A global social network is only powerful because humanity is powerful. Humans are amazingly gifted yet most skills and ideas remain largely untouched in a large and often isolating world. Collaboration and unification is the key, and the social network is the structure in which this is achieved. The Knife Party in its video “The Coalition of the Willing” identified the power of the “swarm”, basically power in numbers, to address the issue of climate change. They then outlined a tangible structure, based on social networking and connectivity technologies on which any person can assist in achieving change. We are entering a Brave New World in which the capabilities of people party can easily be harnessed and directed at particular aims.

Already we have seen the impacts of the growing social network. As I identified in my post Human Network > Media Ecology, human relationships, brought together on a large scale through networks is changing the way in which we must view media ecologies. We are now at a point where we must not only study the media’s impact on us as a collective but also the collective’s  impact on the media. This has led to the emergence of ideas such as Guattari’s “transversality” in our approach to media. Within culture, digital technology and the network have allowed people to express themselves and share their ideas and creativity. It is simple as jumping on to youtube to see the potential being allowed to be fullfilled.

But what change will the future bring? And what is the key to bringing change to the future? In media like many industries there is a need to recognise change is inevitable and only adaptability will allow it to flourish and develop as both an industry and a practice. In Murphie’s “new media studies” (Murphie 2006), more people will have the ability to shape and share news and media. If we go back to Genosko’s obscure ‘scared horses’ metaphor, if media institutions allow the “blinkers to be open” (Genosko in Guattari, 2000:118/Guattari, 1972: 79) the media and the networked population who is now a greater part of it will be able to exist in a more harmonious and productive way.

In regards to culture and social change, the network will be at the absolute heart of any change achieved. Jane McGonigal’s inspiring ideas on how future problems will be solved by more people playing video games online is grounded on the concept of the social network (if you’re asking how playing video games could possibly solve world problems, see this video). She seeks to create change by harnessing the abilities and drive that people exert in playing online games into solving world problems through similar modes of technology. At its heart, however, it is about as many people as possible contributing their ideas and working together through an online network that promotes and facilitates people to be involved.  Her ideas in some respects mirror that of the “coalition of the willing” in their creation of a network infrastructure to allow people to connect and take practical steps to combat climate change.

While the network will facilitate change, other technologies will allow it to happen. The development of instantaneous digital media and the virtual reality technology I examined in my post a few weeks ago will have the ability to alter and improve our methods of thinking and creation in almost every industry. Ultimately, people achieve change. And the more people who come together the greater the change that can be achieved. For thousands of years people have known and seen the potential of power in numbers. We are now in an age where soon that power will be harnessed on a global scale. People across the world who want to achieve good will be brought together to achieve it.

References 

Guattari, F.  ”l’inconscient machinique: essays de schizo-analyse” (1979), Paris: EncresEditions Recherches.

Murphie, A. (2006) “Editorial”, [on transversality], the Fibreculture Journal, 9

Knife Party and Rayner, Tim and Robson, Simon (2010) Coalition of the Willing [Online, accessed 27/04/2011]http://coalitionofthewilling.org.uk/

But one could argue there is a little contradiction in this stance of ‘don’t change what isn’t broken’. Shouldn’t it be our prerogative as a society (and taxpayers) to see that the industry of scientific research is operating at maximum optimum? That they are achieving all they can and that these ideas are being shared across the world?

At present there is a shift occurring in the scientific industry, one that has been happening for a which now and one which many oppose. The power-brokers who are greatly responsible for funding scientific research the globe over have demanded greater data-sharing from scientists. Elizabeth Pisani writes that while sharing of research “might not sound scary, but it could change the face of health research” (Pisani 2011). While many issues were raised, one of the central concerns of researchers with complete data-sharing is the impact on how they achieve recognition and as a result achieve greater stature and funding. Researchers must publish discoveries to gain acknowledgment and then the recognition or impact is measured by what is known as the “Impact Factor” – how often your work is cited by others. Thus the issue for researchers with full transparency and sharing  is that the impact of their final published work will be lessened if they have had to share everything else along the way. Also, as identified by Pisani, is the understandable issue of losing the sense of ownership of one’s work.

