Image via Wikipedia
∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
What is the aesthetic of our time?
In what ways do practices, ideas, narratives, or ideologies associated with this aesthetic depend on transmediations?
∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
Append your comments on this module’s initial questions to this post. Engage critically with the question, especially in the sense that there may not be a singular “aesthetic” at the moment…
NOTE: The post immediately preceding this one duplicates the “Module 3 readings/materials” page, and carries the same password. This is an experiment in delivering readings/resources to students, so any feedback on whether it works better as a post in the stream or a page unto itself would be appreciated!
Is there one aesthetic of our time?
We live in a world with seemingly limitless options for artistic expression, particularly in the United States. There isn’t one “go to” mode for the arts or one medium that is seen as the one true art form. Surely, there are art forms that are pushing boundaries or even breaking barriers in the arts world, but those are not necessarily the aesthetic of our time either.
Take, for example, the mash up. Girl Talk and other forms of appropriation art are flourishing and pushing boundaries because of the new technology tools available and the plethora of material available to artists through the internet. But, appropriation art isn’t new. Mashups aren’t new. William Burrows was making cut ups and talking about the finding of new meaning through the use of existing materials in the 1950’s and 60’s. Jay-Z ,Vanilla Ice and many other musicians directly sample other music and create something new out of it.
And, those are just examples of times when another artists’ material is directly used to create something new. As the Becker reading (“Editing”) points out, however, there are many other types of influence on the creative process. Aren’t all artists responding to what’s happening around them, as well as building on what’s been done before? If the creative process is collaborative and all art work is made by (accomplished through) a diverse network (the “Art World”), then isn’t all artwork a mash up?
So, what is the aesthetic of our time?
Perhaps it’s not one particular art form, but rather how we view the arts in our society. In the 1950s and 60s, for example, there was a strong/renewed interest in arts participation and the arts as a means of creating national identity/culture/cohesiveness. In the early 2000s, I would suppose that with national legislation like No Child Left Behind and a struggling economy, the arts aesthetic for that decade would be as “catalyst” (the arts as a means for higher test scores and strong economic development).
Thinking about aesthetic in this way, perhaps we can get away from trying to define art in the always problematic “new vs. old” dichotomy.
The aesthetic of our time is when where we say what we need to say in 140 characters or less.
It’s one where the consumer has become the creator and digital formats are the predominant medium for creativity.
It’s one where, as Lawrence Lessig said, anyone with a $1500 computer can use sounds and images to comment on politics and culture around them in a way that is meaningful to their audience.
It’s the era of YouTube and the This is Sparta Meme (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/this-is-sparta-300) and one where nearly 60% of teenagers have created digital content and posted it on the internet.
It’s an aesthetic where it doesn’t always matter what you’re posting but how many hits or followers or fans you have viewing that content.
The aesthetic of our time is heavily influenced and reliant upon digital media, and the current copyright laws are stifling that creativity, making it more and more difficult for artists to do what they do.
We’re allowed to use ideas from books and reinterpret them as our own, provided we reference them and are not trying to make a profit from work that isn’t our own, but the same rules don’t apply to digital media like music or movies. It was a common theme in many of the readings and video clips, but the comparison makes sense. The fact that fan/artists like Stacia Yeapanis (from the Henry Jenkins blog) have to fear a legal backlash for work she produces (and is not selling) which contains digital content that she has not created but has reinterpreted is a testament to how tightly controlled digital media is in our country.
As humans, as artists, we cannot help but be influenced and affected by the information that surrounds us. Painters, playwrights, and poets have been influenced by and reinterpret their surroundings through their work for centuries. It’s what artists do. So to have such rigid constraints on the most influential genres of our time can’t help but hinder the natural artistic process that serves as a means to comment and reflect upon our state.
As Lessig proposes, it’s not about eliminating copyrights all together. Copyrights are essential to protect the rights of the creators of the original work. However, it is inevitable that the strict limitations on how one uses music and video in his/her art will have to be flexed and made comparable to copyrights on text. The aesthetic of our time is reliant upon this shift, and the artists who are forcing this issue will be reshaping the future of art as they do so.
The art world of sampling and remixes is a system in which artists create a piece of music and then other artists come along, make changes, and create another piece of art. The documentary “Good Copy Bad Copy” explored various artists who create new music by sampling work of mainstream musicians. These artists are dependent on musicians because their art, remixes and mash-ups, would not exist without the music of mainstream musicians.
I feel that the driving force behind the phenomenon of remixed/sampled music is the love people have for familiarity alongside a hunger for novelty. People like music mash-ups because they hear familiar notes or lyrics in them, and people like things they already know. However, people also eventually tire of the same old thing, and so they seek out new stimuli. Hearing a familiar song changed in some way satisfies the seemingly conflicting desires for sameness and newness. In much the same way, Autotune the News clips appeal to people because it’s fun to hear familiar politicians and newscasters “sing” instead of hearing the usual news stories.
Autotune the News is a great example of this familiar/novel aesthetic being dependent on transmediations. In order to fully understand Autotune the News, the viewer has to be familiar with many different areas that are referenced. The videos are funny even if you don’t understand the material, but it’s funnier if you are familiar with the news stories, (if you’re a reader or watcher of traditional news), if you know who T-Pain is (if you listen to hip-hop), and if you know the politicians who are being autotuned (you’re a follower of politics). In order to be “fluent” in Autotune the News, a person would ideally be someone who is familiar with all of these things, which are presented in their original form through TV and radio. Therefore, TV, radio, the internet (and possibly newspapers) all need to be accessed to fully understand Autotune the News, making Autotune the News a transmedia story.
(I’m a big fan of Autotune the News, but none of them get stuck in my head the way the bed intruder song does! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMtZfW2z9dw)
Our time is all about mashups.
