MY remix theory

When contemplating remix, I think it is necessary to first look at culture.  Culture is the set of shared attitudes, values, goals and practices that characterizes an institution, organization or group.  Within this definition lies the keyword shared.  Since the beginning of time people have been sharing ideas, building off of each other to synthesize old ideas into new.  This is called the changing same - not only is it necessary, but it is inevitable.  

Wether intentional or not, people are constantly remixing.  Take a recipe for instance...there may be parts to a recipe that certain people don’t like, and end up subtracting ingredients from the dish.  Other times, someone might think that with the addition of three other ingredients the dish could be perfect...the changing same.  Everyone has creativity, and through remixing people have the ability to use their imagination and let their creativity shine.  I believe there is a large problem in the transition between childhood to adulthood: the loss of creativity.  It is an amazing fete to make it to adulthood and still be in tact with your creative side.  As we grow up, we shy away from using our imagination and begin to lose our youthful inspiration.  We give this up in exchange for wanting to be the best.  At first in school we are taught to be imaginative and innovative.  Slowly however, we are taught there is one correct way of getting things done, being the best student you can be, and rising to the top.  Life becomes a competition and there is only one way to get the gold: do things exactly how you’re told.  Quickly enough people begin to see this leads to a boring world.  No one can deny this fact because eventually everyone feels it.  Without the use of creativity and imagination, people begin to feel empty - and they begin (if they allow themselves) to seek out what inspires them...this is where remixing takes over.

Whether what inspires you is music, literature, cooking, fashion, or anything else, people will eventually come back their object of inspiration in order to feel excited again.  They will use their basic interests and turn them into something new and exciting...they will remix.  You just have to find, as Paul Miller puts it, who or what “speaks through you.”  You must be attached to something powerfully enough that you feel drawn to play with it.  

Once defining what speaks through you (the apparatus), it is time to remix.  For thousands upon thousands of years, people have been taking what they know, and changing it.  Whether this is done to make the subject matter better, newer, or just different, people can’t help but bring new life to old things; memory demands newness.

Not only is remixing done for the things understood, but it is also done to the things that are misunderstood, or even impossible to understand.  This is remixing done to decipher the apparatus.  Sometimes people want a better understanding or grasp on things so they make a point to re-interpret them.  The apparatus, without understanding, leaves you on the outside looking in; there is no way of interpreting what’s going on unless the viewer makes their own metaphor and interpretation.  

No matter what way you look at it, remixing is an inevitable metaphor.  People yearn for understanding, for expression of experience and emotion.  It is extremely hard, perhaps even impossible to come up with a completely new idea...everything is a derivative of something else; there is no shame in remixing.  Moreover, in attempts not to become jaded with the bore of the same old shit, it is imperative to challenge ourselves through the act of remixing.  REMIX WHAT YOU LOVE. REMIX WHAT YOU HATE. REMIX CULTURE. You already have.

Detournement

At first glance, I took “Methods of Detournement” to be very similar to cultural remixing.  The beginning of the essay reminded me of my previous weeks blog on open source and the issues of copy right.  Thinking back, I discussed a lot about the fact that practically every thought we have and everything we do and create is in some way, taken from a previous source.  Since the beginning of time people have built off other ideas and creations to make new things; it is not too often that someone comes up with a purely original idea.  “Only extremist innovation is historically justified,” (Debord, paragraph 2).  

Going another step further we break down the word “Detournement” and understand that loosely translated, it means aimlessly wondering and drifting, or detour.  According to Debord, we must take the previous works we already have, and go beyond them.  This act of gaining a new outcome must be attained in a new, roundabout way.  It does not matter if two old ideas are used in the process, the point is that the outcome is something newer and greater.  “The mutual interference of two worlds of feeling, or the bringing together of two independent expressions, supersedes the original elements and produces a synthetic organization of greater efficacy,” (paragraph 5).  

The final step to Detournement is that it can be seen and used as counter propaganda.  Debord argues that consumers have become too obedient.  With all of the propaganda and advertisements flying around, consumers absorb “requests” too easily, without giving the demands and requests of propaganda and advertising any thought at all.  Society has become robots, simply looking at ad’s, immediately accepting the idea, and then consuming the product.  It is time that consumers challenge these ideas, taking control and reanalyzing them, instead of robotically accepting the images.  Not only can we take these ideas and make new ideas out of them, but we can use the ideas and images against themselves to stand up against the original idea.  Counter-propaganda demands consumers to alter the meaning of old fragments in any appropriate way.  In turn, this becomes a form of hactivism.  The Yes Men are a perfect example of using counter-propaganda and hactivism; by using other companies thoughts and over-looked methods, the Yes Men use those ideas against the company to develop a new message.  “Such parodical methods have often been used to obtain comical effects.  But such humor is the result of contradictions within a condition whose existence is taken for granted,” (paragraph 7).  

