Creativity is a remix | Kirby Ferguson
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 вер 2024
- Nothing is original, says Kirby Ferguson, creator of Everything is a Remix. From Bob Dylan to Steve Jobs, he says our most celebrated creators both borrow, steal and transform.
TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design, and TEDTalks cover these topics as well as science, business, global issues, the arts and more. Find closed captions and translated subtitles in a variety of languages at www.ted.com/tra....
Follow TED on Twitter: / tednews
Like TED on Facebook: / ted
If you have questions or comments about this or other TED videos, please go to support.ted.com
![Business Analyst Full Course [2024] | Business Analyst Tutorial For Beginners | Edureka](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/czymrnQV2p4/mqdefault.jpg)
My mom has always used the phase "There is nothing new under the sun"
She used this as a inflator and a deflator for my ego. Telling me that my ideas were old and there was no problem with me reusing them, but to do it in my own way. Not copying word from word.
Ooh, a verse from Ecclesiastes. That's my second favorite book of the Bible.
That phrase again was used by Sherlock Holmes in "A Study in Scarlet"
I was hoping so much that he would use that quote/verse in his talk. It is ancient wisdom that sums up his point perfectly!
"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
~Issac Newton
Which is a quote he ironically rephrased after Bernard of Chartres.
Every f***ing time!!!
This makes my brain itch. As a fiction writer, I want to believe I have stories inside of me and from me, but I like this idea of how this Ted Talk isn't trying to stifle creativity - it's just getting rid of misconceptions we have about it. We face imposter syndrome every day, so why not embrace it? Why not realize that there is a possibility someone else has a similar story and just try our bests to make it our own, instead of worrying about copying someone else all the time?
Krishnamurti pointed out something very similar. "You would have no thoughts if you had no memory, and the response of memory to a certain experience brings the thought process into action.". In essence ideas are thoughts therefore they are just responses to the past. So every idea is just a response built from the memories of past experience. All you think is merely a rearrangement of what was thought and recorded. Progress/Innovation is just better remixing. How the precept that thought is
Patent laws are made by lawyers. Patents are written by lawyers. When you have a patent and you want to attack someone with it you need a lawyer. When you are attacked by someone with a patent you need a lawyer to defend yourself.
The lawyers always make their money.
+ericcartmansh Rather naïve.
+chimp3376
How so? He wasn't being negative about lawyers, just drawing a perhaps, overly simplistic view on the situation. But that doesn't make what he said wrong. I found it rather interesting. It doesn't make me hate lawyers though.
+Fish4Man61 Did you mean to comment me or ericcartmansh?
No you didn't you spouted "How so? He wasn't being negative about lawyers, just drawing a perhaps, overly simplistic view on the situation. But that doesn't make what he said wrong. I found it rather interesting. It doesn't make me hate lawyers though."
chimp3376
Learning to break down larger bodies of text into their subgroups and ideas is really invaluable, and is critical for most college level English classes. I think this will help you understand if English is a second language to you, because you clearly are missing some understanding to how the vernacular works in this writing.
Let me do so for what I wrote. "How so?" This was a question directed to the previous post, with the name address to you. You stated "Rather Naive" to the OP. So, I asked, How so?
Now, end that sentence - start new. Question mark ? after so.
New thought into explanation. "He wasn't being negative about lawyers, just drawing a perhaps, overly simplistic view on the situation." After leading with asking how he was naive, I broke down the core summary of the OP that you were saying was naive. I was stating that he wasn't being negative to lawyers at all, although it was still a bit of a simplistic viewpoint that the OP posited.
Continuing this thought, I added "But that doesn't make what he said wrong" as my next sentence. In the context of what was just said, it means simply that the OPs idea, despite it being overly simplistic, is not wrong simply because it may be overly simplistic.
I then added my overall opinion on what was said. "I found it interesting though", and to break it down the summary of the original poster, my opening, main thought about lawyers ( a conclusion in many forms of writing simply backs up what was said before ), said that "it doesn't make me hate lawyers though". Just because I agreed with it or found it interesting, doesn't mean there is anything to hate about lawyers. And the original thought is supported.
