Image via Wikipedia
Comments on this post should address the main question for Module 3:
∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
What is the aesthetic of our time?
In what ways do practices, ideas, narratives, or ideologies associated with this aesthetic 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 resources or examples that you may find (be sure to add these to the Diigo group as well!).
Comments should be posted by midnight on Monday, Oct. 31…Happy Halloween!
The aesthetic of our time is multidimensional because there is not just “our time” but various multigenerational differences within our course. For example, we have peers who are young enough to be born in the 90’s and we also have classmates who may be labeled as the baby boomer generation, generation X, generation Y, and my generation where typewriters and landline phones are so “old-school”. Therefore, it is difficult to label one specific aesthetic of “our” time. I believe that the aesthetic of the future and my generation is simply convenience and synchronization. In American society, we love convenience. With our drive-thru restaurants, our grab and go fueling stations, museums within airports, and of course the beauty of the Smartphone where research, email, documents, pictures, and music can fit into the palm of your hand and travel wherever your adventures take you. In short, convenience has shaped the American identity. However, convenience wouldn’t be possible if it wasn’t for synchronization. Synchronization allows everything to come together in a timely and fashionable package. Our ideas, practices, narratives, and ideologies are influenced by synchronization and convenience because both of these aesthetics surround us in our society daily. Like Becker’s statement about how, “it is not unreasonable to say that it is the art world, rather than the individual artist, which makes the work”, synchronization and convenience, allow the greater society through transmedia resources to influence individuals.
Its funny that we have the Becker reading, ” Editing ” to read in conjunction with this question. I have enjoyed the Becker readings, but have bemoaned the fact that even if we do get the opportunity to discuss the piece specifically, we only have the time to skate across the surface of it. But I digress. Of all of his pieces so far, this one is my hands down favorite, for a variety of reasons. In trying to stay on topic ( not my strong suit ) editing, collaboration, remixing, sampling, stealing and outright theft of ideas seems to me to be the new aesthetic of our times. I won’t get up on my soapbox and froth on about how taking something that doesn’t belong to you without permission is stealing, no matter how cool your re-mix of of the White Album is. That was your parent’s job.
What I will discuss is the process of the editing, or collaboration, that is now so prevalent in the multi-media environment that we now exist in. All things seem to be fodder for re-interpretation and re-purposing, and this can lead to some very interesting creations. The “I Can’t Hug All Cats” mix of a E-Harmony entry has to be one of the funniest things I’ve seen in ages; is it “High Art” ? No, but not everything is, or needs to be to be art. Is it necessarily fair to the young woman (a recent MBA graduate from Villinova) who was sharing her feelings in an environment she assumed (silly girl) was private ? No. (I sense a law suit coming). Just one more reason that I will NEVER date on line. (Can only imagine what they would do with my teary profession of my love of Bunnies) . What I found most fascinating was how people will take raw materials and put their own “editorial stamp ” on a work; they stand it on it’s head, and it takes on a life and meaning quite independent of its original source. People have been doing this for thousands of years, but with the advent of our new media sources and devices, new art forms are emerging, with unexpected consequences. It’s not just that you can manipulate images, music and ideas in ways you couldn’t even imagine 20 yrs ago, it’s that these works can be distributed to a mass audience, for them to enjoy, rally against, or re-interpret to suit their own artistic sensibilities. The fact that people can, and do “edit” the raw materials of our media existence might make a case for the aesthetic of our time.
What do Howard Becker, Walt Disney, Gregg Gillis, you and me all have in common? Probably a lot of things but one thing for sure – we all were born a baby. We all started growing up and developed physically and cognitively at an astonishingly rapid rate. On the cognitive side, we started developing schema. I believe this idea of schema, the development of pre-conceived ideas and a mental structure of the world, is crucial to understanding the aesthetic of our time. To start, I would like to introduce a lady named Rhoda Kellogg. She is an early education and development researcher who has published several books about the psychology of children’s art. Much of her research is about fifty years old but I think it is still completely relevant as it pertains to early cognitive development. The main point in her research that I want to exemplify is her analysis of the early instances of a human’s creative expression. Her ideas relate to Becker’s chapter on editing, where he talks about a cooperative network within the arts. He suggests that a particular art world makes artwork rather than an individual artist. I think we can see this starting to happen much earlier with the influence adults have on children’s art.
In Kellogg’s book “Analyzing Children’s Art”, she shows drawings of humans and animals created by children ages five to seven. One the top half of the page she shows drawings which “most teachers would like” and on the bottom there are drawings “few teachers would like”. The “most” categories are more realistic and traditional interpretations of what humans and animals do look like. However, the drawings in the “few” category are less realistic but far more creative, imaginative, surreal, fun, unique, etc. It is interesting to think about the early importance of accurately representing your perceived surroundings in addition to the importance of freedom of expression and creativity. When a child proudly draws a person only comprised of three heads and we tell them it is not the right way to draw a person, what does that do to them? Aside from being a buzz kill, it tells them that there is a right way and a wrong way for creative expression. Children adopt a series of schemata to understand the world and this process starts at a very young age.
Relating this to the question of what is the aesthetic of our time, I think the answer is simple and impossibly complicated at the same time. It is simple because it is the result of the collective ideas and input of past and current people involved in the creative world. It is impossibly complicated because that is a lot to think about. I feel the “art world” is its own evolving universe. The beginning is hard to pinpoint (if you are an artistic atheist), it is constantly evolving and expanding, and its influences are hard to detect in our normal sense of perception. Sometimes the evolution process feels more natural, understandable, and agreed upon. However, sometimes this process evolves at a faster rate than I think feels comfortable to many people. You can see this sped up evolution when looking at artists like Marcel Duchamp and Andy Worhal. Their ideas of, and comments on, the aesthetic of our time were not universally agreed upon. However, now when we look back on what they have done we see they were adjusting the art world in a creative way that has shaped how we think about what art is today.
I feel this idea of sped up creative evolution is also happening today with artists like Girl Talk and the overall transmedia world. Lawrence Lessig, in the documentary RIP!, states that this creative evolution cannot be stopped but that doesn’t stop people from not trying to control it. Such things as remixing and the rapid sharing of information cannot be stopped because it is already happening and will continue to happen. We can already say confidently that this type of creativity and participation is now part of our art world. Our current collective aesthetic is dominated by what is pushing forward at this moment. There will always be representations of everything that has came before now because that is what has pushed it forth. All of the past is necessary for the present.
In addition to the war on copy writing there is also an interesting Podcast on This American Life about patents called “When patents Attack!” This is another example of an idea that originated to protect the individual and promote creativity but is now being used as a way to sue creative people due to corporate greed. You can listen to it here: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack
Here is a link to Rhoda Kellogg’s project (I think she is really awesome): http://daddytypes.com/2010/03/02/one_million_drawings_rhoda_kellogg_childhood_art_archive.php
Another website worth checking out regarding “fair use” and the public domain: http://publicdomainreview.org/
My favorite assigned material in Art in Society, thus far, is the RIP: A Remix Manifesto video. This documentary speaks about the transmedia uses and implications of music/ video mash-ups and how we are living in a culture where “consumers are now creators, making the folk art of the future.” The aesthetic of our time exists heavily in a digital realm – a creative commons that values the mixing and recreating of ideas. By contrast, there is force that wishes to control this aesthetic: corporations attempting to halt the flow of new ideas for the sake of gigantic profits. The phrase ‘culture jamming’ is used to describe the result of corporations forcing their control and ownership over culture. I believe, as the lawyer mentioned in the film, that artists should be given credit for their work. Credit where credit is due – much like referencing a quote in an essay by an author’s creative thought (intellectual property). Quotes are used to support new creative ideas. This brings me to the thought that ‘no man is an island’, in the sense that creativity occurs while building upon inspiration from a source of some kind – whether it be nature, emotions, thoughts, etc.
