Aram Sinnreich

MediaCon Panel with Trevor Pinch & DJ Spooky (audio)

This weekend, I was fortunate to host a keynote discussion between media theorist (and Moog afficionado) Trevor Pinch and DJ/author Paul D. Miller, a/k/a DJ Spooky. It was part of an excellent conference called "Extending Play" organized by the doctoral students at Rutgers SC&I. 

Our panel was a lot of fun -- a freewheeling discussion that ranged from music and tech geekery to broad social theory. You can listen to the audio transcript here:

ExtendingPlay_Keynote_Sinnreich_Pinch_Miller

 

 

Margaret Thatcher's Cultural Legacy

Yesterday, I contributed to an interesting story on Marketplace Radio regarding Margaret Thatcher's musical legacy. There's a lot to say on this subject, but my basic point was that Thatcherism catalyzed the punk movement, which was still largely regional, at exactly the moment that media deregulation in the US and elsewhere made British culture a hot export. In essence, Thatcherism ended up promoting its own critique abroad.

The text version of the story has more of my input than the audio version.

 

Aram talks Piracy Crusade at NYU (video)

Last month, I got a chance to give a talk based on my forthcoming book The Piracy Crusade at NYU, as part of the Computer Science department's Computers and Society lecture series. I always love talking to those folks, in large part because the guy who puts it together, Professor Evan Korth, is one of the coolest people I know. At a certain point, I just abandoned the presentation altogether and got into the nitty gritty. Fun ensued.

p.s. Big ups to Joly for recording and posting the video!

Audio and Slides of My "End of Forgetting" Lecture at ICA 2012

Two weeks ago, I headed to the annual ICA conference to present two papers. Here's the slide show and audio for one of them -- an article I coauthored with Jonah Bossewitch called "The end of forgetting: Strategic agency beyond the Panopticon." The article will be published in New Media & Society shortly.

Here's the audio of the Q&A section:

Larry Gross on why Communication & Media Studies matter

My dad recently confessed to me that, even after reading 1-1/2 of my books and following my career for 15 years, he has "no idea" what my work or my field is about (my historian sister and law student brother have an easier time justifying themselves). While this is a bit close to home, it is unfortunately not uncommon for people I know to express confusion or even disdain about my chosen field. As the comedian Marc Maron responded when a recent interviewee on his WTF podcast said he'd majored in Communication as an undergraduate, "isn't that just a catch-all field for people who don't know what they're interested in?" (I'm paraphrasing). 

At the recent International Communication Association conference in Phoenix, ICA president (and my former doctoral advisor) Larry Gross gave a blistering speech, outlining several challenges faced by the academy in general and our field in particular. One of his points was the challenge of "cultivating engaged scholars and scholarship." In the course of these remarks, he delivered what I thought was a pretty spot-on description of why -- and how -- I do what I do:

Today we see political leaders everywhere agreeing on the necessity of imposing austerity on the 99% to pay the bills run up by the 1% -- and education is prominent among the institutions being sacrificed in the name of “fiscal responsibility.”

While conspiracy theories are often more fervently held than they are empirically sustainable, in this instance a fair case can be made for a conscious effort on the part of the “establishment” of the post-1960s era to roll back what they saw as an assault on their power.  The case rests in part on a 1971 memorandum that a successful corporate lawyer named Lewis Powell addressed to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  The memorandum outlined the dangers Powell believed the corporate establishment needed to comprehend and counter:

"No thoughtful person can question that the American economic system is under broad attack. This varies in scope, intensity, in the techniques employed, and in the level of visibility…what now concerns us is quite new in the history of America. We are not dealing with sporadic or isolated attacks from a relatively few extremists or even from the minority socialist cadre. Rather, the assault on the enterprise system is broadly based and consistently pursued. It is gaining momentum and converts…The most disquieting voices joining the chorus of criticism come from perfectly respectable elements of society: from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians."

