View Earlier Messages
1 Month
[27/07/2011 20:02:39] John Shiga: Hi everyone!
[27/07/2011 19:58:42] byron.russell:
[27/07/2011 19:58:43] byron.russell:
[27/07/2011 19:59:18] byron.russell: Hello everyone!
[27/07/2011 19:59:32] Martin: Hi Byron!
[27/07/2011 20:00:28] byron.russell: Sorry I missed on the 13th, family related.
I will get married in two days from today so slightly distracted, but don't want to miss out on another great salon here!!!
[27/07/2011 20:00:42] Martin: congrats on getting married!
[27/07/2011 20:01:00] byron.russell: thanks, Martin, it's been a long time coming!
[27/07/2011 20:01:16] Olivia Conti: Hi everyone!
[27/07/2011 20:01:20] Martin: Hi Olivia!
[27/07/2011 20:03:27] Martin: Hey John!
[27/07/2011 20:03:36] John Shiga: hey Martin!
[27/07/2011 20:10:21] Logie: Hello all . . .
[27/07/2011 20:14:16] Martin: Hi again Logie.
[27/07/2011 20:27:35] byron.russell: Is Owen joining us today?
[27/07/2011 20:28:35] byron.russell: I mean, are we waiting for him?
[27/07/2011 20:28:39] Martin: I believe that is the plan but there might be something up.
[27/07/2011 20:29:03] byron.russell: could be skype...
[27/07/2011 20:33:22] Martin: I haven't been able to find him online. Would folks like to get something started while we wait for Owen to join in?
[27/07/2011 20:34:29] John Shiga: sounds like a good idea -- perhaps we could get started and then Owen can take over if he's able to get online
[27/07/2011 20:34:46] Martin: ya
[27/07/2011 20:35:46] byron.russell: let's do that, I am curious to hear what anyone thought of Manovich?
[27/07/2011 20:36:35] Martin: The description in Manovich I thought was great. I like how he seperated remixing from quoting from sampling.
[27/07/2011 20:36:52] Martin: Plus great detail on the material he talked about.
[27/07/2011 20:37:14] John Shiga: I was surprised by it. I thought he'd have something more specific to say about the question of what comes after the remix but he mainly provides a kind of summary of remix culture
[27/07/2011 20:38:00] Martin: "I don’t know what comes after remix." - Lev
Manovich in "What Comes After Remix."
[27/07/2011 20:39:02] John Shiga: @Martin - that was an interesting idea regarding sampling v. remixing. One thing I liked about this piece is that he offers critiques of several oft-used terms in remix discourse
[27/07/2011 20:39:04] byron.russell: Definitely. What fascinates me is this: Is his idea of a 'post-remix' era something along the lines of the Praxis statement that they are 'going beyond John Cage', in a somewhat tongue in cheek manner, or does this represent a tangible possibility of advancement in the language of appropriation.
[27/07/2011 20:40:30] Martin: Thinking about what John said, I don't know how tangible such a possibility is.

[27/07/2011 20:40:50] Martin: I think in the 2nd last paragraph he kind of nudges in the direction of "what comes after remix"
[27/07/2011 20:41:05] Martin: when he talks about the tensions with sampling
[27/07/2011 20:41:10] byron.russell: right, perhaps it suggests that what lies
'beyond
[27/07/2011 20:41:37] byron.russell: may be a change in focus or direction of cultural critique through creative expression...
[27/07/2011 20:41:55] Martin: The one that jumped out at me especially was what seems to be the increasing volume of musicians who compose with future remixes of their tracks in mind
[27/07/2011 20:41:58] John Shiga: this idea of "after remix" is very provocative. but it's also problematic in the sense that it implies that remix is an historical progression toward something else
[27/07/2011 20:42:52] byron.russell: @john, yes I think so too. Sort of like, can you really progress 'beyond' 4'32" of silence?
[27/07/2011 20:43:23] Martin: I agree. Actually he spends thewhole first half of setting up a sweeping single "remix culture" that we can get "beyond"
[27/07/2011 20:44:58] John Shiga: exactly! plus there's a tension running through the articles (I think we'll probably talk about this next week too) regarding the concept of remix. It's one thing to talk about remix as an aesthetic or sensibility, another to talk about a mode of cultural production, and quite another to suggest talk about the "remix age" ...
[27/07/2011 20:46:38] byron.russell: For me, the touchstone of 'stock footage' always provides a useful landmark to get bearings when considering the boundaries of remix and the differences between remixing and sampling...
[27/07/2011 20:49:09] John Shiga: What do you make of the argument (I think it's Manvich who says this), that quotation isn't the best metaphor when it comes to understanding what remix does / is about? The idea that remix is a kind of digital version of quotation seems important to the ongoing defense of remix against intellectual property regimes. On the other hand, I think Manovich has a point regarding the limitations of seeing remix as a form of qutoation.
[27/07/2011 20:50:00] Martin: I remember appreciating that he made the distinction but then being a bit dissatisfied by the description he offered. Hold on
I'm gonna go check...
[27/07/2011 20:50:44] Martin: yeah..."If remixing implies systematically rearranging the whole text, quoting refers inserting some fragments from old text(s) into the new one. "
[27/07/2011 20:51:02] Martin: Remixing implieis systematically rearranging the whole text?
[27/07/2011 20:51:21] byron.russell: that is difficult to accept, isn't it?
[27/07/2011 20:52:08] Martin: It's funny though because when he distinguishes them, it sounds right to me and I appreciate that he brings it up.
[27/07/2011 20:52:30] byron.russell: the recognition in the viewer of an original source, or at least the kind of source (ie advertising, infomercial, news, educational film) may be where it is more critical
[27/07/2011 20:53:02] byron.russell: otherwise the source really is 'just' stock footage. Not necessarily wrong, but a different animal...
[27/07/2011 20:53:32] John Shiga: it is difficult to accept in a sense. I think
Bourriaud makes a bolder claim that we need to see remix as more than

rearranging fragments or even whole texts; it's about rethinking our relationship to all art objects, genres, movements, periods, etc. All of these once-solid categories become "raw material" to be played with, according to Bourriaud
[27/07/2011 20:55:21] John Shiga: Byron, would you say that's one of the important intersections between the aesthetics and ethics of remix (re: recognition of the kind of source)?
[27/07/2011 20:56:16] Martin: Yeah I think what Bourriaud describes rings true when I think of remixes online. Eli's made the point of trailer remixes deploying trailer conventions as an expressive form. I don't know how to react yet though to the way that Bourriaud tries to discuss art within a larger social context but insists on focusing so much on the gallery scene
[27/07/2011 20:56:19] byron.russell: or perhaps that is a question worth asking: Is there a need to distinguish between those works whose meaning has relationship to the source and those which have no (apparent) relationship to the source material?
[27/07/2011 20:57:01] byron.russell: I can't say I have the answer, but it always seems like a question that stimulates me when I ask it
[27/07/2011 20:57:54] John Shiga: @Martin -- I had trouble with that too ... DJs and programmers are the main rhetorical figures but the gallery folks seem to be driving remix culture in Bourriard's version of the story!
[27/07/2011 20:57:59] byron.russell: There are so many levels there as well...
[27/07/2011 20:58:46] Martin: Bourriaud does not seem especially concerned with an ethics of remix. I like his paper, but he often resorts to this sort of universalizing language that I find, um, I dunno, like a little too aloof? To flattening of everything?
[27/07/2011 20:59:12] Martin: he says stuff like "Every individual, and particularly every artist, since he or she evolves among signs, must take responsibility for forms and their social functioning"
[27/07/2011 20:59:17] Martin: but that's not the one I was thinking of...
[27/07/2011 20:59:59] John Shiga: @Byron -- great question. the need to distinguish between the two is certainly important for copyright law. it's also important for many remixers, I think, who want to be understood partly in terms of who/what they are remixing.
[27/07/2011 21:00:50] Martin: Oh here's the one where I saw him kinda disregarding ethics of remix...when he says, "no image must remain untouchable."
[27/07/2011 21:01:21] byron.russell: for an individual trying to articulate what feels off about their world, there seems little ethical problem in whether the resulting work directly addresses its source or not. However, one can imagine a distinction being made that would give greater rights to those whose work does address the sources used.
[27/07/2011 21:02:48] John Shiga: @ Martin -- yes, it sometimes reads a bit like a manifesto for remixing. the strongest parts of Bourriard's paper (in my view) focus on the interesting directions that remix is taking in the art world, where remix has a very different role to play in different discourses than in, say, DJ culture or software mashes. but then Bourriard takes these observations in the gallery scene and tries to articulate a common project for all remixers ... everywhere

