Recent orders
Has copyright destroyed art Discuss with reference to the digital avant-garde and remix culture.
Has copyright destroyed art? Discuss with reference to the digital avant-garde and remix culture.
The dawn of the digital age ushered in a period of profound transformation in regard to the manner in which emerging artists presented their work to the general audience, including the digital avant-garde. Controversy is often associated with avant-garde artists and the artworks they create because of the radical character of the avant-garde and the fact that it questions established concepts, procedures, and forms (Druker, 2008). There is a large number of online art communities, galleries, and markets, all of which assist artists in establishing a reputation for themselves and bringing their work to the attention of fascinating people from all over the globe. Online art gallery viewings that include 360-degree views of the actual gallery space are being made available by a growing number of prominent art venues for visitors who are unable to visit the physical place. Now that new artists may communicate instantaneously with other artists all over the globe, avant-garde art is far more receptive to inspirations from other fields than it was in the past. Before the advent of the Internet, fashion remained mostly unchanged for a number of years, or even decades. Now more than ever, Jaskot (2019) express that the styles in art are constantly evolving, modifying, and adopting new concepts. Now, street painters are mimicking the processes that digital art creation applications like Adobe Photoshop employ to create works of art. One individual may upload street art to the internet through social pipelines such as Reddit, Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter, and the word can spread one thousand times more quickly than it could have done so before the existence of these programs (Boyd, 2010). Because of this, avant-garde art, which is characterized by the use of novel concepts, has evolved to conform to the requirements of these programs by becoming less difficult to locate, particularly in regions that have vibrant local art scenes. The audience is eager to organize social media campaigns in favor of new artists and galleries. For example, 3D printing, which is entering the digital era and has a lot of opportunity for new avant-garde experimentation, is yet another way that the digital avant-garde does not kill art. Lyubchenko (2022) writes that young artists, many of whom are already familiar with how to utilize the design tools available on computers, have enthusiastically embraced 3D printing. Initially, the idea was conceived as a means by which a decentralized manufacturing sector might be established on the basis of information obtained through computer software. With its acceptability and advancement, digital avant-garde is changing the definition of art for the younger generations.
To summarize, it is quite evident that copyright will not result in the destruction of art. When an artwork is fixed in a physical form, it is protected by copyright in the same way that other things that may be protected by copyright are protected (for example, paintings, sculptures, or drawings). This may lead to yet another important transformation in the way that art is made and taught in the future. It is not necessary for an artwork to have aesthetic worth in order for it to be protected by copyright.
References
Boyd, D. (2010). Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications. In A networked self (pp. 39-58). Routledge.
Druker, E. (2008). From Avant-garde to Digital Images: Collage in Nordic Picturebooks. Bookbird: A Journal of International Children’s Literature, 46(3), 45-51.
Jaskot, P. B. (2019). Digital art history as the social history of art: Towards the disciplinary relevance of digital methods. Visual Resources, 35(1-2), 21-33.
Lyubchenko, I. (2022). NFTs and Digital Art: 21st Century Avant-Garde Impulse?. M/C Journal, 25(2).
America is Not a Democracy
Name:
Course:
Professor:
Date:
America is Not a Democracy
The United States is often seen by many other countries as a model for democracy. The country is seen to have functional and effective forms of government that other nations aspire to emulate. The US has intervened when countries face political turmoil to ensure that democracy is implemented. However, over the past few years, this perfect image of the American government has slowly been unraveling. The United States system of government has started to lean more towards the oppression of minorities rather than equality. The 2020 presidential election and the events surrounding it called into question the state of American democracy. Many have argued that the US is not really a democracy; rather, it should be described as a republic. With such a large population, it is almost impossible to subscribe to direct democracy in government. In examining the American system of government, the major areas of consideration include the definition of democracy vs. republic, the Electoral College, intentions of the founding fathers, and the country’s history with racism and discrimination.
To understand the status of American democracy, it is important first to define the term democracy. “Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Democracy allows eligible citizens to participate equally -either directly or through elected representatives – in the proposal, development, and creation of laws.” On the other hand, a republic involves the people vesting their power in elected representatives who advocate for their interests in various levels of government. From these two definitions, it is clear that the United States is a republic, not a democracy. One major difference between the two is that a democracy only works over a small area while a republic can extend over a larger region. The United States works best as a democracy due to its large area and high population.
