"CR03:" Black and White

Ah, todays song title comes from Three Dog Night. Personally, their song called One is my all time favorite by them, but this title was more fitting. It is going to reference the video we watched in class and how this law dealing with the music industry is so cut and dry. Yet, often, with the idea of remixes and such, the legality is a shade of grey, not black and white. So, thank you to Three Dog Night for putting a classic touch on my music, and let's get on to the post.

Now we reach yet another junction where we can reflect on past knowledge gleaned from class. I'll start off with the lecture that dealt with legality issues and color schemes. I'd like to start by saying that color is really neat concept to play with. The idea that pure light consists of all colors and is simply refracted, or broken into its seperate components, which gives the represetation of color. And then color gets absorbed or repelled by objects which in turn represents a component of color. It is pretty cool. Now, from a designers point of view, color plays an even more pivatol role. I feel that, without color, images would not play nearly an important role in advertising for products. I feel like the expression 'a picture is worth a thousand words' becomes more like a hundred words when a lack of color exists. It serves to draw focus; it can guide a viewers thoughts and attention. Not to mention the optical ticks it can play on the eye. Color is a very influential part of design. But what about legality in design? Anymore, legal issues over things like copyrights and patents can seriously inpair a persons ability to design. The original inent, I feel, was to encourage people to be creative knowing their ideas where theirs alone and they would be justly compensated. Now, I feel like they exist to serve as warning and limit creative issue. After all, if parts of older ideas are modified but incorporated into a designers new and unique invention, the designer would get into trouble. And to me, the 'new' designs are becomming few and far between with most designs simply trying to improve on something old. Yet I feel like now, it is just a few short steps from going to court every time.

And then to further my thoughts from the legal lecture, we were shown a movie called "Rip!: A Remix Manifest" in class. I still haven't come up with a stance on this position. This movie covered two class days, so I'll quickly sum it up. The idea is ideas are able to be copyrighted, and often are, by very large corporations. And then you have people who mix, mash, and reuse parts of these ideas in very different and unique ways which haven't been done. Thus, these people, these artists, have created something new themselves. And the questions is, who has the rights to it? Is it fair to allow corporations to own ideas? And if so, can you sue people who take those ideas and apply them in a different way or a new form? Because right now, as a whole, the government supports the large corporations who are trying to limit or restrict the usage of intellectual based ideas. The movie was focused primarily on music, and thus the compaines anf affiliates related to that field. But it brings us important questions I feel. Why do we allow people to copyright ideas which can be used to save lives? How is it fair that ideas, which are just that, an idea and NOT a tangible product, can be restricted and taken out of use? Now, I feel that some things a company should be entitled to reimbursement. For instance, if a majority of their product is used in a new design, then yes. If some one takes their product or idea and makes money off of it, then perhaps the original company should be entitled to a small percentage off of the sales. But on the flip side, I feel like ideas should not be allowed to be 'owned' by a corporation to begin with. An idividual, yes. But a corporation, no. See, when a business owns intellectual property, they do so ONLY to earn profit. It is the only reason they could have; unrestricted usage, for themselves, in order to make money. But if the individual has the idea, then they to make money off of it and copyright it. After all, it was their idea. And furthermore, it should not be fair to patent something for such long periods of time. Again, it hurts the general well being of the population. Now, this is why I am on the fence, because essentially, this is what the debate boils down to. Should we allow an individual, or company, profit off of an idea at the expense of the general populace? Or should the general populace have equal access to all ideas, yet prevent the individual, or company, from earning money and improving their own life? I feel like a careful balance needs to be found because both extremes are detremental. With excessive profits, quality of life goes down. Yet with no profits, no one can invent or create new ideas, thus quality of life also goes down. I think that'll be enough for now, just know that both sides have merit, and I feel like right now we are not in balance and need to find it again. As a final thought, maybe I should say I recommend anyone who DOES listen to my music, and like it, to LEGALLY obtain it. I in no way condone illegal piracy. Please don't sue me! : - )

And finally, we had some guest speakers pay us a visit in class. One set were some students going though the design major, and the other set were some recent graduates of the program who have started their own firm. This was mainly information sessions, kinda touching base with the programs and their personal experiences so I don't have alot of in depth analysis here. Basically, I feel like there are some cool opportunities within design, but it is not an easy major in which a person could just coast through. Since I'm only minoring, I apparantly don't have to worry about the entrance exams and formal applications (assuming I heard correctly) so I wish the best of luck to those of you out there who are going to major in this!