Now since I broke it down section by section, now lets look at the overall logic of the reply.
Because the original post was an overly simplistic view of lawyers (my post said this), and you said it was naive, it was likely that you meant something about the lawyers, and because it was negative to some degree against them, you might think it was the opposite. Either way, because of the uncertain meaning of your statement, as it was a bit puzzling I asked "How so?" Then explained what everything looked like to me from the OP, and there wasn't anything that made me think that it was.
That is the summation of the breakdown of the ideas, logic and structure of the responses, from you and me.
Does this help you any? Breaking this might be a bit of practice for breaking down some sources for my research paper due in 2 and a half weeks at the end of the fall semester, so I don't mind answering any further questions you may have.
But I am curious, how did you think the OP was naive?
"A musician is a sum total of his or her influences." -Yngwei Malsteen
The only time I would say copyright should be heavily enforced is if someone takes your exact idea/product and calls it there own. For example if Jay-Z makes a song and later someone literally has the same beat and lyrics, but say they made it all. Clearly it is just a rip off.
If you're familiar with Furguson's work, he doesn't advocate that copyright shouldn't exist because that would also kill creativity. Instead copyright and patent laws should be toned down and a person should be given a more reasonable amount of time so that they can profit off their idea. After that, then the idea enters public domain. I for one agree that a person should be able to own the likeness of an idea for a short period of time so that people will be willing to innovate. However the way it is now, ideas won't enter public domain until our grandchildren are collecting social security. I don't know what the ideal number would be, but I'd like for it to be something that an individual can witness in their lifetime a transition from privately owned to public domain.
Team Shmo That's not the only case, since the problem with that Grey Album is that Jay-Z didn't even asked for permission to sample the Beatles material, and of course he didn't pay for doing it, THAT"S TE PROBLEM, for example a good example of doing exactly the same BUT the right way, so even it becomes a success is Walk This Way with Run DMC, that paid for using the song and even had the collaboration of Aerosmith in the song.
You can copy things, but when you do it the right way: asking and paying for it an even adding your own creativity the result of that will even be a pretty good example of creativity, a recent example is the duet Pomplamoose, that does almost only covers, BUT they pay the rights AND do arrangements that bring new life t those songs with a different sound and style.
Oscar Tapia Ideally yes paying a small fee to use samples of work and add your own spin to it would be great, but the cost of doing so most of the time is outrageous. Not only that but most of the time even getting a chance to pay is impossible. I have a video on my channel that got a copyright claim and tried as hard as I could to talk to the company about it, but no one will email me back. They don't care unless they know you are good for paying millions to them. The small fry trying to make something of themselves has a very hard doing so because everyone is claiming copyrights. Even when your work is barely similar and clearly has major changes to it.
Team Shmo This thing that you say applies to people that just want to use something for himself, eventually publishing on the internet, and maybe be seen by many other, maybe, BUT those examples this guy shows us, the case of international artists: of course they can contact the companies and ask for the license to use their content, do you think Jay-Z tried to contact Apple (the music company for The Beatles, not the technology brand) to tell them they wanted to use the music from the White Album? He just took it. And in that case obviously is not something with a little similarity, he used extracts from the White Album.
this for what it was when applied to himself. So often many want credit for things they never thought of in the first place. I'm an artist myself and totally love remixing ideas. To create is to "bring(something) into existence" for that to happen other "things" have to have existed first. We just copy,transform and combine, That's about as accurate as it gets when defining "creativity".
Kirby, I'm proud of what you've accomplished! I remember when you released Remix part 1!!!! Congrats - Eric Bell of the MRGA
I completely agree with him, but this short talk did the topic no justice. I highly recommend everyone checks out his documentary "Everything is a Remix".
It’s one thing to have an idea of something, for example a smartphone with multimedia, apps and web browsing. Copying is stealing the final product of that idea, for example the iPhone. It’s totally reasonable to steal an idea and make it your own, but not to copy the result someone else made of that idea. An idea can be executed in wildly different ways, without copying someone else. It’s what you make of it.
