The quotes below are from an excellent article in the Slate Book Review called "You Are Not a Switch…..Recreativity and the modern dismissal of genius by Simon Reynolds"..
It seems that there is a current way of thinking that there is no original work, people …I have copied some of the main points of the article, but it’s worth reading in it’s entirety as the points made are very telling ones.
Recreativity: a fancy term for the cut-and-paste sensibility fostered by digital culture, defending , stating there is no such thing as original art and "which tends to reduce us (content creators) to the textual: a receiver/transmitter of data, a node in the network".
Recreativity has many proponents and represents a wide spectrum of opinion. Still, it’s striking how easily some of these critics and theorists glide from relatively sensible talk about the role of appropriation and allusion in art to sweeping claims of an ontological or biological nature. They seem so confident. ? The remixed nature of everything (not new) under the sun has become an article of faith. Impossible to prove, these assertions tell us way more about our current horizons of thought and our cultural predicament than they do about the nature of creativity or the history of art.
“As much as it is propaganda in favor of underachievement, recreativity is also, I suspect, a form of solace: reassuring balm for the anxiety of overinfluence, "
“Beneath the surface positivity, I suspect, . The mental sleight of hand in “genius steals” is the syllogistic implication that . Hence Austin Kleon’s candid and chirpy confession (and suggestion: you try it, too, budding artist!) that he has a “swipe file.” “See something worth stealing? Put it in the swipe file. Need a little inspiration? Open up the swipe file.”
“The hallmark, or proof, of genius, in fact, is not merely transmitting or remixing. It’s fashioning something that others will someday want to steal".
I totally agree with the author…how about you…any thoughts?