- In the Walter Benjamin reading for this week he claims that technical reproduction can put the copy of the original into situations, which would be out of reach for the original itself (i.e. the photo of a mountain in someone's home). Along side this note he also points out that technical reproduction is a disruption to aura. Do these two points describe remix culture? Taking the representation or reproduction of an original object and bringing it to a geographical area the original object would never be able to go, is this in itself a remix? If so then photography and film are both remixes in our culture today. Benjamin claims everyday the urge gets stronger to get a hold of an object at a very close range by its way of image or its copy. Holding a photograph from years ago in your hand can be a remix: a mix of the preservation of a moment combined with the present time (able to be done because of photography & film's faithfulness to realism).
Horkheimer and Adorno would claim that a photograph results from the notion that power and money allows people to control technology, and the technology controls the public society, through media and propaganda. Would you agree that photography and film are a remix art? Or would you agree with Horkheimer and Adorno to claim that photography is just a way dominant ideologies control society?
Thinking of photography and film as a remix art is definitely a very interesting idea. Seeing a photograph of a place when you have never been before can generate certain ideals, making you want to go there or, bring about negative stereotypes of the place. I think that if you have never been to the place that the photograph captures and have never experienced it for yourself, the dominant ideologies that Horkheimer and Adorno speak of prevail. If you have however been to the place and experienced the atmosphere first hand, I believe that when you look at the picture it brings back memories of that experience and this is what creates the remix of the past and the present and the preservation of the whole.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the notion that film and photography are intrinsically "remixed art". There needs to be an original from which the remix can be a copy (good or bad). Maybe I'm wrong here, but thinking of a photograph as a remixed representation of the physical images depicted within it doesn't seem like a "remix". The same then can be said for the filmic representations of a movie set. These are examples of documenting reality. I feel that there needs to be an identifiable text or document from which to remix.
ReplyDeleteSimply put, a film or photograph is the mix that is required to facilitate the remix.