The Powell Memorandum laid out in great detail not only the causes for alarm but a strategy for counter-revolution.  Powell’s advice has been credited with turning on the faucet that poured millions of dollars into funding right-wing institutes, think tanks and advocacy groups.  Powell understood the need for a long march strategy and his vision has been vindicated by the political shifts in the United States during the past four decades.  President Richard Nixon must have appreciated Powell’s wisdom, as he appointed him to the U.S. Supreme Court shortly after the memorandum was written.

In the spirit of the Powell memorandum the right wing in the U.S. broadened the focus of the counter-revolution from their perennial target of popular culture to encompass the domain of elite culture. Communication scholarship and teaching figured in an important way in the debates over the role of the academy because we are among those who can be accused of "diluting or displacing" canonical texts in favor of the degraded products of popular culture.

By devoting serious attention to the mass media, communications scholars were among the first members of the academy to question the sanctity of the elite cultural canon. In fact, I would argue that the status of communications study within the American academy suffered for years -- and probably still does -- from our association with mass culture. 

What these "threats" had in common, and what provoked the enmity of right-thinking politicians, journalists and academics, is that they represented a specter haunting our society: subordinates getting uppity, silenced voices starting to speak out, new perspectives shifting the center of gravity towards the margins. But, despite the ferocity of the counterattack mounted against them, the marginal voices and forces were not in fact remotely as successful as the public was told. 

However much communication scholars expanded – or corrupted – the curriculum, and however much they challenged the universality of traditional canons, the field of communication studies in the United States was also retreating from an explicit engagement in the realm of political economy at the very moment that upheavals in communication technologies and media industries were transforming the national and global landscape.  Whether by design or unhappy coincidence the critical engagement of communication scholarship with these momentous developments and policy debates diminished, along with the imperative to train our students to participate in and contribute to these important decisions.

The result is that public policy debates are taking place in the US today with little meaningful input from communication scholars, and thus often with too little socially contextualized and theorized empirical data and research to inform them.  While many of our programs train graduate students to study media effects, media content, and media processes, too few of our students are trained in the study of media economics, law, regulation and policy, and fewer still are able to do this in a way that produces research that is both academically rigorous and yet useful and accessible to policymakers, media activists, and interested citizens.

We’re all familiar with the condescension if not contempt with which many academics view colleagues who address lay audiences rather than scholarly peers and graduate students. One of the ironies of the hostility to writing that addresses a broad audience rather than a peer cohort is that one such audience is comprised of our undergraduate students (and even some of our graduate students and colleagues in somewhat distant corners of the discipline).  As Jan Radway put it,

“the largest and most predictable audience for the material we generate is not composed of our professional peers.  Rather it is made up of young men and women, aged roughly eighteen to twenty-two, ranged before us in the classroom, seeking not only professional middle-class validation, but often guidance and reassurance about the appropriate emotional, moral, and political standpoint to take with respect to a confusing and oppressive world.”

 

My new book project: PiracyCrusade.com

My new book project, loosely based on my LimeWire expert testimony, is called "The Piracy Crusade." Although it will be published as a paper book next year by University of Massachusetts Press, I'm also publishing draft chapters as I write them on an open, Creative Commons-licensed, comments-enabled platform hosted by the MediaCommons project.

This kind of prepublication is increasingly being used as "peer-to-peer review," a crowdsourced alternative to the traditional academic "peer review" process, in which 2-3 anonymous readers with unclear motives and levels of interest weigh in on your work after 6-12 months of waiting. Obviously, when you're covering something fast-moving like law, technology, culture, or all three, that kind of a waiting process can be deadly.

If you have any interest, experience, or opinions regarding music, intellectual property law, new technologies, or the digital media industry, I encourage you to take a look, and leave a comment. All constructive commenters will get a shout-out in the final version of the book's Acknowledgments section.

The first two chapters are already up, and Chapter 3 is in process. Check it out on PiracyCrusade.com!

p.s. I'm also looking for some cover art -- if you're interested in creating something (I can't pay you, but I'll give you a credit on the cover), let me know.

