable beauty, realistic beauty—actually looks like. However, the public does not want to pay good money for magazines with undesirable images.

I’m sorry that I’m skeptical and that I believe one day our shallow world will realize what hideous creatures we’ve become, not just in print but also in reality. Photoshopped images are drugs and we are addicted. We are now obsessed with the fantasy of looking perfect and dressing well. No model can change the current zeitgeist alone. Sure it is empowering but how can we use that power for good and not have it be one small step forward and three giant steps back.

I hate the idea of someone behind a computer retouching scars, wrinkles, pores, and pimples from an image of me, and I’m sure you’d hate that too. But simply eliminating it won’t work either. Perhaps there is a middle ground, a balance in every publication to have both retouched images and originals. Perhaps there can be two versions printed. Maybe we can see which initiative sells better.

It is a business, after all. McDonald’s burgers always look bigger, juicer, and tastier in advertisements. And so it goes with supermodels.