Thursday, April 14, 2011
Thursday, March 17, 2011
links
http://www.turbulence.org/Works/inertia/moments9.html
http://www.tulseluperjourney.com/game/
http://www.worldofawe.net/objectofdesire/
http://bull.miletic.info/netfilm/netfilm_6.html
http://entropy8zuper.org/godlove/69/
http://www.hoteloscartangoecholima.com/part1-episode1/index.jsp
http://stewd.io/pong/
http://www.codeorgan.com/Default.aspx
http://entropy8zuper.org/godlove/sexpeace/
http://www.tulseluperjourney.com/game/
http://www.worldofawe.net/objectofdesire/
http://bull.miletic.info/netfilm/netfilm_6.html
http://entropy8zuper.org/godlove/69/
http://www.hoteloscartangoecholima.com/part1-episode1/index.jsp
http://stewd.io/pong/
http://www.codeorgan.com/Default.aspx
http://entropy8zuper.org/godlove/sexpeace/
Thursday, March 3, 2011
WeMix (Hu)manifesto
Remix is Human. Remix is I. Remix is Us.
Cannibalism is the light, it is the right, it is the rite of passage for society to transition to the Future. We must eat! We must cannibalize ideas!
Cannibalism is the Now. Cannibalism is the Future. Cannibalism is Progress. Do not waste the flesh of your fellow man! Consume him! Use every part of his body! Use his mind!
Pay tribute to his corporeal existence by nourishing yourself after his death!
Loop, Replay, Cut, Paste.
What is original about an attempt to be original? Nothing. The naïve believe they can be original. The naïve believe that they are original.
Each idea has its genealogy, its history. Our ideas are informed by ideas that came before us, by thinkers before us and by thinkers before them.
What is original? Taking the old, the dated, and refreshing it, making it readable again.
Remix is a tool. A tool for making things visible, legible, readable, comprehensible. Remix is a Rosetta Stone, a Rosetta Stone that is infinitely applicable to any form of translation. Remix is a form of translation. To Remix is to re-present coded messages in new codes that others can understand. Remix makes the unreadable, the incomprehensible, and the unknown, accessible.
Someone created the light bulb in your head that occasionally turns on. There is no spontaneous combustion, no bioluminescence for our minds.
Remix is the light bulb. Remix is the power plant. Use these foundations to light your mind, but do not mistake yourself for an pure, original creator. You work is within a tradition that has been built.
Never forget, however, that you expand upon this architecture; you lay new foundation upon which others can build more and add to an ever expanding estate of thought and of productivity.
Consume your fellow man and allow him to consume you! Take his ideas, re-create them, re-interpret them, re-mix them, re-introduce them into society! Then allow your body to be planted as a seed to be consumed by future generations.
Remix is Infinite. Remix is Ouroboros. Remix is Phoenix.
It is up to us to create the material from whence culture can be reborn. If the ashes of culture are swept away, discarded, culture will die.
Use the ashes of ideas past to be reborn. Use the ashes of the past to fertilize the soils of imagination, invention, and innovation.
Cannibalism is the light, it is the right, it is the rite of passage for society to transition to the Future. We must eat! We must cannibalize ideas!
Cannibalism is the Now. Cannibalism is the Future. Cannibalism is Progress. Do not waste the flesh of your fellow man! Consume him! Use every part of his body! Use his mind!
Pay tribute to his corporeal existence by nourishing yourself after his death!
Loop, Replay, Cut, Paste.
What is original about an attempt to be original? Nothing. The naïve believe they can be original. The naïve believe that they are original.
Each idea has its genealogy, its history. Our ideas are informed by ideas that came before us, by thinkers before us and by thinkers before them.
What is original? Taking the old, the dated, and refreshing it, making it readable again.
Remix is a tool. A tool for making things visible, legible, readable, comprehensible. Remix is a Rosetta Stone, a Rosetta Stone that is infinitely applicable to any form of translation. Remix is a form of translation. To Remix is to re-present coded messages in new codes that others can understand. Remix makes the unreadable, the incomprehensible, and the unknown, accessible.
Someone created the light bulb in your head that occasionally turns on. There is no spontaneous combustion, no bioluminescence for our minds.
Remix is the light bulb. Remix is the power plant. Use these foundations to light your mind, but do not mistake yourself for an pure, original creator. You work is within a tradition that has been built.
Never forget, however, that you expand upon this architecture; you lay new foundation upon which others can build more and add to an ever expanding estate of thought and of productivity.
Consume your fellow man and allow him to consume you! Take his ideas, re-create them, re-interpret them, re-mix them, re-introduce them into society! Then allow your body to be planted as a seed to be consumed by future generations.
Remix is Infinite. Remix is Ouroboros. Remix is Phoenix.
It is up to us to create the material from whence culture can be reborn. If the ashes of culture are swept away, discarded, culture will die.
Use the ashes of ideas past to be reborn. Use the ashes of the past to fertilize the soils of imagination, invention, and innovation.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Debord and Bourriaud
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.
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.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Open Source, Free Culture
While criticism of open content and open source materials is not lacking, it seems like a net-positive movement towards a more democratized institution of knowledge and content sharing versus an institution of hoarding.
Foundationally, the open source mentality appears as generally beneficial to those who operate within its framework. One of the advantages of open source is that the positive results are in a way self-reproducing. If someone makes something better, they have to reintroduce it back into the system for the use of others. In a way, it seems as though innovation could effectively happen as people build upon one another’s work, innovation because of the desire for improvements for an entire community of people. Inevitably, the general public benefits from these developments as they start using the open source materials. Linux is a prime example of how those who do not know how to code software, have taken advantage of the open source materials for their own benefit. In a perfect world, free culture would be the ideal method of approaching these issues, however, it would seem that today, some rights may need to be restricted. Even under Creative Commons, some rights are reserved. While there are critiques of this licensure system, It is a step in the right direction when considering that people can still have some control over their material, while allowing for others to use it.
