∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
Is the remix/bash/mash-up the aesthetic of our time?
In what ways do associated practices depend on transmediations?
∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
In your comment, include any subquestions/extensions/responses that the above questions push you toward. Address Module 3 reading/viewing assignments as relevant, and point us toward any other sources that you have found. Remember to check out the Diigo group for links that are tagged “Module 3“.
It seems like we live in a remix/bash/mash-up culture today, but it is also apparent that this is not anything new. Transmedia is not the only reason why this type of culture exists. Becker mentioned, for example, that choices to preserve or destroy a piece of art are still choices that affect the art. These are actually major decisions that have a part in the final work, whether or not that work continues to exist. This question also makes me think of Duchamp’s LHOOQ, in which he drew a mustache on a reproduction of the Mona Lisa and called it art. One pencil mark and a new title turned one artist’s lifetime of hard work into a piece that elevated another artist’s career.
Becker also talks about short, informal comments like “it works” as being very influential to someone involved with a specific art world yet mean nothing to an editor or researcher. Audiences can also influence works simply by being present, making comments, or responding in any way. Their responses can change the way someone else might view/judge a piece. Offhand comments like these are very overlooked. In film festival class this past week, there was a photographer from Ethos Magazine who came in to document one of our meetings for a story on Cinema Pacific. We were discussing our difficulty getting into contact with one mariachi band, when the photographer interjected, “I know a mariachi band.” He is not involved with the film festival and just happened to be present at our meeting, but that one comment may affect an entire gala event. He may have just become a “curator” of the festival in one sentence.
In the two films about Girl Talk, it was interesting to hear him talk about his goals. He does not necessarily make mash-ups for the fame or money; he said that making mash-ups is just a fun new way to make music/create entertainment. In this way the computer and rise of transmedia does in fact influence how people make art to appropriate others’ work. Again with the film festival, our “fringe” festival revolves around people mashing up the Korean film The Housemaid and making art installations out of it. The staff never looked at this as a copyright issue (even though it is not one because the film is available in full online) or a cop-out- we saw it as a way for students who would otherwise have no interest in Korean cinema to look at it and appreciate it in new ways.
We have access to so much more information now, so remixes may be easier to do, but I still argue that this is nothing new. There is a lot of good stuff out there, so sometimes you just have to think, “why reinvent the wheel?”
I agree with Arielle’s statement, “It seems like we live in a remix/bash/mash-up culture today, but it is also apparent that this is not anything new.” If we look at just one segment of art -music- remixing can be traced back through Mozart (rewriting his own work) to chant, which was essentially remixed in every town depending on the music funders preferences. One interesting link, as noted by Pete Broadwell, a UCLA musicology doctoral candidate, is the Pirates of the Caribbean theme (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LZcMv0H1bI). This soundtrack is a remix of Purcell’s prelude and aria, Act III, Scene 1 from Dido and Aeneas. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzWqglTemNg). Also, while perusing YouTube I found that Pirates of the Caribbean has been remixed by other people, including one by a techno DJ that can be purchased on iTunes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_Aec1UNsiY&feature=related).
Reading Becker’s chapter on editing really made me think about this remix/bash/mash-up idea closely. It seems that if you are an editor for a publishing company or a respected adviser for an artist then you automatically remix their work as it is being produced. A quote that stuck with me was, “If the choices of audiences and support personnel can remake works so drastically, we can reasonably think of art works as not having a stable character.” I feel that this is a question that needs serious discussion. Can a piece of art ever be finished? Doesn’t the day-to-day understanding and interaction with a piece continually make it grow?
One reason I feel that the copyright issue can become a problem for Girl Talk and others is the fact that everything is so easily accessible/online. I placed a link on the Diigo site to the Gregory Brothers Band (http://thegregorybrothers.com/) that is doing an “Auto-tune the news” series of videos. Using Auto-tune software, a program that alters the singer’s voice to achieve perfect pitch, The Gregory Brothers Band, remix news anchors and live feeds on CSPAN using the software. Being able to pull this video off of websites and cut their music and images into it makes each remix politically charged. This remix, however is only available because of our transmedia society today. I believe that The Gregory Brothers, like Girl Talk, may have to deal with the slippery slope of copyright infringements.