Draft Syllabus: Critiquing Marketing Communications

I'm preparing a brand new class for the fall, an online-only, masters-level course called "Critiquing Marketing Communications." It's part of our new masters program focusing on digital media. 

The basic premise is that marketing communications are one of the most common, and most influential, forms of communication in contemporary society. Yet it's largely sequestered in an academic ghetto. Most of the scholarship surrounding these communications either falls into the how-to category (e.g. Marketing 101) or into the realm of pure cultural criticism (e.g. Intro to Consumer Culture). What I aim to do is combine the practical and the theoretical, giving students a sense of how marketing works as an industry, and also access to some of the primary strains of criticism surrounding this form of expression.

Below is the final version of the syllabus. Whether you're in marketing, academia, or both, I welcome your feedback.

9/1-9/6: Unit 1 – Introduction: What are Marketing Communications?

Readings:

• Kleppner’s Advertising Procedure, Chap. 1 & 2.
• Mark Crispin Miller interview: http://to.pbs.org/qUpfQ1

9/7-9/13: Unit 2 – Marketing History & Landscape

Readings:

• Ogilvy, D. Ogilvy on Advertising, Chap. 18 
• Marchand, “Advertisements as Social Tableaux” in Advertising the American Dream
• Kleppner’s Advertising Procedure, Chap. 5.

9/14-9/20: Unit 3 – Foundations: Branding, Creative and Packaging

Readings:

• Ogilvy, D. Ogilvy on Advertising, Chap. 2
• Doug Atkin interview: http://to.pbs.org/ngHAFs
• Kevin Roberts interview: http://to.pbs.org/qzDF81
• NYT Article on Crispin Porter: http://nyti.ms/pXbEmy
• NYT Article on CP/BK breakup: http://nyti.ms/pr5LLQ

Optional, brief and recommended:

• Aaker on Brands (read 5 most recent blog posts): http://bit.ly/pjzy1G
• Video: Mad Men Carousel Scene: http://bit.ly/rdkbpL

Guest Interview: [name], President, [large advertising agency]

STUDENT BLOGGING BEGINS

9/21-9/27: Unit 4 – Foundations: Media Buying & Selling

Readings:

• Kleppner’s Advertising Procedure, Chap. 7.
• Baron & Sissors, Advertising Media Planning, 7^th Ed. Chap. 4 & 12 (thru p. 368)

Guest Interview:

• [name], Group Director, [large media agency]

STUDENT MODERATION OF DICSUSSION BOARD BEGINS

9/28-10/4: Unit 5 – Foundations: Public Relations

Readings:

• PRSA Code of Ethics: http://bit.ly/pLani3
• Bernays, American Public Relations: A Short History
• Boorstin, D. The image: A guide to pseudo-events in America, Intro & Chap. 1

Optional, brief and recommended:

• Article re: Kenneth Cole Twitter Fail: http://lat.ms/qObjN5
• PRwatch headlines: http://www.prwatch.org/headlines

Guest Interview:

• [name], Veteran PR consultant

10/5-10/11: Unit 6 – Critique: Mass & Consumer Culture

Readings:

• Gailbraith, J. K. The Affluent Society, Chap. 10 & 11.
• Schudson, M. “Historical Roots of Consumer Culture.” In Advertising, the Uneasy Persuasion.
• Ogilvy, D. Ogilvy on Advertising, Chap. 18

 10/12-10/18: Unit 7 – Critique: Branding

Readings:

• Klein, N. No Logo. Intro, Chaps 1-2.
• Quart, A. Branded: The Buying and Selling of Teenagers. Chap. 1.
• Frank, T. The Conquest of Cool, Chap. 11.
• MIDTERM ASSIGNED

10/19-10/25: Unit 8 – Critique: Race, Gender, Sexuality & Identity

Readings:

• Sivulka, “White Soap and Black Consumer Culture”
• Klein, No Logo, Chap. 5
• Ryder, “Talking Vaginas and Football Heroes: Gender, Race and Advertising” http://bit.ly/qIXGFC
• Sinnreich, “‘This Is What We Do’: Why I Hated Chrysler’s Super Bowl Ad” http://bit.ly/pDREqZ
• Article on Nivea ad: http://on.mash.to/p3LbbB
• Video: Colbert on Summer’s Eve http://gaw.kr/pKEaZ4
• MIDTERM DUE 10/25 at 11:30pm

10/26-11/1: Unit 9 – Backlash: Culture Jamming and Ad Busting

Readings:

• Lasn, K. Culture Jam, Introduction & “Spring”
• White, M. Toxic Culture. Adbusters. http://bit.ly/okEuHz
• Article: Ad-Free Sao Paolo: http://buswk.co/qbUUZ3
• Article: Junaio AR AD TAKEOVER: http://bit.ly/pWza3M
• Article: BP Twitter spoof: http://abcn.ws/pcASCt

Optional, brief and recommended:

• Sao Paolo Flickr set: http://bit.ly/pLugJX
• KAWS interview: http://bit.ly/qYg5z4

11/2-11/8: Unit 10 – Internet Marketing, 1995-2005 (Web, Email & Search)

Readings:

• Johnson, M. (1998). Rational Branding: Building Consumer Relationships Through Service. Jupiter Research.
• Mayar & Ramsay, Digital Impact: The Two Secrets to Online Marketing Success. Chapters 4, 5 & 6

Guest Interview:

• [name], co-founder, [interactive media research fim] 

11/9-11/15: Unit 11 – Internet Marketing, 2006-11 (Social, Mobile & Beyond)

Readings:

• The Hectic Schedule of a Social Media Manager: http://bit.ly/qwn64t
• Charlesworth, D. It’s About Good Link, Not Good Ink. Journal of Integrated Marketing Communications. (pp. 38-43 of http://bit.ly/qbkYFY)
• Mayar & Ramsay, Digital Impact: The Two Secrets to Online Marketing Success. Chapters 7 & 8

Guest Interview:

• Guest Interview: [name], Communication Director, [major social media company]
• [name], [principal, boutique communications agency]

11/16-11/22: Unit 12 – Critique: Digital Rights & Privacy

Readings:

• FB Beacon article: http://bit.ly/oNRsAF
• FB Beacon analysis: http://bit.ly/pfgvf3
• Vaidhyanathan, S. The Googlization of Everything. Chap. 3.
• Zittrain, J. The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It. Chap. 9. http://bit.ly/oOCOGB

11/23-11/29: THANKSGIVING BREAK 

11/30- 12/6: Unit 13 – Epilogue: Ghosts in the Machine?

Readings:

• Lanier, J. You Are Not A Gadget. Chap. 1
• Baym, N. Personal Connections in the Digital Age, Chap. 2
• Video: Ray Kurzweil on the Singularity: http://bit.ly/qM1epu
• FINAL PAPER ASSIGNED 

12/7-12/13: Unit 14 – Conclusion

Aram's Keynote on Remix Ethics at DMY Berlin [video + slides]

A few days ago, I gave a keynote speech at DMY Berlin's Copy/Culture Symposium. The subject was the ethics of configurable culture, and the ways in which our cultural norms and expectations are increasingly more complex than -- and in conflict with -- our intellectual property laws.

Although the presentation drew on themes I've discussed in previously published work and presentations, it featured brand new qualitative and quantitative data from a survey I recently fielded with Mark Latonero and Marissa Gluck. My audience was largely design professionals, so I tried to keep the academic jargon to a minimum.

Here's a link to the video:

(Unfortunately, the engineer screwed up and for a few minutes, this video relies on the room microphone instead of my direct mic).

If you'd like to follow along at home, here's a link to my PowerPoint presentation:

Joost Smiers and I chat about "Mashed Up", copyright and cultural hegemony

One of the greatest pleasures of attending the recent Masters of Amateurism: Remix conference in Amsterdam was meeting Joost Smiers, a fellow speaker and fellow traveler in general. Joost and I began a dialogue at the conference that, to my delight, we've continued in email form ever since.