I value the aesthetic of our time – remixes and mash-ups demonstrate a high level of creativity. Some of my favorite songs are remixes of originals. I value artists who have responded positively to living in an age of digital media, those who understand that the way art is distributed in the present age is different then in was distributed in the past. We can now obtain digital files that can be shared quickly and easily. I remember when Radiohead’s album ‘In Rainbows’ was released online (right after they left their record label EMI), and fans were asked to pay as much as they felt the album was worth. This act started a trend and made a huge statement. I remember feeling, “Wow, it’s okay to share music in this way!” Radiohead encourages fans to be creative with the music they release – allowing a unique expression of art to form, one that removes creative barriers and unlocks culture. We need artists to build off of past ideas – to be the inventors, re-inventors, creators and re-creators. In this way, culture requires the room and freedom to be shaped openly and freely.
The aesthetic of our time is a constant recycling of images, sounds and words. I agree with Lexie that there is a “multigenerational” culture right now; the US culture has become an agglomeration of cultural references for different generations. The US, along with many other Western nations, is still composed by Baby Boomers, their children and grand children. These generations have seen the digital technology and communications technology increased in an incredible rate, and people from the different generations can relate to some degree to any of these technologies. At the same time there are cultural references from specific decades that are understood by all generations because we share similar sentiments of yearning for change, searching for identity and creating welcoming communities. These sentiments create similar ideologies in the different generations and it is just natural that we need to borrow elements from one another. The ideas can be the same, even the elements to represent them might be the same, but there is usually a medium that speaks more to a generation than to another one. Thus, we start building and recreating comparable story lines in different transmedia.
As some of the people in the video “Good Copy Bad Copy” say, it is important to open cultural materials to others so they can use them and create innovative self-expressions. This recycling of cultural elements does not mean that we do not give credit to the people who created them for the first time. I believe the transmedia use of these elements is a celebration of what brings people together, the underlying wants and desires. The constant “mash-ups,” as Katrina calls them, of our cultures aesthetics is a way to recognize that we are connected to one another, we use what speaks to us and create from it, thus, it inspire us to continue with the creative process.
Although, many of the examples I am thinking of and the ones from the class materials are in the digital realm, I believe the re-creation and borrowing of cultural elements occur in other art media. For example, painters have borrowed elements from Andy Warhol’s style, which at the same time used popular culture as his elements for inspiration. Musicians are inspired by others’ sounds and they might then create pieces with similar styles but innovative at the same time. So if we are creating new works that are inspired from so many things that came before, we need to be aware of the context and the people who created those ideas and give credit to them. Nonetheless, artist can show how powerful those inspirational works were by re-creating them and translating them into new formats.
The aesthetic of our time is highly digitized because the communication tools of our time are highly digitized. Digital interaction allows for a more universal and democratic sharing of ideas and artworlds, as any artwork you share is easier to get a hold of. The other side of the coin, the artwork which includes clips/aspects/etc. of someone else’s artwork is also much easier to find by those with a capital interest in oppressing it. I’m not sure that I imagine the aesthetic of our time to be a purely digital one, especially because so much of the art made now is interested in older artworlds (recording on tape, use of large format and instant Polaroid photography, a growing interest in folk, craft, and domestic arts), but the community that cradles our aesthetic is certainly digital. The Billboard Liberation front is a great example from the reading- they’re adapting an old school form of communication (at least as old as the United States Interstate Highway System), probably with digital means (that lettering looks to be printed), that is then viewed both physically and digitally.
So the digital tool is obviously unique to our time, but the appropriation of other people’s ideas and artwork is as old as Methuselah. Common folk and religious songs and poetry have evolved from centuries of reconstitution- and remained in the popular consciousness out of the people’s ability to adapt them to styles and meanings more relevant to their time. The subject of my field-guide, the song Stagger Lee, is a worthy example of one hundred years of re-imagining. The original author is unknown, but the song he or she created is infamous. In my opinion, the process of collaboration always makes for a better process. As a poet, I always find it useful to share with those not afraid to strike out with a red pen, they challenge me to rethink my work but also my process. The same can be said of transmedia reconstitution. Sure the remix may be less powerful than the original, but it allows for a text to become personal to others who find themselves invested in it, and by so doing, their adaptations make the work relevant to more people.
Why then, is adaptation of digital media such a big deal? Because it’s big business! The appropriation of common artworks, especially songs, has never seemed to cause much of a stir, but the power and influence of those related to popular film and music have profit at stake. With access and appropriation of media becoming easier and more common every day, media companies and popular culture artists have witnessed a significant drop in earnings as compared to the popularity and fan ownership of their materials. As a result, they have a vested interest in oppressing any form of media appropriation. It’s comparable to the Monsanto Company’s annual $10 million expenditure for prosecuting seed saving farmers- it’s purely profit driven, and similarly dangerous to the health and prosperity of society (be that physical health or creative health).
I really enjoyed reading about appropriation artist Stacia Yeapanis because her views concerning this issue are especially pertinent to our understanding of Artworlds. Stacia frames her artwork in a clear understanding of the academic, Becker-esque artworld, and is viably concerned about non-participants lack of knowledge about the conceptual artworld making her odds in court less favorable. My favorite quotes:
“Mass media corporations are clinging to rigid ways of thinking about who controls meaning and how meaning is made”
“… The law will have stretched itself to make room for the various cultural developments of the last 40 years, namely, postmodern theory and the destabilization of cultural hierarchy through appropriation art, fanvids and other forms of remix culture.”
According to Becker, art is created and alive through an editing process. One process is by way of the artist herself and another process is by way of others. The artist herself, whether conscious or not, will always consider the imagined interpretations of others. This is the creation of conventions by which the artist edits her work. Decisions are made by what feels right. In order for our art and culture to progress and create unique work, the artist must break away, at least slightly, from these conventions. In this way, history is always considered. There is always knowledge of what work has been created in the past and how an audience reacts to it. This is parallel to A Remixer’s Manifesto, “culture always builds on the past”.
The editing of others is the other process. It is the audience that essentially defines an artwork. The work must be chosen by a curator in order to be exhibited. A viewer must enter the gallery to see the work as an artwork. Or, the audience must choose to listen to a musician. The audience chooses to dance to their work. Likewise, the audience is free to interpret the work as they choose. This could potentially change the artists’ meaning or intent. Once the work is in the public, it loses its connection to the artist. In Stacia Yeapanis’ work titled “We Have a Right to be Angry”, she comments on her own feminist position within “contemporary society”. In her video, she uses clips from three television shows while playing a song written by Pat Benatar. Yeapanis put her video on Youtube, but removed it shortly after being accused of copyright infringement. She explains that her video suddenly turned from a feminist work to one arguing against the copyright laws and fair use. “The feminist icons in my video are now also fighting outdated copyright laws that have begun to prevent the free flow of culture.”
Similarly, Girl Talk, a mash-up artist, is restricted in the distribution of his work. Taking clips from hundreds of artists before him, he creates a new blend of music that is very much his own. However, without the licensing from each artist, he is labeled a pirate and criminal. What is interesting with Girl Talk are the two audiences with opposed views on his work. There are those supporting the work and those not. Becker speaks of the death of a work and states that any object worth killing is that which already has interested a large group. As we have considered in Art In Society in our past classes, aesthetic is ever evolving. What once shocked the audience and left them stumped, is now accepted and rewritten into history. I’m curious to see if this will happen with the current controversies over music and video within the art world today.
I would call the aesthetic style of our time progressive imitation. Not many ideas, if any, have been constructed without outside influence. Imitation is defined as to simulate or copy, and, especially in art, is natural and necessary. Ideas stimulate other ideas, it is a regular progression. In art, imitation manifests itself in almost every form, although it is never an exact copy of the original. Girl Talk uses fragments of music, many of which are direct copies, but combines them to make a completely different work. This has been happening in Western music (and most likely others) for a very long time. In the Baroque period especially, borrowing music was very common and was seen as a compliment to the original composer. One of the reasons this isn’t allowed now is because of financial involvement throughout the art worlds, and the line between editing and plagiarizing is of huge debate.
