Articulate the differences and similarities between remix and remediation. Do you agree or disagree with Lessig's argument? What do you consider "appropriate/ethical" remediation/remix and "inappropriate/unethical" remediation/remix?
This is our final blog entry, so make it count friends!
There is a huge difference between a remix and a remediation. A remix is something that, like Girl Talk, uses the direct material from the original source. A remediation on the other hand, would be taking that original source and “make it your own.” Remediations are most common in music when someone does a cover of a song. A good example of this could be Charles Bradley and his cover of “Heart of Gold” originally done by Neil Young. In the original, Young makes the song sound almost depressing or as if he is reflecting on his life. In Bradley’s version of it, he makes it into a soul song that includes trumpets and saxophones. It does not come of as a reflection of life, rather a celebration. On the other hand, a remix would be, as I’ve already mentioned, the direct sample of a song. In a roundabout way, a melody of songs from one band could be considered a remix. I personally like the idea of remediation, but am not too fond of most remixes. Although creative, I do not like the idea that Girl Talk is doing. I find it to be a cheap way to make millions of dollars by using other people’s work. What is the big difference between what he is doing and plagiarism? He is taking others work, mixing it around, and then claiming it as his own. However, there have been instances where a remix is better than the original. Just recently with the Tron soundtrack, the remixed album was much better than the original. As odd as it sounds, the remix sounded more like “Tron” than the original did. The original soundtrack sounded more like a movie orchestra, and for good reason since it mostly was. Still, I prefer remediations over remixes. People have been covering songs for years and multiple cases the cover was better than the original. Just look at Bob Dylan. He is a great song writer, but most of his songs became famous after someone did their own version of it. This is partly because popular belief is that Bob Dylan can’t sing. To sum it all up in an easy sentence or two, I’m fine with remediation; I’m not alright with remixing. Remixing without permission seems to be border lining illegal and almost a shot at the original artist. Remediation is just taking that original piece and making it into something completely different.
ReplyDeleteFrom class lecture and the materials we have watched I understand remixing as taking pieces from someone’s original work and combining it with other things. I believe that remixing uses only a little bit of the original work in order to get by the copyright laws. Like the sample we watched in class, remixing combines a number of different sources into one, using things from original sources. For example, Girl Talk, this artist combines different genres of music together in order to make one completely new track. From my understanding remediation is taking an original source and putting it into a new genre or medium to give individuals a new experience with the material. For example, taking a book and making it into a movie. Remediation is aiming to give the audience a different experience with the same material. Remediation lets you enhance the original material, put it in a different medium, change things around, and add your own little touches to it. Personally, I don’t have a problem with remixes or remediation. I never really paid attention to remixes until we listened to Girl Talk, and I really enjoyed the music. I don’t see the big deal with remixes. By listening to Girl Talk I got exposed to a lot of music that I would generally listen to, which made me want to explore the artist more. I feel that artist should be proud that others like there creation so much. I also think this exposure is good for the artist. People like me will get a hold to the remixes and be like “wow, maybe I should listen to more of this artist.” Also I think that remixes are unique. It takes skills to sit there and mash up or remix different music to see what actually works. If remixes were illegal wouldn’t that make DJ’ing illegal as well? Technically they are doing the same thing. With remediation I don’t see anything wrong either. Remediation is a whole different idea. Yes it may latch off of an original idea but that’s what makes it different because you’re adding your ideas as well. I don’t feel that it’s right if someone copies someone’s exact work or ideas but I don’t see anything wrong with these two different works. This all could be because I’m not an artist as well. I know artists are very serious about their work and the things they do. But hey, this is my opinion right?!
ReplyDeleteWhen looking at the root of the issue, remix and remediation are the same thing. They both involve taking ones own idea (or an idea of someone that belongs to someone else) and changing it. When I hear the word ‘remix’, the first thing I think of is music. When a remix is made in music, it stays the same genre. No matter how different the song becomes, it still stays a song. When I think of remediation, the first example that comes to mind is when a novel is remediated into a movie. Remediation is when a work changes mediums, and a remix is a change within the same medium.
ReplyDeleteMany may not agree with my views on remediation and remixes when it comes to what is appropriate and ethical about them, because I’m very lenient on the issue. For example, I think the work that the artist Girl Talk does is completely appropriate. He takes songs that have either died out a little or that are not quite as popular as they could be, and brings them to their full potential. Yes, these songs did originally belong to someone else. But people like to hear songs that they recognize. Girl Talk’s remixing makes the old songs his own in a new way, and in a way that his audience loves. I feel that if the remixing and copyright-law-breaking is done with the purpose of pleasing an audience and bringing a new generation into old material, it is more than appropriate.
With that being said, it is safe to say that I mostly disagree with Lessig. Is it wrong to cross out someone else's name on a work of writing and call it your own? Yes. But for the most part, people just borrow ideas. The ideas of others are what inspire new creations. Without remixing and remediation, there would be no growth in any medium. The quote that Christian found also caught my attention, because I agree with it completely. Without borrowing and expanding on the ideas of others, there would be no new stories or discoveries.
