The new age of cultural and technological convergence is a major topic covered in Lev Manovich's "Remixing and Remixability" article. His metaphor of a train shuttling information back and forth between stations (sender and receiver) to describe the old vs. new system of communication rings very true to me. As the lines between the various modes of distribution blur, communication and access to entertainment speed up rapidly. It also seems harder to justify what is work, and what is entertainment. Advertising firms often hire 'cultural consultants' whose job it is to know everything that is popular in various social scenes and demographics. They basically watch TV, surf the net, and read constantly to know what is trendy in the world. Marketing and promotion is set on finding the best way to please the consumer, and as Web 2.0 develops and quickens the spread of information, more people feed into the frenzy.
I remember hearing about companies buying advertising space on billboards within the world of Second Life to promote their products, or renting office space for board members to gather and have virtual conferences. Google has also created a beta version of software enabling multiple people, in different locations, to make alterations to virtual documents in real time. This is a prime exampe of 'collaborative remixability'. Individuals can sit at their computer in different parts of the world and work on a team project. This may be a useful tool in a business setting, but the same principles apply to the volumes of information being created by individuals who blog and post material on-line.
Lev Manovich discusses authenticity, and whether 'remixability' will take away the cultural significance of certain works. This a real problem that we face today. A university in New England was sued for photoshopping an African-American student into a sea of white faces at a football game to increase the diversity in their school's brochure. He did not in fact attend the game and felt that his rights were abused when they placed him in a location that he never visited for the sake of advertising. This example may not deal with art and creative works that must be maintained for posterity, but it does wrestle with the idea that manipulation can deceive. However, I believe that 'collaborative remixability' will usher in more creative thinking and motivate people who would not normally be moved to create, to utilize a different part of their brain and contribute more to society. It will also bring less legitamacy to certain works because they can fall into negative brackets (i.e. A filmmaker might have videos on YouTube, but is someone who posts content on YouTube a filmmaker?).
~Alex Favin
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think you have asked an interesting question when you say "is someone who post content on YouTube a filmmaker". I think that new age technology and the ability for people to send and receive information with the click of the mouse will lead to a media revolution. Its true that anybody can call themselves a media maker with camera phones and YouTube, but at least we are getting perspectives of the world from wider range of people than before, and I think that is a very good thing.
ReplyDeleteWorst article to read ever!
ReplyDeleteThe article would've been better if different word choices were made. It was interesting when it said that everything can be a myth because there are no substantial limits to myths just formal ones. The modes of speech support mythical speech and there was a reference to an Aesop fable. I got confused a bit when talking about the signifier and signified but I did get the part about the roses and how there's the signified the signifier and the sign. What I got out of the reading was that everything can be expressed in different ways depending on different factors but the freedom of expression is there and not limited to reality and its truths. Myths are a science and an ideology.
There were many interesting thoughts and arguements brought up in the article "Myth Today" by Roland Barthes.
ReplyDeleteWhen one thinks of myth one traditionally tends to think of the past, and the past culture of the Greeks, from where so many of the traditional myths originated. Most don't tend to think of myth in the sense of things today, which is one reason why the concept may be a bit difficult to grasp.
I'm not quite sure that I agree yet with the idea that "anything can be myth". Anything can be thought of and changed into something else in perception, but I do not necissarily think that it could then become myth.
Also, one other remark I found interesting was that, "pictures become a kind of writing as soon as they are meaningful". While I can somewhat understand, and to a degree agree with, the statement one must also take into account that picture and writing alike are both a form of art and expression (and in a way myth also) but that doesn't automatically mean that is will become meaningful. It depends on the person admiring the photo or story.
For Remixing Remixability:
ReplyDeleteThis article was very interesting and true to me as well being a filmmaker and using stock images and clips for projects like video shorts, posteres, dvd covers and after reading this article I have to wonder if anyone will use the image I created in part of their art/creation. The article was stating how you can look at pieces of culture and things as lego blocks and how each piece can be combined with more blocks and built into something new. The computer and the internet help bring worlds together and of course the creative spirit is going to utilize the information and objects that are available and create something and someone else will probably create something out of that creation. It is in history even before the computer like the article said with cultures picking parts from other cultures and intertwining them within their own and so it just seems natural and easier to do now that we have computers and internet. Like Sal said about the advertisers being sued by a boy who was used in their advertisement without consent, we have to be aware that what there are laws and what we take from the internet even though we manipulate and change it to create something original of our own, there still is that thing called copyright and we must not infringe on it and stay AWARE.