[27/07/2011 21:02:53] byron.russell: After all, if I want a cartoon, any will do.
But if I want to use Donald Duck for a specific reason, it HAS to be Disney and not
Daffy Duck...
[27/07/2011 21:04:39] byron.russell: The same issue applies to DJs. Is the DJ dropping a nice beat from an old Parliament album because it is a nice beat, or because the DJ wants to make us feel something specific in relationship to
Parliament...
[27/07/2011 21:06:10] byron.russell: @John - Bourriard seems valid to me in that sense. A Raushenberg Combine is, after all, a kind of remix and it does matter at times what the source of the image is, does it not?
[27/07/2011 21:07:30] John Shiga: just an extension to your Parliament example: there's a sense in which the former is more a "re-using" rather than a
"re-writing"; a good beat can be gleaned from many sources, so the decision to use Parliament in particular does add a layer of meaning, and traces a trajectory through Parliament and other material that is used in the remix
[27/07/2011 21:07:33] Martin: Yeah John I think you're touching on something that I find odd about Bourriaud's essay. Because I was actually really blown away by a lot of the gallery work he describes. But I can't quite link up how it applies to his more sweeping descriptions of postpdocuction culture....And yet oddly I do find some of his wider-reaching theory to be descriptively useful.
[27/07/2011 21:09:26] Martin: I guess I could link the gallery examples to his discussions of DJs and programmers insofar as it relates to his overall argument that that site where "creativity" takes place is now growing and growing and growing
[27/07/2011 21:10:25] John Shiga: I cut and copied the most from Bourriaud! So much of it does resonate with me, and I'm coming from more a DJ culture background.
[27/07/2011 21:12:05] John Shiga: Yes, the idea of creativity in Bourriaud is interesting. If I remember correctly, he suggested that the act of creativity is shifting from the production of works and texts to the production of new codes in which to organize other works, genres, etc.
[27/07/2011 21:12:52] byron.russell: I think this is really relevent when we consider a Girl Talk type remixer. There is no question at all that that kind of music is meant to stimulate us in ways that depend on a common musical cannon. Not that it can't be interesting even when we don't hear those relationships...
[27/07/2011 21:14:21] byron.russell: I would prefer 'adding' to 'shifting' as I don't believe there will ever be an end to the creation of new works...
[27/07/2011 21:14:38] Martin: Yeah John, but what I find interesting about
Bourriaud's insistance on shifting away from producing works is that the idea of the "work" is still pretty hard to escape in his essay.
[27/07/2011 21:15:01] John Shiga: And maybe this is a good example of both the strengths and limitations of his paper. This idea of codes, rather than texts, as the thing that is created in remix opens up all kinds of possibilities for analyzing remix in other scenes. at the same time, I think it works best in the kinds of artwork he is interested in, where artists put together events and settings, and arrange them with an eclectic assortment of objects. but it doesnt' work as well with the vast majority of, say, mash-ups, which really only use two or three tracks, and they do so in a very preditable way.

[27/07/2011 21:16:17] Martin: Yeah that's I think an important complication to bring up John. Actually even within Bourriaud's gallery examples you have things like 24-hour psycho
[27/07/2011 21:16:41] Martin: He quotes Douglas Gordon as saying "I'm happy to remain in the background of a piece like 24 Hour Psycho where Hitchcock is the dominant figure"
[27/07/2011 21:17:40] Martin: But what you said about using tracks in a predictable way I think can be complicated also.
[27/07/2011 21:18:30] John Shiga: I can see how this might play out with Girl
Talk ... also with the Grey Album ... but then I'm also thinking, is there a way of thinking about remix that would allow us to consider both the Girl Talks along with the millions of "silly and pointless" mashups that form the bulk of mashups online
[27/07/2011 21:19:17] Martin: Actually your comment reminds me Tofts'
McCrea's discussion of the Downfall remixes.
[27/07/2011 21:20:42] Martin: I think Bourriaud does offer us a bit of a way to consider both when he points to the readymade and says that simply picking something up and presenting it in a different social context is itself a creative act
[27/07/2011 21:21:03] Martin: you could extend this to posting links to your friends facebook pages
[27/07/2011 21:21:33] Martin: or making your own version of the downfall parody.
[27/07/2011 21:21:59] byron.russell: @John - For me this is why a universal ethic of remix is so central to remix culture. We really can't create an ethic that depends upon judgements of the creative merits of a particular remix, or the success or failure of it aesthetically. There must be some grounded
'transformation test'-like filter that would separate something 'creative' from simply 'combining' Pink Floyd and Abba.
[27/07/2011 21:22:36] Martin: Tofts' and McCrea's describe the banal sort of remix as a "baroque" sort of culture of "showing off", but Bourriaud complicates that by emphacizing the act of sharing.
[27/07/2011 21:23:09] Martin: It could be "MY downfall parody will be the best one" or it could be "Aw, cool, I want to join in and make one too!"
[27/07/2011 21:23:34] John Shiga: @ Martin -- this is a really interesting point ... it's shifts away from asking "is this a creative remix or not?" (since it's all in this basic sense, creative) and more to an set of questions about interpretation and ethics
[27/07/2011 21:25:51] John Shiga: @ Byron -- maybe this is the sort of process that many amateur remixers go through. at first, the main attraction is "look, I can do this too!" and later it shifts to questions of selection, choice and figuring out reasons for spending time searching for and remixing one set of texts, genres, etc. rather than others
[27/07/2011 21:28:12] byron.russell: I think so, John. We really have two separate issues here, in my view. One deals with what is ethical and allowable, ie what should we defend as culture and what should we abandon. The other question, the one I believe you are investigating here, is what makes for good/interesting work? What is the soul of remix? For me, these are both important but distinct questions...

[27/07/2011 21:30:41] byron.russell: I feel comfortable defending the next downfall parody, while also believing that its author will quickly start asking this questions as you suggest and their work will likely evolve from there toward something more interesting.
[27/07/2011 21:31:50] Martin: By the way it seems there is something bizarre going on with Skype because I just got an email from Eduardo and he said he didn't see any of us online when he came on here
[27/07/2011 21:32:19] John Shiga: yes, the two questions -- aesthetics and ethics of remix -- intersect but it's important to consider them separately as well.
For instance, if one takes the position that all remixing is in some basic sense creative, and therefore it should all be allowable (contra copyright law in most places) then that might work as an ethical position. But it doesn't give us a very compelling way of engaging with questions about what makes some remixes seem better than others at a given time, for a given group of people
[27/07/2011 21:32:21] Martin: Are other folks still here? Olivia, Logie?
[27/07/2011 21:33:18] byron.russell: Maybe we could do a makeup session? I am sure other people have a lot to contribute
[27/07/2011 21:33:54] John Shiga: it would be great to have the others weigh in on these questions!
[27/07/2011 21:34:06] John Shiga: maybe we should consider scheduling a makeup session
[27/07/2011 21:35:46] Martin: @John -- actually what I like about remix is that it seems like a good opportunity to discuss ethics+aesthetics in a way that doesn't necessarily hinge on creativity
[27/07/2011 21:36:01] Martin: and yeah this seems like it could do for a makeup session
[27/07/2011 21:36:12] Martin: it seems we lost the other 2 contributors
[27/07/2011 21:36:39] byron.russell: yeah, just the three of us
[27/07/2011 21:38:17] John Shiga: would monday at the same time work for you if we were to reschedule?
[27/07/2011 21:38:23] byron.russell: Do you think we should hang it up for now?
[27/07/2011 21:38:58] John Shiga: we could do a shorter meeting since we've covered a fair bit of ground so far
[27/07/2011 21:39:10] Martin: For me monday would work.
[27/07/2011 21:39:26] byron.russell: I would enjoy that
[27/07/2011 21:39:33] byron.russell: monday I mean
[27/07/2011 21:39:37] John Shiga: would like to talk more about Tofts and
McCrea, as well as Gunkel
[27/07/2011 21:40:26] byron.russell: I thought the two of you were about to go somewhere interesting, though, so maybe it could pick up from there?
[27/07/2011 21:41:05] John Shiga: ok -- so why don't we say Monday, same time. I'll email Owen and let him know, so he can attend, and invite other contributors
[27/07/2011 21:41:17] Martin: Sounds good.
[27/07/2011 21:41:18] byron.russell: Thank you John!
[27/07/2011 21:41:35] John Shiga: definitely -- let's pick it up from where we left off -- this was fun!
[27/07/2011 21:41:41] John Shiga: thank you!