Progressiveness means moving forward and adapting, and it implies something new. Today’s society looks more to the future and less on the past. Is it feasible for a current artist to only work with historic art forms? For example, the current aesthetic trends in music are the popular genres. Classical music, although there is still a small outlet for it, is no longer prevalent in our society. However, many modern composers still write in the classical music style, hoping it will regain popularity. Trends show that this will not happen, and classical music will never be as popular as it once was. Classical art forms, while can still be found, are not the aesthetic of our time.
Transmedia practices saturate a much wider audience, meaning art and the creation of art is much more accessible. I saw a few of the Gregory Brother’s videos before I knew who they were. This summer I read an article about them in the New York Times magazine found here http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/magazine/the-gregory-brothers-auto-tune-the-internet.html?pagewanted=all. I don’t believe their creations would be qualified as “high art”, but that is also not the aesthetic of our time. The purpose of their videos is humorous entertainment. We are moving away from aristocracy, and transmedia is helping change our culture by allowing the users to be the creators. Today’s society gets to decide what they like then go out there and make it themselves.
Outdated copyright laws that prevent the free flow of culture? I’m sorry, I don’t blame Pat Benatar one bit. If you take something that is not yours without permission, it’s STEALING. Why is this even an issue? Copyright laws were devised to PROTECT artists and their work, work that they spent a lifetime crafting, learning skills and infusing them with their own creative spirit. They have a right to protect that which they created – it is no different from stealing bread off an artist’s table. Do I think people should be able to re format and reinterpret material and make their own creations ? Sure, as Savannah said, the appropriation of other people’s ideas is as old as Methuselah. People should, however, respect what artists have done, and compensate them for their work. And if these people who complain the bitterest about not being able to rip off other people’s work to create their own are so damn creative, why don’t they come up with some ideas of their own ? Hmmmmmm……..
I agree wholeheartedly with Savannah’s opinion that “the process of collaboration always makes for a better process.” Ideas are ideas – simply stated. We as humans borrow and concepts from one another ALL of the time, in everything we do. I love discussing abstract concepts and the thought that someone can lay claim to them; someone comes up with an idea and then it become copyrighted, but how can you be certain, 100 percent without-a-shadow-of-a-doubt certain that THOSE artists who came up with it never borrowed an idea or two? Where do we draw the line and who’s whos?. We can only speculate. It drove me crazy to watch the section of the RIP video where they were segmenting a portion of a song, down to one second, trying to figure out if two notes were taken from another song. Come on, seriously? Seriously? I agree that there DOES need to be a line – so that we aren’t just a society of complete copiers (to encourage artists to continue to create, as the copyright was initially put in place to do) but I also feel that a line needs to be drawn were we all come to the point of understanding that ideas are concepts that lead to creation and we all get ideas from somewhere else….
As I read the previous comments on this topic I began to think of the aesthetic of our time as being a digitalized conglomeration. I really liked and agreed with Lexie and Maya’s thoughts on a multigenerational audience. I think Savannah’s thoughts on our aesthetic being highly digitalized fit in well with their sentiment. She stated that, “digital interaction allows for a more universal and democratic sharing of ideas and artworlds, as any artwork you share is easier to get a hold of.” I think this is why everything is so multigenerational; it’s just more accessible. As the creative conversation showed us last week, we are talking about grandmas being on twitter and having access to the same art shown through transmedia as those of us attached to our iPhones and iPads and computers. This easy accessibility makes for even more imitation, blending and “mash ups.” In our various classes and discussions we talk about how much more accessible art is because of technology and how this is great because it increases participation. We’ve discussed how DIY social media allows and helps artists gain attention. The other side of this is more sharing and lines being blurred between an artist and their piece. My personal opinion is that there are amazing things being produced by all this sharing: girl talk, all the other videos shared in this module etc. These new forms are reaching mass amounts of people and creating a dialogue in terms of the Billboard Liberation Front and creating life improving change as shown by the Ecovention or the NYtimes article on the diigo list about design improving peoples quality of life in regions all over the world: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/arts/design/for-some-of-the-worlds-poor-hope-comes-via-design.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1
To sum up the aesthetic of our time is a complex an daunting task, but I agree with Maya’s point that one defining factor is the recycling and reworking of images, sounds and words from our cultural history. After exploring Module 3’s readings and resources, I am especially interested in the idea of art/media appropriation in the context of the music industry. The term “sampling” (i.e. the act of reusing a portion of an existing sound recording in the creation of a new song or sound recording) is a well-known term in contemporary music vernacular, especially in the production of hip-hop music. I came across a quote by Richard Schur, from his book Hip Hop Aesthetics and Contemporary African American Literature (2008) that eloquently describes the aesthetic of hip-hop culture: “Hip hop does not simply draw inspiration from a range of samples, but it layers these fragments into an artistic object. If sampling is the first level of hip hop aesthetics, how the pieces or elements fit together constitute the second level. Hip hop emphasizes and calls attention to its layered nature. The aesthetic code of hip hop does not seek to render invisible the layers of samples, sounds, references, images, and metaphors. Rather, it aims to create a collage in which the sampled texts augment and deepen the song/book/art’s meaning to those who can decode the layers of meaning.” I found this description extremely applicable to the broader definition the multi-layer aesthetic we see in contemporary culture.
An interesting transmedia reaction to the popularity of sampling is a website called whosampled.com, which provides an online catalog of samples, remixes, and covers. Visitors to the site can search a database of over 116,000 songs and 44,000 artists, to identify sampled recording. Each search result allows the visitor to download and/or buy the original sample and the new track. Visitors have the opportunity to contribute their own information and content to the site by participating in discussion forums, uploading additional links and photos, submitting new music or personal remixes, and becoming a volunteer site moderator. WhoSampled also has a blog that provides an even more in depth platform for discussion and information sharing.
Sampling can range from borrowing just a few beats to using long recognizable segments. The “mash-up” style of Girl Talk and other artists is made up entirely of samples. As we learned from “Rip: Remix Manifesto”, the conscious use of other other artists’ songs is often controversial and can lead to legal debates. Regardless if it is right or wrong, or if it is art or non-art, it is happening and people are listening. And the result is an added layer of complexity to society’s participation, understanding, and engagement in art worlds, past and present. Intentionally or not, I believe it opens up opportunity for cross-generational and cross-cultural collaboration and conversation. It can help inform our perception of music, old and new and often introduces us to music we may not otherwise find. For example, a young person may visit WhoSampled as Kanye West fan and discover a new love of Sam Cook, Otis Redding, or Curtis Mayfield.
I was compelled by Maya’s argument that “recycling previous cultural elements does not mean we do not give credit to the people who created them for the first time”. As shown by Becker, artists “respond” and “reacts” to work previously achieved and their inspiration depend on this experience with other art works. I firmly believe that artists, and all individuals, are guided in their creativity through multiple contacts with art worlds: “So artists, to be successful in producing art, must violate standards more or less deeply internalized” (Becker, p. 204). What is then the role of “the past” in creativity, and how is it possible to value previous work that inspired others?
The author of the Remix Manifesto Video suggests that “to build free societies, you must limit the control of the past”. In other words, individuals should be able to make free usage and re-usage of previous works. How is it possible then to give credit to the ones who brought the ‘new’ ideas, if they even exist? The RIP video argues, for example, that music should remain in the “public domain” instead of being under control of a few private companies. This idea is for sure seducing, but to what extent is this applicable? Transmediation create space for communities to “engage” with each other, “adding to it and creating something new”. For example, while Internet represents a unique tool for individuals and communities to share resources with each other, it threatens bid companies who control culture such as the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America. The RIP successfully shows how urgent the need is to democratize culture and push big music industries to evolve.
The second video illustrates an interesting initiative in Nigeria where film producers come to the market, which seems to keep youth from downloading their movies. This should encourage other producers to meet with consumers more regularly, would it be in the music world or other art worlds. Aesthetics of our time are deeply rooted in the aesthetics of the past and it is necessary for contemporary artists to be able to use these resources freely to be connected to their society.
