What drives current aesthetics of art and arts participation?
What cultural institutions and structures are involved? What social forces/issues?
In what ways do practices, ideas, narratives, or ideologies associated with this aesthetic depend on transmediations?
Append your comments, thoughts, and questions on the main ideas for Module 3 to this post. Feel free to draw on any of the course readings, as well as any other examples or materials that you feel resonate with the above main question.
When I was little, I loved to make collages. They were a way to take what I was picturing and quickly generate it without needing to go photograph a giraffe or become a photorealistic painter of faces. But more than that, they provided constraints that made the art more interesting. If I imagined a giraffe walking down a city sidewalk led on a leash by a little girl but could only find a picture of a giraffe in the “distance” and the little girl with a leash was a historical photo then I would end up with a girl outside of her time walking a miniature giraffe in the city, and that would be much more interesting than what I had even imagined. In this way, the list that the Allergy to Originality Op-Doc provides of ways in which everything created is some form of plagiarism is not a list of the ways in which art fails at originality, but ways in which the context of what has been created before provides the constraints needed for original new works.
The creation of these new works happens in relationship to the dominant ideology. While some might see the dominant ideology as an oppressive force to be undone by subversive arts, the fact is that the dominant ideology thrives because of its adaptabilitiy. Every dominant ideology has an outlet for subversiveness that both prevents frequent revolutions and allows for shifts in consciousness needed to make sense in the current world. Creating transmediations allows those explorations on the fringe of the dominant ideology to happen in a way that connects in recognizable ways to the dominant art forms. A person may recognize one of the melodies in a mash up, and once that catches their ear they are able to listen to the rest of the mash up and acquire new exposures.
The issue with the infrastructure now is not copyright. As an artist, I am happy to have protections on my work. The issue is that ownership rights go far beyond the creator. Sometimes corporations have more say about intellectual property than the creators. Someitmes the creators just bow out in the face of corporate machines. If The Hunger Games was just a book, I can imagine I could write to Collins about referencing the books in my graduate project game. I might need special permission from the publisher but that wouldn’t be much harder. But Hunger Games is not a franchise, a whole world of books, toys, games, movies. If it is in the movies, consider it a lost cost. Too much money has been invested (and projected to be earned) to let some random creator develop something that may engage consumers more than what the corporate brains can come up with.
The trouble is, we have a vast society of people with the time and resources to create. For this reason, fan art and fan fiction often beat out what is for sale as movie posters or graphic novel renditions. Most creators I know love the fan-crafted world. Perhaps they would like a piece of the sales pie, if there is one (there often isn’t), but it isn’t to bad of a deal to feed the creator of the world/character you reference. But to feed all of the corporate-industrial complex is impossible, as Rift shows with the price of the mash-up album.
The great thing about these “deviations” (which is what DeviantArt, a site known for fan art, calls all of its art) is that they are going to happen regardless of the legal structures in place. Billboards will be modified. Drawings of Avatar Korra and her (girl?)friend kissing will be posted all over the internet. Music mixes will be copied and distributed among friends. As a result, a healthy cultural exchange will go on.
Current aesthetics of art and arts participation revolve around a thinking-in-the-box mentality that leads to relatively low levels of originality within the artistic realm. Rather than assuming the position of cultural builders and world changers, artists so often serve as the “passive commentator” (Desmarais, 2002) in order to secure a place within the harsh, non-creative bureaucracy we call modern society. There is a pervasive “allergy to originality,” that the New York Times Op-Doc highlights rather well, in our culture that causes us to reflect back on previously created mediums and already articulated ideas to keep society in an easily digested form. Social, political, and even monetary structures influence the artist to make habitual choices in the “conventionalized” artistic process (Becker, 1982) and edit works to fit a particular mould in order to survive, thrive, and be seen. However, this does not always spell disaster for artists and their work. With the creation of new technologies that allow people to create, edit, share, and think outside of a particular “mainstream” sphere, new forms of creative art and commentary have begun to present themselves in new ways. AutoTune the News is a brilliant example of taking an already existing medium, and editing it in a creative way to make hilarious commentary on American politics and catchy rhythms. Originality, in the traditional sense, may be lacking but with the ever changing forms of electronic communication and digitalization of human thought, the definition of originality, art, and “world changers” may just to take a new form in the next millennia.