All of the materials I read through for this module showed me an individual (or group) reacting to the amount and variety of media he or she encounters every day and transforming it into something personally relevant. The individuals in these examples then go a step further and share their result by connecting it back to the community from which the original information came. Factors of access aside, technology provides anyone access to the information and resources to be a creator and contributor, and this individual, creative process has become, in many ways, more important than the product itself (RIP video).
Every part of creating mashups, is dependent upon access to and permission to use all different kinds of media. Unfortunately, then, the copyright issue is inescapable, at least in the United States. So many other factors in society are encouraging this developing trend of individual creation (Girl Talk makes the point that we are all so bombarded by different media every day that OF COURSE we’re going to make something out of them), but the music and motion picture industries in particular seem stuck in the old methods. Other industries have been forced to change with consumer trends and innovate (newspapers, book publishers, even the postal service), but in this case the refusal to change hurts consumers more than it hurts the industry.
On the issue of copyright law (as with many things these days, it feels) there seem to be very few moderates. The music industry, for example, seems evil to those on the other side of the spectrum because it has been unwilling to compromise and instead goes legally after its biggest fans (the ones downloading the music) (Good Copy Bad Copy). People on both sides are very angry; is this the kind of polarization to which the Gregory Brothers are reacting with their angry gorilla?
I do definitely think that the ones most staunchly pursuing copyright infringement could benefit from more open access to information. For example, I know that downloading music (whether legally or illegally) has encouraged me to explore artists I wouldn’t have otherwise known about and for which I certainly wouldn’t have put down money to buy an album. Having open access to media makes me a much more educated AND willing consumer.
Mash Ups? As the aesthetic of our time? Hmm… I don’t know about that. I agree with Becca that they’ve been happening for a while. And I bet I could come up with some classical music examples given a bit more time…..
On a wonderfully Kirstin cynical :) against technology note:
I found Becker’s concept of the ‘killing’ art quite relevant. I am certain that the different ways art can die, like being executed or being forgotten, are important themes for the arts manager to keep in mind when decision making. I think this relates to trans-media in a way that is unique to prior epochs in history. Because of the constant evolving nature that embodies new media art, the problems surrounding the curation of these artworks becomes more precarious. Rightly stated, a piece of art dies when forgotten, but can this idea be accurate when in terms of digitalizing new media? Where does it all go in cyberspace? Is it dead until someone finds it?
In addressing what the aesthetic of our time is, I find the very nature of the question to embody this aesthetic. Our aesthetic is that of the New, the Innovated, the Progressed. In order to find the New, we believe we have to systematically categorize the Old. But because of our blind faith in technology, this process is being simplified without concern for the context of our own ideas that are represented by such strivings towards innovation. What is left, in my opinion, is an oversimplified mess that does no more to define an aesthetic as it does to positively contribute to the understanding of this ideology. I find our aesthetic to be dangerous. Our ideas of ‘shared aesthetic’ will be easily killed, like Becker’s idea suggests, because we are too concerned with moving forward at all costs. In our perilous journey in flying high to bathe in the New Innovated Progressed light, we very well might find our wings melting.
The Aesthetic of our time is all about technology.
Art used to be displayed through traditional mediums, canvas, cinema, sculpture…etc. Over the past few decades this notion has changed. Art is very alive on the internet through websites such as You Tube, Facebook, blogs, and Twitter.
As the Video Rip A Remix Manifesto showed, Girl Talk creates mash ups of other people’s songs and combines them. This brings up the issue of copyright laws. Is he using other people’s artistic abilities as his own or is the finished product his own original artwork? According to Becker in Editing, “Every participant in the cooperative network that creates the work- has some such effect on it”. He also points out that, “It is not unreasonable to say that it is the art world, rather than the individual artist, which makes the work”.
To me this means that every person in an art world contributes to that artwork. For youtube videos is the creator of art the singer, the musicians, the choreographer, the back up dancers, the director, the make up artist, the costume designer, or the editors? In Kutiman’s You Tube channel, was the purpose to show her artwork or showing other people’s artwork and potential? As technology advances and traditional art categories combine together this question becomes more and more difficult.
The transmedia world with the Internet gives more art a platform to be seen. When an artwork is transmedia it is harder for the works of art to die. Art is now preserved electronically and will be easier to access in the future. Art forms are being more nontraditional and so are the methods in which we display this nontraditional art.
What is the aesthetic of our time?
In what ways do practices, ideas, narratives, or ideologies associated with this aesthetic depend on transmediations?
Brainstorming:
The new cultural economic order is a catalyst of aesthetic models as other economic, socio and cultural orders had been in the past. The difference is in the contemporary technological apparatus that changed the order of the whole world as a revolution. We are in the middle of it and still figuring out what does that mean. It is exciting.
Everyone is trying to gather their share, trying to make the most of what they can get and make sense of that by sharing and building knowledge together. Economists are thinking about the global market while the market has been made by everybody. It is a running through and across everywhere in everytime. It is really a time to connect and understand what is going one because it is also a time of “searching for definitions”. In other words, we need to understand what is going on in order to understand where we are and where we want to be. If we are aware we will be able to participate critically and build the future in connection with the current happenings to build a better future.
Transmediations are overwhelming and scary but in the new era it represents the iceberg’s tiny visible part. The whole iceberg is even bigger. If we do not figure it out we will continue to run toward it to crash on and in the mainstream we will be led by the powerful forces that usually detains the communication media as it has been throughout historic times.
The new aesthetic represents time as money, rapid demand for “innovations”, post modernism, tribalisms and other isms in a constant connection between connections and disconnection. A vivid unsolved conflict as a quimera.