The Electoral College is another major reason why the United States cannot be described as a democracy. Most countries with democratic systems of government implement the one man, one rule system. Each individual vote counts equally in this system, meaning that the elected official with the highest votes is the obvious winner. In the US, things are quite different when it comes to presidential elections. Every state is given a specific number of electors, who then vote on who becomes president. A presidential candidate may win the majority of the people’s votes, but if they fail to garner a majority in the Electoral College, they lose. The Electoral College is a major point of contention in defining the US as a democracy.
Over the past few presidential elections, there have been strong objections to the relevance of the Electoral College. In the year 2016, President Donald Trump became president after winning the Electoral College vote but losing the popular vote. He trailed his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton by almost three million votes. In the electoral vote, Trump clinched 304 votes while Clinton got 227 (Sides et al. 36). Such a scenario is quite worrying as it suggests that a less popular candidate becomes president although he or she was not the most popular candidate for the job. The definition of a democracy is that all people get equal representation. However, the Electoral College gives more weight to some people’s votes, obliterating the idea that voters have an equal say in elections.
The founding fathers never intended that the United States would be a democracy, which is why it is wrong to define the nation as one. The founding fathers created a system of government with a system of checks and balances that would protect the rights of minorities from being trampled by the majority. The Electoral College is a perfect example of this. The college gives weight to different states so that the president is chosen by all states rather than those with the highest population. However, as the country grew over the centuries, the system of government has given disproportionate power to the minority; today, minority voices use this power to overpower the majority and prevent them from governing. Although the founding fathers did not foresee this occurrence, the Republican Party has taken advantage of their intentions to cripple the government when they so wish. Minority states such as Wyoming now have more power in choosing the president than large ones like California through the Electoral College. One elector from Wyoming represents just under 200,000 people, while one from California represents more than 700,000 people (Lieberman et al. 473). This scenario shows that the people of Wyoming have more say in choosing the president than those from California. From this, it is evident that the US is not a democracy.
The founding fathers’ intention that the three branches of government be moderated by checks and balances is now a thing of the past. The legislature, executive, and judiciary are now in a constant battle of who can outdo the other, eliminating the idea of democracy. The legislature is intended to regulate the powers of the executive, but the executive arm of government has found a way to bypass this. Presidents now use executive orders to pass legislation that they know would be rejected by the legislature. Although this is not ideal, the legislature is also to blame. Congress and the Senate are sharply divided along party lines, meaning that one side rejects ideas from the ruling president based on party lines rather than the merits of the legislation. A perfect example of this tussle between the legislature and executive is the Affordable Care Act of 2010. The bill was proposed by a Democratic President and promoted greater access to healthcare, something that all Americans desire. However, all 178 House Republicans voted against the bill. Similar events have become a norm in the legislative arm of government, forcing presidents to issue executive orders, although sometimes not in the best interests of the people. This situation indicates that leaders do not care to represent the needs of the electorate; rather, they prioritize party lines.
When the founding fathers wrote the constitution in the 18th century, they never intended to make women and black slaves equal members of the new nation. This racist and discriminatory history disqualifies the United States from being a democracy. At the time, only white males were seen as the rightful citizens of the country. In the coming years, the passing of the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments secured the rights of all people born in the US as citizens, allowing them the rights and privileges that came with citizenship (Perea 13). However, today, minorities in the country still face racial discrimination. Georgia’s new voting laws, the Election Integrity Act, are seen as targeting voters of color to make voting harder for them. The Republican Party lost the state in the 2020 election largely due to minority groups who voted Democrat. The Republicans seek to make voting harder with measures such as fewer drop-boxes, strict voter ID laws, and making voting more cumbersome in highly populated areas traditionally occupied by African-Americans. When the voting laws keep targeting a minority group, there is no way that the US is a democracy.
In summary, although many people would define the United States as a democracy, multiple points dispute this idea. These include the Electoral College, the intentions of the founding fathers, the discriminatory history of the country, and the definition of the terms republic vs. democracy. The US usually takes much interest in other countries’ political affairs, especially in countries it deems undemocratic. However, given the US’ history and recent events, the country is no longer a model for democracy. The country should work towards equality and fairness in government rather than the oppressive direction the country has taken in recent years.