Below, Joost responds to specific passages and arguments in my book "Mashed Up," I respond to his responses, he responds to my responses, and so forth. I've avoided the threading issues by reformatting the conversation as a simple dialogue. 

JS: The motto of the book - for listening and hope - is beautiful.

AS: Thank you. Simon means "listening," and Asha means "hope" -- so it's really for my children.

Page XV, page 43, page 69. Yes, indeed, a redefinition of our relationship to media production and consumption. Who will organise this, and control it? This is one of the major questions in your book.

Page 2: The raid of the RIAA. We pay for this police. Thus, this police force is not available for hunting on black money, trade in women and children, illegal trade in weapons, etc.

True. And the copyright industries in the US continue to push for legislation that would formalize this responsibility at the Federal level.

Page 3: The shopkeeper and the boom box. This brings your work near to our common topic of noise and the public space. Did you write already something about this theme?

No, I haven't yet -- although I have an idea for some research on the subject that's been on my back-burner for years.

Page 15: It is important that you remind the connection between musical modes and city's laws, and the different kinds of regulations.

Page 18: Your taxonomy of musical regulation is helpful.

Page 21: On the CIA, I do not know whether you read French. There is an impressive book by Yves Eudes, journalist from the newspaper Le Monde: La conquête des esprits. L'appareil d'exportation culturelle américain (Paris 1982).

I don't read French, unfortunately. But I'd be interested to read a translation.

Page 49: It is absolutely true that the concept of musical genius is a social construction. However, this does not mean that all musicians and their works are equal. Some I appreciate more than others, and some I disgust. But this is about respect, etcetera.

I agree with you completely, and I hope I haven't given any impression to the contrary.

Page 51: I wish there would be the death of the aura. Through huge marketing efforts, the opposite of what Walter Benjamin predicted happened. Huge auras come, and go!

Page 55: Any time I see Figure 6, first I think that it are two faces!

Whose face do you see in this particular image? I made it myself, using a well-known photograph of a famous celebrity!

No idea whose face! But, you know?

Yes, I do. But I'll have to tell you privately, because I don't want to have to defend my "fair use" of the image in court.

Page 70: I felt always a bit irritated by the term remix culture. Now I know why. The disadvantage of the more adequate term configurability is that it is more difficult to pronounce. What to think of cultures of reconfiguration?

It's the best I could think of in 2005! I also considered the term "soft culture," which would be analogous to software.

Page 71: You engaged in an ongoing verbal dialogue with the movie screen. But you did not steal or lend the film and made a different cutting from it. So, your engagement did absolutely exist, but on a low level. You did not change the work.

True. As I argue, this is only proto-. The ethic was there, but not the tools.

You mention that the tools of media configurability are accessible to hundreds of millions of interconnected individuals. I doubt whether they really change so much existing works.

It's more common than you think, and includes the majority of US adults. I have fielded survey data on the subject since 2006. Will publish the latest data soon.

And if one would consider that it happens there, does it enrich our cultures? Does it contribute to critical reflections in practice on what has been made, for instance, by the industry?

That's one of the underlying questions of the book, and I believe the answer is unequivocally yes. But it really depends on your value system and your vantage point.

Page 74: The dramatic rise of user generated content, did it really change our cultural practices and contents? Did it bring the productions of the industry superfluous, something one did give not anymore a minute of attention? Probably there is a lot of remixing, as Lawrence calls it, but does it change the public face of cultures? Is it really a creative environment? Or is this wishful thinking?

I think the total eclipsing of mainstream culture is a false expectation. Much more important is the democratization of participation. It's ok if we still have Star Wars and Spiderman, as long as people can use these symbols to communicate and express themselves, as they would with any other "common" cultural element.