Art is an interesting way to have some glimpses of what this ice berg is. Through understanding the mash up culture through the aesthetic lenses of artists who have been using transmedia tools to recreate works, languages and definitions about the world. In her words Stacia synthesizes her work of art and the aesthetics of her time: “Using the recurring strategies of appropriation, accumulation, collection, and juxtaposition, I explore the existential significance of entertainment practices and hobbies, from television watching to collecting, from crafting to gaming.”
The Remix manifesto draws their advocacy in favor of art and freedom of expression against the anxiety of corporations to respond back to new scenery that they no longer have power to control. It demonstrates that the “Cultural war” is not over and it only assumed different clothing in an information technology era. It represents a battle between cultures and at the same time generations.
References: http://www.staciayeapanis.com/statement.html
I find that the aesthetics of today are ‘moving’. A production of art can now be born from and exist in several forms, from its composition to comprehension, it steers away from being static. New experimentations, advancements, and technologies shift contemporary aesthetics towards ‘every man’s art’, an idea that anyone and everyone have the means to contribute to the aesthetics that mark our present time. New media has opened vast pathways that shape today’s aesthetic production and dissemination, and people are increasingly looking towards digital devices and communities as a way of accessing these information, ideas, and narratives.
Transmediation in the age of multiple 21st century literacies is inevitable. The slicing and dicing of the plethora of information available in our culture, to produce a new spin or meaning from an existing idea is what propels contemporary practices and narratives forward. In order to continue the 21st century practices of dynamic collaboration, information sharing, presentation, and interpretation- aesthetic production will depend on transmediation. And yet the legal issues that provide the backdrop to such practices, ideas, narratives, and ideologies-such as what is or is not fair use-remains disputable between all parties involved in the process.
I think that access, distribution and remixing create the aesthetic of our time. I realize that these themes are not unique to current trends, but I find them repetitive and dominate in modern arts and culture. New media tools have given a paint brush to a variety of individuals, creating a large pool of citizen (amateur perhaps) artists. Putting together a video ten years ago might have taken mastery of complex technology and access to expensive instruments. As technology become easier to manipulate for the average person, it has created a platform for easy art creation and easy distribution of that art. I would venture to say that because if the social networks and sharing platforms that exist today, that creation is flourishing. An individual, who used to scribble poems and thoughts in a journal, now has the ability to share their work with a larger community. Artist (professional or amateur) have always been creating but now that sharing their work is a goal that is easier to accomplish it encourages more people to want to make their own pieces.
I think that this brings to mind the balance of quantity and quality. Maybe a gopher turning its head gets millions of hits on youtube but is it really art? Is how many people see your work becoming more important than the quality of what is being produced. The idea of remixing is really intriguing to me. Many online video creations are a collection of other pieces of work or perhaps a recreation (mostly in a mocking or comedic purpose) of old material. Individuals might be creating more, but is it only through using other peoples work? Do I think a video of a girl sing a Christmas song needs to removed do to copyright infringements? No. But it kicks off an interesting debate. It seems that as a creative nation (at least in the commercial realm) we have lost some of our creativity. Movies always seem to have a sequel, or come from a book or comic book. There is a trend on Broadway to produce brand new musicals based on blockbuster movies. Have we lost of creative edge, or are we just playing it safe, giving people what we know they already like? Have we become afraid to break the conventions? Or is this the artworld in action? Becker theorizes that it is the “art world, rather than the individual artist which makes the work.” If an artist creates a painting, and uses a previous conversation as inspiration is it any different then somebody sampling a piece of a song, or clip from a film in the creation of a new piece? Our tools for creating art have changed, but our framework for understanding art making hasn’t caught up.
Defining the aesthetics of our time is difficult to do in the moment. Often it is in retrospect that periods of time can be most fully understood but I think that the most important part of trying to define a current aesthetic is keeping the definition plural and flexible. Anytime a label is placed on a time period, it must be understood as only loose parameters that only some aspects of culture fit into because culture does not evolve with neat and tidy start and end dates. I think its essential to firstly agree that defining art and culture in any way is going to be a messy and cluttered attempt that will ultimately only be a partial definition. With that in mind, certainly one slice of current culture and one contemporary aesthetic is remix and mash-up culture as it relates to music and film. With the advancements in technology, access to power is more readily available to a broader population than ever before. As Brett Gaylor speaks about in his documentary, Rip: A Remix Manifesto, the large majority of the population, which was previously restricted to consumer status, can now become producers themselves. This technology and social media encourages a conversation with the arts and culture, not just the consumption of it. With that, of course, comes issues of copyright and ownership and where those lines should or can be drawn. I think what’s more significant than the outcomes of those court cases or even the actual art that is being created as a result of remixing is the fact that we need to have these conversations about intellectual property and ownership.
For me then, the aesthetics of our time, are less about a particular style and more about the means of creation. In a transmedia world, we can gather inspiration from a seemingly bottomless pool of sources, television and film, music and performances, and the visual arts. We can read about events from around the world, look at exhibits on the other side of the country, and listen to an endless library of talks and speeches. The absorption of all this feeds into inspiration for creation. So as Becker states, “it is the art world, rather than the individual artist, which makes the work” (194). I don’t particularly think that that notion is unique to our modern times, people have always stolen inspiration from one another and our surroundings and built upon the past. But I do think that with the disbursement of power provided by new technologies and social media, we are making that stolen property more obvious. Perhaps to sum it up, I think that one part of the aesthetics of our time is the creation of art through the blatant synthesis of our varied and endless sources of inspiration and using them as the raw material for art.