Current aesthetic arts is highly influenced by present popular trends, and the mass amount of transmedia and social influences around us. I believe that the community you live in, and your cultural surroundings are the biggest influences of art trends and participation. In Becker’s article, “editing,” he talks about how participation within the arts is made by editing or change to the work of art over time. I think he was saying that change and alteration to art is going to happen regardless of the circumstances. The world we live in is constantly changing, modernizing, and so will art aesthetics. Art changes so drastically overtime, you lose sight of what the original work really was. It is easier to alter something that already is very popular, then to face the judgement of creating a completely new idea.
Cultural institutions involved can be Schools, museums, galleries, concert halls, recording studios, ect. Trans-mediation is creating an environment where the ownership of someone’s work becomes not only questionable, but easy to steal. Everyone displays their work on the internet, with easy access to the general public. It is not difficult to take something, edit it slightly, and say it is your own. There is a whole job market now of Music Lawyers whose job consist of working with copy rights. Making sure you don’t break copy right laws can be a daunting task as a performer or teacher. And every piece of music has different copy right rules. There are many instances where you have to get the artists permission to play a piece. If we all were to raise our hands to who has broken a copy right law, I would say almost everyone in the class would have their hand up. Many of the videos and readings from module 3 touched upon originality. Is there any real originality anymore? Or is all of our work a recreation of some sort of another person’s work? Transmedia allows us access to every piece of music, art, or dance out there by simply turning the computer on and typing in a couple words. This is in returning allowing ideologies to ever be changing. Heck, there are websites now for the sole purpose of sharing music including, I-Tunes, Groove Shark, Pandora,and spotify. Now, when you live overseas in a different country, you can simply download a VPN blocker, and access any American website free of charge. This includes, television sites, music streaming, and other various sites normally not accessible to those living outside the USA.
What drives current aesthetics of art and arts participation?
The art world drives the aesthetics of art. “People act with the anticipated reactions of others in mind. This implies that artists create their work, at least in part, by anticipating how people will respond, emotionally and cognitively to what they do” (Becker, p. 200).
Sometimes artists ignore the current aesthetics of their art world. People tend to become bored with the same, conventional thing. There are many times when an artist takes a risk aesthetically. If people respond positively to their work, the artist and the participants are responsible for shifting the accepted aesthetic.
What cultural institutions and structures are involved? What social forces/issues?
Artists have to take into consideration their audience and the existing aesthetic when they are creating their work. Becker gives a great example of an artist adjusting what they are going to create to fit the current aesthetic. “Composers, when they decide what instruments to score their ideas for, know that works written for two violins, viola, and cello – the conventional string quartet – have a substantial chance of being played because string quartets already exist, ready to play works written for them” (p. 201-202). This example is repeated across all art forms and art worlds. Artists rely on other artists, audiences, critics, and established institutions to tell them if there work is good enough. Often, artists consciously and unconsciously make creative choices based on the established aesthetic.
Social and political constraints affect the aesthetic of art worlds. Some artists withhold or destroy work because they feel the political and social climate would deem it inappropriate.
In what ways do practices, ideas, narratives, or ideologies associated with this aesthetic depend on transmediations?
Transmediation is defined as the translation of a work into a different medium. Art worlds are constantly translating works into different mediums. One of the most common forms of this is making successful/popular books into films. The film industry often recreates old films, changes them enough so that they fit into a more modern aesthetic, and appeal to a modern audience. More often than not, the original work was already successful in its own art world.
Another example is mash-ups and remixes. The video RiP! A Remix Manifesto touches on the idea that the internet gives consumers the power to be the creators. Anyone can take practices, ideas, narratives, or ideologies and apply them to a different medium. The internet gives people the power to share these creations with the world.
I think the main force driving the current aesthetics of art and arts participation is related to consumers and art participants. The most frequent way a person participates in art is as an audience member. Therefore, the only time one may participate in an art event or art form is if he or she has an interest in it or “know-how” of it from the beginning. Consumers don’t usually take risks when discovering new forms of art. This leads to the need for a creator to follow in the participant’s lead. As Becker stated, “How do artists know when they are through, when to stop painting or writing? Their decisions on these matters often take into account the way other members of the art world will react to what they decide” (p 202, 1982). Becker implies that an artist could go on making a piece forever, but at some point must recognize when a member of the art world or an art participant will be interested (or become uninterested) in the piece.