Looking at the different copyright issues that artists have had to deal with via YouTube and lawsuits it makes me want to understand copyright law a little better. I think that for a true “battle” of the copyright and the copyleft (as RiP termed them) both sides must fully understand the current laws and how they pertain to the first amendment.
I agree with RiP that this remix/bash/mash-up aesthetic is folk art, but I do not agree that it is the “folk art of the future” (RiP trailer – http://films.nfb.ca/rip-a-remix-manifesto/?film=2).
I think there always has been a remix/bash/mash-up culture, but with the onset of the internet and new technologies there are more opportunities to display and ways to find the artworks. With this idea, I found it quite interesting in the series of blog posts from Henry Jenkins that the idea artworks are “safer” if they’re shown in a gallery as opposed to YouTube.
This resonated with the ideas Becker brought forth about artworks ultimately being the synthesis of a series of editorial moments. If what was said in the Jenkins’s posts is true, then by posting their artwork on YouTube, artists are taking huge risks in posting their pieces on the internet (if it is in fact the artist themselves doing the uploading).
Although there is a fine line between appropriation and copyright infringement, artists who work by appropriating other artworks seem to be quite successful. Today, the videos focused on the music industry and Girl Talk, who is extremely popular. In addition to him, a lot of rap artists have released songs also toting the same “sampling” line, most recently Jay-Z’s “Young Forever” which uses the Alphaville song “Forever Young” as a foundation of the piece.
Sampling and appropriation art are everywhere in today’s artworld and I don’t think it’s a new emergence. Even examples from Dr. Dre’s older albums used sampling as a method of compilation. Going back even further into the artwold, Andy Warhol appropriated a publicity image of Marilyn Monroe for his famous Marilyn Diptych. I agree with the Jenkins blog and Good Copy, Bad Copy video in that today’s business standards are slowing down production of new appropriation art. With the ubiquity of technology in today’s world, old copyright law is seemingly outdated in certain genres.
I don’t know if the mash-up is the aesthetic of our time, although I certainly think that s mash-ups exist now is a direct result of the wide range of available technologies.
The greater question that I was considering while reviewing the resources was how valid mash-ups are as a creative outlet.
I do think that DJing and remixing is a great, creative, thing. But it also relies so heavily on the creations of others, that it seems strange to take something (presumably) so recognized, and change it a bit, and be able to call it your own.
On the other hand, we all rely pretty heavily on other’s creations to create these days. I’m pretty sure that one of our readings (for this class?) talked about that. That if we had to sit and grow a tree, and cut it down, and carve it out to make a guitar, in order to make music, then it would severely limit and slow down the creative process.
The resources also brought up the question for me how much prior knowledge is required to appreciate the art of mash-ups. Girl Talk refers to that when he says that people get a kick out of trying to recognize all the different artists he samples. Does that make listening more enjoyable? Or would I enjoy his music just as much if I didn’t already know the music he sampled (which, to be sure, sometimes I don’t).
I think the remix/bash/mash-up is the aesthetic of our time. It’s a bit of a perfect storm – media is fairly easy to get and technology enables many people to participate with it. I don’t think mash-ups are necessarily new, but I do think that they represent our time very well – they’re creative, they’re out-of-the-box, and they engage the public. It is difficult to value these remixes in the same way as we value the originals, but I do think there’s something creative about them.
The Evolution of Remix Culture video describes remixes as an act of social creativity. The Brat Pack mash-up, and then the subsequent Brooklyn and San Francisco versions, are illuminating in their own way. One might argue that they are not artistically new, since they basically each copy each other, but, as the narrator of the video says, their social interactions become social expression. Furthermore, he says that these expressions mediate people’s relationships to each other – people can compare, learn, and contrast their experiences with others’, especially since technology has made both the creation and distribution of remixes more accessible to the public. I think attempting to limit the way people mash-up or remix culture (whether older stuff like John Hughes movies or the movie made by hipsters in Brookyln) is now a limit on creativity and expression itself. Technology has given us a new medium, and we are using it to create.