The Nigerian film maker in Good Copy Bad Copy talks about finding the freedoms you have and creating what is unique to your situation. I think the rise of digitally based creativity is really rooted in this reality. Many people have access to these tools and they can teach themselves how to use them. Traditional hands-on art forms often times are not accessible in the same way.
Becker brings up the issue that “…Audiences can both learn to experience new elements and forget how to experience old elements of a work…” As I try to relate this topic to my experience as a jewelry artist, I am thinking not of copyright issues, but the ability of the average person to appreciate good design and quality craftsmanship. With the growth of cad/cam manufacturing, the many people have lost the ability to discern quality handmade jewelry. There are now programs that can create a mash-up of different popular styles, as dictated by marketing trends, print or machine a model and create a “custom” ring. One example of this is Countersketch. It is a cut and paste design tool for jewelers to use with a customer in the jewelry store. Quotes from the website include, “… it tells you what you can and can’t do…” and alternatively, “Customers love being so involved in the design process…” In reality it is just a bunch of boring industry standards and you can choose the stone shape or ring width which it is a far cry from the “design process”.
There is a lot of Cad/Cam jewelry manufactured that looks clunky and blunt and people are seeing enough machine made jewelry that they often can’t tell the difference any more. For example there are a lot of “hammered” men’s wedding bands that are made using machines that will carve wax to imitate hand hammering but it just looks odd. There is some interesting digitally designed and executed jewelry and some people have even started making hack cad/cam robots as part of their creative process. The Makerbot Thing-o-matic is a homemade digital 3-D printer kit that some designers like Prototypist on Etsy are using to create jewelry. As a traditional artist I have been mostly annoyed with cad/cam design that attempts to copy traditional techniques. The Nigerian filmmaker in GCBC says that there is no point in Nigeria trying to do what Hollywood is already doing, they will do what Hollywood isn’t doing. I love when a new media or technique spawns a unique atheistic that might not have been realized with traditional techniques, I just hope we don’t loose craftsmanship in trade.
http://www.gemvision.com/html/products/countersketch_studio/countersketch_studio.html
http://store.makerbot.com/thing-o-matic-kit-mk7.html
http://www.etsy.com/people/prototypist
Hi everyone,
I’m going to make a full post responding to our prompt, but I first want to respond to why current copyright law is an issue.
Richard, I understand that you’re asking why copyright law is even an issue. You are corrected in stating that “Copyright laws were devised to PROTECT artists and their work…” This is a true statement. However, it must be understood that original copyright law is also very different from current copyright law.
Let’s take a brief tour of the history of copyright. The first enactment of “copyright protection” was the British Statute of Anne, established in1709. The Statute of Anne is argued to be the origin of copyright law in that was the first law directly protecting the rights of *authors*. Lessig states in “Free Culture” that “The Statute of Anne granted the author or ‘proprietor’ of a book exclusive right to print that book” (87). He continues, “In an important limitation, however … the law gave the bookseller that right for a limited term” (87). Circa 1710 much debate among British and Scottish publishers focused on whether an author’s copyright lasted forever or a previously existing notion definition of copyright duration.
Fast forward to 1787 and we have a drafted United States Constitution. Article 1, section 8 of this Constitution states, “Congress has the power to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” In 1790, the first law regulating the duration of copyright was established by Congress. This law established a federal copyright that graned exclusive rights to the author of a creative work for *fourteen years*. At the end of 14 years, copyright holders could renew their copyright an extend the protection for 28 years. Prior to this, there was no guaranteed public domain for a work to pass into because there wasn’t a notion of copyright protection at all.
As time passed, something very interesting happened to copyright duration. In 1831, the maximum length of copyright protection was raised from 28 to 24 years. in 1909, the same adjustment occurred, but this time the increase of maximum copyright duration jumped to 56 years. In 1962, Congress began a practice that Lessig believes has since defined copyright law (Free Culture, 134). Lessig writes in “Free Culture”, “Eleven times in the last forty years, Congress has extended the terms of existing copyrights; twice in those forty years, Congress extended the term of future copyrights. Initially, the extensions of existing copyrights were short, a mere one to two years. In 1976, Congress extended all existing copyrights by nineteen years. And in 1988, in the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Congress extended the term of existing and future copyrights by twenty years” (134).
Lessig’s point is that this practice simply delays the passing of creative work into the public doman. Taking Mickey Mouse as an example, it becomes clear why this might occur. Mickey Mouse first appeared in “Plane Crazy” in 1928. In 1928, the maximum term for copyright protection was fifty-six years. This means Mickey would pass into the public domain in 1984. Yet, in 1962, copyright protection was extended. Following this, copyright terms were extended in 1965, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1974, and 1976. Then, in 1998, five years before Mickey FINALLY passes into the public domain, copyright terms are extended to ninety-five years. This puts the passing of Mickey Mouse into the public domain in 2023.
Following this, in addition to the Walt Disney Company lobbying for the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Mary Bono took the floor of the United States House of Representatives and stated, “Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. I invite all of you to work with me to strengthen our copyright laws in all of the ways available to us. As you know, there is also Jack Valenti’s proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress” (H9952 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD–HOUSE October 7, 1998).
These are the reasons legal precedence justified by current copyright law as stated in Title 17 of the U.S. Code is outdated and arbitrarily harms creativity and the aesthetic of our time.
I also want to state that capitalizing ‘internet’ is like capitalizing ‘telephone’, ‘television’, ‘automobile’, ‘bicycle’ and ‘interconnected network’.
I think that the aesthetic of our time is characterized by variety; it is not rooted in one single approach, philosophy or style. Today’s aesthetic consists of the creative art forms that are born out of a person’s freedom to experiment with both old and new expressive forms. This notion can be connected to Becker’s writings in his chapter on editing. Becker touches on the idea of artistic choices: “I find it useful to think of an art work taking the form it does at a particular moment because of the choices, small and large, made by the artist and others up to that point.” I think this statement is helpful when viewing the modern aesthetic as one of immense diversity and personal choice. As Katrina mentioned in her first post, the Remix Manifesto video provides a concrete example of this type of unique and original aesthetic present in today’s society. Through making a number of “choices” (both big and small) artists are able to mash up songs into whole new creations.
Also, to take my viewpoint a step further, I believe that the aesthetic of our time is characterized by variety as well as being deeply rooted in the ever growing digital formats. As Savannah observed in beginning of her post, “the aesthetic of our time is highly digitized because the communication tools of our time are highly digitized.” I agree completely with this statement and believe the digital tools that are so readily available to individuals are helping to broaden our options for creative expression.
Off the top of my head, I can think of two real life examples that support my idea of the aesthetic of our time:
-A friend taking pictures of a pile of beautiful fall leaves with her iPhone’s hipstamatic app. She plays with the different lens/filters to see what looks best. She takes a few with her shoes included in the photos, just because she wants to and because she can.
AND
-An organization called (sub)Urban Projections, which is preparing to project artists’ films in the unusual, often unvisited corners of the buildings in Eugene.
Before I dive into the particular aesthetics of our time, I wanted to mention a particularly timely quote. In her eulogy for her brother Steve Jobs, Mona Simpson writes, “his philosophy of aesthetics reminds me of a quote that went something like this: “Fashion is what seems beautiful now but looks ugly later; art can be ugly at first but it becomes beautiful later.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/opinion/mona-simpsons-eulogy-for-steve-jobs.html) I found it quite appropriate for a discussion on aesthetics, since Steve Jobs has been such an influence on design for the past quarter century.
That said, as many others have already touched on, it’s clear that the aesthetic of our time is one that draws heavily on the ideas of appropriation and collaboration. As Becker discusses, “the object of our analysis is not the art work as isolated object or event but the entire process through which it is made and remade…” He goes on to talk about the audience’s contribution, which in this age of hyperconnectivity and access to one another via the internet, the audience not only contributes by viewing an object and discussing, but also by using that object to create something new.
This is especially interesting in regards to transmedia, because through this appropriation of various media, narratives are rearranged, retold, and recreated. For example, through her use of the “fanvid” trope, Stacia Yeapanis (discussed by Henry Jenkins), explores, in one instance, the story of feminism. She uses clips from television shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Charmed, and Xena, three examples of strong feminist icons of popular culture to retell their stories from the point they intersect: at strong women in battle.
