All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated. . . .—John Donne


  • Eye
  • Ear
  • Mind

The Third Mind is a book by Beat Generation novelist William S. Burroughs and artist/poet/novelist Brion Gysin . First published in a French-language edition in 1977, it was first published in English in 1978.

The Third Mind is a combination literary essay and writing collection showcasing a form of writing popularized by Burroughs and Gysin in the 1960s called “cut-ups “. Cut-ups involves taking (usually) unrelated texts, literally cutting the pages up, and then combining and rearranging the pieces to form new narratives and often-surreal images. This form of writing can also be adapted for filmmaking, as demonstrated by Burroughs and director Antony Balch in their early 1960s short film, The Cut-Ups .

The book contains numerous short fiction pieces demonstrating or related to the cut up method. Also included is poetry by Gysin and an interview with Burroughs. Some chapters had previously been published in various literary journals between 1960 and 1973.

The Third Mind (as a concept) The significance of “The Third Mind” is that it is a shared consciousness that can only be reached by two (or more) people together– they access a place that neither could reach alone. Person A and Person B can find new ideas in dialogue because they are improvisationally responding to each other’s unpredictable mind. Burroughs was trying to access this unpredictability by cutting and rearranging texts into nonsensical riddles. By weaving the nonsense into a linear narrative, he forced himself into dialogue with an unpredictable “other”. This practice builds on the classic Zen koan– a riddle designed to transcend the “rational” mind and lead a student to satori (enlightenment).

The Ecstasy of Influence

By Jonathan Lethem

An unnamed narrator is visited by a tall Scots Bible-seller, who presents him with a very old cloth-bound book that he bought in India from an Untouchable. It is emblazoned with the title “Holy Writ”, but is said to be called “The Book of Sand”…”because neither the book nor the sand has any beginning or end”.



Self-plagiarism is the reuse of significant, identical, or nearly identical portions of one’s own work without acknowledging that one is doing so or without citing the original work. Articles of this nature are often referred to as duplicate or multiple publication. ….Typically, self-plagiarism is only considered a serious ethical issue in settings where someone asserts that a publication consists of new material, such as in publishing or factual documentation. It does not apply to public-interest texts, such as social, professional, and cultural opinions usually published in newspapers and magazines.

In academic fields, self-plagiarism occurs when an author reuses portions of his own published and copyrighted work in subsequent publications, but without attributing the previous publication.[34]Identifying self-plagiarism is often difficult because limited reuse of material is accepted both legally (asfair use) and ethically.[35]

It is common for university researchers to rephrase and republish their own work, tailoring it for different academic journals and newspaper articles, to disseminate their work to the widest possible interested public. However, these researchers also obey limits: If half an article is the same as a previous one, it is usually rejected. One of the functions of the process of peer review in academic writing is to prevent this type of “recycling”.

The concept of “self-plagiarism” has been challenged as being self-contradictory, an oxymoron,[36] and on other grounds.[37]

For example, Stephanie J. Bird[38] argues that self-plagiarism is a misnomer, since by definition plagiarism concerns the use of others’ material.

However, the phrase is used to refer to specific forms of unethical publication. Bird identifies the ethical issues of “self-plagiarism” as those of “dual or redundant publication.” As David B. Resnik clarifies, “Self-plagiarism involves dishonesty but not intellectual theft.”

Factors that justify reuse

Pamela Samuelson, in 1994, identified several factors she says excuse reuse of one’s previously published work, that make it not self-plagiarism.[35] She relates each of these factors specifically to the ethical issue of self-plagiarism, as distinct from the legal issue of fair use of copyright, which she deals with separately. Among other factors that may excuse reuse of previously published material Samuelson lists the following:

  1. The previous work must be restated to lay the groundwork for a new contribution in the second work.
  2. Portions of the previous work must be repeated to deal with new evidence or arguments.
  3. The audience for each work is so different that publishing the same work in different places is necessary to get the message out.
  4. The author thinks they said it so well the first time that it makes no sense to say it differently a second time.

Samuelson states she has relied on the “different audience” rationale when attempting to bridge interdisciplinary communities. She refers to writing for different legal and technical communities, saying: “there are often paragraphs or sequences of paragraphs that can be bodily lifted from one article to the other. And, in truth, I lift them.” She refers to her own practice of converting “a technical article into a law review article with relatively few changes—adding footnotes and one substantive section” for a different audience.[35]

Samuelson describes misrepresentation as the basis of self-plagiarism.[35] She also states “Although it seems not to have been raised in any of the self-plagiarism cases, copyrights law’s fair use defense would likely provide a shield against many potential publisher claims of copyright infringement against authors who reused portions of their previous works.”[35]

John Fogerty

It seemed as though Fogerty was back, but again he drifted out of the mainstream, only returning after another break in 2004. Deja Vu All Over Again was Fogerty’s next release. His new record contract was with DreamWorks Records, which had taken over distribution of Fogerty’s Warner Bros. catalog. Rolling Stone wrote: “The title track is Fogerty’s indictment of the Iraq war as another Vietnam, a senseless squandering of American lives and power”. On the album, Fogerty squeezed 10 songs into only 34 minutes.