You enlighten me to the truth of human creativity. I must thank God for giving you opportunity to speak on TED and enlighten us about this issue. May peace be upon you.
"Good artists borrow (or are inspired by), and great artists steal" - Pablo Picasso
I think that's the point.
Hi Chris, I am so glad to find you here, tonight my plan was to miss TheFutur videos by watching this one, because I have a habit to watch you every night.I think I failed to do that, but I am happy to see you here.
I ultimately landed here through your vids Chris!
hi Chris
Your awesome! We as people need to understand each other, share the concepts and creations & not be selfish when opening boundaries to the world.
Hanji paaji apni bollywood factory haigi "chappamachine" lol
a "thing" to be somehow owned like a possession came about is utterly ridiculous in this light. Do we also "own" the experiencing that leads to memory and therefore the thoughts that are responses to it? This is why learning is the most important aspect of living. All forms of advancement/progress/innovation happen this way. Just a the Henry Ford quote admits. He learned what was done before him, pushed it further and gave credit where it was due. Steve Jobs, however, Obviously couldn't see
The wheel's roundness is just one of it's components. The component that really sets it apart is the axle.
The first means of transport were tree logs, that's what the prehistoric men used to shift boulders all over the place. In that sense the wheel isn't an idea that appeared out of nowhere, it's merely an improvement of something that already existed.
This was the shortest and yet the most well thought out Ted Talks presentation I have ever seen...
"Everything Is A Remix"
Great message! I’m 15 years old and is starting UA-cam and the ideas in thsi video is super important to me!
The current copyright/patent laws have been changed from what they once were intended to be which was the betterment of society as a whole while giving the creator time to capitalize on their work or creation. Patents and copyrights were supposed to run out and the ideas then went into our collective knowledge to be used and altered by society as needed. Today they're nothing more than deadlocks on ideas and information. This needs to change for the betterment of all people!
was showed this in school, changed the way i think about a lot of things, terrific ted talk
Really well prepared, executed & intriguing talk.
Just got done watching his online documentary. Brilliant. Utterly brilliant...and very well made.
I find it absolutely fascinating how biological evolution mirrors memetic social evolution. Copy, Transform, Combine....Cellular Mitosis, Mutation/Natural Selection, Sexual Reproduction
It's the same thing...amazing.
That's why the anti-evolution people bug me. They are denying the inherent function of not just biological life...but of reality itself. EVERYTHING evolves. Reality IS creativity.
This should have more views
Well one thing people should consider when trying to point out similarities is that everything we experience flavors everything we create. Human beings are impressionable and you can find similarities in pretty much every creation. In some of the comparisons listed I didn't even notice a similarity. Though there are cases where it's pretty clear what the person is doing and that isn't fair if they don't give credit where credit is due.
I must say that this reminded me of a Harvard professor, Dr. Lawrence Lessig, who wrote about a similar idea in his book, "Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy", 2008. I'm not knocking Mr. Ferguson for his Ted Talk. But, I have a sneaking suspicion that he had read that book before he gave this talk; if so, I think he should have mentioned him. 😎
I don't doubt that Creativity being based on past works is just an innovation of them so that nothing is radically new, but if an artist adds something of his own to a piece then isn't there still some ownership to be had? One can take old songs and change them to make their own, but the old songs, off which the new artist innovates, still "belong" in a sense to the old artist. I think the trickiest thing here then is the honesty that an innovator has, for economics creates impure incentives
I agree with you on that this is scratching the surface, but I think you got the question wrong, is not about stealing (because the idea of property is wrong in this context), I believe a better question is "how do we guarantee (or at least make it a good chance) that the innovators are economically rewarded for their work, their remixes? because in the end is about earning money, not about avoiding others to do so...
Agreed. It's generally agreed in the patent world that "new" inventions are non-obvious *combinations* of previous elements or steps.
.
FYI to previous commenters:
Patents cover inventions (example: iPhone features). Copyright protects expression (e.g., songs).
Patents generally expire 20 years after the application is filed, while copyright protection lasts much longer (complicated rules).