[27/07/2011 21:41:54] byron.russell: See you both Monday...
[27/07/2011 21:41:59] John Shiga: see you Monday
[27/07/2011 21:42:11] Martin: Thanks all! Talk soon!
[01/08/2011 20:04:15] Eli Horwatt: martin?
[01/08/2011 20:04:29] Martin: hey
[01/08/2011 20:04:31] Eli Horwatt: hey
[01/08/2011 20:04:38] Eli Horwatt: just saw the message
[01/08/2011 20:05:20] Martin: Today's a good day for you to show up. We're doing remix aesthetics
[01/08/2011 20:05:35] John Shiga: Hi everyone!
[01/08/2011 20:05:40] Martin: Hey John!
[01/08/2011 20:05:41] byron.russell: Hi Eli, I heard you know a lot about the earliest cinematic remixes...
[01/08/2011 20:05:49] John Shiga: hey Martin!
[01/08/2011 20:05:55] Eli Horwatt: Hey Byron
[01/08/2011 20:05:59] Eli Horwatt: Hey John
[01/08/2011 20:06:01] byron.russell: Hi John
[01/08/2011 20:06:11] Eli Horwatt: A bit about the early soviet work
[01/08/2011 20:06:17] Eli Horwatt: if that's what you're talking about
[01/08/2011 20:06:39] byron.russell: I don,t know anything about that work
[01/08/2011 20:07:13] byron.russell: but recently saw a talk about the artist who did the remix of the kennedy assassination
[01/08/2011 20:07:15] Eli Horwatt: i'll send you something
[01/08/2011 20:07:29] Eli Horwatt: what is his name?
[01/08/2011 20:07:31] byron.russell: please do! I,m fascinated
[01/08/2011 20:07:31] Eli Horwatt: love to see that
[01/08/2011 20:07:53] Eli Horwatt: yes the soviet re-editors are what they were generally known as
[01/08/2011 20:08:03] Eli Horwatt: jay leyda has a book called "films beget films" which focuses on them
[01/08/2011 20:08:09] byron.russell: no no, I am certain you know the person, I think martin said you wrote something about him...
[01/08/2011 20:08:16] Eli Horwatt: i wrote an essay--i'll send it to you: what is your email
[01/08/2011 20:08:44] byron.russell: hold on I will grab the reference...(byron.russell@gmail.com)
[01/08/2011 20:08:55] Martin: which remix of the kennedy assassination?
[01/08/2011 20:10:33] Owen Gallagher: Hi all, apologies for joining the conversation a little late today - I'm travelling at the moment and internet access is a little hit and miss...
[01/08/2011 20:10:43] Byron Russell: Hi Owen
[01/08/2011 20:10:52] Martin: hey owen
[01/08/2011 20:10:57] John Shiga: hi Owen
[01/08/2011 20:11:14] Byron Russell: (sorry on my wife,s japanese computer, so don,t have my links and can,t navigate easily...)
[01/08/2011 20:11:22] Eli Horwatt: no worries
[01/08/2011 20:11:32] Eli Horwatt: hey owen!

[01/08/2011 20:13:31] Owen Gallagher: Great to have everyone here and may I apologies once again for missing last Wednesday's session. I read the transcript of your discussion, which was very interesting reading indeed...
[01/08/2011 20:13:42] Byron Russell: Robert Stalker, Ph.D., Independent
Scholar: "Screening of the Real: The Films of Bruce Conner" this was the esssay I saw here: http://www.real-fake.org/theory.html
[01/08/2011 20:14:19] Byron Russell: bruce conner felt very much like a modern remixer
[01/08/2011 20:15:06] Eli Horwatt: Ah yes
[01/08/2011 20:15:08] Byron Russell: Great to have you back, Owen! Anything pop out at you?
[01/08/2011 20:15:09] Eli Horwatt: it's called "report"
[01/08/2011 20:15:12] Eli Horwatt: amazing film
[01/08/2011 20:15:21] Eli Horwatt: news footage from the day kennedy was shot
[01/08/2011 20:15:29] Eli Horwatt: we owe a lot to conner
[01/08/2011 20:16:04] Byron Russell: exactly! he did another one I think it was
A MOVIE?
[01/08/2011 20:16:26] Martin: ya
[01/08/2011 20:16:30] John Shiga: No worries about missing last week. We had a short meeting -- still lots to talk about!
[01/08/2011 20:16:38] Martin: Eli's internet avatar is the explodey head from A
Movie
[01/08/2011 20:16:57] Byron Russell: Anyway, I would love to learn more about those cinematic works sometime... Sorry I:m off topic
[01/08/2011 20:17:24] Martin: Yeah we did good last week but we didn't even get into the Gunkel.
[01/08/2011 20:17:42] Martin: Is Olivia here?
[01/08/2011 20:18:09] Martin: seems like no. She's the only other one I see online but I don't want to start spamming
[01/08/2011 20:19:36] Owen Gallagher: Byron I was quite interested in the track you guys took in relation to stock footage and remix as quotation...but would one of you like to kick us off as I don't want to start going over ground that you've already covered!
[01/08/2011 20:20:06] Byron Russell: Does anyone think that Phaedrus could contain a self-conscious irony....sorry yes
[01/08/2011 20:20:22] Byron Russell: Stock footage gets used all the time in
Hollywood
[01/08/2011 20:20:42] Byron Russell: the idea is for it to be incorporated seamlessly into the film
[01/08/2011 20:21:13] Byron Russell: by adjusting the color balance and other means, the filmmakers intend to simply use an image for example of a forest fire
[01/08/2011 20:21:44] Byron Russell: without reference to the source... In some sense the opposite of remix
[01/08/2011 20:22:22] Byron Russell: so when I am thinking about how a remixer uses a particular source, I like to compare that use to stock footage
[01/08/2011 20:22:25] Owen Gallagher: But still fundamentally an act of appropriation and recombination, yes?
[01/08/2011 20:22:38] Byron Russell: yes, that is true, definitely!

[01/08/2011 20:22:58] Byron Russell: it is the least related use that I can imagine
[01/08/2011 20:24:06] Byron Russell: for me it is always interesting to think about the relationships between the source and the remix, and what the author might be saying about the source or the sources context
[01/08/2011 20:24:15] John Shiga: So, if stock footage (or other material) is used without drawing attention to appropriation, is that remix? Or would you say there are important differences between the two, though the parallels are still useful?
[01/08/2011 20:24:17] Eli Horwatt: yes--industrial appropriation is usually about cutting cost corners
[01/08/2011 20:24:28] Eli Horwatt: as opposed to re-inflecting the existing footage with new meanings
[01/08/2011 20:24:33] Eli Horwatt: though it happens to do so
[01/08/2011 20:25:06] Byron Russell: Yes, I think it can be remix, but there are important differences, nuances sometimes
[01/08/2011 20:25:18] Eli Horwatt: I tend to think that when appropriation is deployed so as to not call attention to itself it takes on a new character
[01/08/2011 20:25:23] Martin: And I'm suspicious that one of the most driving reasons for the content industry's resistance to appropriation is exactly because they want to keep production costs high and themselves without competition
[01/08/2011 20:25:41] Byron Russell: good point, martin
[01/08/2011 20:26:00] Eli Horwatt: @martin - that's an interesting idea. appropriation and its relation to capital. in other words "it's ok when we do it..."
[01/08/2011 20:26:34] Martin: Yeah that's what it has in common with all sorts of practices like stepping on patents or committing libel, etc..."it's okay when we do it..."
[01/08/2011 20:26:49] Martin: I'm interested in what you said Eli about what changes for remix that does not call attention to itself
[01/08/2011 20:26:55] Byron Russell: @Eli - Of course it is ok, there is a contract and money...
[01/08/2011 20:27:06] Martin: Any suspicion about what it is that does change?
[01/08/2011 20:27:18] Byron Russell: yes yes good question
[01/08/2011 20:28:25] Martin: Oh and just the idea of calling attention to your remix is interesting to me in and of itself. Is it familiarity with the sources that makes us know it's a remix? Is it the slickness of the editing?
[01/08/2011 20:29:06] Martin: And yeah the followup question would be, how does a remix change depending on whether or not it is slick or made of familiar sources?
[01/08/2011 20:29:26] Owen Gallagher: In the same sense, one could think of any piece of graphic design, for example, a poster which uses stock photography, pre-designed fonts, tried and tested layout techniques, built-in software filters and effects etc...such a composition is clearly made up of previously published material, but it is not perceived of as a remix. Remixes explicitly point to the fact that they have appropriated their source material. The difference might be if original photography or illustrations are used, which removes the element of appropriation...
[01/08/2011 20:30:25] Eli Horwatt: i am often told by (usually older) people at parties that what i study is plagiarism. i have to politely remind them that

