matthewlittlemore.com

We made mix tapes, they remix music – We watched TV, they make TV
Lawrence Lessig is perhaps the most important voice for artists, authors and coders of the digital age who wish to remix existing media assets without fear of recrimination. He is a founding board member of Creative Commons and a strong supporter of legislation to free up the restrictions on copyright and trademark in the context of technology applications.
Most Vidders and Remixers, if considering copyrights at all, tend to see no problem with using ‘found’ media assets to reconstruct and ‘mash up’ and as their work is generally created for fun and not for profit, simply see their role as one of adding content (and value) to sites such as YouTube. The role of Youtube has become a kind of interactive public access TV – viewers watch, critique, imitate and parody at an incredible rate, media which can itself become (although somewhat short-lived) a popular cultural style in it’s own right.

Lessig says ‘We live in an age of prohibition, where in many areas of life ordinary people live against the law. The kids live life knowing they live it against the law – which is extremely corrosive and corrupting.’

Copyright law has a very unclear role in the digital age – every visual reference is itself a ‘copy’, where many of these copies are used to the benefit of the originator. Is it fair to allow copies which work for the good of the copyright holder and criminalise the copies which don’t? And is it possible that by creating a culture of illegal creativity in the world of new media this may have a detrimental effect on society as a whole?

Anybody involved or interested in Remix Culture should check out his speech on how the law is strangling creativity

For the first time in history, the most powerful mass medium of a society is totally controlled and dominated by advertisers and the market, totally driven by commercial imperatives, saturated by ubiquitous commercials that deliver audiences to advertisers (not programs to audiences).
Avante garde artists’ experimentations with both form and content function as a direct challenge to the ideological and political power of mainstream commercial cinema …no solutions or programmatic statements, but a series of intricate challenges, hints and coded messages, subverting both form and content… it is by definition an aesthetic and political movement… film is sacked, atomised, caressed and possessed in a frenzy of passionate love.
Amos Vogel (From Film As A Subversive Art 1974)

Vogel’s view of the future of mainstream cinema seems to ring true today in relation to the remix culture of social networking sites such as YouTube. Perhaps not entirely subversive in intent, millions of Vidders and remixers are deconstructing and envisioning their own personal takes on film, TV and other media forms in popular culture. Usually as homage to their favourite movies, bands or even TV commercials (caressed and possessed in a frenzy of love) or in other cases a parody or political message (subverting form and content) usually delivered tongue in cheek The ‘Born Digital’ generation are making their own TV from slices of other people’s work, remixing peer’s as well as commercially owned work. Are they Vogel’s (unknowing?) iconoclasts transgressing narrative modes, structures and visual convention? For this is the art of the common people, this is modern entertainment, an ever-changing production and consumption cycle where new styles are immediately critiqued by peers, imitated and devalued. This is art separated from the art world, often illegal in media usage and so widespread almost impossible to police.

Thanks to Honor Beddard for an interesting insight into the curation of V&A Digital Pioneers Collection. Running until 25 April 2010, the collection highlights the very beginnings of computer generated art with work from Frieder Nake, Herbert W. Franke, Harold Cohen, Manfred Mohr, Roman Verastko and Vera Molnar along with other pioneers at the cutting edge of the creative use of computers in the visual arts. The collection is a selection of prints, plotter drawings and multimedia works using computer algorithms to create non-human decisions within the creative process. The works themselves are accompanied by documentation from the artists and industry behind the technologies which reach back as early as the 1950s. The collection is destined for expansion as more pieces are discovered and recognised for their importance, and a must see for anyone interested in the history of computer generated art and design.
Check out the V&A Website

‘Combining Art with Science’. Some fantastic vintage news clips of Rick Dyer, creator of the classic animated arcade laser disc game Dragon’s Lair showcase his new technologies such as the Halcyon speech recognition computer and it’s implementation in a new, secret, interactive video laser disc epic which sadly never made it into production. The average sitting time was to be 3 hours… Perhaps wishful thinking for the parents of today. ‘We are estimating you’ll be able to play the game 20 hours a week for 6 months before you will have explored the entire world’.
Why did nobody ever make a video game which gets annoyed when you leave the room for a snack?