You are completely right to focus on the democratization of participation. And, of course, we will always keep the situation that some artists manage to attract more attention than others. This has been the case always in history. What should be eclipsed is the present market structure that favours a few conglomerates that dominate markets by enjoying copyright - which is an investment protection - and by being allowed to dominate the fields of production and/or distribution and/or reception. If we could realize this, then the whole concept and reality of what is mainstream would get a completely other, much more modest, dimension. If we would have, then, for instance an animated - much cheaper produced - Starwars .... who knows? But also then, we would be entitled to change such a film and give it another meaning and another kind of pleasure or sadness. 

Page 74: On the thinner copyright of Lawrence Lessig: in our Imagine no copyright and no cultural conglomerates too ..... you may have seen why we don't believe in it.

Yes, I think you have a compelling argument.

Page 75: There is the possibility of democratized production and empowered consumption, indeed. But if I see that most of the people still listen to the offer of the few left over music conglomerates, I am not optimistic. Do you think, that I do not see something that is there and that is changing musical cultures worldwide fundamentally? I think that we should not forget the influence of the excessive marketing.

Yes, I think you're missing the importance of this because you're looking at the wrong metric. I don't expect or seek the neutralization of power relations, simply a renegotiation of their boundaries. Marketing and political muscle will always buy allegiance, and arguably societies need common symbols in order to function. The question is really who has the permission to use what forms of expression in which contexts. The structure of participation is more relevant than the content of participation.

You don't expect or seek the neutralization of power relations. In any case, I seek it, obviously not knowing what I can expect. Why do I seek a fundamental restructuring of power relations, in general, and more specific in the fields  of cultural expression? In the perspective of human rights and democracy, it is not to be accepted that only a few companies dominate this field of essential human communication, horizontally and/or vertically. Moreover, in general, we should not have enterprises that are too big - too big to fail, not in banking, not in agriculture, not in pharmacy, not in .... etcetera, unless there are compelling reasons, and then, as a society, we should give them a bunch of regulations, keep an eye on the implementation, and interfere when things are going in the wrong direction, socially, economically, ecologically. 

I agree in principle that we should exercise our collective strength via the market and the political process to limit the cultural power of oligarchs to the extent that such power impinges on the liberties of everyone else. I guess our disagreement is really one of semantics and scope. I don't let myself believe in a world in which everyone participates and shares on an equal footing, because I don't have any interest in waging a Quixotic battle, or in being perpetually disappointed. Yet I certainly believe that we can effect change towards a more equal distribution of power, and that has always been one of my primary focuses.

You mention: the structure of the participation is more relevant than the content of the participation. But, before we can speak about the structure of participation, we should first deal with the power and ownership relations that structure the conditions for participation. If we have done this well, it is not up to me to decide about the content of the participation: let thousands of flowers flourish. And be attentive that we develop critical attitudes, professional criticism and forums of critical debate. This is, as you argue, more difficult in configurable contexts. True. However, we should learn how to do this in a meaningful way. In a democratic society we have to learn how to appreciate and react on all the cultural expressions that come our way, and that influence us, more or less, but mostly more. Not every expression has value, aesthetically, morally, or whatever. The opposite may be true, as well. How to distinguish? It is not self-evident that we as individuals and as social groups have the capacity to distinguish.  

I'm not sure I agree with your claim that "Not every expression has value, aesthetically, morally, or whatever." I certainly don't find value in every expression, but I've never seen an expression that wasn't valued by someone. Even the bombardment of advertisements and commercials in every communications channel, which I largely detest, are evaluated with critical enthusiasm by members of the marketing community. So the problem with this assertion is that you have to privilege your own subjective vantage point above all else -- which I'm not willing to do.

As to the rest of your argument, I wholeheartedly agree. We need to understand cultural power relations as emerging from separate but related processes at the symbolic, infrastructural, regulatory, and market levels, and to ignore any of these dimensions would undermine our understanding and effectiveness on the others. 

Page 105: I guess that there are many modalities between good and bad.

On this page I start to get the impression that configurable culture or music is a specific genre, according to your analysis. Or, is it an overall idea that one may apply for all different kinds of music where someone works with existing musical compositions and fragments, and eventually changes them fundamentally?

