Digital Media and Remix Culture - Term Paper Example

Digital Media and Remix Culture Art a forms very interesting part of human beings, it involves the creation of beautiful objects or things. Digital art or media is the general term used to describe artistic works that are produced by the use of digital technologies. There have been arguments as to whether digital art is real art. Some of these arguments have over the years resulted in heated debates and discussions on the subject of digital media. The history of art partly forms part of technological advances, for instance, the introduction of camera Lucida which is an instrument used to copy scenes directly from nature by artists, other technological advances that form part art are photography, the airbrush, acrylics and other innovations, all marking very important turning points to the growth of arts. These technological advances had some effects to the art scene; some were small and could only affect specialized areas of the art field. Due to the technological advances in the art scene, artists were forced to adopt some of the advances painlessly and often in an enthusiastic manner. Digital Media and Digital Art Definitely, there have been influences of technology in the art scene, this has been possible through the transformation of traditional artistic activities such as painting drawing, and curving. Over the years, different terms have been used to describe computer art and multimedia art. Digital art as a term is placed under the larger umbrella term of media art. Through digital technology, new art forms such as net art, digital installation art and virtual reality have become to be recognized as artistic practices. Digital art technology has been used by media in advertisement and for entertainment among other applications. Digital art in the real sense is anything that artists create with the help of computers. The term digital means that the computer uses digits to translate and record information. For instance, when an artist takes a photograph with a digital camera, he or she is creating a digital code. The function of the camera here is to capture the shot and the n translate it to numerical code. To the artist, the photo could be an image of a person or any object, but to the computer, the photo is a code with several numbers. Once the computer has recorded or saved the numbers, they can be used to make exact duplicates of the original work. Digital media may be created, stored and distributed using such equipment and media as cellular phones, televisions, digital video, e-books, video games, computers, compact discs the internet just to mention a few (Allen & Hunsinger, 2010). Digital Media Alliance Florida defines digital media as being the convergence of digital technology, arts, business and science for education, social interaction, communication and human expression. Other experts on the other hand have defined as formats by which information can be presented digitally. Digital media refers generally to electrical media that involves the application of digital codes. Digital media in this respect includes digital video, digital audio and other related digital content. Such media can be created, read, and distributed by use of machines that can process digital information. Remixing and Reasons for Remixing Remixing is an age-old form of innovation more like collage and montage. Remixing generally involves the use of derivative works by combining or modifying the existing media according to Lessig (2008). Remixing of content covers a wide range of activities from joining together music or video clips to borrowing content from previous creations and many more activities. Remixing can be performed by artists, deejays, website owners and a wide range of other persons. Remixing of original material is usually accomplished through the use of various tools, software and technologies most of which are easily affordable Lessig (2008). Turntable as software, for example, enables the mixing of a number of flash animations, colours, and sizes of animations among other parameters. One of the main reasons behind remixing original creations is to make them more appealing, more qualitative or somehow better than the original content Lessig (2009). Remixes may also be done by artists to correct perceived mistakes with the original creations of other artists. Yet again, different versions of an artists work may be created to meet the demands of different kinds of environment and media. The Remix Culture The term remix culture has been defined in different ways. According to copyright activists, remix culture is a society that allows and in fact promotes the development of works that are derived from original works or content Lessig (2009). The remix culture defines the way by which today’s youth more pronouncedly orient themselves to creating new media by piecing together other artists’ media creations to come up with a new product. The remix culture has also been known as the read/write culture as opposed to the read only culture which is based on gaining permission to use copyrighted material in certain specific ways (Manovich, 2002). What this means is that the remix culture by default permits the improvement, change, integration and remixing of works that have already been copyrighted. In music making, sampling is a good example of reuse. The hip-hop culture also accepts sampling which making it a remix culture. Lawrence Lessig (2009) an active remix culture proponent claims that it presents a favourable ideal stating that the development, wealth creation and health of a culture is closely linked to the remix process that involves active participation. He defines the culture as a wealthy and diverse outburst of creativity founded on creativity. Lessig (2009) notes of the remix culture that it is what is formed when P2P (peer to peer) is mixed with affordable digital devices, editing tools, open source software and bandwidth (Manovich, 2002). According to the culture’s proponents, people should not have the right to claim what escape from their minds since it is only their minds that they really own. They further argue that when someone does not wish their creative ideas to be used by other people, then they ought not to publish or put them in public. Instead they should keep their creativity and brilliant ideas to themselves as secrets. On the other hand, they also claim that people should be proud and happy when other creative minds use their original ideas for common benefit. This argument is founded on the belief that creating ought not to revolve around money. Remixing is accomplished when, for example, armature DJs manipulate two or more artists’ songs to come up with a new product as was in the case of American Idiot. Remix artists may generally assume the role of producers when they engage in mashing up, cutting, and pasting pieces of content to produce a distinctive product that demonstrates their social and innovative ideas. In some cases, the larger society is thrilled by remixed productions and becomes outraged when remix