Artifact 8: Remixing Culture
Objectives
- Become acquainted with copyright as a historic, cultural and economic paradigm and its value and pertinence to creative works.
- Explore the changing nature of copyright in the context of “Remix Culture”
- Examine your own and others values and paradigms of ownership and authorship of cultural media.
For this week’s assignment, I broke out of my usual routine tackled the final posting first. The artistic and creative nature of it was appealing and it was fun to think about the subject matter as I pulled it together. I played around with lots of different images and while I landed on a set that are “stock” images available for public consumption, I did consider several that might require permission to reprint them under certain circumstances. Reading Richard Koman’s interview of Lawrence Lessig caused me to think differently about my own process and to wonder if what I was doing was contributing to “remix culture.” My collage, while nothing to hang in a museum, was “the gathering of creativity based on creativity” to form something new. It is curious to me, as Lessig points out in “Cultures Compared” [ that there are those people, including attorney Charles Sims, who believe that this type of creativity is worthless. Specifically, he and others believe that engaging in this kind of creative mixing is “ … a fundamental failure of imagination.” (Lessig, 91) My question is how can this be true? Who is to say what is imaginative and what is not when it comes to the artistic process regardless of consumer or economic value?
Reflection
In rereading my original post and the materials associated with this unit, I found myself thinking about remix culture in a few ways: the legal and copyright issues, my own values around it and the tension that exists between the two. I understand that artists of all kinds have a right to own and benefit from their original works. The recent controversy surrounding Spotify and singer/songwriter Taylor Swift’s decision to pull most of her new music from the online service (Mashable Website) is but one example of an artists’ strong feelings about the situation. In the wake of her decision, Swift said, “Music is art and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for …” (Mashable website) I agree with this sentiment but I also believe that if we as a society are to completely cut ourselves off from the past and to actively punish artists that reveal how history has influenced them, we will diminish ourselves in the end.
Lessig’s allows that, “The vast majority of remix, like the vast majority of home movies, or consumer photographs, or singing in the shower, or blogs, is just crap.” (Lessig, P. 92) But, he goes on to point out, in short, who cares? The value of much of this remix is not that the producers will become the next Taylor Swift, Eudora Welty, or Annie Leibovitz but rather they are, “valuable because they give millions of people the opportunity to express their ideas …” (Lessig, p. 92) Lessig also contends that those who deride remix do so because they are uninformed. He says, “… anyone who thinks remixes or mash-ups are neither original or creative has very little idea about how they are made or what makes them great. It takes extraordinary knowledge about a culture to remix it well.” (Lessig, p. 93)
I had the opportunity to see this in action when I attended a concert last year of a man named Jake Shimabukuro. Shimabukuro is a professional musician who has taken the little appreciated ukulele and has become a sensation playing both traditional Hawaiian music but also popular songs. He has become particularly well known for his interpretation of Beatles songs and you can see one here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puSkP3uym5k
Shimabukuro’s brand of remix has become popular across the country and has earned him accolades from critics and fellow musicians specifically because he has taken existing creative endeavors (traditional Hawaiian music and the Beatles) and made something completely new. Personally, I think this is thrilling. What a shame it would be if Shimabukuro had been discouraged from pursuing his musical vision. His success and the enjoyment he provides to millions of concert goers and listeners makes Charles Sim’s comments in Lessig’s Cultures Compared seem absurd. He says, “I can’t say strongly enough that I think what Larry is really fundamentally focused on … is such a terrible diversion of young people’s talent.” (Lessig, p. 91) Upon reflection, what I read in between the lines of Sims’ comments is how he can, as an attorney on the front lines of this issue, make more money for his clients.
I agree with Taylor Swift when she says art is valuable and should be paid for but I remain wondering what is the right price and what are the societal costs when we decide?
Future
I enjoy music and art in many forms but until this unit didn’t really appreciate some of the issues hiding behind online musical downloads or use of existing film or online media to create new works. It’s helpful to be made more aware of this because it impacts artists in many ways. I’m always looking for new music to enjoy and will definitely think twice about downloading it for free. I think this will be especially true for newer and younger artists just starting out.