plagiarism is when you try to pass off someone else's work as your own. Remix is exactly the opposite. It is drawing attention to your pilfering of other people's work and the creative recombinance that is involved in your remix.
[01/08/2011 20:30:59] Eli Horwatt: ha--we seem to agree owen
[01/08/2011 20:31:21] John Shiga: @ Owen -- that's a great point. I think the perception is important, because perception is something that clearly shaped by culture. So what counts as remix changes quite a bit from one cultural group to the next, and from one period to another.
[01/08/2011 20:32:05] Byron Russell: Surely, not ALL remixes need draw direct attention to appropration or to their sources? I have enjoyed several remixes where the specific source could not be identified. The work of LJ Frezza comes to mind...
[01/08/2011 20:33:02] Byron Russell: Though, it seems like even when the relationships are subtle, they still exist do they not?
[01/08/2011 20:33:48] Owen Gallagher: But what of stock footage - plagiarism is trying to pass a text off as your own without the original author knowing, but in the case of stock footage, a movie may be trying to pass the footage off as its own without the audience knowing. Is there a term we might consider, akin to plagiarism, but with the emphasis on the audience rather than the author? Or is it a case that an media literate audience will be able to spot the appropriated stock footage through nuances of different lighting, framing etc?
[01/08/2011 20:34:09] John Shiga: @ Martin -- familiarity with the source material is key to the perception of something as a remix, I think. There are other ways to signify "remix" (rough edges, using multiple textures and materials, etc.) but the audience's knowledge of the source material is one of the key components of communicating, "This is a remix." The other component might be the stylistic choices of the remixer, which can range from covering up the borrowing, to highlighting it
[01/08/2011 20:34:47] Eli Horwatt: @ Owen: this is an important distinction.
Yes, it's not plagiarism insofar as an author (or more likely an archive) is paid.
Still the rhetorical use of the footage has similar features to plagiarism. Not that
I'm making a value judgement...
[01/08/2011 20:35:28] Martin: Kathy Acker quite self consciously deployed what many called plagiarism in some of her better known writing.
[01/08/2011 20:35:33] John Shiga: Another aspect might be more of a quantitative matter. How much is being borrowed? I think many people would be hesitant to call a feature film that contains a few seconds of borrowed footage a remix, for example.
[01/08/2011 20:36:13] Martin: I like that question John
[01/08/2011 20:36:26] Eli Horwatt: One idea I'm toying with right now is that, while a remix might call attention to the USE of other materials, it may be so devoted to opperating within the stylistic confines of commercial texts (like trailers) that it is in effect attempting to interject itself clandestinely back into the world--so that it has some potential to be confused for the real thing (though admitedly this is more rare).
[01/08/2011 20:36:50] Martin: It brings up some fuzziness I have personally about whether remix is better described as a method, an aesthetic, a cultural genre....

[01/08/2011 20:37:03] Byron Russell: @Owen - Sometimes it can be spotted, sometimes not, but it isn`t the spotting of it that makes it sit poorly but the condescension to the audience in some way
[01/08/2011 20:37:30] Martin: like you could say that a feature movie has a slow-mo segment for 30 seconds and then a short remix segment a little later on?
[01/08/2011 20:37:53] Owen Gallagher: Indeed, this is what copyright law has struggled with for eons - how many pages of a book ay be photocopied before it is a copyright infringement, how many seconds of a video may be played in a classroom before you cross the line - and now we are asking the question from the opposite standpoint - how many seconds of appropriated content does it take to constitute a remix!
[01/08/2011 20:39:09] John Shiga: @ Byron -- I'm interested in what you mean by " condescension to the audience" -- is catering to audience expectations to be able to spot source material a kind of pandering to the audience?
[01/08/2011 20:39:12] Eli Horwatt: it's never about amount, it's about the technique i think. @ Martin, these distinctions may even describe the amorphous nature of remixes. Sometimes they appear to be a technique (like the way MTV music videos may work with appropriated material) wheras I tend to think of it as a cultural practice when used for political purposes.
[01/08/2011 20:39:15] Owen Gallagher: @Eli - I love the idea that a remix can pass itself off as 'real' - but I agree that it is a rarity. I think the Yes Men's own brand of performative identity remix comes close to this...
[01/08/2011 20:39:29] Eli Horwatt: YES
[01/08/2011 20:39:45] Eli Horwatt: I was thinking of the chevy tahoe remixes among others
[01/08/2011 20:39:46] Byron Russell: I think we can exclude feature films from remix for two reasons. One, the feature film does not (explicitly) acknowledge that appropriated images are used. Two, every possible effort is made to disguise it.
[01/08/2011 20:39:58] Martin: The interesting thing about the Yes Men also is that the eventual big "reveal" is equally as important as the hoax
[01/08/2011 20:41:16] Byron Russell: @John - that is just a feeling. When I first learned about the prevalence of stock footage disappointed me, but I quickly understood why it was done. It just doesn`t always feel right somehow...
[01/08/2011 20:41:29] John Shiga: @ Owen, yes copyright law has its own way of figuring out whether something is a remix (or a derivative) ... again though I think the relevance of the quantity question varies from audience to audience.
For some, any borrowed footage at all would compromise the artist's originality.
[01/08/2011 20:43:27] Eli Horwatt: has anyone ever come across literature about Douglas Gordon's "24 hour Psycho" and the legality of simply slowing down Hitchcock's film?
[01/08/2011 20:43:45] Eli Horwatt: this is surely an example that touches on the amount of material appropriated
[01/08/2011 20:43:54] Byron Russell: in terms of stock footage, a typical example is a shot of a city that the characters are visiting. Say your movie takes your heroes to Miami. They are going to Miami, so we see girls in bikinis on the beach, fancy cars being taken by valets under palm trees, and the skyline of south beach, yes? Why reinvent the wheel? Those shots already exist.

[01/08/2011 20:44:16] Martin: Just speaking from experience -- often when I'm editing footage together I get the sensation that there are 2 parts of my workflow. "Part 1" is a sort of "big picture" approach to the remix, where I decide the broad strokes of what I want to do and the kind of images I want to deploy and in what order whatever --- this part feels like remixing. "Part 2" still involves working with the footage, but I manipulate it so that I can stay near to the broads-strokes plan that I developed in "Part One"
[01/08/2011 20:44:54] Martin: to put it another way, one portion of my remixing (part 2) feels like the "production" part of a film, like shooting, lighting, etc...and the other portion (part 1) feels like "editing"
[01/08/2011 20:45:22] Martin: Does 24 Hour psycho come up in Bourriaud?
[01/08/2011 20:45:32] Eli Horwatt: i believe so
[01/08/2011 20:45:39] Eli Horwatt: in post production i think
[01/08/2011 20:45:44] Martin: ya
[01/08/2011 20:45:59] Owen Gallagher: Ok guys - just to focus in a little on the theme of this week's discussion 'the remix aesthetic' - what are your thoughts on the following questions - 'What are the aesthetic qualities of remix and how is it perceived?'
[01/08/2011 20:46:10] Martin: I don't think he cares much about copyright tho.
I find they feel pretty impervious to that stuff within the gallery scene.
[01/08/2011 20:46:24] John Shiga: @ Byron -- I see what you mean. In this case, remix techniques are being used to streamline and rationalize cultural production.
[01/08/2011 20:47:42] Martin: Aha I thought ahead about such an Owen-styled question this time
[01/08/2011 20:48:34] Byron Russell: right. No one really needs to know who shot Miami and why, nor is it at any level what Fast and Furious 7 is going to be about, right? Clearly, 24hr Psycho IS in some way `about` Psycho...
[01/08/2011 20:48:55] Owen Gallagher: @John - I like your question regarding the distinction between remix as an aesthetic or sensibility, a mode of cultural production or a period of creativity...
[01/08/2011 20:49:32] Byron Russell: We can see this in remix culture as well.
A given remix might use 5 or 6 sources, but only be commenting on one or two of them...
[01/08/2011 20:49:56] Martin: For me, the aesthetic qualities of a remix have to do with reacting to both the excess and the abundance of media. It responds to the excess of media around us, and the excess of meaning that spills out from any single bit of media. It also takes advantage of the abundance of material that is available for making culture, as well as the abundance of meaning that can be made with a piece of media.
[01/08/2011 20:50:06] Eli Horwatt: I think when we talk about remix aesthetics we need to accomodate a number of competing tendencies:
[01/08/2011 20:51:24] Eli Horwatt: 1) Martin's just mentioned post-modern smörgåsbord which uses multiple texts in the servies of creating a seemingly contiguous text (a la AMDS or McIntosh)
[01/08/2011 20:51:58] John Shiga: I think the aesthetic qualities of remix emerge out of practitioners and audiences' discussions of remixing, as a set of criteria about what constitutes a "well done" remix, so these aesthetic qualities vary from scene to scene. The more general point I took from the readings