I do, however, agree with Savannah that digital arts are not the only major aesthetic happening right now. There are plenty of other art forms, but the digital ones are most easily spread and accessed. I think, though, that the digital world helps to spread our analog art, as well. Probably not the best example, but Etsy uses digital methods to share the very analog creations of a huge number of people. There you can see loads of examples of more versions of appropriation and remixed artwork most commonly in the form of collage. Like Savannah said, this type of art is nothing new and certainly isn’t restricted to the digital realm, but it is very very prevalent today.
Becker in his essay, talks of how a work of art is not just the work of one; the artist, but is a work of many people who create, edit and display the work of art. This is essential to understanding the aesthetic of our time. Art is not in only the hands of the artist, and anyone can become an artist in modern times. The aesthetic of our time has become very broad and accepting due to peoples ability to present their interpretations of certain art forms online. An example from the other postings for this module would be the remix documentary, where due to the Internet, people are allowed to reinterpret their favorite music and create a whole new aesthetic that pleases them. Because of this, people may now find their own tastes exemplified in someone’s interpretation of an art form, or if they do not find it completely to their satisfaction, they can contribute their own reinterpretation of that specific art group.
I also believe that the aesthetic of our time depends greatly on the increase of interaction people are capable if having with their own art. People can now create their own art to satisfy themselves and their own needs, which creates a greater scope of what the aesthetic can be, but people also temper themselves and their own preferences by what others put forth which they enjoy and want to be a part of.
This module’s readings were very interesting as well as thought provoking thus far. I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed being exposed to the issue of “copy right” versus “copy left” in the documentaries and websites I looked at. I actually went beyond the posted items to take a deeper look at the different “movements” behind the highlighted artists posted on our site, and was even able to turn my kids on to some good resources. This underground movement in hip-hop and rap is very prevalent is very contemporary for kids now in this society. The question still exists: Is recreating from the past seen as creative, new reworking of a theme? The challenge for me is how to look at these divergent transmedia platforms and make it have significance to me. I really enjoyed reading Becker’s chapter on “Editing”. As a folklore grad student/Deadhead/project-identified Oregon native focus, this concept of intellectual property rights is a huge consideration. Becker touches upon it on page 221 stating, “the work of native artists—who work is no established medium and belong to no organized art world—often fails to survive..” This chapter launches me into the Grateful Dead’s stance on audience recording, and who actually controls the dispersion of media via mutual platforms—textual, audio, video, annotated reconfigurations, circumventing “trade marked” worlds, YouTube…Becker touches on this on page 213 as well as the documentary videos we were asked to watch is time,
That being said, I do have some issues regarding intellectual property rights since I work specifically with Tribes here in Oregon. After watching numerous clips where “I get” sampling and a “public domain” concept thread. I am still a proponent of indigenous control over shows/curation/folkart.
The sites of mash-ups really moved me especially “kutiman”.
Like many other classmates, I agree that the aesthetics of our time is an intermingle of past ideas and future aspirations (with respect to the past). But I also think there are many other areas in which are converging with this idea, one that caught my eye is green sustainable aesthetics. This is the awareness of sustainable living and manifesting this movement into our environment. Whether in architectures, arts of any medium, new celebrations or interactions, “greening” can be found anywhere and perhaps this will the the aesthetics of the future. Keith Struthers is an organic architect that is holding a lecture in South Africa to speak on this idea of green aesthetics, as he believes it would the emerging aesthetic of our time.
Currently, the medias has made expression more accessible and enables many people to reach across millions, which I think is why our aesthetics is such a collaboration and well as appropriation. This then begs the question, when will there be a stand out change? I am not saying that a remix of former works is not creative or bad, but the masses of expression is utterly endless. Is this what aesthetics should be like? In the past, there was a general ‘idea” of what an era looked like, what was considered pretty or pleasant, and what could be made for a specific purpose; but we no longer what those “guidelines”. I am not a black and white person, but it is just very curious to see in the future what we would categorize the 2000’s as because the aesthetic lines are very blurred.
I definitely feel that there is this tipping point happening between the collaboration/DIY aesthetic (which I definitely aline with as the aesthetic of our time) and regulation and lawyers (who in my experience lack this same spirit of humble cooperation) and I feel it moving in an overwhelming direction of collaboration and that is super exciting to me. I think that holding on to the old models of getting paid versus sharing are no longer viable and we need to rethink the whole notion of making art for money (this includes music and cinema – which are obviously huge money-makers for the regulatory folks) and think more how we can support artists in their works. How would it be if each artist was supported individually without a lawyer, laws, regulation, and policing? Would we all be more creative if allowed freedoms to re appropriate other art forms to suit or needs or would we end up with a singular culture because no one was forced in to being innovative?
Transmedia has had such an amazing role in the spread of collaboration and mixing of media forms to create new media. I don’t think it would have been possible to create at the speed in which art is being created today without the internet. The ability to find, translate, distill, remix and disseminate quickly is part of the collaboration aesthetic and threatens the whole existing paradigm of regulation and lawyers but creates new media upon new media, which is so exciting!
So many others in this class say exactly what I would like to be saying but far more eloquently! Thanks for having this great forum for discussion!
A question like “What is the aesthetic of our time?” feels impossible to wholly answer in a comment section on a blog. Nonetheless, I will unpack some features of the “aesthetic of our time.”
The materials provided by Module 3 are heavily focused on digital remixing and derivative work. The idea that derivative work is as old as humanity has been stated, and I believe this idea is correct. When one asks, “What does it mean to be human?” a large portion of the answer falls to derivative work.
Another part of what it means to be human is recognizing most of humanity as dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants. Isaac Newton is quoted saying this, as is Bernard of Chartres before him. Alfred North Whitehead reiterates this in a different context by stating, “The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.” I believe the aesthetic of our time is largely influenced by digital remixing and derivative work, but this is not just the aesthetic of our time; derivative work is an aesthetic of all time.
Imagine life, humanity, and other human aspects of life on Earth without the ability to learn from our ancestors, peers, family, and teachers. In Andy Clark’s 1998 publication, “Magic Words: How Language Augments Human Computation,” Clark argues that, “Of course, words aren’t magic. Neither are sextants, compasses, maps, slide rules, and all the other paraphernalia which have accreted around the basic biological brains of homo sapiens. In the case of these other tools and props, however, it is transparently clear that they function so as to either carry out or to facilitate computational operations important to various human projects.” In other words, imagine having to learn that this particular mushroom is poisonous, without actually being able to talk about it. Another example would be drawing a perfect circle without the use of a protractor and pencil. In these cases, an individual is creative a derivative work, however small or indirect the derivation, based on a tool created by a human being before them. Clark goes on to argue, “Public language … is such a tool – it is a species of external artifact whose current adaptive value is partially constituted by its role in re-shaping the kinds of computational space that our biological brains must negotiate in order to solve certain types of problems, or to carry out certain complex projects.” Clark refers to “public language” in the sense distinguished between public and private language starting at §246 of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s “Philosophical Investigations.” Without the ability to creative derivative work based on educational lessons dating back to our human origins, what it means to be human would have an entirely different definition. Thus, derivative work is an aesthetic of not just our time but all time.
“R.I.P.: A Remix Manifesto!” is an excellent example of how derivative work is colliding with digital remixing. Perhaps the digital remix is a larger component of contemporary aesthetics than previously in history. However, even if it is a highly emphasized component, the fundamental intellectual processes involved in digital remix are the same as in creating any other derivative work. The processes are the same in that you are still ultimately influenced and limited by what Hans-Georg Gadamer would call the horizon of your hermeneutic experience. I think one reason why digital remixing is so prevalent is the ease and ability for amateur users to remix content once it has been digitized. For example, it takes much more time and effort to cut out magazine clippings and create a physical ‘zine’ than it does to accomplish the same mission with a computer.