This idea directly correlates to an unspoken structure or social force in place when creating art. The artist must relate to the consumer, regardless of what he or she has learned from years of academic studies or art practice. Becker says, “…artists, to be successful in producing art must violate standards more or less deeply internalized” (p 200). Further, artists must continue updating the manner in which art is produced. A wonderful example is the collection of Autotune the News from the Gregory Brothers. I remember watching these videos as a senior in high school and being entertained, but also forcing exposure to current issues. I can imagine the Gregory Brothers were more interested in creating original music, but found an audience through this channel. It led to serious exposure and a chance to create the theme song for Unbreakable Kimmie Schmidt, a Netflix Original series created by Tina Fey.
In our current societal structure, it seems transmediations are the only driving force of aesthetic structure for art. Consumers’ ability to share something instantly on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, or Pinterest is the most relied on source for what is “trending.” Never before have people been in a situation where every opinion they have can be broadcast openly. Often, this makes or breaks an artist’s success. Just reading the comments under a news story, music video, or picture exposes what people really think of the art form. Artists must take into account not only the content of their work, but also how an audience might perceive their art.
Current aesthetics of art and arts participation are heavily influenced by current events and social issues. Taking a look at graffiti and its evolution from the 1970s, the social issues that fueled graffiti artists are similar to social issues today. Young members of society, or a specific demographic, used this art form as a way of responding and getting their voices heard. At times, it could and can be used as a way of showing resistance and retaliating against a hegemonic power. Now, with graffiti being acknowledged as an art form instead of the vandalism produced by “troubled youths”, the commentary on social issues and using graffiti as a way of communication is still at the forefront of participating in this art world.
The dependence on transmediations in graffiti has actually aided in the acceptance of graffiti as an art form. Gone are the days of TAKI183 when teens would claim territory by using magic maker on a subway train. The different mediums of the surfaces on which graffiti is being placed the aesthetic and the planning for the artist and his/her artwork. A subway train is different from a brick wall or a billboard. The change in mediums changes the audience as well as the approach. The side of a subway train can be seen by many more people that those that walk past a brick wall. The size of the graffiti has to compensate for that change in audience. If there is social commentary within the graffiti, the bigger the piece, the more attention it can gather.
Society ultimately drives the current aesthetics of art and art participation. Participants in the arts are inescapably shaped by the culture that surrounds them. It is the community or art world in its entirety that determines what aesthetics will surface and which will go unnoticed. As Becker contends, the art world can potentially do as much to shape a piece of art as the artist who conceives the work.
The standard practices and lexicon of an art world are an important part to understanding how the art operates within a given framework. Because of this, Practices and exposure to current aesthetics in art are more than ever reliant on transmediations. There are seemingly endless platforms in the digital arena alone that serve to communicate currents trends and ideologies. Current aesthtics within a given Art World are unavoidably shaped by its relevance (or lack there of) to digital media.
What drives current aesthetics of art and arts participation?
The biggest driving force behind the artist and arts participants would be the outside influences on their work- editors, critics, buyers, etc. Artists also all have sources of inspiration, often other artists. This has a large impact on the work they produce. I was particularly struck by the New York Times “op-doc” about originality. While it mostly was referring to the process of inspiration, I also connected it with Becker’s arguments about editing. Including other peoples’ revisions and thoughts does not make a piece solely the product of one artist, and thus not entirely original. You also have to factor in the other individuals’ sources of inspiration.
What cultural institutions and structures are involved? What social forces/issues?
The involved institutions are primarily financially motivated- critics wanting their posts shared so they can charge more for ads, venue owners wanting to rent space to more artists, publishers wanting their name on a best seller, etc. Social pressures dictate all of this. If your friends all think a snarky review is funny and needs to be shared, you are more likely to a) see the review and b) agree that it’s funny. Therefore the critic feels the pressure to be entertaining. Similarly, if all of your friends are reading a particular book, so will you. There is therefore a vicious cycle of funding popular material and material becoming popular because of funding. While many artists do have their own personal missions, it is hard to not have some concern for success and notoriety.
In what ways do practices, ideas, narratives, or ideologies associated with this aesthetic depend on transmediations?
In the case of particular events, one has the art of the event itself. Then that art work is typically promoted across a variety of medium- post cards, social media, posters, radio ads, etc. The story of the art is then being told in a variety of formats and ways, adding on layers of influence and information. This does not always have a direct impact on the aestetic of the art itself, but the reception of the art. For example, an artist may have a collection in their gallery but the manager only uses one of their pieces on all of the marketing materials. This tells a very specific story than if another piece had been selected or their had been a way to showcase the entire collection.