artists are entangled in copyright infringement cases. With developments and continued use of internet technology, the issue of copyright infringement has gained greater ground. Some website owners for example collect content from various sites without permission to create a website that is richer in content. Such activities have emerged from the call by many people to make information free and easily accessible. The wide acceptance of the Open Source Movement can attest to this fact. Indeed, if the remix culture is widely adopted, information flow and access would be greatly improved and more new products would be created rapidly. However, questions have been raised over what benefits artists would get by handing their works to the public. Copyright Laws and the Remix Culture Copyright laws grant original authors and creators of original content exclusive rights to or monopolies over their creations according to Goldstein (2001). Such rights include the rights to copy, distribute and adapt intellectual property including patents and trademarks. The rights may be licensed, transferred or assigned in line with existing copyright laws as noted by McJohn (2006). Copyright laws have been enacted by different states to protect the rights of originators of creative works. The World Intellectual Property Organization states that copyright plays to significant roles in this respect: to encourage the establishment of a creative and progressive culture while rewarding original creators of works and to create widespread affordable public access to content (McJohn, 2006). In the UK and many other nations, copyright laws give creators exclusive rights to their production for their lifetimes plus 70 years before their products can be in the public domain. This means that by law remixing remains unfortunately illegal for productions as old as those that were crated in the 1920s. Copyright is even more complex when it comes to performance rights; every performer is granted 50 years for their recorded works in addition to moral rights. Originators in this respect retain the rights to object when their works are subjected to what they perceive as misuse or derogatory use. The remix culture has continued to gain better ground owing to the increasing belief that copyright laws are, in nature, restrictive as claimed by Lessig (Ted.com, nd). The laws in some ways limit the realm of practical possibility and creativity according to Lessig (Oreillynet, 2005). Some remix culture proponents have stated every artistic endeavour is associated with borrowing of other people’s creations. All songs ever written, for example, have borrowed from music compositions that the author of the song absorbed in their earlier life. Many a remix culture proponent has claimed that the maintenance of the copyright regime will lead to the eternal locking of creative content that would otherwise be presented by remix artists (Nelson, 1990). Yet another argument in favour of remixing is that when a second party earns money out of derivative work, it does not negatively impact the first party’s incentive to be creative (Rimmer, 2007). Remix culture defendants have continuously pointed at the importance of remixing to everyone – professionals being no exception. When people critic the works of artists or creators of products by drawing from other people’s content, then they are effectively remixing. This is because they are drawing from previous works. From this simple example, it can be seen that people at all times engage somehow in remixing albeit without knowing it. Having no ability to remix would make it impossible to remain human as culture would then become a passive interaction with the outside world rather than an interactive one. As previously stated, copyrights establishes artificial barriers by emphasizing what people may or may not do without getting special permissions. Using a film as an example, copyright seems to allow a person to critic the film provided that they do not delve too deep. On the other hand, copyright forbids one from performing a cover version of a copyrighted piece without getting permission and pay some fees in certain cases. The use of Creative Commons licenses as proposed by proponents of the remix culture removes such barriers as created by copyright laws and thus giving people greater freedom to create and recreate. On the other hand, opponents of the remix culture claim that remixing tends to kill original creativity while also denying original creators value for their well spent efforts. Encouraging a remix culture therefore would discourage further developments in various fields of art. There is wide belief that copyright infringement as a direct result of remixing has cost many artists colossal sums of money in profit losses. Conclusion Digital media may be defined as the convergence of digital technology, arts, business and science for education, social interaction, communication and human expression. Digital media in this respect includes digital video, digital audio and other related digital content. Remixing of art works covers a wide range of activities from joining together music or video clips to borrowing content from previous creations and many more activities and can be performed by artists, deejays, website owners and a wide range of other persons. Remixing however in many cases go against copyright laws which are aimed at encouraging creativity and rewarding authors of original creations. However, the remix culture has continued to gain better ground owing to the increasing belief that copyright laws are, in nature, restrictive. The surest way of testing superiority or inferiority of artworks is by considering how the artist borrows according to proponents of the remix culture. Remixing, according to these proponents encourage the display of further creativity and correction of mistakes in past art works. References Allen M. & Hunsinger J. (2010) The International Handbook of Internet Research, Springer Publishers. Goldstein P. (2001) International copyright: principles, law, and practice, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Lessig, L. (2008) Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy, Penguin Press, UK. Lessig L. (2009) Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy, Penguin Manovich, L. (2002) Generation Flash, retrieved 14th July, 2010 http://manovich.net/DOCS/generation_flash.doc Manovich, L. (1999) Avant-Guard as Software, retrieved 14th July, 2010 http://manovich.net/DOCS/avantgarde_as_software.doc McJohn S. (2006) Copyright: examples and explanations, Aspen Publishers . Nelson, T. (1990) Literary Machines, Sausalito: Mindful Press. Oreillynet (2005) Remixing Culture: An Interview With Lawrence Lessig, retrieved 14th July, 2010 http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/policy/2005/02/24/lessig.html Rimmer M. (2007) Digital copyright and the consumer revolution: hands off my iPod, Edward Elgar Publishing. Ted.com (nd) Lessig Lawrence on laws that choke creativity, at http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity.html Read More