Artifact 5 -Remix
Unit Objectives:
- Become acquainted with copyright and its role in the development of art as well as a historic, cultural and economic paradigm.
- Explore the changing nature of copyright in the context of “Remix Culture”
- Examine your own and others values and paradigms of ownership and authorship of cultural media.
- Evaluate the meanings of real and fake and examine their intersection with personal and cultural identity and authenticity.
Artifact: Remix
In Larry Lessig’s writing, “Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy,” the author outlines his arguments for and against copyright laws and how they protect some while subsequently stifling creativity and innovation in the modern world. Lessig discusses the freedom that past generations had to quote freely in their writing and how, “Our children want the same freedom for their forms of writing. For not just words, but for images, film, and music. The technologies we give our kids give them a capacity to create that we never had. We’ve given them a world beyond words. This world is part of what I’ve called RW culture” (Lessig 108). Lessig believes that many of the laws in existence make it illegal for individuals to create new art from that which already exists. Within the music industry for example, copyright law protects the use of other people’s materials within new music, commonly referred to as “sampling.” This limits what the average person can do to build upon what already is on the market and thereby limits remix culture and that particular type of creativity. In his audio installation, “Can I Get An Amen?” Nathan Harrison gives an excellent example of musical remix by reciting the history of the “Amen Break,” a drum arrangement that dates back a soul music song in the 1960s. This particular drum solo has been remixed countless times and utilized in just about every type of music genre in existence. Had the original artist chosen to restrict the use of this piece as many artists today have, most of these new musical arrangements would likely never have been made due to the expense of paying the creator for the usage rights. In 2004, a group called, “Danger Mouse,” released an album called, “The Grey Album.” According to the Wikipedia entry about the project, “It uses an a cappella version of rapper Jay-Z’s The Black Album and couples it with instrumentals created from a multitude of unauthorized samples from The Beatles’ LP The Beatles, more commonly known as The White Album. The Grey Album gained notoriety due to the response by EMI in attempting to halt its distribution despite Jay-Z’s, Paul McCartney’s, and Ringo Starr’s approval of the project” (Wikipedia). The controversy surrounding the popular mash up brought to light the oppressive power of copyright law. Although copyright laws exist for the purpose of protecting the creation of original art, the law is frequently abused and used mostly by large corporations for the purpose of financial gain. Because of this, I believe that copyright laws should be limited so that there is a greater allowance for uses that are designed as artistic expressions. Sampling of small portions of the music of other individuals is a way of paying respect to the art and honoring the original artist. I believe that as long as the original artist is given credit for their creation there should be no issue of copyright. With regulations the way that they currently are, the only people that are benefiting are the larger corporations that hold the copyrights and it is rare for the original artist themselves to benefit in any way from copyright laws and their enforcement. In the end, creativity and innovation should outweigh laws that exist for the sake of stifling them.
Reflection:
Previous to this unit, I knew nothing about copyright law except that it was something that prevented anyone from using the work of others without their permission, and that it had been in the news a number of times over the years because of various violations and the accompanying scandal. The TED talk and the installation were highly informative and forced me to think about copyright and the good and bad elements of these laws. I had never really thought about copyright as a stifling element in the creation of new, remixed art until the history of the “Amen Break” showed how diverse one simple drum break could be when applied in a variety of different ways.
Future:
In the future, I would argue for some adaptations to the copyright laws that are currently in place, but I can understand why they exist and I think that the reasons they exist are valid. Copyright is intended to protect the creation of an individual, and I think that nobody should be able to steal the work of another and take it as their own without giving credit to the original artist, however the extreme cost of compensating the creator in order to use their piece can somewhat stifle the creative process. In the future I will have more support for remix art and its merit as an art form.