The sale of Fantasy Records to Concord Records in 2004 ended the 30-plus-year estrangement between Fogerty and his former label as the new owners took steps to restore royalty rights Fogerty gave up in order to be released from his contract with Fantasy in the mid-1970s. In September 2005, Fogerty returned to Fantasy Records. That was made possible when DreamWorks Records’ non-country music unit was absorbed by Geffen Records, which dropped Fogerty but continued to distribute his earlier solo albums. The first album released under the new Fantasy contract was The Long Road Home, a compilation CD combining his Creedence hits with solo material which was issued in November 2005. A live CD and DVD concert was released the following year.

Plagiarism is presumably not an issue when organizations issue collective unsigned works since they do not assign credit for originality to particular people. For example, the American Historical Association‘s “Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct” (2005) regarding textbooks and reference books states that, since textbooks and encyclopedias are summaries of other scholars’ work, they are not bound by the same exacting standards of attribution as original research and may be allowed a greater “extent of dependence” on other works.[45] However, even such a book does not make use of words, phrases, or paragraphs from another text or follow too closely the other text’s arrangement and organization, and the authors of such texts are also expected to “acknowledge the sources of recent or distinctive findings and interpretations, those not yet a part of the common understanding of the profession.”

A collage (From the French : coller , to glue, French pronunciation: [kɔ.laːʒ] ) is a work of formal art , primarily in the visual arts , made from an assemblage of different forms, thus creating a new whole.

The term collage derives from the French “colle” meaning “glue “. [1] This term was coined by both Georges Braque and Pablo Picasso in the beginning of the 20th century when collage became a distinctive part of modern art . [2]

The Tate Gallery ‘s online art glossary states that collage “was first used as an artists’ technique in the twentieth century.”. [4] According to the Guggenheim Museum ‘s online art glossary, collage is an artistic concept associated with the beginnings of modernism, and entails much more than the idea of gluing something onto something else. The glued-on patches which Braque and Picasso added to their canvases offered a new perspective on painting when the patches “collided with the surface plane of the painting.” [5] In this perspective, collage was part of a methodical reexamination of the relation between painting and sculpture, and these new works “gave each medium some of the characteristics of the other,” according to the Guggenheim essay. Furthermore, these chopped-up bits of newspaper introduced fragments of externally referenced meaning into the collision: “References to current events, such as the war in the Balkans, and to popular culture enriched the content of their art.” This juxtaposition of signifiers, “at once serious and tongue-in-cheek,” was fundamental to the inspiration behind collage: “Emphasizing concept and process over end product, collage has brought the incongruous into meaningful congress with the ordinary.” [5]

Digital collage is the technique of using computer tools in collage creation to encourage chance associations of disparate visual elements and the subsequent transformation of the visual results through the use of electronic media . It is commonly used in the creation of digital art .

Main article: Sound collage

The concept of collage has crossed the boundaries of visual arts. In music , with the advances on recording technology, avant-garde artists started experimenting with cutting and pasting since the middle of the twentieth century.

In the 1960s, George Martin created collages of recordings while producing the records of The Beatles . In 1967 Pop artist Peter Blake made the collage for the cover of the Beatles seminal album Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band . In the 1970s and ’80s, the likes of Christian Marclay and the group Negativland reappropriated old audio in new ways. By the 1990s and 2000s, with the popularity of the sampler , it became apparent that “musical collages ” had become the norm for popular music , especially in rap , hip-hop and electronic music . [14] In 1996, DJ Shadow released the groundbreaking album, Endtroducing….. , made entirely of preexisting recorded material mixed together in audible collage. In the same year, New York City based artist, writer, and musician, Paul D. Miller aka DJ Spooky ‘s work pushed the work of sampling into a museum and gallery context as an art practice that combined DJ culture’s obsession with archival materials as sound sources on his album “Songs of a Dead Dreamer” and in his books “Rhythm Science ” (2004) and “Sound Unbound (2008)” (MIT Press). In his books, “mash-up” and collage based mixes of authors, artists, and musicians such as Antonin Artaud , James Joyce , William S. Burroughs , and Raymond Scott were featured as part of a what he called “literature of sound.” In 2000, The Avalanches released Since I Left You , a musical collage consisting of approximately 3,500 musical sources (i.e., samples). [15]

Legal issues

When collage uses existing works, the result is what some copyright scholars call a derivative work . The collage thus has a copyright separate from any copyrights pertaining to the original incorporated works.

Due to redefined and reinterpreted copyright laws, and increased financial interests, some forms of collage art are significantly restricted. For example, in the area of sound collage (such as hip hop music ), some court rulings effectively have eliminated the de minimis doctrine as a defense to copyright infringement , thus shifting collage practice away from non-permissive uses relying on fair use or de minimis protections, and toward licensing . [20] Examples of musical collage art that have run afoul of modern copyright are The Grey Album and Negativland ‘s U2 .

The copyright status of visual works is less troubled, although still ambiguous. For instance, some visual collage artists have argued that the first-sale doctrine protects their work. The first-sale doctrine prevents copyright holders from controlling consumptive uses after the “first sale” of their work, although the Ninth Circuit has held that the first-sale doctrine does not apply to derivative works . [21] The de minimis doctrine and the fair use exception also provide important defenses against claimed copyright infringement. [22] The Second Circuit in October, 2006, held that artist Jeff Koons was not liable for copyright infringement because his incorporation of a photograph into a collage painting was fair use. [23]

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating 3 / 5. Vote count: 1

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.