I’d say the aesthetic of our time is the anti-aesthetic. Meaning that in a world where tools to choose and promote art forms are more readily accessible through transmediations, the act of aestheticizing has been democratized to the extent where we have micro art worlds emerging on a trans-global scale. Anti-aesthetic would be a resistance to mainstream curation by taking curation into one’s own hands. Many of the artists we’ve explored in module 3 have done this. The “mash-up” is an act of curation. Artists choose not only songs but also specific elements within those songs to re-appropriate into a new expression. This is not unlike traditional art curation in a museum, where the curator chooses art works to include in an exhibition. The exhibition is new work with it’s own theme or thesis. We do the same thing when we write essays, borrowing and building upon the ideas of others, The accessibility of media in a digital format has made it much easier for individuals to curate their own aesthetics and then broadcast them globally through means such as Youtube, Blogs, Twitter etc. Regardless of how the public receives this work (which is usually positively), copyright issues limit their legal legitimacy. Often. The financial threat of a lawsuit is enough to prevent creation from happening or limits the works ability to be experienced through distribution.
I loved the idea in GOOD COPY BAD COPY about reforming copyright law in the music industry to mimic the rules that apply in using texts. The current state of copyright law is limiting the creativity it was created to protect. Free file sharing is not unlike a library in concept. No one would argue that libraries are not valuable cultural assets that enrich citizens or that allowing equal access to information and the arts is a bad thing. It is a bad thing if artists are not being credited or compensated fairly for the work that they do. That’s why a new structure is direly needed for file sharing –one that allows access to media while providing a sustainable income for artists. A few suggestions were provided by interviewers in GOOD COPY BAD COPY, charging a percentage from service providers was one example.
Another aspect of the anti-aesthetic I described is the idea of creating something altogether new that defies any pre-existing aesthetic. As Fletcher says “artists, to be successful in producing art must violate standards more or less deeply internalized.”(p.204) This in itself summarizes the idea of art pushing boundaries that is a value unique to our more recent generations. Starting with the “isms” in the early 20th century, artists and art historians have been looking to create the next big movement—to defy convention. In the post-modern world this notion is still prevalent but on a new scale. With endless amounts of information at our fingertips it’s difficult to focus one’s attention. If we’ve seen something before we’re going to flip to the next channel. In order for anyone to care or notice there needs to be an element of surprise.
The aesthetic of our time? I have read many responses that mention “mash ups” and technology, but I don’t think any of these are new, or specifically of “our time.” Across the centuries artists copied from the masters, and created their own music, art and literature based on what was created around them. We do not live in a vacuum, and even the most innovative ideas are based on previous knowledge and experiences.
Technology is also not “new.” Progress has occurred in human history throughout the centuries. Architecture, farming, transportation, the mingling of new cultures and languages all add to new technologies and influence arts, music, literature, etc. All these new technologies find their way into artwork as a way to express an artists thoughts, just as teens (and of course other artists) today use mix up and appropriate media to express their own ideas in blogs, videos, collage, graffiti, ext. Picasso took African aesthetic concepts and re appropriated them into his work creating cubism. He used other works within his paintings, and yet his paintings are considered his creation – not illegal appropriation of another artist. Is this the right way to look at the situation? Was it ok then and not now? How is this decided, and who gets to decide? Is media and music more important to protect than visual arts and literature? These questions are paramount when considering rights of artists, corporations, consumers, and the public.
As human history continues, and archives of more and more media and materials become available (instead of just through monasteries, libraries or private collections of the affluent as in the past) these artistic resources can be used in a variety of ways by many more people. The idea of “what is art?” is changing in our society today (perhaps this is our aesthetic?), and I feel that many more people are being allowed to participate and engage within the Arts sector. How art is being interpreted and created is not new, but copy write is. And I believe that how this new form of protection is dealt with within the coming years will be crucial in how US/world relations, Corporate/consumer relations, and non art sector/art sector relations will be determined.
The aesthetic of our time is the result of dynamic processes to analyze, classify, assess and make art. Becker (1982) says, “Malraux, Eliot and other critics have noted that the appearance of a new art work changes the character of those that preceded it”. The emergence of a new art work takes place if it has accomplished parameters that other artists and aesthetics’ institutions have established to consider what is an art work and what is not. Here is where transmediations get involved. Most of the mechanisms that artists use to evaluate their work are given by transmediations. Books, magazines, internet (as a vehicle to publish academic artistic researches), socials networking, give opportunities to artists to evaluate their jobs, see what other artists are doing in the same field, know what critics are thinking about the tendencies artists are developing and also, let the artists to publish their works.
I consider that the artistic editing process has been taking place due to transmediations. Transmediations open new perspectives of evaluation, because it permits to build vital connections between art worlds, their makers and their “judges”. Without transmediations, Art would be submitted into alienation, having the last place of importance in the society. This is why artists should be aware about the importance that transmediations have for their future as successful cultural workers.
However, there are some aspects that make me think deeply about the link between art, transmediations and assessments. Taking into account the role of an artist and the importance that feelings have at the moment of making art, to what extent can the artists freely express their emotions? To what extent artists’ works stop being the expression of their thoughts and became an object of external preferences? These are questions that I want to clarify with all of you!! But what I can conclude in broad terms is that there should be boundaries to not violate the real artist´s work. The editing process, aesthetic and critics should have vehicle to spread art but not to oppress it and here is when transmediations also have an important space to transmit free artistic knowledge to the society.
In the mass media time, the aesthetic of our time was depending on what media said. TV, newspaper and radio shaped the public aesthetic standards. TV shows put on somebody on screen and says she is beauty, so we think she is beauty. Newspaper says the picture is bad because the composition is wierd. So we think it is wierd. During the long period of time, people’s aesthetic was controlled by the mass media. So here raises another question, who controlled the media? If our aesthetics are affected by the media, is that means we are also constrained by the people who own the media? According to Who Owns the Media? (Simeon D, June 2001) “Almost universally the largest media firms are owned by the government or by private families.” In other word, the media are controlled by the powerful people both in the politics and economy area. So that, in the old mass media period, the aesthetic of our time was ruled by the dominator.
