Bob Dylan's "Opium"

Recently, I’ve read numerous reports of artists who have offended their fans and contemporaries with arguably the most heinous crime an artist can commit. Usher, Bob Dylan, and Beyoncé have all been called plagiarists.

Leon Busy's "Woman Smoking Opium"

The New York Times reports that critics have noted that some of Bob Dylan’s paintings in New York’s Gagosian Gallery seem to bear striking resemblances to others’ photographs. Take a look at his work, “Opium” above and Leon Busy’s “Woman Smoking Opium.”

Usher is contesting claims that his 2004 hit “Burn” gained a bit too much of its influence from songwriter Eric Lee Straughter’s “The Reasons Why.” My apparently musically underdeveloped ears could not sense significant similarities between the two songs, but Usher may have to testify before a jury to defend his originality.

Similarities between Beyoncé’s choreography in her new video for “Countdown” and choreography by Belgian Anne Teresa De Keersmaeker are more obvious. See a side-by-side comparison after the jump.

You’d be hard-pressed to find a virtue-ethicist who would accept any sort of plagiarism as virtuous, but perhaps listening to Usher break up with an ex in “Burn” or watching Beyoncé perform in “Countdown” makes all of society better off than it was before any acts of plagiarism; does a utilitarian perspective extol plagiarism in any case? Perhaps we should just use Beyoncé as our moral compass. She admits that De Keersmaeker’s choreography was “one of the inspirations used to bring the feel and look of the song to life,” along with a number of other influences—and she is clearly fine with using such “inspirations” without much variation.

Beyoncé’s response reminds me of Malcolm Gladwell’s reaction to similar “plagiarism” of one of his articles. Playwright Bryony Lavery’s blatant use of prose from an article that Gladwell wrote seemed forgivable because she projected the source material into a play; Lavery turned Gladwell’s nonfiction into “a work of art.” According to Gladwell, the key for a significant adaptation is turning old material into something newly creative; he admires the use of “old words in the service of a new idea,” and I’d say that I do too.

Gladwell’s moral acceptance of Lavery’s plagiarism has contributed to my own opinions about reproduction and influence in art. While I don’t condone taking extreme amounts of influence from artists without giving them credit, if an artist has truly used this influence for a new, creative, and highly original product, I feel less willing to condemn him or her as a plagiarist.

Does Bob Dylan’s “Opium” contribute any significant originality to its source material? According to the Gagosian Gallery, “While the composition of some of Bob Dylan’s paintings are based on a variety of sources, including archival, historic images, the paintings’ vibrancy and freshness come from the colours and textures found in everyday scenes [Dylan] observed during his travels.” Does the fact that I still can’t hear great similarities between Usher’s “Burn” and Straughter’s work suggest that Usher (if he had even heard the song before he began work on his own) has contributed a song to the art community that can be called his own? Does Beyoncé’s removal of De Keersmaeker’s choreography from classical ballet to a more contemporary landscape in support of her lyrics in “Countdown” justify her actions?

Let’s face it – art is a highly personal subject, and artists are constantly influenced by the work of others. Malcolm Gladwell questions the “black-and-whiteness” of plagiarism by suggesting that the use of such influence in the service of new ideas may be acceptable. So before you burn your Bob Dylan posters and toss your Beyoncé albums, consider the ways in which they contributed (or failed to contribute) a new perspective to old art.

To complicate the issue even further, consider the status of the “plagiarists” we’ve considered here. I have to wonder why it’s okay for YouTube sensations to rise to prominence by covering others’ songs, often without any significant changes, if we criticize Beyoncé or Usher for gaining influence from others. Do we hold established artists to a higher standard, expecting them to be highly original at all times, or are we offended by the injustice of the rich and famous taking credit from those who are not as prominent or wealthy? I’m not entirely sure why I’m completely comfortable watching strangers cover my favorite songs and surprised when I hear a famous musician under fire for plagiarism, but I know that I’m reluctant to severely criticize any artist for being inspired by the work of others, because inspiration is everywhere and a new artist can put a new spin on old influences.

Credit: AchillesEffect

Credit: AchillesEffect

The answer may surprise you—or maybe not. They are visual representations of words used in advertisements, where the size of the word correlates to the frequency of its use (more on this, including the original images, here). The top image is for boys, and the bottom for girls. This, of course, brings up the question that is at the root of this matter—what does it mean, in contemporary American society, to be either a boy or a girl?

