Quite clearly, it would seem that Guy Debord is a proponent of the Remix movement. Most interestingly, I find his understanding of the “conventions” associated with “personal arrangement of words” to be in part inspiring and in part dangerous. I wonder to what extent conventions are established for a reason. While I will admit that I subscribe to the mentality of a remix read/write culture, there must be boundaries and there must be thresholds to contain these practices. In a way, I think of the avant-garde art movements and to what degree their methodology was just anti-institutional practices. To have the convention of being anti-institution, no matter how rebellious it may seem, no matter how original it may seem, still appeals to a convention and a standardized practice.
Though this is a consideration that comes up while reading Debord I can subscribe to the inter and intra textuality that we see in works throughout the art world and the world of literature. He notes that “any elements…can serve in making new combinations” “no matter how far apart their original contexts”. Ultimately, Debord places an okay on a practice that happens inevitably. Reading these works brought up the issue of the idea that everyone is always a remixer, it is an inescapable fate of the process of socialization. The differences that arise from person to person in a world of remix is the consciousness associated with the remix that one is doing. In a way, this alludes to the idea of operating within a system while critiquing it, in the sense that one has to be aware of the system, aware of the game for Flusser, in order to play it. Debord mentions that there are imbeciles who should be left “to their slavish preservation of citations”. Though the mentality, I believe, alludes to a perception of culture and of production that inherently involves and is indelibly connected to remix mentality, his view is inescapably extremist when considering contemporary approaches to information and intellectual property. While Debord is quite apparently aware of the system, I wonder to what degree he understands how to operate within that system to spread his ideas.
Again, we must consider the issues brought up when considering the minor detournement. In its own right, it is a remixing, a recontextualization, a reappropriation of the things that we experience on the day to day. In a way, me might be able to attribute this sort of mentality to the commoner who may not have any understanding of that which he remixes as a part of conventional behavior. However, the tendencies of a remixer, the habits of an artist might more appropriately fall in line with the deceptive detournement in that one must be aware of the intrinsic significance of the elements to consciously remix them. Whether or not this is a distinction that can, or even should, be made is debatable, but I think that it is important to consider the idea that everyone is remixing constantly, regardless of whether or not they know it. As such, there must be some means of differentiating those who are aware and those who are not. At the same time we have to ask whether this matters, is unconscious remixing as poignant or as purposeful as conscious remixing? In a way, this relates to Debord’s thoughts on “literary communism”; while the political verbiage differs, I suggest that Debord’s detournement is a democratization of art, of literature, and of ideas.
This ultimately ties back in with the idea of the Society of the Spectacle and how the individual is fascinated with the spectacle and with the fetish commodity. He notes that the use value is inextricably connected with the exchange value because our culture is so imbrued with a capitalist mindset. The inundation of contemporary society with images, and Debord’s Society of the Spectacle reminds me of Flusser’s considerations on what the image does to our understanding of the world around us. The image is ultimately a re-presentation and a distancing of people from the world around them. Related to copyright, Debord’s theses on the bureaucratic ownership of the global economy is foretelling of the issues we face today with intellectual property. It is the bureaucratic ownership of intellectual property that restricts the capacity of a culture or an individual to remix material freely. Quite obviously, many of the issues Debord confronts in Society of the Spectacle are prescient in that they are still applicable to today’s societal problems.
In a way, I think of Mieke Bal and Norman Bryson’s article on the semiotics and art history. They discuss the idea of the sign and how there is a diffraction of reception of a sign’s meaning, but it would seem that my own views on sign reception fall in line with Debord in that there is a diffraction of meaning upon reception. This therefore leads to Debord’s conclusion that “ any sign or word is susceptible to being converted into something else, even into its opposite”.
Inevitably, it would appear that remixers are the postproduction artists to which Bourriaud refers. Most generally, it seems that Bourriaud is professing the development and perpetuation of a new sort of culture a new permutation of society that follows the progression of a post production mentality. He notes that in this new culture “artwork functions as the temporary terminal of a network of interconnected elements, like a narrative that extends and reinterprets preceding narratives”. This again falls in line with both the thoughts of Debord and our own discussions of the remix culture. Again, Bourriaud appeals to a sensibility that is already in place in practice, but is not condoned by the greater institution of society. Throughout reading the article, I am confronted with this recurring theme of agreeing, and wondering how to push forward. I refer back to my own understanding that remix happens constantly and is ultimately inescapable; regardless of whether it happens consciously or not, remix takes place. The problem lies in the perpetuation and acceptance of remix as a legitimate means of production of original interpretations on, to quote Bourriaud “preceding narratives”.
While reading these texts encourages a belief that I already have, I wonder to what degree it is productive. Yes, remix is something that is purposeful and productive, but to what extent can these ideas be extrapolated to have relevance for the everyday individual? I think that these ideas are those that are most important to consider and confront, as it is these ideas that have the most impact upon our own productive behavior.
No comments:
Post a Comment