Works Cited
Lieberman, Robert C., et al. “The Trump presidency and American democracy: a historical and comparative analysis.” Perspectives on Politics 17.2 (2019): 470-479.
Perea, Juan F. “Echoes of Slavery II: How Slavery’s Legacy Distorts Democracy.” UCDL Rev. 51 (2017): 1081.
Sides, John, Michael Tesler, and Lynn Vavreck. “The 2016 US election: How Trump lost and won.” Journal of Democracy 28.2 (2017): 34-44.
Has Chris contravened any of the provisions of Pt 2D.1 or Pt 2E.1 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
a. Has Chris contravened any of the provisions of Pt 2D.1 or Pt 2E.1 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)?
Generally speaking, the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) is the primary piece of law in Australia that regulates corporate entities (mainly companies). Company creation and operation (in combination with a company’s constitution, which may be approved by the company), the obligations of officers, takeovers, and fundraising are all governed by the Corporations Act.
Regarding use of position in civil obligations, Chris contravened Pt 2D.1 of the Corporation Act 2001 (Cth). As a director, Chris improperly used his position to gain an advantage at Landlord while working for Blue. While Chris adhered to Pt 2D.1 sections 191 and 192 by giving other directors notice regarding his interest in Landlord and through disclosing material personal interest in Landlord, he contravened in the interaction of sections 192 and 191 with other laws, specifically in section 182, section 185, and section 189 regarding information provided by AAB. Similarly, Chris contravened provisions of Pt 2D.1 section 194 regarding voting and the completion of transactions at Blue. Chris has material personal interest in Blue and Landlord. Despite adhering to Section 191, he contravenes section 182, section 185, and section 189, thereby requiring him not to vote on the matter.
Further, Chris contravened provisions of Pt 2E.1 of the Corporation Act 2001 regarding the need for a member to seek approval for financial benefit. Being a public company, Blue’s issuance of a financial benefit to Landlord, with Chris being a majority shareholder in the latter, required approval of the members of Blue as set out in section 217 and section 227. Additionally, Chris failed to give benefit within 15 months after the approval as required by Pt 2E.1.
b. Can the general meeting reverse the board’s decision? If so, how?
The meeting can reverse the board’s decision. This can be done by showing that Chris, by extension all other directors, did not act in good faith of Blue and its shareholders in its decision to provide benefits to Landlord.
A section of the Corporations Act, Section 181, states that in accordance with the Behave code of conduct, directors, secretaries, and other business officials must use their authority and perform their duties in good faith, for the benefit of the company, and with acceptable justification. A director’s use of his or her authority to assist oneself, another person, or a particular area of the firm, for example, may be seen to be in violation of this pledge, albeit it is unclear how. In accordance with Section 184(1) of the Corporations Act, if this responsibility is not met due to the carelessness or purposeful dishonesty of the director or other official, it is a crime, which is the reason for its classification as a crime. When performing their duties, directors and other officers must use reasonable caution and due diligence at all times, regardless of the circumstances. This is stated in Section 180 of the Corporations Act. This definition of “fair” relates to the degree of care and attention that a reasonable individual in a comparable position in a firm would devote to a scenario such as the one described in this definition.
c. What legal remedies might be available to Annabelle if the expansion goes ahead, and Blue loses money as a result?
There are penalties under the Corporations Act that can be worth up to $200,000 if you don’t do what you should. Depending on the situation, officers may also be required to pay compensation or account for gains under the common law and the Corporations Act if they are in charge of the company. Directors may also lose their jobs in this situation. If a director or officer makes a business decision in good faith and for a valid purpose, the need that they use reasonable care and diligence in connection to that decision is met. A significant personal interest in the subject matter of the decision is also needed of directors. They must, to the degree that they reasonably feel is appropriate, educate themselves on the subject matter of the decision. The director must logically think that the decision is in the corporation’s best interests. As a director, Chris fell short of the requisite levels of care, expertise, and thoroughness by failing to act in good faith and for the benefit of Blue. Chris should have, at the very least, engaged in AAB’s audit report and have a working understanding of its operations. It can be proven in court that Chris displayed unethical behavior brought to their knowledge must be examined.