Patentability of your invention doesn't guarantee you don't infringe someone else's *earlier* patent.
My high school English teacher told me to master archetypes when creating characters and they would take on their own life. If I tried to write original and unique characters, he cautioned, I would only end up writing cliches.
What the people in the comment section need to understand is, that he doesn't even judge anyone. He just explains how things are created and why it is so normal it happens like this. And I have no fucking idea why people dont understand that... Probably cuz they only watched one minute and already started flaming in the comments and then stopped watching the video.
No problem mate. It's much easier to agree than to disagree. BTW- those aren't my ideas per se, and if you look up a guy by the name of Ray Kurtzweil, you'll hear him speak about similar ideas. He talks about the law of exponential returns- which means computers in 20 years will be a billion times more powerful, and how today they are a billion times more powerful than they were twenty years ago. He's a futurist, he'll blow your mind.
This concept just changed my life. You have freed me. Thank you!
stealing is a bad word for the foundation creativity rather i should use 'inspire' as the foundation of creativity
He was an amazing speaker.
articulate, and his voice was like honey to the ears
his case was a good one, and presented phenominally, a case that i have thought of in the same way, but lacked the ability to communicate it, which he does fully.
amazing work
The quote from Guthrie to Dylan is a perfect example of what the talk is about. In fact, the quote came from me, aided by my bad memory. Back in the mid-1990s I wrote a series of articles in the Dylan magazine Isis, and in the first installment, I wrote:
"On one of Dylan's visits to Guthrie in the hospital the older singer is said to have told his disciple: 'The words are the important thing. Don't worry about tunes. Take a tune - sing high when they sing low, sing fast when they sing slow, and you've got a new tune.' (Quoted
from memory - I can't find the original. Help, anyone?)"
And by the next installment, I'd found the original:
"Well, help was at hand. Michael O'Shea in Belgium tracked it down on page 80 of
the Scadato biography: "Woody had told him, 'Just write. Don't worry where the tune
comes from. I just pick up tunes I heard before and change them around and make them
mine. Put in a couple of fast notes for one slow one, sing a harmony note 'stead of
melody, or a low note for a high one, or juggle the rests and pauses - and you got a
melody of your own. I do it all the time."
Thanks for this!!! WOW BRAVO!!!!
I remember so clearly - the moment in the iPhone launch when Jobs proudly stated "yes it's patented", the bullet point came up on screen, and people clapped and cheered. Primarily because the TED multitouch demo from the year before was one of my favourite videos, that got passed around our design studio, that really came out of nowhere and impressed me.
It was when I finally clicked as to why I felt a vibe off doucheyness coming off Jobs and a lot of Apple related marketing.
might of been said but comedians would be a good target for this remix theme
Love it!
Exactly why better readers make better authors.
All an axle does is increasing the moment of the round thing. It's akin to picking a larger tree log over a smaller tree log as it rolls better. In that way it's very similar to simply picking a sharp stone and sharpening it further to meet your ends. IE, an improvement.
Very good and topical talk, thank you for sharing.
It actually goes both ways. I think that patents have disadvantages if they're used by big firms with long terms but are necessary to allow new inventors a decent start up:
1. Decrease the length of terms to that required for an individual inventor to get into the market.
2. Increase the cost of patents for established firms, while making patents cheaper and easier to get for new firms and inventors.
The more competition, the better.
I have a MacBook and an iPhone, my dad has an iPhone, my mom has a Galaxy S, my sister has a Galaxy S, you know what they all have in common? they are all great products and so much effort was put into creating them, I really hope Apple, Samsung and all these companies get out of courts, shake their hands to their success and come back doing what they do best: creating things we love, not suing each other :)
Who would make the effort to create something new if there is no profit in it?
Creativity is a long and painful process. There is much more to it than meets the eye when you see the result.
I see what you're trying to say. It's a difficult concept to grasp, but I see what you mean. I think it makes even more sense if we're talking about imagination. If what they say about virtual reality is true, that in 30 years or so, we'll be able to virtualize the human mind and the time lapse between ideas and objectivity will literally vanish, true originality in the strict sense of the word, will be not only an idea, but a physical manifestation...in the virtual world.
