Plagiarism the 21st-century artistic innovationAlbert Einstein said ” The measure of intelligence is the ability to change”. Change ideology in order to keep up with a world comprised of 6 billion people connected to the Internet. Their thoughts and ideas are transmitted simultaneously. Is there any room for original? What defines original in an era where everything seems to be said and done? Originality if it exists at all, it cannot be found in its absolute form. In the sector of written arts, originality is sought after and plagiarism considered its opposite. Once frowned upon, plagiarism is starting to be viewed not so much as the absolute bad, but a new way of expression. Could plagiarism be the artistic innovation of the 21st-century?Debating this controversial subject is Kenneth Goldsmith and Gerald Nelms, in their respective articles they bring a new approach, emphasizing the positive aspects of plagiarism and how we can use it to our advantage both as students and teachers. The intriguing conclusions they have reached about plagiarism were the result of personal research, and their own experience as teachers. Goldsmith taught a class at University of Pennsylvania called “Uncreative Writing”. By requiring his students to express themselves in words not of their choosing, confronts them with the idea of authorship. Although, it only required them to retype a few pages from other documents, audio clips, Wikipedia, there is a significant job in arranging the content. The students express themselves even in their choice of which papers to plagiarize. Nelms on the other hand in the beginning of his career, shared society’s view on plagiarism only after years of teaching experience, learned not to fight it, but embrace it. He facilitated workshops successfully for over 15 years on the subject matter. His intention was to change students mentality about plagiarism- an opportunity to learn, and develop new skills (Nelms, 2015).The value of plagiarism is undeniable. We are using report templates to make new reports using the same language as in the previous ones. Tables and graphs are accepted and copied each and every year, the data is stored and organized. In a corporate environment we are forced to use letters and memos, nothing original in that, but it does make our life easier, both authors conclude. Goldsmith states “a lawyer who represents the legal briefs of her daily job as poetry in their entirety without changing a word”. In their work, lawyers often cite, without presenting their source, this being considered common knowledge within the respective field. When it comes to the law articles, one cannot re-interpret nor modify the content. Nelms proposes an example of the field of economics, composing an original quarterly report brings disadvantages not only to “the author”, but also to the fellow employees, making it difficult for them to understand one’s personal style and language. Instead, template reports are accepted and encouraged. Using plagiarized reports, the work is more efficient and less time-consuming. In this case the finished product comes from a group of intellectuals and contributes to the product of the institution, this was called ” institutionalized plagiarism” (Martin,2016).Society needs to change its view on plagiarism and use it in the learning process.By employing plagiarism Goldsmith emphasizes that the choice of words and their assemblage gives value of one’s work (Goldsmith,2011). Although we have a vast choice of word, it is not unlimited. We are original in our choice of putting them together, choice extended from our creative mind. Just like painters and sculptors, a creative writer should be free to use what others have made and use it into their own work. The written art is probably one of the few left that does not recognize permissive borrowing as a norm. According to Goldsmith this has to change. Perhaps, Nelms provides the best advice in how to deal with this phenomenon. Years of punishing it severely have not brought any positive outcome, nor led to its disappearance. Teachers need to change their approach and emphasize on their classes on how source material are being gathered and integrated (Nelms, 2015).The ideas presented in both article are liberating, fear inducing and most certainly intriguing. The point the authors are making is that we should strive to design new forms even if they are a remix of the old ones. Of course, it is a dangerous approach to our existing norms, yet we cannot deny its value for progress. If we allow it, and embrace it, plagiarism can be the 21st century artistic innovation.