Very different 'Skinny Love' piano-cover I just came across.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Friday, April 8, 2011
America's Funniest Remix.
While laughing today I had an epiphany. I realized that AFV aka America's funniest home videos is a remix. AFV uses editing techniques like cut and paste, and also samples videos, piecing them together for the audience. Most of the times these remixs are titled things like "cats" or "falls" or whatever content seem to be similar through-out all.
Does this really constitute a remix though? Or is this just the nature of digital media?
However, it is argued that remix is supposed to do something fundamentally new - does AFV fit into this definition? Possibly. Home media such as the camcorder is generally not broadcast to a mass audience. It transforms the use of the media, which is typically personal or private and makes it public. The goal here is to take the personal moments and see them as funny.
This means the people watching may not understand particular referents as those who crafted the original video. Those who made the video may understand the geography, history or the general aura of the videos. The massive reproduction across millions of screens takes that original and changes it because it changes the meaning of the video to merely entertainment. The people within the videos are depersonalized.
The fragmentation of the original juxtaposed with a bunch of other samples is why I would constitute the nature of this show to be remix. However, it is open to interpretation.
Does this really constitute a remix though? Or is this just the nature of digital media?
However, it is argued that remix is supposed to do something fundamentally new - does AFV fit into this definition? Possibly. Home media such as the camcorder is generally not broadcast to a mass audience. It transforms the use of the media, which is typically personal or private and makes it public. The goal here is to take the personal moments and see them as funny.
This means the people watching may not understand particular referents as those who crafted the original video. Those who made the video may understand the geography, history or the general aura of the videos. The massive reproduction across millions of screens takes that original and changes it because it changes the meaning of the video to merely entertainment. The people within the videos are depersonalized.
The fragmentation of the original juxtaposed with a bunch of other samples is why I would constitute the nature of this show to be remix. However, it is open to interpretation.
The Red Tape of The Red Project
The MoMA worked with high school students in developing the Red Project. Aimed at educating people about art, artists the processes of the museum the project offers a series of online activities and videos.
One particular aspect gives people the ability to make a collage out of a few pieces of the Museum. It gives you the opportunity to pick a picture, take samples of it and layer it on top of other ones, which have different styles, color schemes etc.
I noticed however they are very few samples to choose from. I found it kind of boring because the choices in pictures where limited – however, if given more material I feel it could be a very interesting way to engage with Modern Art of the museum.
It describes remix as a collage. This use of remix is primarily educational. It allows students to take hands on approach to learning. The remix has been appropriated by the museum and you can save you own piece, however I wonder what kind of ownership issues are behind the scenes of the red project. From what I gathered during the Participate presentation, Museums have a lot of red tape.
The educational license may be the loop hole in the copyright agreements. However, I did not find it an effective way to engage with the art, it was merely entertaining.
Check it out for yourself. http://redstudio.moma.org/interactives/remix/index_f.html
As our blogging session draws to a close here, I'm left to wonder if anyone here will ever end up reading what I'm saying. Fligwit! Nawrton! Floot! See, I just remixed the English language past the point of referential understanding! Hahahaha!
Okay, I'm done abusing my assumed individual authorial privilege. What I had intended to share and remark upon was a video I came across today that is sure to make anyone with a soul tear up.
What I found made this video more noteworthy than the average fan-made mash-up is its being situated through John Lasseter's opening quotation, "Animation is the one type of movie that really does play for the entire audience". Along such a trajectory, the video suggests a conflation of the typical Pixar narrative structure, encapsulating a standard narrative formula, from an "odd coupling", to a "quest narrative" to a tearjerking climax which ends on a laugh - thus, making the video literally convey a condensed version of the emotional arcs a Pixar film would yield.
As such, the video demonstrates the potential of a remix text to transition from juxtaposing referents to actually providing a self-reflexive comment on the referent itself. Assembling copious footage from multiple Pixar texts for the sake of identifying story trends would normally function as a criticism in remix, but here, the editing artist uses it to articulate Pixar's process of "playing to the entire audience" as a positive (because, let's face it: few could likely find it in their hearts to criticize Pixar). In this sense, the video actually remixes one of the more common remix practices itself (critique through re-editing), which, although I may be spitballing, suggested to me the idea of a remixed response to traditional remix discourses - a celebratory, non-mocking reassembling of referents for the sake of both elucidating and championing the referents. Rather than attempting to forge a new narrative or artistic idea out of recognizable elements, the editor reassembles the recognizable elements for the sake of exposing how and why the referents themselves work.
I like the thought of closing our term's worth of tense discourses over the ethics and morality of remix by positing that remix can, as in this example, ultimately just serve to comment on how and why individuals are drawn to such referential texts in the first place. Farewell everyone, and thanks for a fun and stimulating term!