As a child, my aunt once helped me paint my nail (that’s right, just the one) purple. I didn’t care too much for the feeling of it, and soon afterwards got rid of the nail polish. I’ve never gone back to it, but I’d like to think that’s primarily because I don’t like the feeling of nail polish (and the wonderful acrylic smell doesn’t really help matters). However, I have numerous friends (both female and male) that enjoy painting their nails (albeit in obnoxiously bright colors, which never ceases to annoy me). I’ve never felt that my initial painted nail or the nails of my friends confused us about our gender, but this debate has been brought up recently due to an advertisement in a J. Crew magazine where a woman is painting her son’s toenails pink. Does a boy lose sense of what it means to be a boy if he partakes in activities traditionally held for girls? I don’t think so.

And yet, there is a substantial public opinion that suggests that only men or women take part in certain activities. Like it or not, we begin socializing children from a very early age. How do we balance the normative pressure to be masculine or feminine with ideals of gender equality? Is it fair to tell a boy that he can’t be on the cheerleading team? Is it fair to tell a girl that she can’t wrestle? In a nation where the government emphasizes a sense of equality amongst all human beings, it is ironic that even today, there is still a large divide amongst what it means to be a boy or a girl. What would happen if this weren’t the case? One only has to look to cultures in which there is an inherent advantage to having a son over a daughter, such as in China and India. Currently, both are suffering from large gender disparities, with an overpopulation of men.

If we agree that the 100 million missing women in Asia are a problem, we should be equally concerned about marketing in America that clearly defines gender roles for children here. The stakes are lower, but the principle is the same. And besides, if I (as a boy) want to play with Barbie, shouldn’t that be ok?

Photo via Pink Sherbet Photography

Could you go a day without using your cell phone? How about your laptop? TV? If you’re like most young adults today, you may answer these questions with a nervous laugh, say “Of course! I’m not dependent on it, I’m just, you know, fond of it…” while you reach protectively for your 4G technological gizmo. Don’t worry, you’re not alone.

A recent study found that college students who were asked to give up media for 24 hours experienced physical symptoms of withdrawal. The experiment, titled “Unplugged” tracked the lives over 1,000 young adults for a single day without any access to media. Participants reported feeling fidgety, anxious, insecure, and isolated, among other physical and psychological symptoms. It’s like experiencing withdrawal from hard drugs, only the drug of choice is, um, your Droid.

Results of the study point to an almost frightening dependence of young people on technology. But before we call for an end to Facebook, Twitter, and the iPhone28, let’s take a closer look at the way media functions in our society today. True, we do seem to rely more than ever on cyberspace for social networking, entertainment, and business endeavors. But that’s because, well, so much of life as we know it today has a significant virtual element to it. What choice do we really have? We e-mail, text, facechat, and BBM our colleagues, our employers, our family members. We are connected via technology at all times, and yes, that makes for a more fast-paced lifestyle (I sent you an e-mail two minutes ago, why haven’t you responded from your Blackberry yet?). But it also means we possess the opportunity to be more efficient and can pursue entertainment and social activities as we see fit. Who can blame a young adult for obsessively checking his or her cell phone when his or her boss could send an important e-mail at any time? When there is so much nonsense (I mean, highly important information) being spewed out by Twitter every minute? It would be a travesty to miss out on the shenanigans of your friends if you stepped away from the computer. Er, iPad. Cell phone. Whatever.

Technology always impacts the way we make social connections. And young people are often the ones who adopt new technologies first. It just so happens that for young adults today, making those social connections is more intertwined with technology than we’ve experienced in past generations. This is not inherently a bad thing. In fact, one could argue that a young adult who is in tune to his or her technology is probably much more connected to his or her friends, family, and workplace than those who shun technological gadgets. At least, to a certain extent.