Remediation and remixing seems as if they would be one and the same. Aren’t you changing the original content of a piece in both instances? In a way, yes you are, however remixes still cannot be considered a remediation.
ReplyDeleteAn item has gone through a remediation once it has been transferred into a separate media. This could be the simple switch from poem to song or drawing to photo. Both medias will retain the same content or idea, while the presentation is completely altered. By doing so, the meaning will actually differ. For instance, take the song "Golden Apples of the Sun," sung by Judy Collins. The original piece was actually a poem by the name of “The Song of Wandering Aengus,” written by William Butler Yeats. By combining Yeats poetry with Collin’s dreamlike voice and languid guitar we are allowed to connect with the piece in a varying manner. We are no longer reading the words with our eyes and visualizing the events directly from the paper, instead we are listening to a smooth continuous voice sing each word, conjuring up images with the calm music as well.
Remixing though is a “mash-up,” of the same media, most notably, music. Remixing occurs when you take certain aspects of a song and splice them together in order to create a “new,” song. I place the word “new,” in quotations because many individuals feel as if these songs are not. They think that artists like Girl Talk and Twin Shadow are merely copying and stealing the works of others. However, if a new sound altogether is created while using various pieces of past music, wouldn’t that be considered new? No one else thought to combine those beats and music in that way, even the original musicians. Is this copyright infringement?
Technically, no art form or idea is absolutely brand new. It is either a remediation or a remix of the previous work. Without this constant want to manipulate ideas, society would never evolve. Painters would still be creating medieval religious paintings of Mary depicted only in blue, and Galileo would never have improved upon the telescope, originally created by Hans Lipperhey, a spectacle maker. We need remediation and remixes in order to grow.
The actor Joseph Gordon- Levitt started a fantastic website called Hitrecord.com. Within this community artists are allowed to post ideas, pictures, poems, stories, music, and videos in the realization that they will become either remixes or remediations of the original. Together they improve upon one another’s work in order to accomplish large- scale goals such as artistic short films, books, and songs. Their most well known pieces are a collection of short films depicting the character Morgan M. Morgansen and his lovely love interest, Destiny. If it had not been for the understanding collaboration of others, these excellent pieces would never have been made. Remediation and remixing will not go away. This is only the beginning.
To remix and remediate something can be very similar. Both include the process of taking a piece of work and dissecting and repuzzling it until it is something new or vastly different from its original state. The difference between the two is the outlet in which this is done. When something is remixed, the original work is still used but just added to or taken away from. When something is remediated, it can be born into a new outlet or medium but still hold the same meaning and tell the same story.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lessig’s argument for the most part, especially after watching that film in class today. Laws on ownership and copyrights are extremely limiting and detrimental to creativity. To a certain extent they are useful but I think most artists and appreciators or art would agree that works mimic one another and play off each other. I compare the affect of copy right laws to economics. It has been established that open economies and countries with less strict laws on businesses thrive compared to those of the opposite. I think this is the same with the creativity and quality of anything else. Less really is sometimes more.
In consideration of remediation and remix that is appropriate compared to what is not, I think all work that is born out of inspiration and honest from direct copy or theft is perfectly ok. I do believe credit should be given where credit is due. If a painting is inspired by another, let it be known. I thoroughly enjoyed the quote that was posted on the above post and could not agree with it more. I think it highlights the beauty and purpose of remediation and remix.
[NOTE: I'm having to post my blog in two parts, due to a character limit...]
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that the fundamental difference between remix and remediation is that with a remix, a composer is either editing together a sequence of pre-existing works (while maintaining the mediums), and/or at times, integrating pre-existing works together with original material to produce a new composition. With remediation, a composer is using a pre-existing work (or works) merely as the source of inspiration for creating a new and original composition, one which seeks to communicate the same meaning/essence of the original work, but through a different point of view (and most often, a different medium). I see remix and remediation as similar art forms in that the resulting composition simply could not exist without the presence of a pre-existing work. They are vastly different in that remediation employs a different level or degree of creativity, as the actual content of the composition draws from nothing but the composer’s imagination. That is not to say, of course, that a remix is not, as a whole, an imaginative endeavor. I’m speaking solely to content. I do think that this notion of remediation being an attempt to make a piece of art “better” is debatable. i.e...I don’t feel it’s necessary that my work as a remediation be “better” than an original, merely, different, and created so as to express the essence of the original work while potentially conveying new meaning, but at the very least generating a new depth of inquiry and meaning, as well as (hopefully) inspiration or discovery, for the audience.
[continued from above...]