I’d link to OpenSourceCinema.org, which is a repository for a lot of “open source footage” of the RIP documentary, but unfortunately the site is temporarily offline. I’ll report back when it’s up. All the same – the website consists of clips and sequences from the RIP documentary for amateur editors to download and remix. This ease of access to the information is playing a huge role in digital remix and standard aesthetic of our time.
Similarly, internet memes such as Advice Animals found on Reddit.com exemplify the ease and ability of amateur creators of all ages to remix digital work with their own ideas and spins on jokes for little to no cost. All it takes to create a new version of an Advice Animal, or a new Advice Animals (although this new creation is likely to be a derivative of a different Advice Animals) is right-clicking and downloading an image, modifying text, and resubmitting the images with a different, but commonly themed joke. In this situation, is an amateur creator stealing? Technically, if an individual creates an Advice Animal with an image they have copyrighted, and a different individual creates a derivative work of this image, the derivative work is illegal.
Due to advances in modern communications technology, the question begs to be asked: Is the law wrong or is the user wrong? On one hand, millions of people feel that everyone else is stealing copyrighted content on the internet and therefore it is okay for them to do so too. This is known as an argumentum ad populum (also known as an appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, the bandwagon fallacy, etc.), and it is a common mistake to make when critically examining legal precedence. On the other hand, lawmakers, politicians, and community leaders are faced with the an atheistic Euthyphro dilemma when amending current intellectual property legislation. The Euthyphro dilemma is discussed in Plato’s “Euthyphro” when Socrates asks Euthyphro, “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” Drawing the relevant connection to the issue at hand, is current copyright legislation justified because of legal precedent, or is the legal precedent justified because of current copyright legislation?
Stealing is different from copying without reference. The act of successfully copying content ensures that the content indeed came from another source. However, if it really was Picasso that said, “Good artists copy, great artists steal,” then I completely agree. Fantastic visual art is fantastic because an artist created a completely unique even though the artist is ultimately influenced by their intellectual and experiential horizon. Simply because something seems completely unique may very well indicate a lack of familiarity on the viewer’s part with the artist’s muse.
Akin to Abbie Hoffman’s overarching goal in “Steal This Book,” when an item is taken and made into a completely different form, it may very well become your own and forget about the people trying to stop you. Instead, focus on the creation, progress, and beneficial effects for the future of your freedom and ability for creation. Girl Talk and Negativland are modern examples of this concept. These musical artists have taken an inspiration and remixed it into something new. T.S. Eliot writes in “The Sacred Wood” about this very form of inspiration in poetry, stating, “One of the surest tests [of the superiority or inferiority of a poet] is in the way which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different than that from which it is torn; the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion.” To clarify Eliot’s implied ethics, he is not advocating stealing. Rather, he is arguing all creative work is derivative.
Artists, throughout history, have challenged aesthetics; they challenge conventions, rules, laws, and our opinions. The aesthetic of our time still challenges us, but artists now have many more tools at their disposal. With new technology, new art practices arise. We happen to be living in a digital age where the use of technology can allow us to remix existing art to create new works of art.
I was not familiar with Girl Talk before going over the material for this module. I believe that Girl Talk’s art is a perfect example of art that challenges us, as well as conventions. Becker states in his chapter ‘Editing,’ “To produce unique works of art that will be interesting to audiences, artists must unlearn a little of the conventionally right way of doing things they have learned. Totally conventional pieces bore everyone and bring the artist few rewards. So artists, to be successful in producing art, must violate standards more or less deeply internalized.” (pg 204). Although Becker is commenting on methods of creating relevant art, I think this speaks to the aesthetic of our time, and any period of time, really. Girl Talk is successful at disregarding conventions of making music, and uses the tools of the 21st century to create his art. “When suppliers make new materials available, they add to the possibilities from which artists can choose.” (Becker, 210).
I don’t think copying and pasting or remixing older works necessarily quantifies the aesthetic of our time; it just happens to currently be a popular method of challenging traditional art conventions, and a method that is easily shared. Lady Gaga, for example, is able to create new music without remixing or reusing older songs (although I’m pretty sure the chord progression in ‘Born This Way’ is very similar to Madonna’s ‘Express Yourself’…). She definitely challenges all conventions in music and fashion, and could be considered an important part of the aesthetic of our time. Challenging the recent and current art and aesthetic standards is usually, in my opinion, the aesthetic of the present.
If art wasn’t produced for consumption and capital gain, would this argument be the same? Would we care as much about the reuse of art, its appropriation and evolution in and by the community? Some contemporary artists, particularly the type that are described in the readings for Module 3, seem to be collaborators, but they aren’t necessarily collaborating with each other. Rather, they are collaborating with other artists that they’ve never met, artists that have been dead for years maybe. Jay-Z and the Beatles never got a chance to work together, but maybe they would have wanted to.
Becker discusses acceptable editing or collaboration. When a writer writes a novel, the editor guides it through the publishing mechanism. That is his or her official and accepted, agreed-upon role. When those roles become less defined, though, or taken on without permission, the artist can feel infringed upon. Greg Gillis could be editing, collaborating with those artists that he wouldn’t have been able to work with if it hadn’t been for the advent of the internet and digital media. He does not pass the sampled pieces of those songs off as his own original work. He wants to acknowledge the original authors as contributors, acknowledge their work and the work’s role in his creation.
But he also wants his creations to be acknowledged as that, original works of art that he has produced. While I am not a fan of Girl Talk’s work, I still want to acknowledge the creativity that he puts into producing his songs, in the same way I feel like I have to acknowledge the work of fan fiction writers. A friend of mine’s wife spends hours on end reading and writing fan fiction. While I don’t fully understand her desire to stay trapped inside the story of a book, I understand sometimes – for instance when I watch the end of one of my favorite movies and I feel sad that it’s over. She keeps that world that she loves so much alive. I also can’t deny that it takes a massive amount of creativity as well. I think she embodies the aesthetic of our time, which boils down to collaboration through various avenues of media that is available to us.
To sum up the aesthetic of our time is a complex an daunting task, but I agree with Maya’s point that one defining factor is the recycling and reworking of images, sounds and words from our cultural history. After exploring Module 3’s readings and resources, I am especially interested in the idea of art/media appropriation in the context of the music industry. The term “sampling” (i.e. the act of reusing a portion of an existing sound recording in the creation of a new song or sound recording) is a well-known term in contemporary music vernacular, especially in the production of hip hop music. I came across a quote by Richard Schur, from his book Hip Hop Aesthetics and Contemporary African American Literature (2008) that eloquently describes the aesthetic of hip-hop culture: “Hip hop does not simply draw inspiration from a range of samples, but it layers these fragments into an artistic object. If sampling is the first level of hip hop aesthetics, how the pieces or elements fit together constitute the second level. Hip hop emphasizes and calls attention to its layered nature. The aesthetic code of hip hop does not seek to render invisible the layers of samples, sounds, references, images, and metaphors. Rather, it aims to create a collage in which the sampled texts augment and deepen the song/book/art’s meaning to those who can decode the layers of meaning.” I found this description extremely applicable to the broader definition the multi-layer aesthetic we see in contemporary culture.
An interesting transmedia reaction to the popularity of sampling is a website called http://www.whosampled.com, which provides an online catalogue of samples, remixes, and covers. Visitors to the site can search a database of over 116,000 songs and 44,000 artists, to identify sampled recording. Each search result allows the visitor to download and/or buy the original sample and the new track. Visitors have the opportunity to contribute their own information and content to the site by participating in discussion forums, uploading additional links and photos, submitting new music or personal remixes, and becoming a volunteer site moderator. WhoSampled also has a blog that provides an even more in depth platform for discussion and information sharing.