Of course, the readings for this week, especially the Good Copy, Bad Copy documentary, makes me wonder if the rise of technology and the mash-up/remix/bash is a natural progression of culture, or if we are somehow screwing things up? Are copyright laws slowing down development, or would we have simply developed in a different way/direction? Girl Talk describes the nostalgia of buying albums as a child, and how the lack of that nostalgia is inevitably changing the way today’s youth identify with the music/product. Without having that experience, young consumers arguably have less emotional connection to the music, which possibly manifests as ambivalence about how the product is consumed/recreated/obtained. Although I think remixes ARE indicative of today’s culture and there IS something creative about that expression, it doesn’t really make me very proud…
The chapter from Becker really hit home for me. Coming from Folklore, the importance of editing is constantly on my mind when researching. To edit/remix a narrative is to assume a position of power over the canon. Where we choose to cut a sentence, when we stop and start recording, and where we place those clips in a finished piece are all decisions that can alter the meaning of the original narrative or performance. Obviously, this can lead to issues of unethical representation. So basically, being a remixer of any sort is kind of like being Spiderman; it’s a great power that comes with great responsibility.
It seems to me that there is a connection between the power that comes with remixing and the current popularity of remix/mash-up culture. While the power dynamic inherent in remixing can be problematic for cultural researchers, it can also grant a voice to populations who are often not heard.
The Organization for Transformative Works website brought the fanfic population to mind. While fan culture still doesn’t receive a lot of respect in general, it’s becoming more common for television, book, and film series to adapt storylines to match the preference of fan communities. To me, that sounds a lot like Lance Weiler’s concept of Storyworlds, except the fans are responsible for extending the story beyond the canon. So perhaps this is another reason the remix aesthetic is so prevalent. Technology encourages us to engage, to turn on, to plug in, to stay on the grid; remixing lets us get inside the grid.
Remixes and mash ups, ugh…..
I hope when the history books are written that mash ups are not thought of as the aesthetic of this time. I think there are two different avenues to go down when thinking about this topic. I think of sampling, which is nothing new, and mash ups which is something fairly new.
Artists have sampled for years now when it comes to music. I first thought of how in the studio the Beatles took pieces of tape that producer George Martin had recorded classical music and different sound effects on and used them. For example, on “Being For The Benefit Mr. Kite” they threw up these pieces of tape and literally spliced them together for the song. Early hip hop sampled extensively, but artists still had something original to say.
With computers and cheap or free software now people can make all sorts of video/musical mash ups. I do believe people should be able to do this free of charge. Transmedia helps make something like the “grey album” go from being between friends to all over the landscape.
The Rip video was definitely slanted and I thought their usage of Radiohead releasing “In Rainbows” online was a poor example. Radiohead can afford to do anything they want, they are Radiohead. The difficult part in discussing this topic is trying to keep it from becoming value laden from whatever your point of view is. I believe it is great that people find an outlet and can go experience a live event at a Girl Talk show. For me personally, I think it is intellectually lazy. I do not consider him an artist as much I do a mathematician/programmer. I am uninterested in people that use software and other artists music to make their own. I just do not value it. It does not resonate with me. I do not get excited to go to a show to see someone play the computer. I want to see someone who has something to say.
BUT I guess having nothing to say is another way of saying something. Should be an interesting discussion this week.
The remix/bash/mash-up in one aesthetic of our time, but not the only one. I think it has become the most readily used and because of its popularity has become the back drop to mainstream American entertainment (advertising, music, film, etc..). We, as transmedia consumers, have become accustomed to it so the excitement has worn off and now the remix is just an expected piece of how we absorb media.
The Diigo posts I tagged Module3 talk about different aspects of the remix. In the first I posted the “Peter and the Wolf: Re-Imagined” project I did for the Graduate Research Forum. I agree with Phillip that there is value lost in music that is just cut and pasted (which is for the most part how I created this track). Girl Talk is a great example of this as well as what I did for the “Peter and the Wolf” track. I view what I did with the “Peter and the Wolf” project and my Djing in general as a way to show my love and appreciation for the original music, and feel more as a fan sharing my love of music with others than an artist myself. (very similar to ideas presented on the Organization for Transfomative Works page, I am a fan presenting my fanworks). I thought I would show the “art” of Djing with another Diigo post about DJ Z-Tip who demonstrates a DJ blend (which is a mash-up).