It's an overall idea. I focus on DJs because they were "ahead of the curve" in dealing with the destabilizing effects of configurability.

Page 107: Concerning whether there should be distinguished between art and craft, in my Arts under Pressure. Promoting cultural diversity in the age of globalisation (London, 2003, Zed Books) I define the arts as a neutral concept of expressions (in language, music, images, etc.) that have an aesthetic aspect in it, that are more slow, more dense, more vivid etcetera than our normal daily communication, and that have been presented on more or less specific platforms. This definition helps that one does not have to distinguish between art and craft, or between good and bad. In our societies we have a specific segment where the expressions are more loaded, and penetrate in our consciousness on other ways than with the normal daily communication. In that segment we should have an enormous diversity of expressions and owners of the means of production and distribution and reception, in order to do justice to our democratic rights that many voices can be heard and be made and be discussed. In those processes one comes to judgments why something is attractive, or not, worthwhile or bloody nonsense. And therefore it is necessary to have very good and many critics that help us in forming our judgments.

I like your analysis a lot, and it doesn't differ much from mine. In my model, aesthetics, semiotics, semantics and functional design choices coexist in every form of human expression, and though the aesthetic dimension (which I conceive of as a cognitive/affective map) is more immediately evident in some forms, ultimately the distinction can only be made functionally (e.g. Duchamp's "Fountain"). Ultimately, however, I critique the value and purpose of distinguishing between aesthetic and non-aesthetic (or less-aesthetic) works as a fundamentally politicized and therefore suspect undertaking.

To be precise, also for me the distinction between aesthetical and non/ or less aesthetical, in itself, does not make sense. A melody is a melody, a film a film, and a text a text. After having stated this, I - and everybody - starts to judge: this film is more important, beautiful, inspiring, seducing, sexually enticing, etcetera, for me than the other one, or just the opposite. In this process the huge marketing efforts of cultural conglomerates play a role that should not be neglected. From this pressure we should be liberated. We should not tolerate that a few companies influence our judgments in a substantial way. We kicked out the church and the king as masters over our judgments. Now it is the time to dispel the other forces that try to influence our processes of dealing with what we see, hear and read. Moreover, those huge marketing activities of conglomerates falsify competition. 

"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery -- none but ourselves can free our minds." I agree completely. the only question is one of efficacy. Should we work to eliminate the power of cultural oligarchs altogether through political and/or market forces; counter that power through democratized production and critique; focus on the independence of our own minds through meditation and/or cultural engagement; or some combination of the above? Our conversation keeps returning to the question of whether (cultural) power must necessarily be monopolizable. Maybe I'm brainwashed for thinking the answer is yes. Or maybe I'm just trying to develop a critical strategy based on actual rather than ideal circumstances.

Page 110: Indeed, if one makes music one be called an artist. A second question is whether one is an artist that matters, and for whom, in what context, and for what reason?

I would give more importance to critics.

It might be that mash-up artists have huge musci collections, but also in those situations they have made choices.

I think the concept of the critic is vital to art worlds as we understand them, but part of my argument is that, like the role of "artist," the critic has become more difficult to detect in a configurable context.

Page 125: In one case I know for sure that there is theft: if someone takes the whole work from someone else, and does not change anything, and claims that it is his or her.

So you don't recognize any value or merit in the work of Sherrie Levine, for example? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherrie_Levine). As her work argues, there's no such thing as taking work without changing it.

Yes, I know the work of Sherrie Levine and other appropriation artists, and the may times they got sued because of copyright infringement. Even if they do not change the work itself, they contextualize it differently. I don't think this is theft.

...

For the rest, if someone changes even a little bit, there is a new work. For the critical judgment there is, then, to do a lot of work: is it worthwhile what has been done, is it lazy, is it respectful, or is it good that it is not respectful, what are the aesthetic merits of the intervention, etcetera?

That's essentially what I ask my interviewees in Chapter 6.

