Who can say what is original?

It seems that the heart of the issue in "Cultures and Copyrights" is one's perception of originality.  Brown mentions a "spark of individual genius that informed Western high culture".  I think it is a slippery slope to begin drawing a line between original and derivative artwork.  Western civilization is also deluding itself if we think that we are in some way immune to outside influence, or that our work is more unique than that of other cultures.  I saw Gregory Macguire speak last year for the Charlotte Zolotow lecture.  He gave a compelling argument for the pervasiveness of remixing.  The author of Wicked, Macguire certainly "borrowed" from existing work in the creation of the Wicked Witch's backstory.  Macguire had also recently completed a book on Maurice Sendak's work and demonstrated how much of Sendak's work drew from classical art.  I also think of such artists as Margaret Kilgallen and the Clayton Brothers whose styles are heavily influenced by folk art.  The fact that remixing is rampant should not preclude copyrighted status for these artists or for aboriginal artists.

Boyle's comments on authorship supports my thinking on originality.  He says that authorship necessitated the "author creating something entirely new--not recombining the resources of the commons".  But then he acknowledges that no work of art is created in a vacuum, or as he puts it, "out of thin air".  Because art and literature and film are influenced and inspired by existing works, I see a great argument for artists to share and allow remixing in order to maintain the flow of new artwork.