Arts events created and/or performed over a network are also forging new pathways and hybrid models for collaboration.  Remixing and the collective mashup-what kinds of processes have arisen and how has that affected issues of authorship and audience? 

The notion of collaboration was overtly present in all the readings and I found that this quote in particular reminded me of the Jumpcut assignment:  “Play, as an attractor in collective composition begets the dynamic constituents of interplay” (Doruff, 147). 

  Here the notion of playing with another creates a dynamic, much like our Exquisite Corpse project, without partners the dynamic is not the same.  I found it really a great experience working with partners on this project.  Everything was new and fresh and impulsive.  “…there are no socially pre-determined or pretentious outcomes: where any stream of creative expression is accepted” (neoscenes, para 4). 

  It is interesting to see art in this way, or the notion of art.  It is both impulsive but dependent on time and space to give it continuity.  That is what makes the Jumpcut Exquisite Corpse so perfect an example.  We immediately add on without knowing.  The outcome is astonishing.  “Art uses, enhances, and in a sense exploits the possibilities of perception in such a way that it can present the unity of this distinction. To put it differently art permits the observation to oscillate between astonishment and recognition, even if this requires worldly media such as space and time as a means of securing continuity” (The Function of Art, 141). 

  The reading on The Matrix really put into perspective the ability to grow a franchise with multi-platforms.  It really made me think that Jumpcut is an application that could work quite well in a corporate setting.   “The Matrix clearly functions as both a cultural attractor and a cultural activator” (Convergence, 95) which is what made it such a successful example. 

  I guess the only flaws that exist with using such applications as a media producer is the limitations it created for the consumers.  Applications imitated can end up becoming interactive versus participatory.  

     “Interactivity refers to the ways that new technologies have been designed to be more responsive to consumer feedback…The constraints on interactivity are technological.  In almost every case, what you can do in an interactive environment is pre-structured by the designer” (Convergence, 133).  

“Participation, on the other hand, is shaped by the cultural and social protocols…Participation is more open-ended, less under the control of media producers and more under the control of media consumers” (Convergence, 133). 

  The whole notion of the remix as it relates to participation is very post-modern and very American. “The older American folk culture was built on borrowings from folk culture; the new convergence culture will be built on borrowings from various media conglomerates” (Convergence, 137).  Like Umberto Eco comments, it’s all been done before: “…no film can be experienced with fresh eyes; all are read against other movies.  In such a world ‘cult has become the normal way of enjoying movies’” (Convergence, 98).   

 But remix culture is everywhere in out post post modern era “…remix culture can be defined as the global activity consisting of the creative and efficient exchange of information made possible by digital technologies that is supported by the practice of cut/copy and paste” (Remix Defined, para 1).  What is interesting about the term “remix” is that “…no matter what – the remix will always rely on the authority of the original song” (Remix Defined, para 9).   Whether it is an Extended – long version, a Selective – adding/subtracting material or, a Reflexive – challenging the aura with the original partially intact the remix ultimately depends on an original to deviate from.  But the Exquisite Corpse seems different in that it almost diminishes the aura by canceling it out.  Creating collaboratively means that any mixture of meanings comes from different personnel so deviations and differentiations are inherent in the work.  The original is a mixture.  “The function of art in such a case is to reproduce the difference of art.  But the mere fact that art seeks to cancel this difference and fails in its efforts to do so perhaps says more about art than could any excuse or critique” (The Function of Art, 145). 

  The last bit I wanted to bring up is that there were some (rhizome) references in the other texts that reminded me of earlier readings.  “Actuality exists only as a starting and connecting point for further references” (The Function of Art, 139). 

“…it functions as a second level: a meta-level.  This implies that the originality of the remix is non-existent, therefore it must acknowledge the source of validation self-reflexively” (Remix Defined, para 9).

Last 5 posts by LaraCM

• 2 Critiques - December 6th, 2007
• MMORPGs - November 28th, 2007
• Activate the Culture - November 21st, 2007
• Open Source - November 14th, 2007
• The Mashed-up Exquisite Corpse - November 12th, 2007

This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 6th, 2007 at 4:01 pm and is filed under collaboration. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.