The expansion of cyber networks calls into question how we interact in the real world. Are we happier, more social beings due to technology?  While the internet makes it possible to contact virtually anyone in any part of the globe, is there potential for negative consequences if our cyber lives start to replace our, well, “real” lives? Think about how much time during the day you spend staring at a screen: when you’re on the C1, in class, on the treadmill, or even when you’re walking to the Loop with a friend. It seems like you’re missing a part of that real, human connection as you tap out a text or check your e-mail instead of really devoting your attention to what’s going on all around you. Check out this classic example of when using technology can turn events sour:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BujoOxjB3b4&feature=related]

Even something like music, one of the most profound ways humans connect with one another, can be belittled by your technological addiction. You miss out on the little things – wow, that’s a really cool looking cloud – and also the bigger things, like the way a friend’s face lights up over good news that no Tweet, status update, or text can capture. Today, it can be really hard to tune out to technology, even for a moment. After all, you rely on it to get a lot of pretty important information (and some pretty not-important information). But try to unplug for an afternoon, or even an hour. You might finally notice what you’ve been missing.

Yes, I too thought that trolls were mythical creatures who only belonged under bridges in my childhood story, The Three Billy Goats Gruff.  Nevertheless, I have quickly learned that they are real, and they are everywhere!

What does an internet troll look like?  What will they do to you?

Check out the following video and find out:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP-sSeqPywI]

Many of you may now be confused.  What does this horribly insensitive video have to do with trolls?  The answer is simple.  According to a March 15^th Atlantic Wire article, internet trolls post offensive videos to garner attention.  They thrive off negative feed-back and consider it fun.  The thrill of “trolling” comes from protecting your identity as a troll and tricking viewers into believing that you are the offensive character in real life that you portray in your video.

In light of the devastating losses of the recent earthquake in Japan, tamtampamela’s video has been lambasted by viewers.   She received so many negative comments and death threats that she was forced out of hiding and publically revealed her identity as a troll.  The internet community breathed a sigh of relief…another troll ousted.

Although the offensive nature of troll videos is clearly an issue, there are broader ethical implications. What is the ethical difference between posting an offensive comment you believe in and trolling?  Why is unforgivable for someone to believe that the earthquake in Japan was a benevolent act of God, but forgivable for someone who says it if she admits that she did for attention?  Is it the intentions or the perceptions we care about?

Apparently, we care about perceptions.  By “coming clean,” tamtampamela has come out of the scrutiny and criticism of the internet community.  Now that we perceive that her words are facetious, she is all of a sudden exonerated.  But, the nature of her words hasn’t changed.  The intention, if anything, is worse.  Being a troll isn’t a valid excuse from moral censure. We seem to normalize attention by transgression, and therefore, absolve trolls as simply misguided attention hoarders.  The reality is though that they have crossed a line.

This brings me to a second issue: how do we decide what type of trolling is inappropriate?  Many YouTube users satirize events or stereotypes for attention.  One of my favorite videos pokes fun at the sorority stereotype:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be3JM-fg4uE]

A recent Slate article also mentions comedians such as Gilbert Gottfried who use dark humor.

At first, I thought that offensive humor and trolling were completely separate, but now I am starting to think that they are really similar. They are both incredibly offensive by nature.  However, I wonder if there is a distinction.  So what’s the difference?  What makes us laugh and what makes us want to angry?

Gottfried wanted to make us laugh—the medium he chose was dark, ill-timed humor. Omgbekah wanted to entertain—she chose to do so by satirizing sorority girls.  Tamtampamela, on the other hand, wanted to gain attention; therefore she lobbed insensitive comments to enrage people. I think that the difference in intentionality is significant.

At the end of the day, we have to take trolling for what it is: a cry for attention.  Some trolls go overboard.  Beware—or help them from under the bridge.

Those who are semi-competent students of history will know, however, that Nazis (the German word for the National Socialist Party headed by Hitler) and current United States political parties look almost nothing alike. In fact, some argue (such as this group of rabbis) that using the term Nazi in political debate is an insult to the millions of Jews, and others, who actually suffered under the Nazis’ genocidal rule.

At first glance, it seems that the “Nazi card” is thrown around most often by Republicans—especially Fox News. Bill O’Reilly, Megyn Kelly, Glenn Beck and others on the conservative-leaning network have compared Obama or his policies to Nazis on more than one occasion. Jon Stewart, the famous satirical comedian who delivers the “news” on Comedy Central, ran a hilarious segment pointing out Fox News’s hypocrisy in using Nazi repeatedly on their network:

Before you think I have it out for Fox and conservatives, however, here’s the big twist in the story: just a few weeks after Stewart aired that piece, Wisconsin Democrats pulled out the ole Nazi card themselves. The recent Wisconsin Democratic senators’ walkout from the state legislature has caused quite a stir in both local and national politics. In once instance thousands of protesters gathered outside the capitol, likening Gov. Scott Walker to, that’s right, a Nazi for his anti-union policies.