ReplyDeleteI certainly value the reflection that our discussions and readings on copyright and remix have spawned within me. In terms of Lessig, or at least, as I understand what he’s trying to say...I disagree with his argument, for the most part—I think? Honestly, further clarity on exactly what he’s saying may prove that there is even more harmony than that which already exists between us; i.e. with regard to the need for there to be a vital interchange of *ideas* among creators of art, which fuses past with present. For sure, I value taking inspiration from pre-existing works of art in order create new ones. It must be so. Truth be told, I think remixing is great. I’ve got no beef with Girl Talk. But for me, the distinction with copyright law being vital is that a line needs to be drawn and respected when an artist creates an original work and that WORK ITSELF is being used as CONTENT in a new composition. Of course, I mean to state this only in the case where someone is generating a profit that is directly drawn from a work using pre-existing material. For example, if you want to take the recording I made of my original song “birdsong”, and put it on a mix tape and share it with lots of people, great! But if you want to take the recording of a song that I spent countless hours writing, even more countless hours refining in performance by playing it alone and with different musicians, in order to determine who would play the song on my independently produced album, then thousands of dollars to record and mix the track..if you want to put even just 10% or less of it into a remix that you will either sell, or play live at an event through which you will receive a fee, than I would appreciate, at the very least, a request for the use of the recording, to determine if I want the work to be associated artistically with the remix and, at the very most, I’d value a request for its use and some portion of the profits you generate, which clearly you would not receive were it not for the fact that I already created the material you are manipulating. I didn’t create that recording to be put in someone's remix. I created it to stand alone. And if you want to use it, please, just ask and if need be, share your profits. This all applies, of course, to a poem, song lyrics, a painting, or a film, or a photograph, or a choreography, etc. I’m just saying, the distinction needs to be maintained with regard to the use of pre-existing material. And we do have laws in place that respect this. I benefit from them, and I appreciate the protection of my original works. (NOT my *ideas*, mind you. P.s. Maybe Girl Talk needs to believe in his original musical talent a bit more, it seems outstanding enough to stand on its own. I do wonder if he plays a musical instrument...Mind you, I get that the “remashing” is his “pull”, and I would like to just state for the record that if Girl Talk asked me if he could use one of my recorded tracks in one of his remixes, I’d say "hells yeah".) This reflects another point– A LOT OF THIS IS CIRCUMSTANTIAL. Every situation warrants its own considerations, even if the use of any pre-existing work must always involve permission by the artist or the legal owner of a work.(i.e. I might decline the use of my work in some remix I did not feel was of a certain quality, or was created by someone/an entity that I had some moral discord with. That’s my prerogative, I believe, if people will share and make money off of it.)
[geez...i had to actually divide my post into three sections. sorry! (er, sort of)]
ReplyDeleteAt any rate, sure, the laws may need to evolve, but they shouldn’t be discarded. I think it’s important to remember that some artists make art for art, and not for professional income, and some are motivated to make art because that is simply their pull in this blip of a life, but they also are trying to make a living through it. I’m not so sure Lessig speaks in any way to that crucial point. Clearly, he’s an artist. In the form of a writer, anyway. He wrote a book. But, is he struggling financially? Has he ever tried to make a living expressing ideas through original works of art? Hmmmm...maybe he would change his tune just a little bit, if he did. Or, maybe not. Clearly I’m impassioned about this subject. I do think it’s important to find a happy medium with regard to law, create law which respects both points of view portrayed in the documentary. Well, that is, the point of view of the film, and the actual point of view of the artists who might take issue with it (a point of view I think the filmmaker muted, perhaps even belittled somewhat.) But what do I know. I write haikus at 3am when no one’s looking. (not that they look at any other point in time, mind you. sigh...)
When we remediate, our role is more of an interpreter. The task of the people that are in charge of remediate is to take the “essence” of the original work, and adapt it to a new medium. As we see constantly with comic book movies, the process of remediation is to take many characters that exist in the comics, and turn them into human flesh characters that the audience can relate to. Now, remediation does not mean repackaging. People that remediate have, like us, have a rhetorical situation that they use as a guideline. It is up to the people that remediate to decide what deserves an exigence, and what can be discarded, thus making the selection process a mandatory part of the remediation process, which will determine the quality of the remediated work. On the other hand, I see remixing more a “spin” process. Unlike remediation, remixing is more about keeping the original idea present. When we were watching “RIP: A Remix Manifesto”, we saw that Girl Talk makes songs based on previously made songs. Granted, he samples more than twenty songs and turns them into one song, but unlike remediation, remixing stays in the medium it was originally conceived. I’ll admit to be a little bit confused when it comes with both definitions. I think it’s ultimately for us to decide when a definition starts, and when one ends. On paper they look fairly similar. Both talk about turning the original concept upside, which of course, is when the controversy into whether or not copyright should be exercised on the remediated and the remixed works. When it came to Lessig, I kept wondering, why does nobody see what Lessig sees? I ask this, because it almost looks like they should be riots when it comes to the current copyright laws, and how it seems more like a giant monster that its slowly sucking the air out of really creating people. I think Lessig is right when he says that “fair” use is fundamental for us, but it is ultimately blocked by these businesses that seemed to be dying, and I don’t know if it’s because of piracy, or because people are buying three songs instead of twelve, or are now more into services like Netflix, but it seems that when we have examples like the ones from Disney, we are not helping anyone but corporations. Ultimately I think this is about expanding. And by that I mean making it into a more collaborative exercise. When all have ideas that could become amazing works of art. Yes, there is a financial compensation that it is deserved by a creator, at the end, these expansors of ideas can create amazing pieces of art that will ultimately ought to have a priceless debt of gratitude for what came before.
ReplyDelete