Week 12, Remixing

I remember when Girl Talk first came out. In fact, I remember when the precursor to Girl Talk came out, when mashups were comprised of 2 songs. It was a sunny day in April, Grade 10, my best friend Alia and I were exchanging music tastes over msn when she instructed me to download The Strokes' Soma mixed with a Christian Aguleria song. So cool was I at the time, that I scoffed at the thought of mixing such pure genius with such tripe, while secretly loving it.

Nowadays I really dig the mashups and let the whole wide world now about it! Especially my friend Alia, who now knows much more newer music than I for have retracted to the deep dark hole that is punk, jazz and classical music. Alright anyway,

This documentary seems rightly placed in this course. It combines the ideas we've discussed so far in relation to a serious matter that's going to implode upon the world soon: the idea of intellectual property and the public domain. What this means is there are contemporary players in the real world who will be affected by these issues, and it will affect both their bank books and their politics (a la copy right and copy left, what side are you on?)

The documentary discusses collage and the mashing of art, reworking the old into the new, consumers become prosumers, the sharing of cultures and identities through virtual means, the future of the manifesto! As Harry Zitler yells out in Moulin Rouge "Everything's going so well!" And by that I mean, this documentary highlights all the main points of our class so far. With the rotoscoping to prove it.

What I found really interesting was how the documentary both framed the arguments. Particularly, the copy right and the copy left, and how each side of the political spectrum was coined. Disregarding the legitimacy of mashups for the former and promotion of the mashups on the left. I wonder exactly how true that would be for artists who are trying to make money but align themselves on the left side of the spectrum, or if perhaps this relationship is constructed on stereotypes which exist.

I really enjoyed the argument that the guy who mixed the U2 song made in his lecture, that when we are surrounded constantly by billboards, or songs playing in restaurants, or advertisements appearing in our entertainment with no choice whatsoever. We individuals however are not allowed to use the images we are bombarded with to "make fun of it or critique it." It's as those these invisible hands are calling for the death of satire, knowing that it is the weapon of the people who are otherwise powerless in holding control. It is true that we are not allowed to control what we see or partake in in the day, yet are constantly made to believe we live in some sort of free life with constant choice.

Recall: Waking Life; Are we constantly living in a dream? Sleep deprived from being overworked yet in a fragmented haze of digitality where actions in life that once took place with hands moving and legs walking now happen with the click of a button (are we satisfied yet, Anne Everett?)

Re: Waking Life; Guy Debord, Society of the Spectacle: As long as necessity is socially dreamed, dreaming will remain a social necessity. The spectacle is the bad dream of a modern society in chains and ultimately expresses nothing more than its wish for sleep. The spectacle is the guardian of that sleep... (...I wasn't joking when I said I love Debord.)

The idea is that technology now and those who control it, (Foucalt here talks about biopower while Innis shouts out about monopolies of power and knowledge) are creating a sort of mist throughout which we as individuals are supposed to float through without questioning if these practises make sense. Taking these songs, pieces of art, and mixing them and the backlash that comes from this exposes to those who will listen (in this case bikini-clad youths) that they are stuck in this system. Fortunately, some individuals are trying to make some noise to remedy the situation.

Exposing the systems which one detests and which others are unaware of is avant-garde. It is a matter of making clear that "there is something wrong." Ideally one can imagine change but in a practical sense it seems like we're really stuck in system with no "EXIT" sign. If one cannot create by taking other peoples art as has been the practise for, uhm, ever? then the question becomes "well what assholes who probably don't make the art but do own it" have decided this, and why can't they go take an arts and crafts class to realize how fun it is?