We can all agree that free speech is a crucial part of American democracy, and a recent Supreme Court decision guarantees that even disruptive speech that nearly everyone condemns is still protected by the First Amendment. So, sure, we have the “right,” in the legal sense, to call our political opponents Nazis. But don’t you think it’s both distasteful and extremely inappropriate? After all, as Jon Stewart says, “Being a heartless douche isn’t exactly the same as being a Nazi propagandist.”

Before reading any further, take a look at the following Youtube video.

(Don’t feel obliged to watch the entire clip; a minute or less should suffice.)

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qcx4ppod4b8]

Disturbed? Intrigued? Angry? Surprised? Turned on?

These are the mixed reactions that daggering has elicited. And if you know anything about dance history, you’d know that this isn’t the first time a society has had a negative reaction to a new dance move. Elvis’s mild (by today’s standards) pelvic thrusts were enough to make producers show him from the waist up, in fear of a public outcry. Is daggering just another dance style that society simply hasn’t grown accustomed to yet?

Not exactly. In the case of daggering, there’s more to it than the simple claim of inappropriate hip movement. Jamaica’s Broadcasting Commission is the group behind the ban of this kind of music, which often contains references to daggering and could be considered lewd itself.   The JBC’s basis for restrictions on this music is the spate of broken penises that have occurred from this erotic dancing.

Yes, the Jamaican government is stepping in to prevent broken penises. I don’t necessarily disagree with the restriction of this music on public radio; I wouldn’t want this lewd content available to my five-year old cousin. In fact, up until very recently this music has been limited to Jamaican dance halls; the public playing of this genre is new to Jamaica. Raula Brown, an Atlanta-based Jamaican DJ, told Newsweek, “That kind of music has always existed in Jamaican culture, but the only place you could hear it or experience was in the dancehall.”

But why are they focusing this law on broken penises? I don’t believe it’s the government’s responsibility to protect men from a tear in the covering of the erectile tissue. You might as well enforce laws against rough sex. This is a personal and (although painful) minor injury for a man, and the government has no business getting involved in this respect.

If the Jamaican government is acting on behalf of public health, then why don’t they just say so? They should be solely interested in the effects this musical content has on younger ears, not on adult penises.

But what if this isn’t the case; maybe the Jamaican government is intentionally exaggerating the issue of the broken penis in order to have a basis for this ban on daggering music. Then the question is why do they feel the need to come up with an excuse? Is for the betterment of society not reason enough? I know that I would support this ban for the sake of protecting children from exposure to it’s content, but this stance makes me seem pretentious. Who am I to tell another culture (one that I’ve never experienced and therefore could not truly understand) how to raise their kids?

Would you go swimming in the middle of winter?  In an indoor pool?  Heated by a crematorium?

According to a February 8^th Reuters article, the Redditch Borough Council in central England recently approved the use of waste heat from a crematorium incinerator to warm its local swimming pool.  Although this “energy efficient practice” is the first of its kind in Great Britain, it is not a European novelty.  Sweden has long used this green form of energy!

Local protesters are calling this proposal “gruesome,” “insulting,” and “sick.”  Although I was also jarred by this plan, I quickly realized that my revulsion stemmed from a deeper source than the goose bumps I got from the word “crematorium.”

The larger issue here is not that an incinerator is being used as a source of energy.  Sure, it’s morbid that the deceased are used for heat generation, but the key distinction is that the bodies are not being burned in order to maintain the pool.  The deceased would be cremated regardless of this proposal.  The plan simply proposes to harness the energy from the cremation process.

Rather, the moral stake is lack of consent.  Does the council have permission from the families of the deceased to use their loved one’s body as fodder for energy generation?  Does the council have permission from the deceased?  (Here, I would presume the answer is no).  If we ask the living for consent in using their bodies for research, why do we neglect to ask the dead if we can use their body for energy (before they die)?  The council should have an “opt-out” program similar to the organ-donation designations on driver’s licenses.  To do any less would be to violate the dignity of deceased.

Although the swimming pool proposal still gives me the heebie-jeebies, the real question is, do the deceased have the same moral standing as us?  I speak for those who cannot speak for themselves when I say a resounding, yes.