My last Diigo post tagged Module3 deals with the Dali/Disney collaboration “Destino”, a project started by both men while they were still alive in 1945 and completed in 2003 after they had both died. It is such a beautiful piece of art in my opinion but is a reinterpretation of Dali’s vision. As Dali was not alive to finish it French animators completed the original idea and storyboards Dali had created. This is similar to Becker’s example of Brod publishing Kafka’s work how it was not the original intention of the artist.
Remix is an example of an aesthetic of our time, but it is not necessarily a new art form. Artists have explored the idea of mashing different references for hundreds of years. In my classical era class, we studied about how 18th century composers mashed different musical “topics” together. Composers quoted freely from each other, but copyright issues didn’t exist back then.
Is remixing an act of creating, or reinterpreting? If it is reinterpreting, then people can have artistic license to interpret however they want. But if a new artwork is created, it becomes a gray area. Girl Talk and hip hop sampling is not the simple arrangement of a medley of tunes. It uses existing music as the canvas and the paint. I thought it was interesting when Girl Talk was explaining that he doesn’t want to go through the trouble of getting the rights to all the music he uses. Maybe that would defeat the integrity of his own creativity?
I think that the “frame” in which the art is presented affects how originality and “stealing” is perceived. If the frame is under the umbrella of “amateur” and the art is informally distributed (like on youtube), the copyright issues would not be so important and some would consider the artwork as a reinterpretation. But if the artwork is considered professional and is formally displayed, inevitably the artist must defend his originality. “Ready-made” art will always invite skepticism.
Is the remix/mashup the aesthetic of our time?
First, while I wish there was another term for it, I believe we are looking at a post-post-modernist aesthetic.
The iconic Warhol image of Marilyn Monroe which Steph referred to earlier was indeed a “remix” of another photograph. The image, as with much of Warhol’s work, was created with an awareness and a wink and a nod about the ideas of advertising and design. Hence post-modernism.
I don’t get the feeling that remixes are created with that wink and a nod. Rather, I believe that the post-post-modernist aesthetic is optimistic about what pop culture has to offer it.
Our culture dictates our interest in media. We have a culture of people who have been brought up with immense amounts of media bombardment from every angle. The media has become a tool that they use to transform sights and sounds into a new creation. People are going to create using whatever tools they have at hand. It is silly to me that we are slapping the hands of the people who are just using the tools we’ve given them.
Does that make it the aesthetic of our time? I’m not sure. But if it does, the culture of our time is illegal.
I certainly believe that the remix/mashup is an aesthetic of our time, but it is not the only one. Due to the influx of affordable and free technology, remixing music, video, and many other mediums is easy and accessible. Every student with an apple laptop now has access to garageband and tons of other free editing software. New ipod nanos now have video cameras, so anyone can make a music video to go with their creation, or a remix of an old video or track. Since this term has started, I’ve received no less than three facebook requests to become fans of friends who are making remixs and other electronic audio using apple’s garageband. While all are creative, with such broad access to technology, can everything created and thrown into the internet be considered art? If all the sounds and lyrics were created by someone else, and they did not physical handle a tape or record, where is the line drawn? This accessibility to technology and music has been growing, especially as the internet has made sharing music easy and almost always free. Instead of music having a material value like an album or CD, and therefore cherishing its creation, music can now be downloaded and remixed without any credit to its original creator. Perhaps access to technology make music so easy to create that commercial music made in a similar fashion loses value as well. Autotune was pretty great until free versions of effect software came out, and it soon faded. I’m optimistic that as technology and music evolves, our current idea of the remix/mashup as a widely accessible and popular art form will fade.
I, like some of the previous posts do not believe that re-mixing and mashup is an aesthetic of our time. Like Arielle and Steph both mentioned, throughout the history of art there have been artists who have been reusing images and or adding something to existing images in order to create something new. There were also artists who worked in 3 dimensional way to create a literal mash up of objects through assemblage. There are artists such as Barbara Kruger who have also used media based (advertising) images in their work in order to convey a message that at times, much like Rip: A re-mix manifesto, are used to criticize or at the very least critique the very industry that they have taken their images/sounds/music from.