though was the remix is much more significant in some ways than the good remix / bad remix distinctions that are made in particular scenes. If we follow
Bourriaud or Gunkel, then remix aesthetics have to do with the reorganization of our perception and sense of history, technology, and art
[01/08/2011 20:52:44] Eli Horwatt: 2) the interuptive and jumbled stew of
Wreck and Salvage and even YouTube poop which profits (comedically) from being disjointed and asynchronous
[01/08/2011 20:52:49] Owen Gallagher: @Martin that is an extremely interesting perspective on it - abundance and excess, two of the defining traits of contemporary western culture, especially North America...is it possible to envision a time when media content could ever be scarce again?
[01/08/2011 20:53:46] Eli Horwatt: @ Martin and Owen: Reminds me of what
Douglas Huebler once said -- "The world is full of objects, more or less interesting; I do not wish to add any more."
[01/08/2011 20:53:56] Byron Russell: I agree with John, even when we watch
Wreck and Salvage we are aware of and think about source material even when tehy can:t be identified...
[01/08/2011 20:54:04] Eli Horwatt: as a way of reordering and working with the existing detritus
[01/08/2011 20:54:42] Martin: @Owen Content was never ever scarce. As
Francesca Coppa recently mention in a recent talk --"We can always make more!"
[01/08/2011 20:55:06] Martin: did I mention the talk was recent?
[01/08/2011 20:55:07] Martin: lol
[01/08/2011 20:55:19] Byron Russell: march?
[01/08/2011 20:56:31] Martin: Would the youtube poop kids need to be remixing to be interuptive Eli?
[01/08/2011 20:56:49] Martin: Like one of their old tricks is to name their video after the title of a popular videogame
[01/08/2011 20:57:00] Martin: and when you look it up you get some absurd remix
[01/08/2011 20:57:05] Eli Horwatt: @ Martin - explain that. What do you mean by "would they need to be remixing"?
[01/08/2011 20:57:14] Martin: but what if they just did white noise and blasted the stero sound?
[01/08/2011 20:57:17] John Shiga: Martin's excess point is interesting ... remix is a way of feeling one's way around cultural landscapes that might otherwise be overwhelming, depressing, etc. Remix revitalizes the aesthetic so that excess becomes something to intevene in, use opportunistically and tactically.
[01/08/2011 20:57:42] Eli Horwatt: I see
[01/08/2011 20:57:47] Byron Russell: as a cultural practice, the abundance of media and the abundance of the tools needed to use media are a part of what remix is, but is that what makes remix interesting? I am ambivalent about that...
[01/08/2011 20:58:24] Eli Horwatt: I think it's just one strategy to use -- the act of creating a destabalizing text through an accumulation of existing texts is important for its own reasons.
[01/08/2011 20:58:29] Eli Horwatt: fucking with expectations is still fun though too
[01/08/2011 20:59:24] Byron Russell: It has to be a good thing to mix it up and make us take a second look at our media environment

[01/08/2011 20:59:35] Owen Gallagher: For me, some of the aesthetic qualitites of remix may include the following: 1) appropriates and repurposes previously published texts 2) alters the dominant meaning(s) or changes the emphasis of the perceived meaning(s) of the source material 3) changes the order, that is the sequencing, of the samples used 4) may take the form of any media content - text, music, image, video, animation, interactive software / games... 5) primarily perceived with out eyes and ears, as opposed to any of our other senses...
[01/08/2011 21:00:24] Eli Horwatt: On the subject of excess--it seems like the defining feature of the remixer is to eschew the sense of tabula rasa (or starting from scratch) that is supposed to define art making (in a modernist sense) as the expression of original creative genius from the artist. excess and dealing with the proliferation of media is central to the impulses of a remixer
[01/08/2011 21:01:29] Eli Horwatt: @ Owen: Umberto Ecco took your #2 point and called it abberant decoding. I think that idea, of purposely misreading a text or reading against a text is one issue that links remix to linguistics or semiotics
[01/08/2011 21:02:01] Byron Russell: I like Owen`s list, in particular 2, that seems to strike to the heart of what makes remix interesting
[01/08/2011 21:02:02] John Shiga: Owen -- I like your list of elements of remix aesthetics. Since many commercial remixes do no seem to change the dominant meaning or repurpose the material (e.g., dance remix A, dance remix B, etc.), does this suggest that the notion of remix has been hijacked by the cultural industries?
[01/08/2011 21:03:50] Byron Russell: Isn`t it odd that every version of an edited media is now a `remix` instead of a `version`?
[01/08/2011 21:04:13] Eli Horwatt: i have to run for a few minutes and reset internet. if airport wifi works, be back in ten...
[01/08/2011 21:04:31] Martin: I'm planning a blog post on "remixes" and
"versions" on remixstudies.org!
[01/08/2011 21:04:39] John Shiga: I like element #2 too. However, as Bourriaud
(I think) points out, people are constantly reading things in a way that diverges from the dominant or preferred meaning, and in this sense, we are all remixers!
Perhaps #1 and #2 go together then so that it's not just reading or interpreting, but remix as a mode of manipulating media materials so that re-routes meaning
[01/08/2011 21:04:40] Byron Russell: erroneously suggesting some kind of repurposing that isn`t there
[01/08/2011 21:04:56] Byron Russell: Nice, Martin
[01/08/2011 21:06:04] Byron Russell: could we say that repurposing of the material is a central aesthetic of remix? some way of defining that repurposing that would cleave that kind of stuff?
[01/08/2011 21:06:33] Martin: Does the KIND of repurposing that you do matter? Or just any repurposing that diverts from the dominant meaning? Does it have to resist or just repurpose?
[01/08/2011 21:07:41] John Shiga: @ Byron -- good point. Yes, apparently when two bands play together now, it's not a jam but a "mash-up" ...
[01/08/2011 21:07:49] Owen Gallagher: @John and Martin - yes, I do believe that remix has been (almost) completely co-opted by commercial interests...on a slightly different track - before I forget, I was thinking it would be an exciting proposition for us as a group to attempt to define the elements of remix (which are already doing in a sense) and then attempt to formulate a list of principles of