Sampling can range from borrowing just a few beats to using long recognizable segments. The “mash-up” style of Girl Talk and other artists is made up entirely of samples. As we learned from “Rip: Remix Manifesto”, the conscious use of other artists’ songs is often controversial and can lead to legal debates. Regardless if it is right or wrong, or if it is art or non-art, it is happening and people are listening. And the result is an added layer of complexity to society’s participation, understanding, and engagement in art worlds, past and present. Intentionally or not, I believe it opens up opportunity for cross-generational and cross-cultural collaboration and conversation. It can help inform our perception of music, old and new and often introduces us to music we may not otherwise find. For example, a young person may visit WhoSampled as Kanye West fan and discover a new love of Sam Cook, Otis Redding, or Curtis Mayfield.
I think the aesthetic of our time is one of making connections, which is of course heavily influenced by our level of access to cultural material and media. Now it’s easier than ever to reference works from either a few centuries ago or a few minutes ago. It seemed like the way we processed and valued information was either by having specific knowledge about a focused topic, or a generalized knowledge about a range of subjects. Now the value of knowledge lies in the connections we can make between different pieces of information because we can access both the specific and the general through transmedia.
Remixes are fresh and interesting because we know where they came from, we know the originals that the samples were taken from. But what do younger generations think? If they don’t have the context and can’t differentiate the connections from original material, will the music be as good? I think a good portion of the appeal of Girl Talk is placing very different songs together so that they work together in tandem. But if you didn’t know the two songs in the first place, that particular aesthetic experience is gone.
There is a big critique I have about making connection, and that’s not all connections are good. For example, there are some very hateful misogynistic messages that come through in some of Girl Talk’s music based on the songs he chooses to sample. Becker talked about how art is a series of choices, so what happens when the choices you make condone prejudice? Like the panel at NYCC, mentioned in the blog for the Organization for Transformative Works, it seems like the connections we make uphold the status quo, and all of the prejudices associated with it. Perhaps this is because the pieces that are being connected are inherently prejudiced, or perhaps it’s just revealing prejudices in the chooser. However, I worry that if we stop making additional pieces to connect, we’ll keep perpetuating a prejudicial framework.
I think many people are simply taken aback by the very blatant nature in which the intellectual property is being used and reused. The idea of all artists borrowing, copying, or stealing is indeed understood by all- yet its only “recently” that ideas about who needs to see monetary profit seem to stir up questions of legality. That, and technology making these issues more instantaneous and available places it in a special public discourse spotlight. Some arguments are indeed lame- a popular one being Vanilla Ice’s sample of Queen/Bowie’s “Under Pressure”. It’s different because of the extra eighth note? Seriously? Who wrote the riff? Would it have mattered up until there was a possibility of royalties coming out of the hooky bassline?
If an artist makes a mashup that is beloved, say like anything that Pogo does http://www.youtube.com/user/Fagottron#p/u/3/t_htoSaQFf4 it seems to come away with less scrutiny.
Other times these arts stay somewhat underground for a time. Is anyone from Disney going after ice cream trucks, either? http://icecreamdisney.tumblr.com/ Not so much.
Is Simply Red going to come after Oneohtrix Point Never? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RFunvF0mDw Probably not here either. But these items have less visibility and are thus seen as less threatening. Gillis, on the other hand, got super popular rather quickly with his partyin’ dance music. Many folks were pretty confused when they realized seeing him live was seeing him diddle on his computer. He’s like Weird Al, though- he leaves no genre or artist untouched. Nothing is off limits, be it Top 40 or “b-side”. If its a hook and it grooves then it works. How can you have time to question levels of Highbrow or Lowbrow while dancing streams of toilet paper are being launched at you via a modified leaf-blower? (Which is what happens at a Girl Talk show. That, plus lots of confetti/glitter.)
I think this highlights the notion that art worlds may have seemed a bit more monolithic and static in the past, and at this point in time we can see art paradigms changing before our eyes rather than by figuring out the movements in looking back with an historical lens.
Another point I feel compelled to make about our assertions about “the aesthetic of our time” has to do with the way I see people as consuming and remixing these medias. I do not think they are as concerned with authorship or creation of an artists work sometimes because they are more involved with manipulating into some sort of signs or symbols that describe themselves. I feel like they want to make a mood, or invoke a theme- they understand the cultural connotations of the imagery or sound but by tweaking it in their own way, a person is able to create somewhat of a personal statement. It shows some sort of perceived individuality if one is able to appreciate something in a new or unconventional way. Ex: this marketing artwork may seem sort of dated or embarrassing at some point in time but then cycles back around to pretty badass! http://www.tumblr.com/photo/1280/513458744/1/tumblr_l0dlhdyvqE1qaogkz or, this .gif might have been a cruddy reminder of how rudimentary the internet used to look, but now I’m sort of nostalgic for it because unicorns are back to being cool now! http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kxuj6nJkys1qziykqo1_250.gif
Trends repeating are becoming more easy to track. Collaged art right now is almost certainly going to have some sort of found photography from a 1970’s National Geographic or pieced together with Hubble-like images of galaxies. Why? I’m not sure, its just an aesthetic preference of our time, instantly perpetuated by the internet. http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l23w6uXz9X1qz74x7o1_400.jpg
I think a lot of these ideas are what inspired me to take on my current fieldwork project, so stay tuned!
I am swimming in thoughts on this module. Let’s see if I can use them to create at least a few cohesive sentences.
Arguments over copyright relate to the integrity of an artist’s work and the value–monetary, meritorious, and cultural worth–placed on a given piece. One of the major difficulties, then, is what worth we place on an individual work in comparison to a compilation employing several works (although each new creation is an individual work). Though some would argue that a mashup, sampling, mix, or other compilation of preexisting work is its own work of art, I have trouble accepting these new works as emblematic of our aesthetic. I don’t mean to take anything away from the artistic validity of the works we have been looking at; I simply hesitate to give them much weight in the definition of the contemporary aesthetic.
We are engulfed in a sea of technology, and this new technology is at the core of our cultural artistry. Each new era’s aesthetic is centralized around the mastery of the time’s technology, i.e. ancient sculptures, Renaissance painters, photographers, and filmmakers, to name a few. Advancements exist within each of these mediums, and variations within said mediums provide opportunities for new aesthetic definitions and refinements. Technology appears, provides a new medium, and, with the new medium, comes new art. But the internet has pushed so much information into the hands of so many that I fear we are struggling to find ourselves (as a culture) despite the advent of the internet. We access and absorb so much information that defining a new artistic mastery that is significantly different than that which came before–a new work of art rather than a redefinition of earlier works–feels nearly impossible. When we can experience so much of what has already been created, I fear that we–as a culture–may become intimidated by the prospect of creating something new. Instead, we turn to reappropriation. In the direct use of the works of other eras, is the art that is created truly representative of our culture? Our aesthetic? And, if so, what does that say about what we believe our culture to be? Some of the possible answers to these questions make me more than a little uncomfortable.
The debate around copy right laws is an interesting one and is something I had not given much thought to before. In some ways it is the story of laws catching up with ever changing technology (such as online bullying – it’s new? what do we do about it?), but in other ways it is about something much more… An element of corporate greed, an underlying political ideology with roots of individualism… The blog this week makes me want to know what others know or feel about the “public domain,” does it need to be protected or do individuals need to be protected from each other, or do both need protecting, and if so, what is a just balance? I don’t have a solidified opinion on what should come of it but after viewing the documentaries and web material I feel that by limiting access to material due to copyright laws does limit others’ creative potential by limiting access (high costs that are far above what the average wage earner earns), such as Girl Talk. He is without a doubt talented and creative, I could not do what he does. It’s obvious that his creativity is bringing joy into other peoples lives, so what is more important here, more money for corporations or the quality of life for the public at large? Another example from the materials is the Gregory Brothers “songify your life” which is copyright infringement too. But again, it’s hilarious and probably many others too. Do artists like these define the aesthetic of “our time’? I’m not sure, but they do depend on the creative material of others, and I’m okay with that. Perhaps it too much of a socialist concept for the individualist society that exists within our national borders.
*edit-
I said “Simply Red” when I meant Chris DeBurgh. I had Red on the brain. And maybe the 80s. oops!