Although remixing/mashups are not a new form of art, as many of the previous posts have mentioned, the wide spread accessibility to create something that is re-mixed or a mash up is greater. While anyone say 50 years ago could have made a collage of images from magazines, photographs or newspapers and claimed that it was a piece of art, there would have been a limited number of people who would have been involved in seeing, critiquing and maybe even deciding if this image was a piece of art. Now, through the use of the internet, someone can create a mashup and uploaded to an infinite number of viewers who will most likely have the ability to comment thereby critiquing the work and placing some sort of value on it. As Becker mentions frequently, the art world is a collective group of people who are involved in multiple steps throughout the life of an art piece, from its creation, through editing and up to it’s death.
This accessibility to the sharing of new creations of art through sampling/remixing/mashup allow for what I feel could be more of a democratic conversation in the discussion of what art its and the values placed on that art. Of course increasing the audience that is available to discuss such things inevitably will increase the difficulty in which to have these discussions based on the fact that there are so many different opinions and values. It is all subjective.
As Lawrence Lessing mentions in Rip, this new generation is creating it’s own literacy and away of communicating through these new remixes and mash ups thereby recreating the culture that they are from. While this seems like an ideal situation for fostering the ideas of a participatory culture, with issues such as copyright, it could stifle some of the creative ability of these remixers although with the prevalence of remixing/mashi-ups on YouTube and various other public sites, I don’t see how industry could ever stop this from happening.
@Patricia- Great point about ease of access and how that impacts that ways in which we might approach/interpret/understand remixes in the contemporary social-media landscape…
I don’t think that the mash-up is the dominant current aesthetic (is there a dominant current aesthetic? I feel that the web has helped to foster a lot of niche communities//the “death of monoculture” : http://thesmartset.com/article/article08130801.aspx), but that it has become a more popular way of creating artwork in the last decade or so, thanks to the emergence of the web and the increasing access to technology that make the creation of multi-media works possible. I feel that the mash-up aesthetic has become more popular in pop music for sure, which I think has become kind of a worn out genre, so maybe mash-ups dominate there as a means of creating a “new” new.
This aesthetic is wholly dependent on transmedia for its existence – you have to engage with media forms across the spectrum to find material to pull from, whether it’s media in a physical form (books, vinyl, tapes, film, etc) or digital (MP3, MPEG, etc). We also engage with editing tools differently, perhaps integrating both real-world and digital methods for creating artwork.
Is the remix/bash/mash-up the aesthetic of our time?
In what ways do associated practices depend on transmediations?
Remix/bash/mash-up is a recognized aesthetic of our time, I suppose. It’s interesting to me though, that this ‘modern’ aesthetic is considered something new — when in fact, it’s as old as art itself. Everything we do is a form of remix/bash/mash-up — that’s progressive thought and growth. If we accept the addage that there’s nothing new under the sun…then we have to also accept that everything we come up with is merely a reinvention of previous ideas, thoughts, happenings etc. Science is a perfect example — this ‘art’ form of scientific thought is all about hypothesizing, testing and revisiting/reconstructing experiments to get the answer — or find a new path to the same answer. We know it IS, we just need to know WHY and HOW — the process of answering these questions doesn’t create anything new — but rather facilitates some kind of epiphany or comfort about the way things are.
The idea that bash/mash/remix is ‘new’ and is considered a legit ‘aesthetic’ amuses me. In particular, I find it interesting that the prolific nature of this style has been facilitated by the internet and mass communication — the decentralization of power/access to these channels. With this proliferation of a formerly avante gard, alternative and/or subversive creative style — comes the near ubiquity of it. Suddenly, the opportunity for everyone to take everyone’s work and ‘make it their own’ — it becomes uniform, standard and institutionalized — the norm. Previously illegitimate, fringe or unsavory art is now the status quo — and the idea of ‘quality’ or ‘authenticity’ come into question. What IS quality art? By what STANDARD do we measure? What is AUTHENTIC?