what constitutes a good remix, at some point in the future - would anyone be interested in this or see any value in such an exercise?
[01/08/2011 21:08:25] Byron Russell: I prefer to keep it as open as possible to allow for something unexpected to happen, but resistance is a big part of the majority of interesting remixes...
[01/08/2011 21:09:48] Byron Russell: Fantastic idea, Owen. I think we could really benefit from examining the idea of good remix seperately from the question of what IS remix_
[01/08/2011 21:10:33] Martin: I had a related project in mind Owen and there might be some overlap, although it might not be directly related to what you have in mind. Mainly I was thinking of doing a "video remix 101" catalogue that draws from existing remix communities and their terminology as a way of giving a big list of video remix "techniques"
[01/08/2011 21:10:52] Martin: I was thinking I'd cross post it on both your sites
[01/08/2011 21:11:03] Martin: like on totalrecut and remixstudies
[01/08/2011 21:11:03] John Shiga: @ Owen -- it would certainly be an interesting exercise. I would also suggest perhaps trying to come up with a typology of different forms of remix, with their characteristics.
[01/08/2011 21:12:03] Owen Gallagher: @John - I believe Eli has done some excellent work on that angle in his piece - a taxonomy of digital remixing - http://www.scope.nottingham.ac.uk/cultborr/chapter.php?id=8
[01/08/2011 21:13:19] John Shiga: A herculean feat, on Eli's part! Yes, perhaps we could build on that, and perhaps figure out which categories work within and outside of digital video remix
[01/08/2011 21:14:24] John Shiga: I'm interested to know what others thought of Manovich's question: what comes after remix?
[01/08/2011 21:15:08] John Shiga: maybe some of the elements we've discussed are leading to a post-remix aesthetic
[01/08/2011 21:15:37] Owen Gallagher: Just want to add another element to the list - 6) creates new connections / relationships between previously unrelated texts
[01/08/2011 21:16:12] Byron Russell: That is a great addition!
[01/08/2011 21:16:35] Byron Russell: I think some remixes are mainly about that
[01/08/2011 21:16:58] Martin: We talked a bit last week John about problems that you and me and probably others have about the idea of being able to cast
"remix" as something like a historical era
[01/08/2011 21:17:28] Martin: You mentioned that it implies a sort of idea of historical progress that's really problematic
[01/08/2011 21:18:18] Martin: and to me it really sets off alarm bells of being one of those academic type manoeuvres that tries to wrench a whole bunch of culture into one all-encompasing notion -- in this case "remix"
[01/08/2011 21:18:54] Martin: not only that, but just the implication that all remixes can be lumped together so easily
[01/08/2011 21:19:38] Owen Gallagher: Bourriaud has also been criticised for this, with his 'alter-modern' period, which is apparently post-postmodern...an academic manouvre if ever there was one...
[01/08/2011 21:19:51] Byron Russell: ugh
[01/08/2011 21:19:52] Martin: Yeah I just ignore that part of Bourriaud

[01/08/2011 21:20:04] Martin: I get a lot of value from his work though
[01/08/2011 21:20:34] John Shiga: true -- Manovich's question does suggest that we are living in the "remix age," and then asks what comes after this. Indeed, to give Manovich the benefit of the doubt, I think he's trying to be ironic with this particular question. What comes after something that is about the abandonment of notions of cultural progress?
[01/08/2011 21:21:03] Byron Russell: perhaps it would be good to consider separately remix activities and the current remix trend as distinct elements of the all encompassing concept of remix.
[01/08/2011 21:21:05] Owen Gallagher: The renaissance
[01/08/2011 21:21:54] Owen Gallagher: which was a kind of cultural remix in itself - they took all of the ideas from Ancient Greece and updated them for contemporary European society after the Dark Ages...
[01/08/2011 21:23:12] John Shiga: Yes, this part of Bourriaud also drove me a bit crazy ... but one thing I did take from his piece is the notion of remixing as recoding ... particularly with artists in the gallery scene, this is important because they are no longer in the business of making objects but finding new codes in which to arrange, animate, perform, etc. those objects and their relations
[01/08/2011 21:25:47] Owen Gallagher: Is it possible that the term 'remix' has lost all currency because of its appropriation by capitalism?
[01/08/2011 21:27:22] Byron Russell: In my experience with the fine art world, the object is really just evidence of the idea that it points to. This does not devalue the object as it becomes the precious evidence of the reality of the idea to which it refers.
[01/08/2011 21:28:24] Eli Horwatt: @ Owen - the reification of remix is an important issue for future writing on the subject. @ all on the subject of remix as a historical era. The proliferation of "hybrid genre" has much to do with turning remix into a standardized form. Cowboys and Aliens is the post-modern example par excellance. Compare that to Blade Runner's subtle hybridity--this is like a messy remix in some ways. I can almost imagine a remixer making a hybrid sci-fi western...
[01/08/2011 21:29:27] John Shiga: I think "remix" has stood the test of time so far. Given the many commerical uses of the term, "remix" continues to be used by artists who see themselves very much on the margins of the organized cultural industries, as well as by scholars who are somewhat skeptical of other, similar terms like "mash-up."
[01/08/2011 21:29:36] Owen Gallagher: Or is the proliferation of hybrid a genre a result of the remix aesthetic - the chicken and the egg...
[01/08/2011 21:30:08] Eli Horwatt: if remix had a subversive currency as a term -- it must be completely lost by now. In some sense, I see SO much of this conversation concerning the currency of the term. That could become its own trap....
[01/08/2011 21:30:29] Byron Russell: can we ever escape the commodification of ideas that people are interested in? Would changing the name change what it is?
[01/08/2011 21:31:10] Martin: What is the "approrpriated by capitalism" line that remix would have to cross in order to lose its currency?

[01/08/2011 21:31:22] Eli Horwatt: @Byron and John - True that changing the word would be fruitless. Perhaps we need to drive a wedge between remixes made by "remixers" and those deployed by commercial entities...
[01/08/2011 21:31:30] Martin: And how does this relate to the fact that remix involves apprpropriating from the capitlists
[01/08/2011 21:32:45] Martin: I like the idea of drawing a line Eli. I feel like it could be done for lots of resistant cultures -- not just remix.
[01/08/2011 21:33:30] Martin: Which I guess brings up that whole confusion I have about remix being a method or a cutlural form, etc...
[01/08/2011 21:34:14] Eli Horwatt: YES Martin. That's a great point. Perhaps remix becomes pure technique when used in the MTV context. I think we talked about this earlier...
[01/08/2011 21:34:35] John Shiga: Another line could be drawn between the concept of remix (whether scholarly, promotional, or legal) and the actual practice of remix which tends to be much more heterogeneous than the abstract concept suggests.
[01/08/2011 21:35:16] Byron Russell: For me, the abstract concept of remix is important for protecting the resistant aspect of remix
[01/08/2011 21:35:26] Eli Horwatt: Anyone remember MTV music awards trying to have remixes submitted? they ended up just making officially licensed remixes (with the likes of jimmy falon) because of the concern over using unlicensed footage
[01/08/2011 21:36:49] Owen Gallagher: I also see value in dividing commerical and non-commercial remixes - but, that may be more difficult than it sounds right? What about the work of AMDS, which is certainly non-commercial, but in effect is a promotional showreel for his editing abilities designed to create future commercial opportunities for him as a video editor.
[01/08/2011 21:37:03] Martin: The "autotune the news" artists recently had a remix screened at the Oscars
[01/08/2011 21:37:10] Martin: Gregory Brothers
[01/08/2011 21:37:13] Martin: I wonder if they cleared it
[01/08/2011 21:37:24] Martin: bet they did
[01/08/2011 21:37:33] Byron Russell: I bet they did too
[01/08/2011 21:37:34] Eli Horwatt: We should collect these examples of commercial remix. Knowing the enemy and studying him will be useful...
[01/08/2011 21:37:53] Owen Gallagher: Ha. I like your thinking Eli...
[01/08/2011 21:37:58] Eli Horwatt: him being my word for "the man..."
[01/08/2011 21:38:13] John Shiga: @ Byron -- good point. And I think that's the idea that some of the readings were trying to articulate. One response to the commercialization of remixing is to stop remixing and so something else.
Another strategy seems to be to radicalize remix, turn it into a way of seeing everything, treat remix as a kind of political project.
[01/08/2011 21:38:45] Martin: Eli -- I wanted to mention to you since these were two types of video remix that you were interested in: I have now seen two different movie-advertising companies that deploy both trailer remixes and supercuts as a means of drawing eyeballs to advertisements and promotional material that they make for hollywood
[01/08/2011 21:39:15] Byron Russell: We can`t be taken seriously to suggest it is ok for mcintosh to make a disney remix, but disney can`t remix themselves.