The craziest lawsuit I just heard of, was a record company suing Madonna over use of a short fraction-of-a-second sample of a trumpet sound in her single "Vogue", released more than 20 years ago. They didn't even know it was sampled from one of their collections until recently, using voice print technology, like what youtube uses for recognizing copyrighted songs.
They were suing for "damages". It's a good example of whether they should be allowed to sue for such frivolous things.
I've enjoyed my fully functioning microsoft and other non-apple products over the past few years as well. I also have an ipod touch which still works great(I take care of things). The three things apple turns me off for are the prices, compatibility, and overall (lack)freedom of customization... As if we're all going to open them up and steal ideas. What.
The wheel was not truly novel. Stone Age man started using tree trunks as rollers, then found that making the middle of the roller thinner than the edges made it roll better. The wheel-and-axle invention was based on this roller-with-thick-edges-thin-middle.
I own iPhones & Apple products. Kirby Fergurson has introduced a "new" perspective on how tech is supposed to benefit and not stunt us. Thanks Kirby; triumph of TED.
Captain Beefheart's "Sure 'Nuff And Yeah I Do" uses the tune of Muddy Water's version of "Rollin' and Tumblin'" which is based on Robert Johnson's "If I Had Control Over Judgement Day", which itself is based on a traditional folk song.
I doubt he is trying to say they shouldnt have credit but they shouldn't be trying to suppress other people who create by using their work as a base. Essentially its a speech against Hypocrisy.
He's a great speaker, glad that he made it into TED!
Dang. It is rare that I actually dislike a TED Talks video. This is one of those very rare occasions. >:-
P4: Pride would be doing what you think is right and being proud. Pride is about having self respect, and can be negative if you have to much, because you begin to think your more worthy than others.
Ego is not caring what others think and just doing what we think and not being considerate of anyone else because we think we are right. While emotions can affect this. Usually ego is about being right... or being the best. Just because someone is being egotistical doesn't make them wrong.
everything is a remix
you are a remix, of both your biological parents
+Giul Hanch woooh totally !
Good.one
Love those TED s . Remixing is now a well known standard process in creativity using Design Sprint for example
Creativity isn't painful. Sciatica is painful. When creativity flows it is a beautiful process. Now, if an artist paints a picture and sells it, the buyer can sell it on at a profit later once the artist has made a name for himself. Where are the property rights there? Property rights are what allows drug companies to make ridiculous profits selling anti-depressants to people without there being a mandate for them to do particular types of research...
Still truly novel, since the tree log is in and of itself not round like a wheel is round. The concept of "round" must have come from something else that was round in nature, just as our concepts of other shapes are drawn from nature.
The difference in this case is the conceptualization and creative invention of making something round that is also generally flat on its other axis, so as to allow it to aide in transportation.
I think you should listen to the white album and the grey album and then you'll have a more broad understanding. It's more like being a composer as opposed to a member of the orchestra.
As a musician, everything you hear influences your sound, you just put your own spin on it.
For more on sampling, find out everything you can about DJ Shadow.
Fantastic. This needs to be viewed by as many people as possible.
"If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants" - Isaac Newton
Oh and if you share your ideas all that means is people have to pay you to use your ideas. But it is limiting because people can't always afford to pay people to use there ideas which means things don't always advance as fast as they could.
Steve Jobs was angry about android for completely different reasons. It was more personal. During the iPhone's development, Steve Jobs had taken in two Google employees, and raised them, taught them how to work in the tech industry. They returned to Google, and spread the idea about the iPhone. When Apple released the iPhone, Google had released Android at the exact same time. This made Jobs feel betrayed by the employees he raised, and hence, why he is so incredibly angry about it.
I’m just average, common too
I’m just like him, the same as you
I’m everybody’s brother and son
I ain’t different from anyone
It ain’t no use a-talking to me
It’s just the same as talking to you
-Dylan
Yeah. The old communication problem. I think a lot of wars could have been avoided in the past if people had been able to communicate effectively. I do enjoy being challenged like that because it helps me to understand how effectively I am communicating...