Another thought I have about subversion — Ubu Roi by Jean Genet is a perfect example of a subversive piece of playwright lit whereby the author is raging against convention and spitting in the face of the aristocracy and literary standards of his time — where as, this is considered fairly tame today. The use of strange props, the mash-up of names, titles and social status is not surprising.
Associated practices demand the opportunity for transmedia exploration — as creative individuals (I avoid using the term ‘artist’ here because I’m not sure what that WHO that really is in this discussion) seem to be compelled to push boundaries and rage against the singular, simple or ‘normal’. There is a distinct curiosity about how to engage as many kinds of media as possible in the creation of ‘art’. Not unlike a child playing with a new toy at Christmas or a birthday, creative individuals rush toward the newest gadget, software or aesthetic trend — either to use it as-is for their own devices or to use it as something to work against.
@Mindy and @Suzanne- Great points about the looong history of “mash-up” or “remixes” in the realm of creative practice. Being able to critically track the flow of ‘standards’ for aesthetic valuation (socially, culturally, and historically determined) is likely key to our analysis of remixing/mashing-up as a high-profile-yet-normalized practice of the day…
The readings repeatedly made me think of the flow of art in a historical context. Reworking and reinventing itself. So many paintings throughout history refer to one another and engage in a dynamic dialogue about the context of each, spanning time and creating another layer of relevance. These works are in essence remix/bash/mashups. I found myself trying to find a non-mashup. Nothing is made in a vacuum so is anything ever actually original? Influence and inspiration fuel all artistic work. (I know right I just made a blanket statement about art. It’s pretty tricky to get away with wide sweeping statements about art, but I think I can actually stand behind this one.)
I think that the aesthetic of remix and mashup in particular the aesthetic of video and audio mashups are more prevalent because they are SAFE ART. They are more likely to be deemed in the realm of fair use. With the rigid attack on the rights of artists to participate in the historic practice of reworking and referencing artwork of others for the sake of content many artists have chosen to error on the side of safety and be sure to alter the source material in an effort to avoid litigation. Still others find the aesthetic of the digital mashup appealing. Whether it is viewed as appealing or safe the mash up has earned a place in the aesthetic of our time due to it’s viral diaspora.
I don’t necessarily know if the question is about whether this is a valid form of art or not, but more about intention. I come back to this notion of intention a lot.
As many people have pointed out, its easy to grab a few images off of Google and throw them into iMovie with another “ripped” music track and call that a mash up. Its clear that the technology today has made these things easier.
What I think is important to note, is if this form of art is now part of our collective conscious than how do we then ensure that there is a level of editing that goes into these appropriations.
Becker talks about how the editorial process is the act of making choices and decisions of what to put where, and what the reaction will be to that. “What will others feel when I choose to add something somewhere versus another place?” This process is what make the mash-up a valid art form and the editorial/curatorial process important in distinguishing the value of a remix or mash up.
I do think that remix/mash-up has become the aesthetic of our time. With the rise of hip-hop into popular culture, the internet, and the overall transmediation of our culture, the mash-up has become a prolific communication method.
I absolutely feel like the the mash up/remix is the aesthetic of our time. There is so much evidence of this around us. That evidence is listed in the materials to review for this module, the postings to Diigo, a lower division AAD class that I took that focus solely on collage art, and other things around us.
I for one absolutely love mash up/remixes. I love the idea of taking something that was already spectacular or that was maybe awful and changing its meaning. There are also soooo many interesting issues that get brought up as well. Such as copyright laws, ethical dilemmas, and social dilemmas. I’ll give an example of each.
Copyright laws: Girltalk and other mash up music artists use samples of other artist’s work to make new music. I think it’s genius. Girltalk, who is actually a huge science nerd, admits that his particular style of mash up is quite mathematical and experimental. In a short youtube video/documentary on himself he denies having very much or any artistic talent. However, a couple of years ago, he was a HUGE sensation. I mean, he is still really popular but his popularity has probably peaked already. He has made several albums, however, he does not profit from their distribution. He can’t or else he would have a ton of record labels after him about copyright laws…..
