ecstasy of influence

This was a very interesting piece. i'm always happy to hear another argument against the Man, especially when i agree with it whole-heartedly. In todays society, i believe most artists compose by what Burroughs called a "cut-up method", creating what has already been created. Not so much in the sense of making exact replicas, but that someone or something has had such an impact on their work that they end up incorporating them into their own interpretations. I know that for my projects so far this year, especially the self image, I used many references to past works of art (Huck Finn, Poe, etc), but this was simple an homage. If it wasn't for these things, I may be a different person, thinking and creating based on totally different inspirations. I compare this to the Simpson's episode mentioned and the quote "You take away our right to steal ideas, where are they going to come from?". Lethem then cites examples of great animations that would not exist without the borrowing from their predecessors.

If nostalgic cartoonists had never borrowed from Fritz the Cat, there would be no Ren & Stimpy Show; without the Rankin/Bass and Charlie Brown Christmas specials, there would be no South Park; and without The Flintstones—more or less The Honeymooners in cartoon loincloths—The Simpsons would cease to exist.

These all have a theme of being somewhat 'smart-ass' cartoons, but they are great shows none the less.
One quote that really hit home with me from this reading was this:

Most artists are brought to their vocation when their own nascent gifts are awakened by the work of a master. That is to say, most artists are converted to art by art itself.

Being an ad man, I did not realize i wanted to create advertisements until I saw the work Leo Burnette and Bill Burnbach. They have created ads that have become part of the publics everyday lives (Tony the Tiger, The Jolly Green Giant, Charlie Tuna, the famous VW ads). I have also seen ads that are inspirational and actually quite moving, but Lethem believes that this point is moot.

...even a really beautiful, ingenious, powerful ad (of which there are a lot) can never be any kind of real art: an ad has no status as gift; i.e., it's never really for the person it's directed at.

I can see how this makes sense, but i have to disagree( or I want to disagree). I cannot think of a really good argument to negate this point, besides saying that an ad is made for everyone and if everyone is moved by it then it can be a gift. I can see ad icons as gifts, such as the coca cola santa, but Lethem has left me with a bit to ponder.