To a certain degree, the idea of copyright and intellectual property is becoming more obsolete in a digital culture. Considering the ever-forward-pushing model of progression and of online sharing, copyright and intellectual property seem to becoming less problematic. When someone can use bitTorrent as a means of sharing music, programs, and documents, the idea of copyright becomes blurry. With this in mind, I think that the effort to protect intellectual property is a battle that should not be fought valiantly. While this may appear to be a sort of resignation to the masses, the fact remains that the network that is the Internet is, in one way or another, infinite. To wage war against an invisible power like the Internet and its capacity for networking is not only naïve, it is hopeless, an unwinnable war.
Quite obviously, we have to consider the artist’s labor in dealing with the ideas of intellectual property and open source materials. At this point, I believe Creative Commons fits the bill in simultaneously protecting and liberating an artist. By reserving some rights and allowing for an artist’s work to be used, that artist can see the benefits of releasing work to the commons without giving up rights to that work. Considering that the artist can still make money off of the work in other spheres, the Creative Commons allows for, what appears to be, the best of both worlds: allowing use while not losing ownership.
One of the most popularly known examples of remixing is the work of Girl Talk. Greg Gilles is clearly reconfiguring materials that are identifiable in his work. From Michael Jackson to Biggie Smalls, Gilles is visibly remixing these sources to create a new work of original creation. Looking at Girl Talk’s concerts and his participation in popular music festivals like Coachella are obvious indicators as to the fact that his work has in some way bettered culture in general. Sadly, the risk associated for Girl Talk seems to be an ever-pressing concern as to whether or not he is pushing the boundaries of copyright and creative commons. In some way, his contribution to culture is at the risk of his livelihood.
Recently, I remixed parts of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate factory into a music track that featured a number of samples from numerous artists. I took the audio from a portion of the film where Willy Wonka states “ We are the music makers, we are the dreamers of the dreams”, repeated this phrase, then re-cut the statement to say “we make music, we make dreams, make music, make dreams”. This then led into a sound piece based off of the sampling of other musicians like El Ten Eleven, Blink 182, and Big L.
Ultimately, free culture and open source materials are liberating to those who would like to experience a democratized access to knowledge and information. In an age of sharing and technology that encourages such behavior, embracing this new mentality can result in a new approach to information, sharing, and generally, human interaction.
Foundationally, the open source mentality appears as generally beneficial to those who operate within its framework. One of the advantages of open source is that the positive results are in a way self-reproducing. If someone makes something better, they have to reintroduce it back into the system for the use of others. In a way, it seems as though innovation could effectively happen as people build upon one another’s work, innovation because of the desire for improvements for an entire community of people. Inevitably, the general public benefits from these developments as they start using the open source materials. Linux is a prime example of how those who do not know how to code software, have taken advantage of the open source materials for their own benefit. In a perfect world, free culture would be the ideal method of approaching these issues, however, it would seem that today, some rights may need to be restricted. Even under Creative Commons, some rights are reserved. While there are critiques of this licensure system, It is a step in the right direction when considering that people can still have some control over their material, while allowing for others to use it.
To a certain degree, the idea of copyright and intellectual property is becoming more obsolete in a digital culture. Considering the ever-forward-pushing model of progression and of online sharing, copyright and intellectual property seem to becoming less problematic. When someone can use bitTorrent as a means of sharing music, programs, and documents, the idea of copyright becomes blurry. With this in mind, I think that the effort to protect intellectual property is a battle that should not be fought valiantly. While this may appear to be a sort of resignation to the masses, the fact remains that the network that is the Internet is, in one way or another, infinite. To wage war against an invisible power like the Internet and its capacity for networking is not only naïve, it is hopeless, an unwinnable war.
Quite obviously, we have to consider the artist’s labor in dealing with the ideas of intellectual property and open source materials. At this point, I believe Creative Commons fits the bill in simultaneously protecting and liberating an artist. By reserving some rights and allowing for an artist’s work to be used, that artist can see the benefits of releasing work to the commons without giving up rights to that work. Considering that the artist can still make money off of the work in other spheres, the Creative Commons allows for, what appears to be, the best of both worlds: allowing use while not losing ownership.
One of the most popularly known examples of remixing is the work of Girl Talk. Greg Gilles is clearly reconfiguring materials that are identifiable in his work. From Michael Jackson to Biggie Smalls, Gilles is visibly remixing these sources to create a new work of original creation. Looking at Girl Talk’s concerts and his participation in popular music festivals like Coachella are obvious indicators as to the fact that his work has in some way bettered culture in general. Sadly, the risk associated for Girl Talk seems to be an ever-pressing concern as to whether or not he is pushing the boundaries of copyright and creative commons. In some way, his contribution to culture is at the risk of his livelihood.
Recently, I remixed parts of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate factory into a music track that featured a number of samples from numerous artists. I took the audio from a portion of the film where Willy Wonka states “ We are the music makers, we are the dreamers of the dreams”, repeated this phrase, then re-cut the statement to say “we make music, we make dreams, make music, make dreams”. This then led into a sound piece based off of the sampling of other musicians like El Ten Eleven, Blink 182, and Big L.
Ultimately, free culture and open source materials are liberating to those who would like to experience a democratized access to knowledge and information. In an age of sharing and technology that encourages such behavior, embracing this new mentality can result in a new approach to information, sharing, and generally, human interaction.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)