However, things are goanna change. The aesthetic of our time now is depending on what we say!! I agree with Susan that “New media has opened vast pathways that shape today’s aesthetic production and dissemination.” We post our own opinion on the internet and get feedback from other people. We reach a consensus of aesthetic what is good or what is bad by ourselves, without the control by the government or other large companies.
The rulers are losing their control to the public’s aesthetic by the old method, that’s why they raise the copyright issues. In my point of view, copyright is not only protect the profit of the certain people, it kind like a dominate tools. Just like Henry Jenkins said “(copyright) it now often inhibits rather than promotes the circulation of ideas, leaving thousands of old movies, records and books languishing behind a legal barrier.”
Becker said “when a government tries to kill a kind of art it stimulates further interest and multiplies…”That’s why mash-up are so popular today. People like Girl Talk are not just for fun, they are trying to find a way to get through the barrier set by the governor. They want to show their own aesthetic about the world!
This is a link about a famous video A Murder Case Caused by a Bun in China. The artist Ge Hu parodies a Chinese legal talk show and the film The Promise, satirizes Chinese cinema. Hu was sued by the director finally, but he said he just made it as homework to learn how to create the video. Sorry I didn’t find the English version. But it is really a good example to describe an individual struggled below the government copyright control.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIU4udZRKEY
by looking at this website you can also find out the background about that vedio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hu_Ge_(director)
See my blog for this post with links and pictures: http://aaablogs.uoregon.edu/jeanelle/2010/11/01/the-aesthetic-of-our-time/
——
Although it’s tempting to say “technology” or “new media” (on a side note, “new media” is one of my least favorite phrases, up there with “sustainable” and “tool-kit”) is the aesthetic that characterizes our time, I’ll have to jump in with a lot of the posts before mine and say that’s not quite enough. There are several moving parts to this exercise, but first we’ll need some definitions…
‘Aesthetic’: The first time I read this word anywhere was on the cover of an outdated and discounted art history text. At the time, I was obsessed with the Beatles and I made it a point to look in the index of every book I came across to see if the Beatles had made it in as some kind of reference (you’d be surprised where you’ll find references to the Beatles, they’re pretty much everywhere). Being naiive and with no one around to correct me, I started pronouncing the word sounding every letter out: “Ay-es-thee-tik”. It wasn’t until I was much older that I began to understand (and properly pronounce) the philosophy of beauty and feeling. That it is what characterizes taste, but also what humans feel captures the essence of what to be, what to strive for. Beauty and perfection, the unattainable goals defined by their unattainability.
Lovely. Aesthetics can characterize those styles and concepts that we hungrily collect around ourselves to surround ourselves with what we deeply wish to be.
‘Our Time’: “who’s time?” and “who’s time is it not?” Does this mean my time? Is my time the same as the baby-boomers’ time, is it the same as the time of the Yirrkala (Aboriginal Australians) in Arnhem Land? I realize this is an issue of terms, but if we’re looking to understand what the philosophies of beauty and perfection are of a people, these distinctions, if they need to be made at all, are important. In an episode from WNYC’s RadioLab, Jad Abumrad and Robert Krulwich discuss the concept of time and thinking beyond the traditional Western-European/American concept of linear time. They introduce a conceptual artist, David McDermott, whose voice sounds to me a lot like David Sedaris’. McDermot refuses to live in the modern world, rejects it whole-heartedly for a sense of the past he has built around him through material collections and daily practices that I don’t mind saying sound utterly absurd. This artist refuses to use the Internet, rejects light bulbs, and even avoids using the ATM. Does the ‘Our Time’ include this guy? He is a “contemporary artist” (although I have the feeling he would really reject the title), living in this generation and experiencing the world (in his own unique way) at the same time as us lot.
Our time, as humans, in Carl Sagan’s cosmic calendar began 5 minutes before midnight on December 31. Our time, as citizens of the universe, began as Brahma opened his eyes, and it will be destroyed as he closes them.
The aesthetic of our time, broadly, is synchronicity. We like things to come together and have meaning when they do. In Our Time, people are invested in making things make sense, and without the compartmentalization of previous generations. Instead, we pursue sync and harmony between all elements; we pray that they can come together and make something worth living. This includes the Euro-American obsession with social networking, mobile media, mass media, “new media”, etc. It also includes the indigenous struggle for identity in Post-Colonial regions. It is balance David McDermott seeks in his work to restore the past in the present, to create a balance where the universe has slid away from a period of time he treasures. Synchronicity is why when I was 12, I fanatically searched for references to the Beatles in random books. Why I looked for echoes of their innovations in later music, and why I used to fall asleep with headphones on blasting through the White Album and Abbey Road on repeat hoping I could get the Beatles into my dreams. A neurotic, weird little girl, I was searching for the Grecian thread that bound all the most significant and insignificant experiences of my life together, to give it meaning and purpose. While many in our generation have rejected organized religion and the idea of a central God, we have not abandoned the search for mysticism and design in the happenstance occurrences of our everyday… in our time.
When I think of aesthetic, I think of something involving our purest form of sensation. Thus, it is challenging for me to pin point the aesthetic of our time; but this I believe: it is constantly evolving, it is progressive, it is dynamic; perhaps it sometimes is redefining another time, and yes, mash ups, remixes and technology are a part of our time. Yet, there remains so much more.