The idea of interactive film narrative has been around a long time, yet has never really made it to popular culture in cinema or the small screen. Kinoautomat was the world’s first piece of interactive cinema – part film, part performance, which premiered in Montreal in 1967 – “One Man and His House’. Created by Dr. Raduz Cincera, the narrative was determined by a majority vote at crucial parts of the story where the normally passive cinema-goers would push a button to decide the outcome of a particular scene. The votes (red or green) would display around the border of the screen, and the projectionist would switch the lens between 2 synchronised films depending on the result. Politically inspired, Cincera who was a Czech during the Cold War, was making a commentary on the illusion of control of voting. Although no ‘new media’ technologies were used, Kinoautomat was the first instance of interactive media.

The idea of user defined narrative took me back to the days of Fighting Fantasy books, with which I whiled away many childhood hours. The work of Steve Jackson and Ian Livingstone, such as ‘The Warlock of Firetop Mountain’ (1982) and ‘The Forest of Doom’ (1983) allowed the reader, armed with a pencil and 2 dice, to decide his own fate as the narrative was traversed. The format allowed the books a much longer lifespan, having many different outcomes. The series became hugely successful, putting the reader in control of the fate of the character, the idea closely related to the boom of simlar role playing games in the computer games industry.

Another nostalgic favourite from the same era was the arcade game ‘Dragon’s Lair’ (1983). Created by Rick Dyer of Advanced Microcomputer Systems, it was the first of a number of Laser Disc games, which used real animation footage where the narrative was decided by the choice of the player at critical points. The story was delivered by jumping to the chosen scene on the disc. This was very much an example of interactive video – very different to the coded arcade games of the time and with a graphical detail which was to really stand out against the pixel video games surrounding. And so it should, 6 years in the making, costing Bluth (Don Bluth – The Secret of NIMH) Studios $1.3 million to produce the 22 minutes of animation, some individual seconds using 24 hand painted cels – much higher than the industry standard. However, the initial magic (and commercial income) was to be short lived with players becoming bored with the memorizable play and operators with the unreliability of the units. Despite the emergence of some other laser disc based games such as MACH III which used video footage with the game overlayed on top, the interactive laser disc technology was to disappear from the arcades in the early 90s.

Of course, media technologies continue to make ideas more accessible, cheaper to produce and more portable. You can now download Dragon’s Lair for your iPhone and play Fighting Fantasy on your DS.

Inspired by the Colour of Sound Weekend I dug out my old Casio PT-50 childhood keyboard with the idea of bringing my toy of the 80′s into the 10′s. I knew she would come in handy one day so was stored with my other nostalgic 80′s electronica. Despite a few dodgy slider contacts no doubt clogged from 3 decades of forgotten toy cupboard dust, with a new set of batteries and a good shake the PT-50 was ready to be wacked into the mac to see how she fared in a new digital age. And I must say, even just using Garageband for a bit of extra echo, reverb and fuzzbox it actually sounds half decent! And so, research pointed me to the idea of Circuit Bending where I found an example of that very keyboard…

Reed Ghazala – self styled multi media artist, hailed as the Father of Circuit-Bending, pioneered the transformation of the existing circuitry of basically any sound making toy or device. His other-worldly creations, controlled by transplanted switches, movement and sound itself saw a new kind of instrument genre. Musical artists such as Tom Waits, Peter Gabriel, Faust & Towa Tei wishing to push musical boundaries were quick to commission instruments for themselves.