But acknowledging that does not mean at all that they can be equated with each other...
[01/08/2011 21:39:16] Martin: So you'll have a supercut and then on the same channel you have an interview with Vin Diesel
[01/08/2011 21:39:34] Eli Horwatt: WOW
[01/08/2011 21:40:14] Eli Horwatt: yes--the supercut form is perfect promotional material. remember when seinfeld released supercut episodes? corey archangel (a remix / machinima artist) is showing a supercut at the whitney museum right now...
[01/08/2011 21:40:26] Owen Gallagher: @Byron - but if Disney remix themselves, they are not appropriating anything. If Disney remixed some original footage McIntosh shot, now that would be interesting...
[01/08/2011 21:43:02] Owen Gallagher: And of course, remixing remixes is also inevitable - once a particular remix has become a cultural meme, its dominant meaning widely percevied and understood by large audiences, it becomes source material to be remixed and referenced in a new remix. Any good examples of this to date?
[01/08/2011 21:43:03] Byron Russell: Yes, that is true. For me, it is important that remix be defined at one level in a way that makes it legitimate regardless of what it is about or who does it.
[01/08/2011 21:43:43] Eli Horwatt: Martin has been talking about remixing remixes for a while. Are you still at work on one martin?
[01/08/2011 21:44:03] Byron Russell: Not because I am a fan of downfall remixes or corporate garbage, but simply because there is a need for objective standards for what it is
[01/08/2011 21:44:23] Martin: None of the ones I have now are remixes of remixes. I just did one with the Nyan Cat meme though
[01/08/2011 21:44:33] Martin: None of the ones I'm working on now, rather
[01/08/2011 21:44:42] Martin: I do have an old one that is a remix of remixes
[01/08/2011 21:44:43] John Shiga: The T-Mobile dance is a good example of this kind of remixing of remixing. It spawned numerous re-enactments by amateurs as well as by corporations ... as well as the Black Eyed Peas / Oprah
[01/08/2011 21:44:50] Byron Russell: and we have to live with the reality that there will be corporate garbage no matter what we do
[01/08/2011 21:44:50] Martin: It resulted in me getting accused of ripping off the remixer.
[01/08/2011 21:45:08] Byron Russell: that is funny!
[01/08/2011 21:45:21] Eli Horwatt: that IS funny
[01/08/2011 21:45:43] Owen Gallagher: The ironing is delicious
[01/08/2011 21:46:48] Byron Russell: I think the place to fight is the battleground of what makes GOOD remix as opposed to what IS remix...
[01/08/2011 21:47:03] John Shiga: @ Owen -- this kind of re-re-remixing goes on all the time in music, and more often now with music video.
[01/08/2011 21:47:56] Martin: this one isn't recent but I only just found it -- people got into sticking different images on the opening brand identification for the nintendo gamecube
[01/08/2011 21:48:11] Martin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTKDFuyH4gs
[01/08/2011 21:48:21] Eli Horwatt: @ Byron - I agree completely

[01/08/2011 21:48:29] Martin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSdeHgh9lgM
[01/08/2011 21:48:40] Byron Russell: mac can stand up to disney in terms of his sensitivity to the material, creativity, etc. If we say what the machine does can`t be caled remix we will be hypocrites
[01/08/2011 21:48:48] Eli Horwatt: the semantic arguments are usually boring. the arguments about aesthetic success are far more interesting
[01/08/2011 21:48:52] Martin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWYtDu3TZy4
[01/08/2011 21:48:53] Martin: and so on
[01/08/2011 21:49:21] Owen Gallagher: I don't know if I would define these as remixing remixes.
[01/08/2011 21:49:22] Byron Russell: ll@eli YES
[01/08/2011 21:49:32] Byron Russell: but we need both
[01/08/2011 21:49:35] Owen Gallagher: They are in the same vein as the downfall meme...
[01/08/2011 21:49:53] Owen Gallagher: Which is lots of people remixing the same single piece of source material in different ways
[01/08/2011 21:50:00] Martin: ya that's true. But actually when you pointed that out owen it made me think of a really interesting example...
[01/08/2011 21:50:19] Owen Gallagher: Not remixing a remix as such -
[01/08/2011 21:50:42] Logie: So, leveraging earlier definitional work here, would we prefer to say that this is NOT remix or "BAD" remix? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprite_Remix
[01/08/2011 21:51:09] John Shiga: @ Martin -- this is exactly the sort of the amateur remixing that is celebrated in Lessig's work. According to him, these kinds of remixes aren't aesthetically good but they are still culturally and politically important. The idea here is that remix is the vernacular of the current generation, and that corporate copyright is constraining the conversation
[01/08/2011 21:51:48] Eli Horwatt: i like "Aruba Jam" Sprite Remix. Almost a nod to Coca-Cola's colonial history...
[01/08/2011 21:52:02] Martin: Re: the interesting example mentioned above....basically, someone started by making a remix of an episode of the cartoon Inuyasha. Then someone posted a video response, and it involved playing the original inuyasha remix and then filming it off the screen with a webcam. A 3rd artists responded and recorded the webcam footage with their own webcam, and so on
[01/08/2011 21:52:26] Byron Russell: Logie, interesting question. I think the answer depends on the specifics of the example we look at
[01/08/2011 21:52:27] Martin: they'd mess around with the webcam to produce some change
[01/08/2011 21:52:31] Owen Gallagher: @Logie - I like this. Gut instinct - it's both bad and not a remix. But we would need to have a full conversation about the principles of good remix to be sure...
[01/08/2011 21:53:17] Logie: Part of me wishes to say to Coca-Cola, your
"Sprite Remix" is not a remix at all. It is simply a new flavor of carbonated beverage trading on the brand identity of your popular lemon-lime soda.
[01/08/2011 21:53:43] Eli Horwatt: alright folks i have to jump on a plane right now. GREAT to talk to and meet all the new folks. I'll be at the next meeting...

[01/08/2011 21:53:55] Martin: the sprite remix is just as much a remix as the pepsi revolution is a revolution
[01/08/2011 21:53:56] Martin: https://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2232190105
[01/08/2011 21:54:08] Logie: Let's stipulate that notwithstanding market failure, at least one of these flavors is, for the purposes of argument, empirically delicious.
[01/08/2011 21:54:10] Byron Russell: I do think it is important to make each argument at the right time, and not to simply say this sucks and is in bad taste, so we disallow it...
[01/08/2011 21:54:33] Martin: Seeya Eli!
[01/08/2011 21:54:39] Owen Gallagher: Indeed - and where do we stop? We could say that any food that recombines different ingredients in unexpected ways somehow 'remixes' the elements right? Or is it more like we take a finished cake, take a slice of it and glue it to a banana to make a true food remix...
[01/08/2011 21:54:42] Byron Russell: Thank you Eli
[01/08/2011 21:55:04] Owen Gallagher: Bye Eli - thanks for your valuable thoughts!
[01/08/2011 21:55:08] Logie: @ Owen — that's where I was headed. I am
"remixing" the alphabet right now!
[01/08/2011 21:55:47] Byron Russell: Does it add to our appreciation of regular sprite to see different flavors in contrast to the `source flavor` of lemon-lime?
[01/08/2011 21:56:14] Logie: Everything we do is grounded in some measure of extant stuff . . .
[01/08/2011 21:56:28] Byron Russell: It is true, we really have to draw the line somewhere.
[01/08/2011 21:57:14] John Shiga: here are a number of attempts by top chefs to "remix" the Big Mac:http://www.thegridto.com/life/food-drink/happiermeals/
[01/08/2011 21:57:17] John Shiga: http://www.thegridto.com/life/fooddrink/happier-meals/
[01/08/2011 21:58:06] Byron Russell: tough though
[01/08/2011 21:59:10] John Shiga: in the food cases, perhaps some of our earlier attempts to trace the contours of the "good" remix might come into play
(degree of repurposing, degree of divergence from dominant meaning, etc.)
[01/08/2011 21:59:20] John Shiga: as well as soft drink cases
[01/08/2011 22:00:27] Logie: I'm late to the party, but it seems there's an aesthetic analogous to what people mean when they sort good "cover" songs from bad. A too-faithful cover is typically seen as pointless.
[01/08/2011 22:00:43] Byron Russell: Our arguments are certainly stronger if they can be based on something objective
[01/08/2011 22:01:02] Owen Gallagher: @Martin - do you think 29 members is enough for Pepsi to have a successful revolution...
[01/08/2011 22:01:25] Logie: Owen was on this point earler . . . just how much transformation is aspired to by the chronologically 2nd+ composer?
[01/08/2011 22:01:52] Byron Russell: how much transformation is acheieved?
[01/08/2011 22:02:23] Logie: tweaking the dancebeat of an already hot dance track IS remix but it's often "meh . . ."
[01/08/2011 22:02:24] Martin: By pepsi logic I think that means 29 revolutions