The feeling I was getting while watching and listening to the different material from this week was that even though there might be a physical distance or a generational gap, there is still this sense of connectivity and wanting to be inclusive. There was such a collaborative feel going on in the videos, it transcended media platforms, location and generations. In terms of current aesthetics of art participation the collaboration is both inclusive and exclusive. It gives those who use or have access to these particular technological platforms a different way to multiple views or sounds all in one sitting. But it also alienates those who use more traditional mediums or even those who don’t utilize these particular mediums to their fullest extent. For example, the videos that were uploaded to Youtube are accessible to anyone who uses a computer and knows Youtube, but outside of simply watching the videos and experiencing it by themselves they could participate in a conversation in the comments section. There is a great sense of community if you actively engage with art in this platform.
I think that it’s interesting how, generally, people make and post videos on Youtube because they want to share something and want others to participate in some type of experience, but then there’s always the chance that the rules and regulations will hinder that. The blog post about fair use and the video about originality paired nicely together because it brings into conversation intellectual property and if there isn’t anything that’s original anymore then why is there such a stigma when using something that another individual has used or deems as their own.
I think that these materials, while are interesting and somewhat entertaining, start up a really thought-provoking discussion and do so without appearing like they have some sort of agenda to get across.
I believe that the idea of making something brand new that has never been seen before drives current aesthetics of arts and arts participation. This is a topic of frequent discussion in my painting studio course, as painting is one of the oldest media humans have used to make art and therefore there is a vast database of countless paintings, the evidence what has already been done by previous artists. There have been paintings done entirely in black (like artist Ad Reinhardt created) and completely in white (like artist Robert Rauschenberg) and paintings done on different shaped canvas (like artist Richard Tuttle). The way art is shown in today’s world is also seemingly reaching the end of its extent, possibly. Art is exhibited in museums, galleries, on the streets, on the internet, in an artist’s studio, in schools, in coffee shops, in parks and in public. So many different types of art exist, and the number is constantly growing. In today’s world, there is very little that can be done to shock the art industry. Therefore I think that notion is what drives the art world currently.
Famous fine art museums are huge cultural institutions in this field. While there are many many many different museums even just in America, there are a very select few that maintain top control. To list a sample, the Museum of Modern Art, the Guggenheim, the National Gallery of Art, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Galleries and auction houses are very important institutions as well, as that is how many artists make money, is by selling their art.
Twenty years ago, transmedia had very little impact in the field of art. Today, the field could not exist without it. The art world used to be an entirely offline space. Now, art exists across so many media types and participants can fluidly experience one right after the other, with very little difficulty. I think transmedia has because such a part of our culture (perhaps just millennials) due to the fact that it is practically a daily occurrence. Between scrolling through videos, pictures and links on facebook, or even being forced to watch an ad before viewing something else, humans today are bombarded with information.
Arts aesthetics and participation are determined by mostly external factors rather than the internal thoughts or process of an artist. I find the term “aesthetic” to be more of a pop culture item nowadays since Tumblr fell into a trend of defining abstract images or a collection of images as a personal “aesthetic.” It stemmed from vaporwave music (similar to sea punk and other underground electronic music scenes), including patterns or color palettes similar to those of the 80s and 90s: wavy lines, all neon, all pastel, and 8-bit imagery. So now when I hear the word “aesthetic” I immediately reference these purposefully created images intended to provoke a sense of nostalgia, calmness, stasis, etc. This Tumblr trend influenced a lot of participation among its users, which I find interesting in relation to the readings and videos. These individuals from all around the world were forming their own snapshot of an aesthetic they either wanted to claim as their own, an aesthetic of their feelings, or an aesthetic of a place. This specialized art world on Tumblr generated an entire trend based on one small genre, and evolved it through incorporation of popular items such as flower crowns, pale grunge, fine art, and satirical re-inventions of the idea of “aesthetic,” and this reinforces Becker’s idea of how an art world makes art rather than individuals. In relation to this aesthetic idea on Tumblr, I’ve seen several album covers, especially for EPs, that evoke the same, trendy artistic elements.
Since aesthetics in all forms of art change over time, artists are easily able to recognize what the general public might want based on formalized critiques or a more nuanced approach such as Tumblr users replicating a similar idea for their blogs. In general, these artists could predict whether or not a new painting or a new album would be pleasing or popular to the public sector. This allows them more openness than a piece designated for a certain person, place, or purpose because it will affect the aesthetic choices. However, openness is not necessarily a good thing. If there is no deadline, an artist can redo or practice a piece to death. On the other hand, producing a piece for a specific venue or idea can compromise their artistic integrity, but it might end up being one of their most well-received works of art. This isn’t necessarily great though either, because an artist might be known for one object or concept but it might not be their most innovative or truly creative work, which is why I think art should be more for the individual creating it rather than the public. The participation though has opened up as technology has evolved, allowing the riskier artists to gain a following through social media engagement. Not every show or album can receive a high-caliber review, but people can take selfies with it or check it at a performing arts center, generating interest by those who might not be involved with art news as well as inserting it into the internet abyss.