Over all, I believe these ideas go back to my original argument.  None of this (counter-propaganda, hactivism, open source, remixing, etc.) would be possible without previous ideas building upon each other.  As Debord makes a reference to, “ ‘Plagiarism is necessary, progress implies it,’ ” (paragraph 8).  

Open Source, Open Content & Remixing

I think it is important to start out by acknowledging that without open source, this class (Remix Culture) and therefore this blog, would not be written today.  Remixing would not be acknowledged as a practice, even though the practice of remixing has taken place (arguably) since the beginning of time.  From one idea comes another, comes another, and another, and another all building off of each other, mutating and forming into different/better/new things.  This is where “open content” comes into play.  “Open content describes thus any kind of creative work, or content, published under an open content license that explicitly allows copying and modifying of its information by anyone, not excessively by a single organization, firm or individual,” (Wikipedia).  When asked why anyone might want to copy or modify original information, we look to the past.  As stated previously, it is easy to find glitches within information (facts, architecture, science, etc...) that you believe could be made better, newer, or just different.  When thinking why I personally might want to change pre-existing information, the main reason I came up with, was to gain a clearer understanding of that information.  

I am a studio art major (though I am most interested in the creative/artsy side of advertising more than anything else), and sometimes I believe this puts me at a disadvantage.  I have truly come to appreciate art, but since this is not my first passion, I have a hard time (as most people I suspect do) understanding where artist’s are coming from, and thus fall flat on the works purpose and meaning.  For instance, I have always thought Henri Matisse’s painting have been unexplainable beautiful.  The bright colors and loose brush strokes have always appealed to my eye, yet I have never really been able to explain why.  I suppose most people might feel that way about paintings - and thus it is important to give it your own meaning.  

Last semester in my Digital Art 1 class, we were told to choose a work of art, and remix it into our own.  I chose Matisse’s “Odalisque”.  I have no idea what Matisse was thinking or feeling when he painted this, but when I remixed it in order to apply to my own life, giving it my own special meaning, the painting finally made sense to me.  It is like Umberto Eco says in The Poetics of the Open Work, “A work in this sense is undoubtably endowed with a measure of ‘openness.’ The reader of the text knows that every sentence and every trope is ‘open’ to a multiplicity of meanings which he must hunt for and find.”

This idea of remixing in order to understand, leaves people feeling content.  After last classes discussion on “Towards A Philosophy of Photography” by Vilem Flusser, I have become confident that remixing and open content are ways of controlling the “apparatus.”  The apparatus, without understanding, leaves you on the outside looking in; you are surrounded by ideas, art, inventions, etc., but without understanding, there is no way of interpreting what’s going on, and thus the viewer cannot make sense of it.  And what is the point in creating anything if no one can understand it?

Take the sayings “ditto” and “right back at ya” for instance.  The saying “ditto” is the apparatus, and the “right back at ya” is another way of phrasing/interpreting/making sense of the apparatus.  With this new understanding you can make sense of the original saying.  What is so important about this, is the freedom you gain, (this goes for any “apparatus” situation).  

I know there is plenty about open content that I have not even thought to cover, so it is hard to give a 100% stance on whether or not I believe there is a need for “free culture.”  As far as what I have touched on I think there should be.  It is important to remix as a way of understanding, and with or without permission varying forms of this are going to continue, purposefully and unconsciously.  I will say however, that I do believe there should be some balance in protecting an artist’s labor.  I am not sure where the balance would be because I am sure every artist has a different opinion on this - it is hard to say.  Perhaps a good rule of thumb may be: it must be clear that the person remixing was ONLY remixing/post-producing/reconfiguring the original source material, and should give credit/acknowledge the original source, as not to steal.  

Remix Project #1

https://webfiles.colorado.edu/towlea/remixproject1.html




I believe this quote from "Towards A Philosophy of Photography" suits my project well:

"The world becomes image-like, a context of scenes and situations. This re-versal of the function of images may be called "idolatry," and we cart currently see how this comes about: omnipresent technical images have begun magically to restructure "reality" into an image-like scenario. What is involved here is a kind of oblivion. Man forgets that he prod-uces images in order to find his way in the world; he now tries to find his way in images. He no longer deciphers his own images, but lives in their function. Imagination has become hallucination." - Vilém Flusser