I totally agree with what he is saying, every body wants the truth, but people keep on telling lies.
that is the way we are.
Finally a person that makes sense!
"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research" Albert Einstein
Brilliant vision on remix & copyright! Thank You!
Everything is a Remix is a great documentary, waiting for Kirby's next project with much anticipation :)
But I will give you a solid reply. You can't say he is the best because every situation is different. Age, enviroment... sickness... everything affects a fight... but a good teacher will teach you to adapt... so if you want to stop someone and not kill them you have to learn to adapt and work out what they will do before they do it. Like a Shoalin Monk that doesn't believe in killing. If you know what you're doing in a fight you can control the whole thing. Nothing is straight forward.
his series is also right here on UA-cam :)
Awesome presentation! It was very thought provoking!
P1: I simple mean ego, as in people trying to beat others or be the top dog. I use ego positively all the time. But it can be a double edge sword.
Could you share your insights with the rest of us? I found the presentation thought provoking. And what do you mean by "message of dependability"? Am I reading that right?
However, I would suggest that working alone allows complete creative control. Classically, most artistic endeavours have been made by individuals - is that fair to say? For example, I doubt that Picasso would've benefitted from working in a team.
Having said that, some creative projects clearly do require teamwork e.g. science.
Can a person's creativity be taken from them?
I don't believe so, but I do believe we can limit ourselves by creating laws that inadvertently work against our own expansion.
One thing I will say though it's far more fun to work together on a project and brainstorm and be a team and come up with a creative new idea than, do it off your own back. For if you work in a team people are not dependent just on you. It's easier to work together to shape the future than on your own... but you don't need others to be creative and imaginative... however you do need others to share this with, and what's the point in going through life alone. :-) Share ideas. :-)
Brilliant. Really made me think!
I would actually like to hear more about your thoughts. Could you elaborate further?
Two types of creativity: one that is truly novel (extremely rare) and one that is built on the ideas of others.
For example... novel idea: the wheel. This shape does not exist in nature.
Built on others: Ford's model T.
If we limited ourselves to novel creativity only there would be very few new and wonderful things in the world. It's inhumane, actually.
wish this was a longer presentation!
So well spoken, thank you
Very good presentation
The fundamental idea of folk music is to create a new version of an old song or idea. Folk artists are story tellers that do so with the times and their job is to keep these old stories/song alive. So I think it's debatable weather you can call it steeling for a Folk Artist. That being said, its a fine line crossed too often. There is really only a need for this where there is a lack of creativity in the first place.
Your ted talk is legendary
Goes hand in hand with the idea that "there's nothing new under the sun."
I would say that I'm wrong then. At the same time, I would say I cherish what I find as original or at least the parts that are original. Like I said, we can probably call anything a remix, but I still have a basis of what I call original and I believe it happens more often than this guy lets on.
On the homepage, the description says this guy is the creator of everything! :O
One of the best presentation I've ever seen. Love this video so much. Thank TED alot for spreading interesting ideas like that.
this guy would love my seminar class
great talk!
all i have to say, im in awe.
It's about time somebody makes a video on this. The system is outdated.
I guess the real question is would Picasso still enjoyed painting if he did it in a group or on his own? Well I don't think people are limited to just one thing. He could still paint his own ideas independent of the group and share his thoughts about this work and therefore allow people to judge for themselves... he could have created more Picasso painters... or he could simple have bent and followed the trends... I guess it all depends on ones own will power and integrity.
Well in this speech yes, but in the documentary he made earlier it was more unclear. It certainly would also be interesting for him to try to draw a line where remix is "too remixed" : )
You can change your opinion, but you must assume it, and can be called out for it.
It's very convenient to have an opinion favorable to "stealing" when you are the "thief", and then changing it when you become the "victim".
Also check out Austin Kleon and his steal like an artist.
It doesn't help that Disney leads the crusade in the fight to continuously extend patents in copyright law to prevent the patent on Mickey Mouse from expiring. In the process, a work of art, book, movie, etc. ends up with a patent of several hundred years on it.