Cultural institutions are involved and careful about their involvement with aesthetics. As an artistic institution, an entire brand should be formed around it that is present in online and print media. The atmosphere of a place also lends itself to aesthetics. The Louvre would be less likely to house a Jeff Koons piece, whereas the New Museum in New York would possibly seem passé if they exhibited his work. Social ideas can influence where to go to view art, and how one might view or interact with that art. If images of people imitating or interacting with art in a certain way are seen, then others will want to interact in this same way. Larger cultural institutions drive the trend of aesthetics based on what is popular, and because it’s easier for them to track what people might like or not like and then relay that information to the public.
Art is being affected by transmedia because it provides opportunities to “remix” a classic work of art for advertising purposes, promotion of an exhibit or show itself, or for fun. Art is widely accessible because of the internet, and trending topics can be found on Twitter and Tumblr through tags. It’s helping lesser-known artists gain visibility as well as transform the typical arts consumer into an arts participant and a generator of popular ideas.
Relying on Becker, aesthetics of art are negotiated by far more people than the artist himself. Striking influences and impacts come from the dialogue between the artist and other participants of an art world like critics, curators, collectors and publisher. Further, art works emerge in response to already existing conventions and comments from the audience and all of them decide about reputations of an artist work and career. (Becker 1982, 209f) Nevertheless, there are dynamics in the art world as artists are playing with conventions and crossing the borders of art and art world, seeking for new ways to articulate their ideas in their works. Many new art forms have arisen within the last decades and centuries and are still arising today – it is an ongoing, never-ending process. Our society and our perception of art changes, because of political or economic reasons for example. The field of visual arts had had remarkable changes especially in the 1960s, when new art forms as Video Art, Conceptual Art or Performance Art appeared in our society and in discussions within the art worlds. New ways to preserve, record and comment these new art forms needed to be found and of course, they were accompanied by the negotiation about art or non-art. 50 years later, these art forms are constituent parts of our art world, appreciated by many people, but by far not by all.
For artists, finding new ways to express their ideas often means using new medias. We have seen this in the 1960s and can still see it in our art world today. As we still have the discussion about art and non-art.
Stacia Yeapanis’ art works are transmediated videos, made out of cut-outs from famous TV-shows, art works and video games and connect both fandom culture and art world. They were meant to be displayed in an art show, but first, she uploaded them on Youtube to get responses online. Shortly after that, she received a takedown notice from YouTube, referring on a notification and blocking of this video from Fox Broadcasting because she has used their filmed materials. Though it is likely that she acted within the laws of copyright, she took it off from YouTube to avoid trouble and financial difficulties.
Her work is an example for a new art form that matches perfectly in the dynamics of our transmedia culture and the art worlds. However, we can also see that our society and the art world still need to get familiar with these new forms and need to find a general way how to deal with the use of transmediated art works juristically, how it gets known by other people and become accepted as a form of art and not as a fandom project. Yeapanis made her work accessible to a broader public on YouTube and needed to face the realities of our current society’s issues about using data. She ended her writing with the thought that the sacred space of a traditional exhibition venue might have saved her work from being removed from the internet, because it is more obvious as art in a gallery than it is on YouTube. She is right about that.
In my previous job working in admissions at a small college in Georgia I would visit with students and their families and talk about the beautiful 27,000-acre campus. When describing the main road of campus I would tell families that all parking lots and car accesses were behind each building so that the campus was more aesthetically pleasing to students and visitors. I never took a moment to think about why I used that word or what it really meant. Who decided that having parking lots behind buildings would look better? What makes it look better? It’s not very convenient for parking and is always confusing to guests. I began to think about this while reading Becker’s chapter on Editing.
Current aesthetics are defined by art worlds. In my example some of the forces defining that aesthetic could be current landscape/architecture practice, other higher education institutions, students. As Becker writes, “art worlds create internal dialogue which precedes and accompanies those choices…”[of the artist]. Members of each art world demonstrate their approval or dislike through participation. Artists need the approval and support of people to be successful artists. There are internal and external pressures within the art world that help define current aesthetic. Internal forces could be from other artists’ current practices or expectations and outside forces are the social forces.
