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?

Lecture Ten, Dreaming!

So, Angela Joosse' stuff was cool.

I think I have to be honest here. The artwork presented didn't impress me very much. I think the Leona Drive project was certainly fun and sweet call back to a time which is now long-gone. It would have been entertaining to have actually been submerged in the project, and I can imagine that a faux-nostalgia made of real emotions would probably overwhelm me. And here I'm not trying to be polite but honest.

I didn't think that the project did very much else though. In Angela Joosse' statement on her website she expresses her concerns or hesitations with creating in academia or the arts. Joosse says,

"we are drawn to phenomena, to things, to events that are little known or scarcely discussed. In this way we contribute to what is known and also provide articulation of phenomena, people, things that may have been excluded from the current or dominant discourse. That is, we find ways to make thetic what was relatively unknown. The danger is this: that we bring what was in the shadows, what was ,cloaked in complexity into the open and in so doing leave it open to manipulation. We live in a world that has a restless appetite for novelty."

Well, I think perhaps Joosse perhaps committed what she is apprehensive about in this installation. By taking a complete strangers belongings who is little known aside from her family and friends and who accomplished no things in her life that were considered worthy of notoriety (that is not to say her life was pointless or useless, I am sure Ruth did a lot during her years) and creating an installation about it, Joosse creates a minor phenomena. I think it is a form of manipulation. The artists had a number of belongings of Ruths but ultimately knew very little about the woman and yet "a Ruth" and "her" habitat were created. I think that very much the piece was based on novelty.

It seems as though Joosse is looking for some kind of real avant-garde, or at least some way to figure out that her work and other's in the field are exploring things that matter.

"One of the things that is becoming of increasing concern to me is trouble of bringing a new thing/ a new articulation into the world...As we all continue to work in the academy we know that we must contribute, and some degree of originality is required in order for our work to be considered an actual contribution to the field"

The Leona Drive project I don't think articulated anything very new. The themes seemed recycled and reminded me of some sort of small museum which exhibits the artefacts of the town's older generations. All in all, I didn't think there was very much unique presented, but it was touching.

I did appreciate the writings in the letters and autograph books which Ruth owned. It certainly helped to conjure up old souls and timeless advice and romanticism.

I hope no one re-creates a vision of me when I pass.

Lecture Eleven, Fragmenting

I must say, I liked the use of a Patti Smith cover in the first part of the film. I don't think I'd ever heard her used in a film before (although I did travel to the big apple for one night only over the Xmas break to see her live, and it was amazing (and I did just use this blog as an opportunity to gloat, because it was a crowning achievement to date)).

And I thought I hated life throughout high school. Tracey seems to live in absolute Hell.

"How do you know what's real and what's not when the whole world is inside your head," Tracy asks us.

What is real in Tracy Fragments is that the audiences experience is mediated through the "split screen" effect and we understand we are watching a film. We are not submerged into the cinema appearing in front of us, meant to seamlessly envelope us in the narrative and carry us away on the romantic ride of film. Instead we are constantly asked to figure out what is going on, and what the hell we're supposed to listen to.

McDonald's use of split screen, collage, billboard, I liked. When he uses these techniques to express the fantasies that Tracey has created for herself, I them them as a form of appropriation of mass culture techniques. For example, when Tracey fantasizes about her fake boyfriend at school at one point the billboard effect pops up and she becomes like a rockstar "Tracy Berkowitz" flashes, and different coloured panels show her pictures. The technique is reminiscent of movies like 'That Thing You Do' (cheesy example, I know) or any block buster movie where the characters are presented as popstars. We recognize this technique as meaning "Good Things." We know it means the characters have reached a certain point, have found some success, are becoming recognizable (which we always assume is a good thing).

In Tracey Fragments this technique is used to expose the let down that is Tracey's reality. What usually connotes 'making it' and is mimetic of modern entertainment television shows here tells a different story. In contrast to Tracey's dire existence the techniques show the let-down of her reality, and the split screen only adds to the disorienting nature, and the horrid parts of the film are magnified by this confusion. When Tracey is in Lance's house and we're cringing with her in the corner of the room waiting for her to be discovered, the split screen feels like it's coming at us from all angles. Horrifying.

Side note, I must say though, the whole "titless wonder" thing was terribly excessive.

And on brighter note, Fun Fact: Bruce McDonald used to come in to the restaurant I worked at all the time! And my friend Brads choir sang at his wedding! He wears a cowboy hat a lot.

Lecture Eight, Crossing Over

"Waking Life" blew my mind. Completely.

Individual vs the Group

Human vs Cyborg

Postmodernism vs Existentialism (maybe the best contemporary duel we got going)

Free Will vs Determined Lives

I thought at first I would perhaps be a little visually annoyed with the rotoscoping, but instead quickly saw the brilliance of why the creators chose to construct the film in this way. The effect is metaphorical for the script, that's no big shock once you start to listen to the ideas and themes being presented. Extremely poignant is when the one man is talking about free-will and how we are just a composite of 'mechanisms,' and mostly are made of water. The obvious question we narrative students are shepherded to is "well, what else is decided for us," and the image on the screen brings about harrowing moans of the combination of man & machine; cyborgs running free and giving us our philosophy lesson.

It calls into question Foucalt's biopower again. Who is controlling us? How far has computer and digital technology integrated into our beings and our social structures? Is it to the point that even our limited choices are now invisibly guided by the swift hand of the gigabyte? Has it invaded our dream world?