[01/08/2011 22:02:56] Byron Russell: however many it takes to get the change to fall out of your pocket and into the vending machine
[01/08/2011 22:03:04] John Shiga: @ Logie -- good parallel. Perhaps remix aesthetics are something like an inversion of the aesthetic values of whatever they are remixing. so in the case of hip chef remixes of the Big Mac, the remix privilege the hand crafted over the standardized, the one-off vs. the mass produced, etc.
[01/08/2011 22:03:47] Logie: that's it . . . the distance between the foundational work's cultural "meaning" and the remix elements (or outcome)
[01/08/2011 22:04:00] Logie: that matters mightily.
[01/08/2011 22:04:36] Logie: You get more points for building a functional bridge between ABBA and KMFDM than between Madonna and Lady Gaga.
[01/08/2011 22:04:55] John Shiga: I'd say so too. And the tricky part is to get maximum divergence while maintaining some connection to the source material so that it is recognizable as a remix, not something totally unrelated
[01/08/2011 22:05:37] Owen Gallagher: An interesting aspect of the big mac remixes - we are looking at images of the big mac and their haute cuisine equivalents - but do you think the masterchef versions would taste better?
[01/08/2011 22:05:53] Logie: (that said, a remix that cannily points up Gaga's appropriations from Madge might be really cool ; ) )
[01/08/2011 22:06:11] Logie: @ Owen. Nope.
[01/08/2011 22:06:45] Byron Russell: remix tends to draw attention toward its appropriative aspects and that in turn draws our attention to the distance that
Logie refers to.
[01/08/2011 22:06:46] Owen Gallagher: @Logie - "building a bridge" - that's a nice image to associate with remix. Very Constructivist though - would you consider remix constructive or destructive or both perhaps?
[01/08/2011 22:06:47] Logie: @ Own. The description of the processes involved alone were unappetizing (scraping the cheese off the patties to make sauce?
Really!?!?)
[01/08/2011 22:07:13] Logie: @ Owen. Thanks. Did not mean to exclue remixer as destroyer!
[01/08/2011 22:07:26] Byron Russell: @Owen How about recyclying a bridge to make another bridge?
[01/08/2011 22:07:55] John Shiga: @ Owen -- I'm sure the hip chef versions probably don't taste better ... then again, one key aesthetic value in the trendy restaurant scene is "presentation" or the "food as landscape" so I guess most of the remixes aim for that
[01/08/2011 22:07:57] Owen Gallagher: @Byron - nice.
[01/08/2011 22:10:34] Owen Gallagher: One of the questions to be considered for today was 'how is remix perceived'? Is remix perceived any differently from
'non-remixed' content?
[01/08/2011 22:11:44] Logie: OK, howbout this? Every work has its own magnetic field. Remixers need to somehow alter/shift/dirupt that field. Remixers who throw another opposite-polarity magnet into the mix can get extra bonus points.
[01/08/2011 22:11:45] Martin: I'd say it is for sure but I think many of the reasons for why have to do more with things like cultural capital than they do with aesthetics

[01/08/2011 22:12:20] Owen Gallagher: @Logie sounds like a good idea for an iPhone app/game - we could make millions...
[01/08/2011 22:12:59] Logie: and here comes the inevitable . . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItrG8zFNPhQ
[01/08/2011 22:14:06] John Shiga: The traditional view is that the remix is a type of copy or derivative, and this traditional view comes into play whenever people say "it's just a remix" or something like that. It's a view that still very much around, despite the current popularity of remixing. Another view is that all cultural production and consumption is "remixing," and remix artists, knowingly or not, highlight this fact.
[01/08/2011 22:14:29] Logie: (uhhh . . .NSFW in some workplaces)
[01/08/2011 22:15:31] Byron Russell: I thought I understood magnets, but now
I`m not so sure...
[01/08/2011 22:15:41] Owen Gallagher: @Martin - I agree with you, but just to focus on the aesthetic side of it for now, what would you say are the specific elements of remix that we perceive differently when we are watching it, in comparison to non-remixed work? (If any!)
[01/08/2011 22:17:03] Martin: I'm trying to think of something that could be exlcusive to remixing.
[01/08/2011 22:17:46] Owen Gallagher: I guess I'm trying to explore the relationship between the aesthetic elements of remix and what happens when we actually watch a remix (or listen to/read/play etc.)
[01/08/2011 22:18:16] Martin: so for example, I can imagine this sort of tension between the magnetic polarities of different bits of culture to be arguably at play with self-cosnsciously intertextual novels
[01/08/2011 22:19:09] Byron Russell: knowing that it is a bastardization of the original source changes our perception - if we know in advance that it is a remix...
[01/08/2011 22:19:09] Martin: and I liked the point that Eli brought up the sort of very pronounced hybridization in recent mass culture -- Cowboys VS Aliens for example
[01/08/2011 22:19:10] Owen Gallagher: For me, there is always an 'a-ha' moment - when I recognise the source material, or when the meaning is changed or when there is some sort of 'reveal', like Martin mentioned earlier in relation to the Yes Men...
[01/08/2011 22:19:53] Martin: Owen, do you think you have those same Aha moments when you see a movie reference on an episode of the simpsons?
[01/08/2011 22:20:03] Martin: or is it different?
[01/08/2011 22:20:04] Byron Russell: good question
[01/08/2011 22:20:06] John Shiga: On this point, I think Eco has some interesting things to say. The remix, he would probably argue, directs attention to the fact that something is different and something else is the same. And in doing that, remixes emphasize time more than "finished works" typically do; they do this through repetition and mutation.
[01/08/2011 22:20:52] Owen Gallagher: I think it's different - but I'm not sure how, that's what I'm trying to think through!
[01/08/2011 22:21:48] Martin: @John Yes! Marcus Boon has some great stuff about how we deal with difference/sameness and he touches on how this would interact with things like remix

[01/08/2011 22:22:43] Byron Russell: just knowing it is a remix makes a difference in how we percieve it from the start! Won`t we be looking for the sources then, trying to consider how many sources were used and from where. I suddenly have the urge to create a seemingly remixed non-remix...
[01/08/2011 22:23:00] Logie: @ owen - is the difference the degree to which works are put "in conversation" with each other?
[01/08/2011 22:23:07] Owen Gallagher: There is some kind of 'awe' or wonder,
I think in that moment of realisation when you understand what the remixer has achieved in combining these disparate elements in such a way to create something new and amazing, often very clever and sometimes in very funny ways. It's different I think than the respect one feels for an author of an 'original' text, but is it really any different?
[01/08/2011 22:23:15] John Shiga: @ Martin -- I'll have to get that Boon citation from you!
[01/08/2011 22:24:47] Byron Russell: Thank you all for a great discussion! I have to leave, but will be looking forward to next time. Bye bye
[01/08/2011 22:24:58] Martin: @John -- Check out In Praise of Copying
[01/08/2011 22:24:59] Owen Gallagher: Thanks Byron - looking forward to it!
[01/08/2011 22:25:05] Martin: seeya byron!
[01/08/2011 22:25:14] John Shiga: bye Byron!
[01/08/2011 22:25:21] John Shiga: Thanks Martin -- I'll check that out.
[01/08/2011 22:25:42] Martin: I finally tracked down the links for those remixes that were remixes of remixes
[01/08/2011 22:26:20] Martin: They're YTPers so they go out of their way to be as crude as possible, but the method is not one you see very often.
[01/08/2011 22:26:27] Owen Gallagher: Unfortunately, I too must say goodbye guys. Thanks for a fantastic conversation. Talk to you next time...
[01/08/2011 22:26:29] Martin: seeya owen!
[01/08/2011 22:26:52] Martin: and ya this was super fun. Thanks for setting it up!
[01/08/2011 22:27:24] Owen Gallagher: Throw in those links to the remixes of remixes if you have them, to be included in the transcript...
[01/08/2011 22:27:36] John Shiga: thanks Owen -- this was great!
[01/08/2011 22:27:49] John Shiga: thanks everyone for a great discussion!
[01/08/2011 22:28:01] Martin: ya thanks all! bye!
[01/08/2011 22:28:01] Martin: YTP remixes of remixes: 1st one = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrpYsQ6qyPM
[01/08/2011 22:33:20] Martin: 2nd one = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jH4_NwxTYKQ
[01/08/2011 22:33:30] Martin: 3rd one = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GCU0vXCyWY