It is counter intuitive to think that an artist is creating art based on standards or expectations and I’m not surprised that most artists wouldn’t even see it that way. In Becker’s chapter, when artist were asked why they did something when making art they typically didn’t know or couldn’t put it into words. Those standards and expectations drive more than just art, they define social norms. Some institutions or structures involved could be the media, government, celebrities, or education.
I remember asking an artist friend of mine how does he get the inspiration to do his art work, how does he chose the colors, the theme… etc.? His answer was “many things in life inspire me. The streets, the people, the sky, the nature, the politics, the music, my past, my dreams, my daughter, and my friends and family. When I hold the brush and start drawing on my canvas, the painting comes to life without giving it a lot of thought, my hand just moves softly and effortlessly. However, I always make sure that I don’t repeat myself, but maintain my style, and of course impress the viewers.”
The art world and communities are behind the products of individual artists. The choices artists have while creating art, and the decisions they make, are driven by this art world. As Becker wrote in his chapter “Artists, as I have said, make many of the important decisions, but not all of them. Other affects the work as well, by participating in the artist’s internal dialogue, or by doing something themselves.” With that said, I strongly believe that the perception of beauty is subjective, and it is in the eyes of the beholder. That for me explains how some people pay thousands of dollars, if not millions, on art works that a lot of people wouldn’t spend few dollars on. A good example of that is Barnett Newman’s abstract painting which was sold for $43.8 million! (http://nypost.com/2013/05/15/43-8-million-for-this/).
There’s no doubt that with technology artists are able to connect and communicate with larger number of audiences, and vice versa. With the digital revolution, the communities were introduced to new, out-of-the box art products such as video installations. This is what Becker talked about when he said that artists sometimes “must unlearn the conventionally right way of doing things.” There is no doubt that trasmedia had made it easier for artists to be exposed and affected by other cultures’ ideas, narratives, and ideologies.
I would argue that, more than any period in world history, general desire and personal expression drive the current aesthetics of arts and arts participation. The availability of modern technology allows people who in the past had no little chance to produce art can now make the content the wish to see, and thanks to the Internet they can share it with a wide audience of people with similar interests. While the meme of “Rule 34” concerns pornographic materials, it is easily applicable to media on the internet in general – if you can think of it, you can find it on the Internet. Websites such as Tumblr and DeviantArt allow people to freely post their own works, whether original or transformative, and organizations such as the Organization for Transformative Works exist to protect and archive those transformative works.
While transformative works are by no means a new invention – even excluding the fact that, as stated in the “Allergy to Originality” op-doc, originality as a concept wasn’t a thing until the 18th century, and that to disregard works based on other things requires us to disregard the entirety of Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Dante, etc… – the term as applied to the concept of fandoms goes back to the 19th century, when people publicly went into mourning over Sherlock Holmes’ “death”. This kind of popular/grassroots support is perhaps the biggest social force driving current aesthetics of art. One needs look no further than the popularity of 50 Shades of Grey for this – it started as a piece of Twilight fanfiction, but became a hotly debated topic and a best selling series. Perhaps the biggest force against these transformative works is the threat of copyright, but even then using material in transformative ways is generally protected, and while Stacia Yeapanis may have been afraid of being the test case for fandom appropriations of materials, the legal experts Henry Jenkin’s talks to in the second part of the article generally come out in favor of her use of the material. When a work is released for money (such as 50 Shades) then things need to be changed, but so long as one is creating art for the sake of creating art and entertaining others, then the legal case seems fairly clear.
And these modern practices ultimately depend upon transmediations. As demonstrated by Stacia Yeapanis and her videos, people can easily repurpose existing material to use it in new ways. Whether making a new music video, creating fake conversations amongst characters from different tv shows, or making a giant dance party from famous movie dance scenes, the possibilities of combining disparate film sources are near infinite. And that doesn’t even get into the use of these visual media in creating things like memes and reaction gifs. You also get things like fanfiction and fan art, with people writing novels about tv or video game characters (in fact, the longest piece of literature ever written is a piece of Super Smash Bros (a video game that takes various characters from various Nintendo properties and places them in a fighting game) fanfic called The Subspace Emissary’s Worlds Conquest which is over 4 million words long, and not finished) or creating art of literary characters and scenes they like. The entire idea behind fandom is taking the things you like and reworking them, kaleidoscope style, across other forms of media.