Mark Langer describes rotoscoping as a "hybrid product" that combines technology and the human body to create a simultaneous presence of the drawn and the photoindexical, in which the rotoscoped body is not so much fused with the human body as it is mapped over it."

When the man is manically driving through the street with the loudspeakers attached to his car I think Biopower and rotoscoping partake in a head on collision. "We should not submit to dehumanization. I don't know about you, but I'm concerned about what's happening in this world. I'm concerned with the structure. I'm concerned with the systems of control..." This character appears in digital form. Not only that, but the guy the scene is based on HAD to be in this movie to extend his message out. The biopower previals.

Oh I get so stuck on that. Anyway,

The dreaming bit was cool. Descartes asks, how do I know some evil genius mastermind is not controlling me?

Waking Life says, Well, maybe you don't. Maybe you'll never know till you're dead.

Descartes says, No no, I think therefor I am you postmodern assholes, my time can't dig it when you say "maybe you never do" cause we got too many morals.

Lastly, I must confess I spend a whole bunch of time reading The Society of the Spectacle. In fact, I got a copy of it in book format for Christmas this year, under my shiny glittery contrived Christmas tree. I think these days, Debords words are more relevant than ever.

"To rupture the spell of the ideology of the commodified consumer society so that our repressed desires of a more authentic nature can come forward.

To demonstrate the contrast between what life presently is and what it could be"

Just something to think about, a gas lamp in a sea of fluorescent lights.

"The reason why I refuse to take existentialism as just another French fashion or historical curiosity is that I think it has something very important to offer us for the new century. I'm afraid we're losing the real virtues of living life passionately, sense of taking responsibility for who you are, the ability to make something of yourself and feeling good about life. Existentialism is often discussed as if it's a philosophy of despair. But I think the truth is just the opposite. Sartre once interviewed said he never really felt a day of despair in his life. But one thing that comes out from reading these guys is not a sense of anguish about life so much as a real kind of exuberance of feeling on top of it. It's like your life is yours to create. I've read the postmodernists with some interest, even admiration. But when I read them, I always have this awful nagging feeling that something absolutely essential is getting left out. The more that you talk about a person as a social construction or as a confluence of forces or as fragmented or marginalized, what you do is you open up a whole new world of excuses. And when Sartre talks about responsibility, he's not talking about something abstract. He's not talking about the kind of self or soul that theologians would argue about. It's something very concrete. It's you and me talking. Making decisions. Doing things and taking the consequences. It might be true that there are six billion people in the world and counting. Nevertheless, what you do makes a difference. It makes a difference, first of all, in material terms. Makes a difference to other people and it sets an example. In short, I think the message here is that we should never simply write ourselves off and see ourselves as the victim of various forces. It's always our decision who we are."

That's the big lesson I figured out last year. And it's the reason I'd like to one day in the future write a novel of fiction.

Lecture Six, Screening

Oh hey there, Mark Amerika. It was truly nice to meet you.

I had to spend some time with "Filmtext" to come to appreciate it. At first I dismissed it and felt a whole lot like I was taking some sort of academic baby steps to becoming a "gamer." But by the end of it I really enjoyed the experience.

I appreciated the progress that digital art and literature had made since Joyce's Twelve Blue. Joyce was (at least as I understand it to be) somewhat of a pioneer for this sort of creation and thus had freedom to lay out the groundwork for a genre as well as limited resources to create it. His work was limited in terms of the literature presented as well as the layout.

Mark Amerika on the other hand has the benefit of entering into this sort of art work knowing what is possible and utilizing it. I really dug the layout of the piece; it had the ability to create something that was entirely atmospheric and engaging. I thought the "space" like setting was a perfect fit. We are accustomed to "space," sci-fi and virtuality. If he has posited us in a jungle, well we'd all be screwed and it would feel much like a joke.

The atmosphere also bodes well with the themes he throws at us. We are aliens in his world, forced to acknowledge that we are faced with something which is controlling us, as much as we are explorers. "Cut to open desert landscape," the opening tells us. We are made to be aware that we're entering into this created land and that it is or should be unfamiliar territory.

Before the lecture when I was poking about the thing on my lonesome, I was struck by the script that addresses viruses and bacteria. It's a topic I found I'm not often approached with-it seems like the sort of thing which would be found in some sort of abstract academic realm and not so much everyday media- but the relationship between bacteria and digitality. It's interesting that sickness or virus' and the digital world are barely talked about, although there has to be a discussion somewhere about it.

"I am a corrupt body corrupting others."

Lo and behold our man Foucalt steps in to tell us all about "biopower." "The practise of modern states and their regulation on their subjects through 'an explosion of numerous and diverse techniques for achieving the subjugation of bodies and the control of populations.'"

Amerika means to say that computer is a corrupt soul, stripping us of our imaginations while guiding us through this constructed land. He is taunting us with the hyperlinked possibilities yet sarcastically snarling at us that we our "perception has been terrorized."

I dig it, Amerika. If I had more time, I would explore the other themes which run through here. I'm curious when he tells us "there are more ways of seeing" if he is alluding to John Bergers Marxist Humanist text "Ways of Seeing." I've been wondering what Berger would say about our friend the internet.

Anyway, I'm going to go ride my bike outside now. See you later, Mark!