The legacy continues… poor teletubby

The era of the digital native has brought about the rise of a new generation of digital media producers who are often free from the constraints of artistic convention and legal consideration. The new guerrilla media revival utilizing experimental media as resistance, parody and subversion is alive and thriving in the digital world. The result is some daring creative experimentation with narrative and form, fresh artistic visions largely unaware of but rooted in the avant-garde tradition. In his book exploring the social and cultural contexts of subversive cinema ‘Film as a Subversive Art’ (1974) Amos Vogel says:

The avant-garde offers no solutions or programmatic statements, but a series of intricate challenges, hints and coded messages, subverting both form and content. in this fundamental sense, it is by definition an aesthetic and a political movement… In its works, film is sacked, atomized, caressed and possessed in a frenzy of passionate love.

The description lends itself comfortably to the ideals of the YouTube ‘Vidders’ and remixers. A large proportion of YouTube content is made of ‘fanvids’ which although have a flagrant disregard for intellectual property and copyright law are generally a celebration of pop culture which are intended as a display of appreciation for a particular band, artist or celebrity to share with other fans. Rather than subversion they see their work as adding value to the site, acknowledging credit to the creators of video and music and as there is no profit to be made consider the results free advertising for their favorite artists. Some artists react positively to the exposure, realising the videos may actually create more sales. As the players in the remix culture use ‘found’ materials (sharing a lineage to Marcel Duchamp and the surrealists who used and repurposed found objects) they often skirt copyright laws, the interference from the corporations who own the material only serving to make them more savvy to use clever workarounds to confuse the censors and bots which detect infringements.

The use of social networking and new forms of digital communication has allowed people to become participants in an organic production and consumption cycle, using the relatively anonymous platform for creative expression and resistance – the success or failure of their work to be judged by their peers. With the availability of easily obtained music and video archives, remix aesthetics, blogs and web 2.0 new styles and formulas are quickly played out, imitated and subsequently devalued and replaced more quickly than ever before. In this way, the unnamed guerrilla artist is reshaping the very visual culture of new digital media and directly challenges the ideological and political power of mainstream media. In the 1971 book ‘Guerrilla television’ Michael Shamberg and the Raindance Media Collective say

Community video will be subversive to any group, bureaucracy or individual which feels threatened by a coalescing of grassroots consciousness… it puts people in touch with one another about common grievances.

As we enter the increasingly global, mobile and interactive digital age, so the social impact of new media becomes ever more important. Becoming part of everyday activity much earlier in life than print literacy of previous generations, parents of the first generation of ‘Digital Natives’ (John Palfrey & Urs Gasser) will probably struggle to keep up with the ever changing face of social media while those kids ‘Born Digital’ will continue to shape the future of our culture, economy, politics and social roles in the global digital world. Media literacy is essential to promote the analysis and production of various texts & media through greater access to information and the tools required to produce them. Whilst it is important to teach the foundations of new media within education systems, it is out of the classroom where students will produce, distribute and critique the cultural pieces they create through global open source networks. The freedom of expression that has been unlocked is not without its potential pitfalls and brings along new concerns of safety & legality but as is already evident will feed the tidal wave of inventive creativity which will change the way we experience art, music & life.
In ‘On Photography’ Susan Sontag describes the transformation of the photograph through industrialization -

“That age when taking photographs required a cumbersome and expensive contraption – the toy of the clever, the wealthy and the obsessed – seems remote indeed from the era of sleek pocket cameras that invite anyone to take pictures. The first cameras, made in France and England in the early 1840s had only inventors and buffs to operate them. Since there were no professional photographers, there could not be amateurs either, and taking photographs had no clear social use; it was gratuitous, that is an artistic activity, though with few pretensions to being an art. It was only with its industrialization that photography came into its own as art. as industrialization provided social uses for the operations of the photographer, so the reaction against these uses reinforced the self-consciousness of photography-as-art.”

Parallels can be drawn with the domestication of digital media – no longer the specialized knowledge of the academic or wealthy and increasingly open source resulting in the snowball effect of creativity and skill of the ‘amateur’. Interactive social communities and Web 2.0 sites allow content to evolve to that which the users want to experience. This in turn changes social consciousness as the consumer becomes more than a viewer – producer, critic and collectively, content editor.

Read New Guerrilla Media