As many have mentioned, mash ups have been around for quite a long while now. Mash ups prove to be a fine example that demonstrates how technology can both manipulate and reinvent a musical score. Technology and transmedia has been able to do this beyond the mash up, however, as it has been used to manipulate and reinvent more than music, but also plays, visual art, dance pieces, and more.
When it comes to art worlds, I like to think of the many various art forms as, well…simply put: timeless. Becker highlights upon the concept of artists creating work “at least in part by anticipating how other people will respond emotionally and cognitively to what they do. That gives them means with which to shape it further, by catering to already existing dispositions in the audience, or by trying to train the audience to something new” ( Becker 200). The reaction to these pieces then also comprises this art world and can further define a work. Becker went on to discuss suppressed work of artists that is discovered after the artists dies. The piece in that time is defined almost entirely by the audience viewing it, perhaps placing a very different meaning than the artist intend in their time.
Furthermore, a feeling provoked by a performance can stay with a person forever, allowing that work to live on beyond expectations. Becker also mentions though the artists make important choices, others can affect the work as well. And this affect can go beyond the artists lifetime, and later be manipulated, reinvented, or redefined (quite possibly through new technologies and transmedia). The aesthetic of time then becomes one of infinite measures, not only due to technology and new transmedia , but also due to the human abilities to maintain the essence of a work of art and allow it to live on.
When I think of the aesthetic of our time, I think of the mix tape. While not a new idea, the mix tape is an effective means for conveying personal feelings and creative expression by combining music that already exists. Music sampling, as carried out by Girl Talk, is an extreme version of this idea, but probably all of us have created a playlist for a variety of reasons, be it when we want to comfort ourselves, express joy, or elicit a particular emotion or response in others.
Both Becker and Lessig discuss how “culture always builds on the past.” (A Remixer’s Manifesto) Through the editing process, the audience can better conceptualize a common aesthetic. When this happens, artists are able to produce works that fit within that aesthetic as it becomes conventionalized. “From a multitude of similar experiences he learns what the standard means, how to use it as others do.” (Becker p.200) What makes Girl Talk (and other groups that use samples and remixing) successful is they still have the ability to create a unique art work out of material which was already available – although in terms of copyright law, in many cases, perhaps it was not truly available.
Transmedia is an important element of this aesthetic. In terms of the mix tape metaphor, technology makes it easier to compile and share information, both through legal means and otherwise. The internet can widen access to a particular art work, create a conversation about that work and how it fits into our general aesthetic, and can even resurrect interest in art forms that have been neglected for some time.
On the other hand, is it even possible to quantify the aesthetic of our time when we are becoming more individualized? The editing process of art works today seem to be more involved with personal aesthetics, given that technology allows for more voices to be transmitted and heard all over the world. If this is the case, is the aesthetic of our time more fragmented than is has been in the past, or has this situation always existed, but has been made more visible by the internet and other recent advances?
When I consider “the aesthetic of our time”, I picture layers, collaged bodies of images and meanings that are always already moving, becoming, and transforming, perpetually re-appropriated, re-fashioned, recycled, and reused (DIY! Sustainability!) to create anew, and to draw our attention to the infinite meanings of all things.
Stacia Yeapanis discusses this brilliantly, as posted on Henry Jenkins’ blog Confessions of an Aca-Fan (March 11, 2009), in her response to YouTube’s request that she take down her video comprised of appropriated scenes from her takes on feminism and the fight against cultural patriarchy via fandom and postmodern theory in practice.
Becker’s (Ch. 7) early discussions of how audiences shape meaning of art works, and how artists and works don’t exist in vacuums or insulated bubbles, provides a framework for understanding how all art works are part of larger art worlds which are part of larger worlds still.
My very first blog post for this course discussed the work of the Yes Men (www.theyesmen.org), an anti-capitalist, culture jamming collective (I’m surprised the Billboard Liberation Front doesn’t list them as a partner) that works to reveal the corruption of world governments, corporations, and other representatives of the free market economy and the ways in which it systematically exercises oppression.
To me, the Yes Men’s projects and interventions embody the ways in which art today–or the art of any day as it is appropriated today–moves fluidly among sectors of power, culture, and creativity, revealing these worlds to be intimately connected and interwoven in a way that opens up the political and social ramifications of our choices and the decisions of those in power, and the ways in which we experience, consume, participate in, and make sense of those bodies of power surrounding us (copyright law, YouTube, and Fox News are just a few of the bodies that disenfranchise individuals and block participation and access via sanctioned, accepted power, as explored in several of the assigned media for Module 3–Good Copy, Bad Copy, Jenkins’ blog). The Yes Men’s work epitomizes an aesthetics of layered meanings–visually, aurally, performatively, and beyond. The ephemeral nature of their projects, which continue to exist beyond the time and space of the initial or primary performances and videos, only adds to the ways in which their work can die and be reborn through transmediated conversation and communication.
The Yes Men are only one example of this type of anti-institutional, anti-patriarchal, anti-Art art (Melissa mentions an aesthetic of anti-aesthetic in her post, which I think is right on) that transcends definition and fixed meaning. Also in Ch. 7 of Art Worlds, Becker discusses the death of art works and the politicized scenarios, causes, and effects of such deaths.
Death is an intriguing lens through which to view the aesthetic of our day in terms of postmodernism, infinite readings of texts, layers, collages, and transmedia as a whole (can transmedia be whole?); we might think about the contributions to art works and art worlds as constantly dying and being reborn through appropriation, via fandom or otherwise; or perhaps this could be seen as permanence (death) enveloped in, or saved or resuscitated by, ephemerality, transience, and becoming.