Comments Related to Collaborative remixability: By Crazy Joe
ReplyDeleteIt would seem apparent that the author feels very strongly that the internet is very versatile. And those innumerable opportunities exist now for reproduction and “re-mixing” of existing media. This makes any number of variants possible to create.
Speaking about computer files as cultural objects, the Author speaks about the importance of this internet network as a collective of media consciousness.
While remaining suspicious to the modularity which comes with the digital process, the Author confers his blessing on the internet social age.
However, I feel that most thinking individuals have already come to these conclusions. As the technologies he addresses are used by everyone. No one advocates minimalism in the face of these new and emerging technologies. Religious ignorance has been replaced with enlightenment ideals people feel are attainable.
In Humanities efforts to lift the chains of mortality and stagnant creature strife humans have created this re-mix ability and modularity. The internet is one of the devices allowing humans to realize their potential to control that which they see around them, no other animal on earth has that. The internet is another manifestation stemming from this ultimate realization.
I agree with Manovich that throughout history artists have generally borrowed or been inspired by something that came before them, and that the internet just speeds the process up. However, I do not think that this is a good thing, especially when it comes to creative endeavors. I have always hated how accepted postmodernism is and how complacent people to it. I think globalization is horrible. The difference between older artistic movements and contemporary ones is that people had to wait for information before and today we have instant gratification. Everybody, everywhere can see and have the same exact things.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think the notion of a media revolution is kind of ridiculous. The fact that the structure of the internet is so standardized, both physically and culturally probably means that the form will never change and everybody will consume the same media the same way. The government runs everything already including the media so I think there is little room for subversion. Soon, the only thing left to paint will be pictures of people staring at computer screens.
Sorry for the rant.
I agree with Alex's response to the 'Collaborative Remixability' article. New technologies are emerging into our culture day by day, allowing more people to access mass amounts of information with ease. With more technology emerging, new techniques of advertising are being developed, vitalizing these tools. Pop up ads on the internet, podcast ads, and in-video game advertising are just a few ways advertising companies have been displaying their products.
ReplyDelete-Greg Fernandez
The article, "Remixing and Remixability" by Lev Manovich brough up many interesting points about our almost completely digital age.
ReplyDeleteWhile technological advancements are a wonder and a convienece, they do also tend to lend to the lack of human contact and old fashion hand/hard work that our world is now acustom to. Talking with someone online and sharing instant information across the country and even the world is truly remarkable, and in some cases necessary. (i.e. doctors disussing a dianosis for an illness, family memebers keeping in contact while one is away or even serving their country, or perhaps board memebers discussing their business' next steps in their finace, etc.) However, what I believe it all boils down to is that "everything is fine in moderation", and I believe that applies to our constant use of the technology around us.
While this article was not fun for me to read at first, i did find Lev Manovich's points interesting and relative to my life. On the discussion of authenticity, and whether 'remixability' will take away the cultural significance of certain works, I think that it is impossible to stop, and is such a big part of our lives that we should just accept this postmodernism as a new for of expression and art.
ReplyDeleteWhile this article was not fun for me to read at first, i did find Lev Manovich's points interesting and relative to my life. On the discussion of authenticity, and whether 'remixability' will take away the cultural significance of certain works, I think that it is impossible to stop, and is such a big part of our lives that we should just accept this postmodernism as a new for of expression and art. At the same time, it is sad that raw creativity is pretty much dead, and equally frustrating that authenticity is getting harder and harder to distinguish.
ReplyDelete-max hull
I was pretty much gonna start out by saying the same thing as Rob about the question you asked being an interesting one. Personally I do not consider things to be a film unless there is a plot and structure to the content. Most videos on youtube are just things people filmed because the chance presented itself, not something they set out with the idea to create. So in my eyes there are videos on youtube that people can call them selfs film makers for making, but the majority of videos can not. Also about the pepsi ad link. I feel that if anyone can honestly say the new Pepsi ad makes them think it is a rip off of the Obama logo, then the Obama logo must be a rip off of the old Pepsi logo. The new and old logo are pretty much the same thing just the new one is not as symmetrical now.
ReplyDeleteThere are many Avant-Garde films made with the absence of plot and structure, but they are still films. Youtube videos are simply videos, regardless of who makes them. A youtube video maybe very well thought out and structured, but it will never be a film. A youtube media maker is a video blogger, not a filmmaker.
ReplyDeleteSal said:
ReplyDeleteI thought the article was interesting especially when the author talked about modularity. I like the way a DSLR camera with a possibility of using many different lenses, external flashes, filters, etc was used as an example of modularity.