Remix as Art: Bon Iver Remixed
After presenting our group remix project on Monday, I felt it was important to discuss the process of creating our remixes further, as the process influence and shaped our finished remix products.
For me, the most significant part of the process of creating the first remix was sitting down and working with the producer who helped us and experiencing first hand some of the barriers that DJs and producers face on a regular basis. Initailly, Maddalen wanted to remix a classic rock artist, like Bob Dylan or The Beatles, only to find out that, unless we had the money to pay to access the separated tracks (drums, bass, vocals, harmony, etc.), which are also known as stems, we could not do so. As a musician, I knew that a song was made up of different layers, but I had never considered the resources you would need to access them, especially with the availability of digital music online. Our solution was for me to cover the vocals of the song we chose, and from that, the producer would build up an entirely new track from scratch using only my vocals. For me, this was the epitome of what we were trying to prove with our music remix, that DJs and producers are talented and creative musicians who create music, and do not just add a "tacky drum loop" to an existing song. We worked with the producer to try to decide what we wanted to remix to sound like which he interpreted and used to create an entirely new song, which only shared the lyrics with the original.
After deciding to remix "Skinny Love" by Bon Iver, which would provide a stark contrast between the original and our remix, as it featured female vocals, a new tempo and a different genre of music altogether. We wanted to turn it into a dubstep remix, because, not only does it create an entirely different emotional vibe and feeling, it has become increasingly popular with DJs and producers and in mainstream music, which presents the possibility of appealing to a new audience.
I am very proud of the music remixes we created and believe they strongly exemplify remix as a valued artistic and creative expression. Enjoy!
"Heavy Love (Bon Iver Remix)" by DJ ft. Kristine Lippett by kristinelippett
"Heavy Love(less) (Bon Iver Remix)" by Mix Master Matt ft. Kristine Lippett by kristinelippett
For me, the most significant part of the process of creating the first remix was sitting down and working with the producer who helped us and experiencing first hand some of the barriers that DJs and producers face on a regular basis. Initailly, Maddalen wanted to remix a classic rock artist, like Bob Dylan or The Beatles, only to find out that, unless we had the money to pay to access the separated tracks (drums, bass, vocals, harmony, etc.), which are also known as stems, we could not do so. As a musician, I knew that a song was made up of different layers, but I had never considered the resources you would need to access them, especially with the availability of digital music online. Our solution was for me to cover the vocals of the song we chose, and from that, the producer would build up an entirely new track from scratch using only my vocals. For me, this was the epitome of what we were trying to prove with our music remix, that DJs and producers are talented and creative musicians who create music, and do not just add a "tacky drum loop" to an existing song. We worked with the producer to try to decide what we wanted to remix to sound like which he interpreted and used to create an entirely new song, which only shared the lyrics with the original.After deciding to remix "Skinny Love" by Bon Iver, which would provide a stark contrast between the original and our remix, as it featured female vocals, a new tempo and a different genre of music altogether. We wanted to turn it into a dubstep remix, because, not only does it create an entirely different emotional vibe and feeling, it has become increasingly popular with DJs and producers and in mainstream music, which presents the possibility of appealing to a new audience.
I am very proud of the music remixes we created and believe they strongly exemplify remix as a valued artistic and creative expression. Enjoy!
"Heavy Love (Bon Iver Remix)" by DJ ft. Kristine Lippett by kristinelippett
"Heavy Love(less) (Bon Iver Remix)" by Mix Master Matt ft. Kristine Lippett by kristinelippett
The People vs. George Lucas: Stars Wars Fans Strike Back!
When it comes to thinking about fan culture, no discussion would be complete without talking about Star Wars and its fans. Other films and television shows like Star Trek and Buffy the Vampire Slayer have all garnered a large cult following who create reenactments, parodies, fan fiction and other fan texts, but none really compares to cultural products of the love/hate relationship that Star Wars fans have with its creator, George Lucas.
Star Wars fans have been interacting and reworking the films since they came out, but one of the most popular fan videos to first gain mainstream attention was George Lucas in Love, a short independent film released in 1999 by Joe Nussbaum as a parody of Shakespeare in Love, which had been released the year before. The film received critical praise and attention and eventually officially premiered at the Toronto Film Festival in 1999 and went on to win several film awards. The film is available online, so check it out below!
Star Wars fans have been interacting and reworking the films since they came out, but one of the most popular fan videos to first gain mainstream attention was George Lucas in Love, a short independent film released in 1999 by Joe Nussbaum as a parody of Shakespeare in Love, which had been released the year before. The film received critical praise and attention and eventually officially premiered at the Toronto Film Festival in 1999 and went on to win several film awards. The film is available online, so check it out below!
The Bible (2): A Priate has Stolen my Bible.