Claude Cahun (http://quarterlyconversation.com/claude-cahun-disavowals) is one of my very favorite artists. A surrealist who, like many women, was denied official membership in the Surrealist artist group because of her gender, Cahun was one of the first artists to use a merging of photography and collage. She created collage- and photo-based auto-portraits (the French term for self-portrait) that explored how one’s identity is ever-shifting, never static, and deeply layered, stacked high with meaning mediated through images preserved in our memories, but which, like all memories, are constantly altered over time. Cahun’s work was discovered much later on, and has only relatively recently been discussed in critical, academic, cultural, and art historical circles. Cahun died on the English island of Jersey, off the coast of Germany, where she had lived reclusively with her female partner after having been imprisoned and threatened with execution for her involvement in Resistance activities during World War II. Somewhat appropriately, Cahun’s images have experienced a posthumous rebirth, in a time when art worlds began to more openly discuss art, texts, bodies, and identities (art worlds) as constantly shifting.
So, the aesthetic of our time is illustrated for me by the work of both an early-20th century 2-D photo-collage artist and a currently active conceptual collective. This is telling.
I agree with the many others that there is no singular aesthetic of our time. It is multidimensional, dynamic, and constantly changing. As always, it includes the technological tools used to create, but is not limited to the modes of art making. Art and culture is currently made up of so many varying and contrasting forms, aesthetics, practices, values, practices, and art worlds that to think that there is just one dominating premis used to justify/classify good art vs. bad art, or what an audience is willing to support emotionally or financially is nonsensical.
Although I don’t believe that media arts, mash-ups, and remixes exemplify the aesthetic of our time, developments in technology, characterized by increased modes of access, dissemination, and transmdeia have undoubtedly shaped the contemporary art and culture world. Society as producers of culture in itself and for itself is ever increasing. Appropriated art forms, although not a new concept, are growing as more people gain access to information and Transmedia tools. As ideas, images, and symbols are being shared through the internet across nations and cultures, new Art Worlds are forming internationally. Modes for self-expression and creating are limitless, with the exception of outdated copyright law and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s control over what work is able to be shared.
In Good Copy, Bad Copy, Dr. Lawrence Ferrera poses the question, ‘ Who really owns what? What is the purpose of copyright?’ Regarding copyright law, Lawrence Lessig, copyright expert and advocate, and founder of Creative Commons states, ‘The aim is therefore not to find a world without constraint; it is to remove constraints that might otherwise inhibit innovation.’ Copy right was designed to protect artist rights, but in a time that it inhibits creativity, it must be balanced with a structured legal concept of fair use. In Arts, Inc., Bill Ivey quotes a New York Times reporter, ‘Our surrounding are so thoroughly saturated with images and logos, both still and moving, that forbidding artists to use them in their work is like barring 19th century landscape painters from depicting trees on their canvases.’
I agree with some of the other opinions from the class that we don’t have a specific aesthetic of our time. Our world is starting to fully embrace transmediations to create a variety of art forms that reach out to many interests. Rebecca’s statement says that “There is not one “go to” mode for the arts…” and “We live in a world with seemingly limitless options for artistic expression.” Even with new ways for expressing creativity, many things are hampering artistic works such as copyright laws.
The documentary “Good Copy, Bad Copy” provides many examples of the hindrance of copyright laws, and how some people get around these. I agree with the documentary wherein one interviewee gave an example for the copyrighters to “change with the times” and charge a certain money amount a month for music downloads….ie follow the footsteps of Netflix. This would be a great idea in my opinion, because then people wouldn’t have to worry about uploading viruses with a pirated song. The populace could also support the artist and companies more through their monthly payments instead of illegal downloads. I am obviously not qualified to suggest that this would solve all pirating problems, because of course there are always going to be music and movie pirating in the world.
I also do not agree with all the trouble that people get into when trying to get/make music. It is not always the case that musicians and artists are trying to “steal” other works. They are just using the works that inspire them in a new light. Such as in the documentary when the Brazilian remix of an American song gets back to America and Girl Talk transforms it again, this is simply a process of passing along and re-interpreting art. It is another way for artistic growth. These people are not spoiling/stealing the original song in any way, they are just thinking creatively through the eyes of today’s (or their countries) aesthetics and ideals. What is wrong with this?
Artistic works, aesthetics, and inspirations change with time. I believe that there isn’t one certain aesthetic for our time, but a combination of sources from past works, media, galleries, politics, etc. These create a multitude of medias for art to expand and grow. If our creativity outlets are changing with times, why can’t the laws change too in order to allow more freedom instead of criminal action?
After watching most of the two video clips and reading the Becker article, I began to realize that much of what is being done in the world of art is beginning to look unlike a finished product but instead an intermediary step to the development of another person’s end goal. To some, the ability to recognize one piece of art used in another is exciting and can draw them into the art form. To others, this is a problem.
The video Rip, spends time discussing copyright issues with mashups and video montages. At one point, it is said that the use of even one note from another person’s recording is a copyright infringement. To me, copyright infringement is the aesthetic of our time. It is common place for today’s creative person to imitate, borrow, and in legal terms steal.
There is a ton of great work already created. Current artists can struggle to create something completely new, give in to the realization that new creations are influenced by previous art works, or embrace the pre-created art and morph it into a new, revitalized art work. If the rest of the world would welcome these “new” creations with enthusiasm, it might be discovered that the originals will find a new life also.
In an area where this re-use of old material is considered acceptable and often desired, home improvement and decoration often looks to old designs to create new styles. From wood being reclaimed from old tables to the repurposing of old kitchen appliances, what somebody else created is being used for another purpose and in one sense, breathing new life into what was old. This is the aesthetic of our time.