I think the aesthetic of our time is trying to be alternative. This is a time of cultural democracy, everybody want to express themselves in their own voice and also want to be heard by others. So people try hard to be labeled as the “other type”. Teenagers dress themselves in strange clothes to be different; young people keep looking for now forms of entertainment such as parkour to be out of common; composers explore every sound element and new harmony algorithm in their works even though some of the works don’t pleasant to hear. People also change existing works in their ideas, such as Mozart Sym No.40 K550 1st Mov. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l45DAuXYSIs ) has been recomposed into many popular songs, one is I Don’t Want to Grow Up by S.H.E., a popular music group in China( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UoPqCmzmuA ); another one is Never Say Goodbye, the theme song of a South Korean television dramas My Girl( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvfbLDb1CHQ ).
To be alternative also be reflected in video materials of Module 3. DJ remix songs to create a “new” song, which could have totally different style and rhythm. And many people be crazy about it, because these remixed music became more suitable for dancing. Another example is Drew Ryniewicz, a 14 years old girl from X Factor, she recomposed Baby by Justin Baber and delighted four judges and all audience( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB_5WrJagak ). Just like Simon said in the link: people at her age will buy her vision of that song. In a word, by trying to be alternative, people create / reorganize arts. It could help people find the arts their really like and make the new arts they produced more suitable for some specific groups.
The aesthetic of our time is a very broad and unspecific question, which leaves a lot of room for interpretation, biases and personal opinion. Before I reply to this prompt I need to state this disclaimer because who is the ‘our’, in ‘our time’? I’ll write from my point of view, as a 28 year old graduate student. I always reach back to the phrase, “to each, his own,” because what one finds aesthetic, another may not. However, I really like what Bill Ivey and Seven J. Tepper wrote in Cultural Renaissance or Cultural Divide, in The Chronicle of higher Education, “Today people define their status by consuming as omnivores rather than as snobs.” There is still a relevant culture, or art world if you will, that revolves around high culture. If we speak about my generation, high cultural taste has eroded. This might be in our culture’s response to learning more about the globalization via accessing information, through a multitude of trans-media, and thus we appreciate more.
With further knowledge, opinions and fads evolve; the more humans learn, the more open we are to different views. This can be addicting, and point to a few key items of popular culture, as Lexi mentioned: I-pods, I-Phones, I-pads, Kindal, MacBooks, etc. With these tiny items that fit into our palm and pocket, we can access information fast and easy. With access, we are opened up to see other views in the world, and we continue to to want to look through other windows- at least I (This is why I am addicted to traveling). Thus, we want more- more art, more digital media, more information. Humans are naturally consumers. For some strange reason we love to consume what is beautiful- a pretty salad, yum. A beautiful landscape- lets put up a house, yum. Beautiful art, collect it and keep it for our own, yum….
Perhaps including all kinds of art, created by all kinds of global citizens is now in the cool. In the Chronicle, Ivy and Tepper say that youth are wanting not just arts, but an arts experience. Mainstream is too restricted and limits cultural democracy by holding, not revealing what’s out there. This is a healthy trend for our economy because bg-box outlets are just not cutting this aesthetic trend or style that highlights the local and independent voices.
On the contrary, I see a huge issue with this trend. Not everyone has access to fancy trans-media technology that fits into pockets and palms. Not everyone can afford independent and locally owned stores. Is low brow art in danger of becoming too popular for the lower-class to access?
Jonathan, thank you for all the info on the current copyright situation. Admittedly, copyright is a very complex, and in it’s current form, outdated and in many cases, restrictive. It is in need of being updated, streamlined, and simplified. I do have a dog in this fight, for my grandmother’s brother, James Brennan, was a famous composer and musician in New York City in the early 1900’s, and was one of the founding members of ASCAP. I could easily imagine, however, his dismay at both how the organization and their original “mission statement” have been both ignored and exploited (Disney comes to mind).
How do we go about fixing this situation so that artist’s rights are respected and protected, and allow for the free flow of culture and ideas so necessary for a vital and creative society ? That may be the question for our times.
Edit: In the beginning of the third full paragraph about copyright history (first post I made), that should say that copyright terms were extended from 28 to 42 years – not 24.
What is the aesthetic of our time is such a complex questions to me. I feel like there are many layers to this question especially when it comes to defining aesthetic. The first thing I think of when I think about an aesthetic that reflects what is happening now is technology and our access to information. In the last few years we as people have come to living in a way where we have access to everything almost instantly. There are almost no more borders in what we can see and learn. We are no longer limited to what we can physically get to in terms of experiencing art. With the internet and so many forms of contact we can instantly access almost anything in the world. We have also created the ability to share in a way that was never possible before. We can share ideas in a much broader sense. The aesthetic of our time seems to me to be a melding of our ideas with others. There is nothing that does not grow from something else, and with how easy it is to communicate and share, our growth of ideas and our sources of information are endless. I think the idea of transmedia is what has created this aesthetic for us. We use the media to broadcast our ideas and we cross the boundaries of media to create new forms of art. No art form is completely separate anymore. Music, film, dance, sculpture, poetry etc everything can be crossed and melded together in new ways. I think that is what defines our generation now, is our creation of art that is no longer so rigid and independent of anything else.
After group discussion of the idea of the aesthetic of our time in last weeks class, I really liked the idea of cultural mining and the re-mix that defines modern aesthetic. One of my favorite magazines is called “Found”– perhaps you’ve heard of it? Found Magazine (www.foundmagazine.com) is based on the discovery of everyday notes, pictures, lists, or lost objects, by everyday people. Found Magazine editors ask the people who send in items to provide a “title” for the objects they find, and perhaps a short description from their viewpoint. It is interesting to see so many out of context objects brought together in one place, yet such a feeling of identification with the un-known authors. The author, and his brother, goes out of his way to find the best finds. There are some pretty funny you-tube videos of him discussing specific finds, just search “Found Magazine”– I enjoy “Two Girls Arguing”, and any of the stuck in Vermont readings.
Found Magazine really defines the recycled nature of the aesthetic of our time, but truly defines the uniqueness in the ways we identify with our own culture. Found Magazine also identifies with the participatory nature of our time’s art aesthetic, and the idea that any person can contribute, whether as an intermediary ‘finder’ or as that anonymous ‘author’. Found is also a truly transmedia experience– from the road trips that take Found to multiple states, to the 50 states that send in found objects, to the filmed examinations of found objects, the the website documenting recent finds, and the actual accumulation of objects into aesthetically pleasing magazines and books, Found really is a representative of our time.
I suggest going out and finding a copy of Found– I did once lose a copy off the back of my truck (back in Alaska), so maybe you can find that one for me!
I liked that the Becker article this week dealt with decisions we make in the art world.
Someone once told me the way to explain modern art. There are a lot of critics who look at some modern works and say “That’s not art. I could have done that”, mostly to abstract pieces. But the answer to that is “You probably could have… but you didn’t. You didn’t have the emotional and creative capacity to create this kind of form. This artist did.” This week’s reading made me think of that.
I thought the girl talk video was really interesting. I saw him preform in Orlando in 2009, and his choices have changed over a matter of time. Originally, I think his songs were about making new music as a culmination of what has already been made. When Brett Gaylor discusses the Remixer’s Manifesto, his list of points are as follows:
1) culture always builds on the past
2) the past always tries to control the future
3) our future is becoming less free
4) to build free societies you must limit the control of the past.
When I saw Girl Talk at firestone, he didn’t remix the songs he was playing. I could literally sing along to them. This isn’t the point of a mash up artist. His music, the mash up, is meant to share new information and spread the freedom of music. This is what a lot of Djs do. However, the fact that he no longer does ‘live’ shows, but instead makes the decision to simply replay what he’s already done, he’s not upholding the Remixer’s Manifesto. He’s allowing the piece he’s made in the past to control what he plays in the future.
So the aesthetic of our time is really as the aesthetic of any time. It’s about the decisions of a contemporary societal background. The reactions to past issues, future assumptions, and current problems or solutions. This is totally relatable to the idea of the Remixer’s Manifesto, in the idea that current, future, and past culture are in a looping influence of one another.