It appears that current aesthetics of art and arts participation are driven in the same manner as they have always been; that is, they are pushed by dominant cultural trends and subverted into seemingly ‘original’ pieces through a number of cleverly veiled methods – be they recapitulations, abstractions, or appropriations. Works of art are inherently derivative, referential, or modified forms of previous artistic trends – and that’s okay. The surrealist aesthetics owe as much to those who preceded it as modern found art aesthetics does to surrealism. The notion that “there is nothing new under the sun” might apply here. Of course, that isn’t to say that art is no longer interesting or useful. Rather, it is increasingly noted that an aesthetic of remixing older trends (or individual art pieces) produces new ones – for example, the works highlighted in “RiP! A Remix Manifesto.”
A number of institutions are involved in the maintenance of aesthetics in art. The ‘art world’ of gallery culture produces an elite art feedback loop in which these institutions not only generate but also reify certain aesthetic styles to the public by selectively curating what is presently “in.” Of course, aesthetics are not entirely pushed to consumers and arts participants in a top down model through which individuals are told what is and is not aesthetically “current.” Museums, universities, public arts programs, and all manner of professional and amateur artists help to maintain or alter aesthetic choices within art worlds depending on the social and political climate at the time. Social unrest results in an altered aesthetic from peaceful moments – for example, compare the social conditions of Savlador Dali’s “Soft Construction with Boiled Beans (Premonition of Civil War)” with Alphonse Mucha’s “Le Pater” and you’ll undoubtedly see a number of obscured social and cultural impacts on the aesthetics of both these pieces of art and the larger artistic movements from which they are derived.
Practices, ideas, narratives, and ideologies associated with aesthetics depend on transmediations because art creation is not compartmentalized from what artists experience in their everyday lives. We intuitively transform and represent our realities within art in ways that are significant to us – if an artist is a fan of the television shows Buffy and Xena, that artist might choose to transform (appropriate) elements from those programs into their artwork or they may choose to remix a number of songs together into a “new” piece of music. We do this because it’s important to us.
What drives current aesthetics of art and arts participation?
With technology, there is currently a lot of space for conversation between artists and their audience. This leads to collaboration and a two-way conversation taking place regarding aesthetics. Of course this leads to many opinions on what is the “correct” or “best” way to do or create something. This can also lead to some artists “asking for permission” with their artwork, as in they are heavily tailoring the work to their audience, or they are only using techniques after they’ve been assured these are the “correct” or “best” ways to do something.
What cultural institutions and structures are involved? What social forces/issues?
Becker’s piece really spoke to this. Curators, art critics, historians, and researchers all have a hand in defining aesthetics. This can be expressed in what they choose to display and what they choose to omit. Organizations and museums create structures and often rules to art and aesthetics. For example, they create deadlines and timeframes which create a structure and an endpoint to a process that would otherwise be more fluid. Manufacturers influences art and aesthetics through the materials that are available. Socially/culturally artists are influenced by their time. For example, we live in a world of excess and are in an environmental crisis, this is why it is no surprise that many artists are currently very innovative and resourceful, reusing and recycling in their work.
In what ways do practices, ideas, narratives, or ideologies associated with this aesthetic depend on transmediations?
Transmediations are in many ways innovative, resourceful works that reuse and recycle. They also include in a dynamic two-way (or perhaps better said as “many-way”) conversation between the artist, the audience/public, that is reflected back and forth. This is a reflection of the cultural and social forces at play along with the institutions and structures in our society.
Along with the rapid development of society, the current aesthetics of art has been dramatically changed from previously believed. People have various ways to express their feeling, ideas, criticism, voice, value, and thought through the arts. Or we can say artists, based upon their understanding of aesthetics, create arts, which drive current aesthetics of art and arts participation. In general, aesthetics is an abstract concept, which is defined to answer a question about what is beauty in our life. From my perspective, there are a few elements to influence aesthetics, which are changed from time to time. Furthermore, culture, a vital, makes a difference in aesthetics of art. Culture basically determines a people’s way of life, including their language, social habits, and believes. All these unconsciously influence the development of aesthetics.
I want to take my personal experience for example: Recently a link posted on Facebook draws my attention. It is some photos of old Hollowen culture. In the photos, people dressed much creepier and weirder than that of nowadays. Recent years, Hollowen is more likely to become a big party, which everybody can dress upon the way they want ever. And the skeleton is an important symbol in this culture. Nonetheless, why do they become different than before? I talk about this question with my friends. The main reason is multiculturalism. Nowadays Hollowen culture is influenced by a festival called “The Day of the Dead” from Mexico. In Mexican culture, the symbol of the skeleton is very important. They believe that “no matter how fancy your clothes are from the outside. We are all the same from the inside.” Maybe this is their culture to show respect to those who have been dead. But when this culture spread to the US, what makes Hollowen different than before? It is because cultural background that has changed people’s aesthetics of art.