The aesthetic of our time is interactive making. As new generations of users find their way online and learn to collaborate with each other via YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and other mainstream delivery channels (many of which are still in development), users will continue to serve both as consumer and producer. In “Rip! A Remix Manifesto”, Brett Gaylor states that “Consumers are now the creators – making the folk art of the future.” Unless the “copyRight” has its way with dropping the regulatory hammer on the various net channels to prevent remixes and mash-ups based on existing intellectual property, it is easy to imagine a future where the majority of content created by the “copyLeft” is produced by and for the public domain.
While I’m a huge fan of the public domain, specifically new works that are immediately released to the public domain (think Trent Reznor), I think that intellectual property rights are important and should be upheld so long as the term of control/ownership is reasonable. Perhaps intellectual property rights should be active during the life of the artist/creator, but should be released to the public domain when the artist chooses to do so or when the artist finds his/her true death. My main reason is that the public domain is vast. Why take from top 40 intellectual properties when you can find some truly amazing stuff in the public domain – particularly content that has been lost for decades?
Is Girl Talk a musician or an editor? As a musician, I tend to think of Girl Talk as an conventional artist, but not a musician or songwriter. While I like “Night Ripper” as an album, there is definitely a seemingly mathematical formula that Girl Talk uses to edit and arrange the various samples (many of which are actual tracks – not just a 10 second sample). I tend to think of Girl Talk as a human mash-up of editor, analyst, engineer and fan. The artistic depth of field is evident when you compare Girl Talk, who remixes samples of mostly popular tracks to Simon Green AKA Bonobo – an artist who actually composes, edits, and produces music. That said, remixes have their place in independent production and entertainment and can be as entertaining as truly original musical works.
Confronted with the question “What is the aesthetic of our time?” I was drawn to the notions in the Becker reading that it is art worlds, not artists alone, that produce art. So, the art world involved in creating is sharing authorship with the artist. The original question, “What is the aesthetic of our time?” can be re-phrased, to: What are the art worlds at work today? Exploring the resources for the module, the question transforms again – and I’m asking: What forces are restricting today’s art worlds from emerging, existing, thriving, and giving way to ever more new art worlds?
It’s clear that copyright laws have gotten a little out of hand, and serve to inhibit a culture of expressive re-interpretation. This was demonstrated in the video supplements, Good Copy, Bad Copy and RIP: A Remix Manifesto. In these, we see how new channels of distribution allow culture consumers to participate creatively in the art world supported by that distribution. This poses a problem – consuming and participating, for free, is not profitable to the people that control intellectual property.
While I watched RIP: A remix Manifesto, I was shocked by the price a person may be expected to pay for participating in this art world. I mentally likened it to our healthcare system. Illness can financially ruin your life. Apparently, so can listening to music, if you choose to do it for free. Even worse if you take lots of music, mix it up, and make something new and welcomed by a huge community. I wondered about food – if someone found a recipe, thought up ingeniously by someone else, perhaps someone famous, then used that recipe as a basis to make a new one (or used it as is) and prepared the food, fed their family, gave it to a neighbor, sold it – whatever. Do the same rules apply? That seems ridiculous, it would be impossible to control. Which is exactly Girl Talk’s point in reference to his remix work. The advent of new technology has made it possible to re-contextualize old material in a way that hasn’t been available before, and its proliferation is huge (and ultimately uncontrollable).
Of course, there’s the issue of salary – musicians need to earn money, too! However, there is something intrinsically wrong with corporations profiting more than the musicians they represent for intellectual property that belongs to the artist. This model also fails to address art worlds as creators, just as Becker suggested when he wrote “Art Worlds’” (in this case corporations) “award only a few the honorific title of artist.” The Global License, Creative Commons, and the Brazilian values of shared culture provide a great basis for the development of a new copyright model that will work to encourage creativity, rather than punish it. That was the whole point to begin with, after all.
When I think of aesthetics, I think of critics. After all, aesthetics is a judgment, a perception and completely subjective. It used to be that aesthetics were somewhat dictated to the masses. If the King of Austria preferred Bach and Vivaldi, which is what he’d commission, and what his court and subjects would hear. He was the critic. He judged aesthetic beauty to be found in certain types of music and because their were no records, no mp3’s, no mass production of any kind the aesthetic would be accepted until something that challenged it was heard and then also accepted. However, today the role of the critic and the autonomy of the individual are very different. People have an enormous amount of access to art and are able to be critics and judgers of beauty and taste. They make aesthetic decisions for themselves and even have the ability to share those sentiments with people all over the world through forums, comments, reviews, etc. I also feel that because of this, we might have possible lost the ability to, as Wikipedia says: “discriminate on a sensory level”, because our senses are at maximum capacity – making the aesthetics of our time somewhat chaotic.
In addition, I believe the aesthetics of our time are deeply rooted in technology. In both the videos regarding mash-ups and sampling, it’s obvious that neither of these art forms would be possible without the technology that allows the process.
After watching most of the two video clips and reading the Becker article, I agree with the many others that there is no singular aesthetic of our time. It is multidimensional, dynamic, and constantly changing. As always, it includes the technological tools used to create, but is not limited to the modes of art making. Art and culture is currently made up of so many varying and contrasting forms, aesthetics, practices, values, practices, and art worlds that to think that there is just one dominating premis used to justify/classify good art vs. bad art, or what an audience is willing to support emotionally or financially is nonsensical.
Although I don’t believe that media arts, mash-ups, and remixes exemplify the aesthetic of our time, developments in technology, characterized by increased modes of access, dissemination, and transmdeia have undoubtedly shaped the contemporary art and culture world. Society as producers of culture in itself and for itself is ever increasing. Appropriated art forms, although not a new concept, are growing as more people gain access to information and Transmedia tools. As ideas, images, and symbols are being shared through the internet across nations and cultures, new Art Worlds are forming internationally. Modes for self-expression and creating are limitless, with the exception of outdated copyright law and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s control over what work is able to be shared.