Page 153: On creating configurable instruments that emphasize the physicality and ephemerality: in Amsterdam there is an important and very stimulating center/ studio that it is just doing this. The name is Steim. What they do might be very interesting for you. This is their website: http://www.steim.org/steim/about.html They are not far from where I live.

Looks very cool. I wish I'd known about it when I was there last month!

Page 156: If one would not have any longer copyright, the performance/ composition dichotomy does not make sense anymore, in any case not from a legal perspective.

True, although there are also economic and professional structures in place, as well as aesthetic traditions, that reinforce this distinction.

Page 159, 160: While reading about distinctions in Western instrumental music, I am listenting to J.S. Bach' Hohe Messe.

Page 166: On ... every part of a song should be equally covered by copyright. John Collins descibes this extensively for music from Ghana: The problem of oral copyright: the case of Ghana: in Frith 1993, Simon (ed.), Music and Copyright: 146 - 158 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press)

Yes, I've read that article, and it's excellent.

Page 190: On the cover of Time. It is a misunderstanding that it was You. It was Apple, Google, Rupert Murdoch and Amazon.com, and the illusion that it was You.

Page 193: This collective consciousness and Obama could switch quite easily to Sarah P.

Page 193 etc.: Following on your page 107 You are right that a larger paradigm shift is at hand, but to repeat what I said before, does it change our cultural habits and institutions?

Page 194: Here I get the impression that you see configurable music as a specific genre. That is right?

Not exactly. You're right that I use the term ambiguously at times. To me, nearly all cultural expression is becoming configurable in nature. However, there are some genres and traditions in which the logic of configurability has become central over the past 25 years -- e.g. hip-hop, techno, house, karaoke, remix, mashups, etc. Therefore, I focus on these communities of practice because they have a more evolved discourse and debate on the subject. My survey responses are intended to address the discursive landscape on behalf of configurable cultural actors outside of these relatively narrow fields.

Page 196,7: What you describe there about configurable music is challenging and stimulating.

Page 198: In the context of networks and the network society, it might be interesting for you to read from Geert Lovink: Zero comments. Blogging and critical internet culture (Routledge 2008). He is directing the Institute of Network Cultures. They do quite a lot of research, publications and conferences that may be of interest for you: http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/portal/about/the-institute/ 

Yes, I know Lovink's work fairly well. You're right, I should be in better touch with them.

Page 202: I guess that you may be right to make the comparison with postmodernism, and see it as a greater challenge to the linear logic of modernity.

Page 208: When Andrew keen started many years ago his webradio, he made a long telephone interview with me about my ideas on the abolishment of copyright, and was very enthusiastic about it. As you may know, now his view changed radically!

Yes, one almost suspects he's staked out his claim just to enjoy the privileges of the contrarian!

He is right that the risk of impoverishment is there. However, I do not see what Disney and Rupert Murdoch present as an enrichment.

Yes, that's treated as a given in the standard discourse.

Video of my keynote at World's Fair Use Day 2011

Yesterday, I gave a keynote presentation based on "Mashed Up" at World's Fair Use Day, hosted by Public Knowledge. The video of the talk (introduced by my former NYU student, Katy Tasker, a PK staffer), is now available on UStream, as are the other excellent panels and presentations.

(The slides from the presentation can be accessed online here: http://bit.ly/aramwfud)

Posted at 19:01 in Aesthetic Theory, Appropriation, Art and Technology, Books, Communication Policy, Congitive/Neuropsych, Cultural Studies, DIY, Education, Free Software, Friends, Genre, Style and Taste, Hacking, Intellectual Property, Media Ownership, Music, Music History, Music Industry, Musicology, Network Society, personal, Politricks, Popular Culture, Remix Culture, Resistant Aesthetic Practices, Subcultures, viral video, work | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Technorati Tags: aram, configurable, copyright, culture, day, fair, keynote, knowledge, mashed, music, presentation, public, sinnreich, technology, up, use, worlds

| Reblog (0)