Ethical dilemma: …..However Little Wayne also uses frequent samples in his work. In contrast to Girltalk, Little Wayne is making a HUGE profit with his music. Is it because he uses less samples? Is it because he is already so popular and no one wants to fight him? Is it fair that one artist can sample and profit but the other can’t? How do we choose?
Social dilemma: If we don’t allow for collage art and remix art, how will that hinder society as a whole? What does Girltalk add to our culture? What does he add to our capitalist society? Or take away?
Another thing that I love about remix art is how it is used in political messages. Obama’s speeches inspired mash up artists such as Will.I.Am. Also, there is a really interesting Dove mash up ad that has a mash up ad about it. And there are countless Nike mash ups that are so much fun to watch.
I think that mash ups are not only the aesthetic of our time but that they are also thought provoking and move our society forward.
I took a different look at the idea of a mash-up/remix. The prompt reminded me of the new series of Jane Austen books that have been remixed into horror genre novels. The titles are plays on the original titles: Pride and Prejudice and Zombies; Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters; and, Mansfield Park and Mummies. It has also spawned classically themed titles like Dawn of the Dreadfuls and Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.
I assume that the authors/publisher of these books have the permission of the Jane Austen estate and the owner of book rights. But, like we talked about in class, is it ethical to change the content for the sake of sales and a niche literary market?
These books are now being used in Middle and High schools to present classical literature in a way that is interesting to students. Is it worth the introduction if little Billy thinks that Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy fall in love over the slaying of zombies?
Mary Ellen Quinn from Booklist writes: “This may be the most wacky by-product of the busy Jane Austen fan-fiction industry—at least among the spin-offs and pastiches that have made it into print. In what’s described as an “expanded edition” of Pride and Prejudice, 85 percent of the original text has been preserved but fused with “ultraviolent zombie mayhem.” For more than 50 years, we learn, England has been overrun by zombies, prompting people like the Bennets to send their daughters away to China for training in the art of deadly combat, and prompting others, like Lady Catherine de Bourgh, to employ armies of ninjas. Added to the familiar plot turns that bring Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy together is the fact that both are highly skilled killers, gleefully slaying zombies on the way to their happy ending. Is nothing sacred? Well, no, and mash-ups using literary classics that are freely available on the Web may become a whole new genre. What’s next? Wuthering Heights and Werewolves?”
Great example (@Katy), and fine questions about the ‘ethics’ of mixing these narrative strains: ‘classic’ with ‘horror’. Tossing in the education card (ie. grabbing students interest via pop culture in order to get them to engage canonical novels) raises complex issues about ‘value’ and ‘worth’ of the materials used in educational settings…
Remix/mashup the aesthetic of our time?
Regrettably I have to agree with this statement. However I think that this issue is more related to generational matters rather than artistic issues. I believe that every generation is looking for new way of expressions in the most original way never seen before. That is fine and there is nothing wrong with this struggle of future’s owners of the world. However I feel that this denied of past, has enormous consequences in the originality of the art. As new generations start looking for original expression (that could turn in a piece of art) they usually are more interested in works that hit the audience in short time with huge revenue. Since the time is a crucial matter to young artist, I think sometimes they take only what it is close hand and they do art, or at least they pretend so.
Since the media is a gigantic industry that covers million of people, there is a constant necessity of fast art, fast entertainment, and quick delivery. There is no time to wait for artists in this new media environment so everything goes to the barbeque; art, no art, entertainment, news, culture. If there is nothing new, let’s remix/mashup old stories so audience can have fun in this gigantic party. Those artists that need time to bloom their artistry usually sink under the industry of art and give up.
Although remix/mashup is not a new phenomenon, nowadays it is presented as an original way of making entertainment or sort of art. However I think that this phenomenon will last no much since it obeys to new communication technologies that are available to almost everyone. Amateur artists value those remixing because it is the cheapest way to believe that they are artist. So again we have to face the truth: who is artist? Will the media decides who you are? And again: Is your art universal or I better assumed that the media will make my art universal as happens with pop music? It is a very seductive way to try things to create art and remix/mashup is one of them.
Again I think that the interaction of young artist with old school of arts will preserve the sense of aesthetic that will upraise an authentic and original sense of art.