"A pirate has stolen my BIBLE!"
This phrase seems out of place within the 21st century, and just 'off' in general. Although, the colour pink turned my notion of the Bible's aura upside down, the remix did not stop there. My next thought was pirates.
What if perchance, Church 2.0 formed from this remixed Bible? If this church made copies and sold it to their practioners for five dollars, or even for free would those religious leaders become priates? Despite the obvious hyptetical nature of this discussion, there are some very realistic problems underlying this situation. They are the complex issues of authorship and ownership within remix.
Although Mr. Peterson may never have intended his novel to develop a religious following, the laws surrounding the ownership of his book prevent people from using this novel within a certain context. The problem arises from the copyright Eugene has on his novel and his words, these copyrights do not extend to an indiviuals personal beliefs only their practices. This predicament reminds me of the Manifesto in the documentary RIP! stating that current copyright laws control the freedoms of citizens to engage with particular (at times religious) objects.
This contemporary Bible is the epitomy of capitalism. The Bible given it's history does not have a particular owner, similarly to the other cultural artifacts of today. Since this version of the Bible is copyrighted it prevents particular uses of it (unless there is profit). It becomes a question of capital in whether or not it is legal to form relgious followings based on this text or reuse this version to form another one. I think I fully understand that was meant when the Manifesto stated that the future is becoming less free. It is not only relevant in terms of digital commodities it has been extended to cultural artifacts in general. In this context when even relgious practice could be off limits due to the copyright laws on versions of the Bible. To the point where there may be a day that someone could legally claim a writer plagerised their Bible.
To think someone could legally claim the Bible has been plagerised seems prposterous. However, with laws governeing ownership the reality is not far off.
Although, copyright law may be trumped by religious freedoms this hyptheical circumstance highlights the complex intermingling of ownership, copyright and indiviual use. It provides a plethora of questions which "remix" the notion of authorship and ownership. Does Eugene H. Peterson really own his own Bible? Can he truly be considered an author?
With copyright the practices of everyday life (for some) are complicated since they are limited in their ways of using items. A remix manifesto may have been right. If a new version of the Bible can turn a priest into a priate - maybe it has gone too far.
Forgive me for using such a charged issue such as religion, however, I feel as if the relgious culture behind the Bible is seperate of the practices of ownership and copyright. In the same way the intentions and creativity expressed by the people who engage in remix are separate from ownership and economy. The question remains is culture something you can own?
This phrase seems out of place within the 21st century, and just 'off' in general. Although, the colour pink turned my notion of the Bible's aura upside down, the remix did not stop there. My next thought was pirates.
What if perchance, Church 2.0 formed from this remixed Bible? If this church made copies and sold it to their practioners for five dollars, or even for free would those religious leaders become priates? Despite the obvious hyptetical nature of this discussion, there are some very realistic problems underlying this situation. They are the complex issues of authorship and ownership within remix.
Although Mr. Peterson may never have intended his novel to develop a religious following, the laws surrounding the ownership of his book prevent people from using this novel within a certain context. The problem arises from the copyright Eugene has on his novel and his words, these copyrights do not extend to an indiviuals personal beliefs only their practices. This predicament reminds me of the Manifesto in the documentary RIP! stating that current copyright laws control the freedoms of citizens to engage with particular (at times religious) objects.
This contemporary Bible is the epitomy of capitalism. The Bible given it's history does not have a particular owner, similarly to the other cultural artifacts of today. Since this version of the Bible is copyrighted it prevents particular uses of it (unless there is profit). It becomes a question of capital in whether or not it is legal to form relgious followings based on this text or reuse this version to form another one. I think I fully understand that was meant when the Manifesto stated that the future is becoming less free. It is not only relevant in terms of digital commodities it has been extended to cultural artifacts in general. In this context when even relgious practice could be off limits due to the copyright laws on versions of the Bible. To the point where there may be a day that someone could legally claim a writer plagerised their Bible.
To think someone could legally claim the Bible has been plagerised seems prposterous. However, with laws governeing ownership the reality is not far off.
Although, copyright law may be trumped by religious freedoms this hyptheical circumstance highlights the complex intermingling of ownership, copyright and indiviual use. It provides a plethora of questions which "remix" the notion of authorship and ownership. Does Eugene H. Peterson really own his own Bible? Can he truly be considered an author?
With copyright the practices of everyday life (for some) are complicated since they are limited in their ways of using items. A remix manifesto may have been right. If a new version of the Bible can turn a priest into a priate - maybe it has gone too far.
Forgive me for using such a charged issue such as religion, however, I feel as if the relgious culture behind the Bible is seperate of the practices of ownership and copyright. In the same way the intentions and creativity expressed by the people who engage in remix are separate from ownership and economy. The question remains is culture something you can own?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)