Transmedia provides quite a few ways to help people explore their interested ways, and furthermore, guide people to upgrade their life levels. It is like a cross-media-platform that helps different culture spread out and people in turn benefit from it. Nowadays there is much information mapped out daily, which creates an unmeasured effect towards the view of people’s aesthetics. If you know more, you will have more options to choose the way you want to be.
As Becker indicates, the audience, and the artist’s perception of the audience is often what drives artistic aesthetics and arts participation. According to Becker, “sometimes artists cannot think of a way around the complaints they envision lay audiences making, and suppress work that nevertheless interests them enough to complete” (Becker, 1982, p. 207). Therefore, the artist themselves can be highly motivated by how their art will be received, or how they perceive that their art will be received. As a result, they create art based upon the aesthetic of their current society. In addition to the artist who makes the primary aesthetic choices, the other participants also have an affect on artistic participation by “entering into the internal dialogue which precedes and accompanies those choices. But other participants affect art works more directly as well, making choices of their own which, independent of the artist’s wish or intention, also shape the work” (Becker, 1982, p. 210).
Furthermore, censorship can also affect arts participation. Becker describes how
“the people and organizations who distribute art works make editorial choices when they refuse to distribute some works, require changes in others before distribution, or (most subtly) create a network of facilities and a body of practice which lead artists in the world whose works they distribute to make works which fit easily into that scheme” (Becker, 1982, p. 213). This causes me to think of Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia where certain pieces of art were revered over others in an effort to create an “ideal German art” or to only present pieces of art that reflected the values of the state. This system also caused artists to rebel against the state. For instance, the famous musician Shostakovich was liked by Stalin, but he was sneaky in his compositions and would often include anti-stalinist themes in his music as a way of rebelling against the pieces that he was being commissioned to write.
Furthermore, Becker indicates that the cultural institutions, such as museums, have an effect on artistic as a result of the art pieces that they choose to present to the public. Some pieces of art may be readily available to public access in artistic venues or libraries, but others may be hidden from the public eye and be in storage, and as a result the public may not know about these pieces. As Becker states, “because the prevailing aesthetic does not make them officially art, works not defined as art remain in such unofficial collection and storage places . . . Only when someone’s aesthetic, backed by the resources necessary for storage, labels work as art does the work get into the easily accessible museum system” (Becker, 1982, p. 220-221). Therefore, our cultural aesthetics have an affect on our artistic participation and our perception of art.
As mentioned before, political ideologies can have an effect on artistic participation by limiting which art and types of art can be produced. Ideologies can and do rely on transmediations to spread their message. This primarily occurs through the form of propaganda that we are familiar with. Propaganda can appear in various forms and is used primarily to instill fear in the public or to make them to believe something. Therefore, transmedia is a part of it since those who are creating propaganda are relying on transmedia to tell the story of the ideology or the story of what they want the public to believe.
Contemporary society and what preceded before it drives current aesthetics of art and arts participation. Art, along with technology, medicine, and probably loads of other aspects of our society are built upon knowledge and ideas from the past. Arts participants will always have a need to create and innovate, but how can they be original when everything they learn is from shared knowledge and collaboration? “Nothing is created in a vacuum” holds true especially for artists who are constantly trying to express ideas built on the expression of what went before. Cultural institutions are by definition, “an organization that promotes or preserves culture”. In driving current arts participation and aesthetics, all cultural institutions are involved. Museums, galleries, universities, companies, theaters, concert venues, just to name a few. Just being exposed to these institutions creates a distribution of aesthetics and culture, which arts participants digest, continue to distribute, thus keeping the idea of shared knowledge and collaboration moving forward.
The idea of copywriting sound and music clips, using photos with company logos in them, or reappropriating anything from popular culture seems absurd to us. As mentioned in the “Rip:A Remix Manifesto” video, the internet is the battleground. Online, we are bombarded with memes, overdubbed videos, remixes, and so many other collaged ideas it’s hard to imagine an internet without things we enjoy for entertainment, informational tools, and socializing mechanisms. We as internet users enjoy them and repost and retweet by the thousands. Not only the internet shares these collaged works, the radio has been playing remixes and “cover songs” for I don’t know how long.