Of course full global transparency of research is now a real possibility in the digital age. The solutions, to the problem posed must also lie within the changes this new age has brought about. Felix Guttari pioneered the concept of transversal thinking as a response to the emerging network society. The same can be applied to the research industry to harness an acceptance of the movement to greater transparency and availability of findings but maintain the system of recognition vital to the researcher themselves.

Transversal thinking asks us not to approach society with a single disciplinary approach but rather through a “transdiciplinary approach” (Murphy 2004) which asks us to consider things through a multi faceted lens. Applying this to the research industry will allow researchers to understand the need and opportunity of greater transparency of research will provide. Greater availability of research means better analysis of results, more involvement and recognition from both the general public and in turn potential funders as well as increasing connectivity between researchers themselves. If researchers can move away from considering their industry through this traditional ”top-down” approach to how research is conducted and consider how the industry can improved in the future, acceptance will be achieved while maintaining a focus on the importance of recognition of great discoveries.

References 

Guattari, F.  ”l’inconscient machinique: essays de schizo-analyse” (1979), Paris: EncresEditions Recherches.

Kelly, K. “Evolving the Scientific Method: Technology is changing the way we conduct science” (2010) , The Scientist. [Online, accessed 9/5/2011]   http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/57831/

Murphie, A. ‘The World’s Clock: The Network Society and Experimental ecologies” (2004). Topia: Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies, 11.

Pisani, E.  ”Medical science will benefit from the research of crowds” (2011), The Guardian, January 11. [Online, accessed 9/5/2011]  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/11/medical-research-data-sharing

Wilbanks, J. “On Science Publishing’” (2011), Seed. [Online, accessed 9/5/2011]   http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/on_science_publishing

But will it work?

The Knife Party in its video entitled “The Coalition of the Willing” it highlighted the difficulty for Western governments seeking to address global warming as being its reliance on and unwillingness to alter the capitalist processes of production and consumerism that are at the heart of global warming itself. The video called for an approach to the problem “that mobilises the creative energy of the global population.” It proposed the development of potentially brilliant digital infrastructure for assisting people across the globe fight climate change. In his blog post titled “the Evolution will be Socialised”, Douglas Rushkoff  called for people to come together to discuss and hopefully develop a whole new internet structure free from the hierarchical control by government that ultimate plagues change through social media (for example the taking down of Wikileaks in the US or the suppression of social networking in Egypt) (Rushkoff 2010).

In both these examples above there has been a semi-revolutionary call for change through digital media and the social network  in opposition to generally capitalistic but also mainly democratic government. This call is supported through brilliant, yet at this stage, idealistic ideas that can’t help get someone with a social conscience excited for the future. But one question strikes me: are calls for change in opposition to democratic government the most effective?

Micropoltics is characterised by the action called for by the Coalition of the Willing and Rushkoff, that is, the use of power of individuals through groups to achieve political goals. The Coalition video likened it ‘swarming’ as was seen through the changes that occurred in the 1960s. But the democratic structure of government has been the one in which great change has ultimately occurred in the post-colonial world. Is it really the right idea to disregard and try to fight its influence, macropolitics itself, in the wake of some poor decisions and a seemingly inability to adapt to the digital age defined by a new level of transparency in government action?

I believe the greatest change will be achieved when the calls for micropolitical action include calls to improve our democratic participation in government. Successful micropolitics is about power in numbers. Likewise effective democratic government needs majority support to govern. What we need is a movement to a new type of government structure; one that recognizes that in the new digital age, transparency and increased citizen participation in government is inevitable.

And what is the overall beauty of combining micropolitical movements for social change with already existing democratic macropolitical structures? The infrastructure for change already exists. Government has power, has money and has the ability to draw a population together. The brilliant ideas posed by The Coalition and others move further away from idealism and closer to reality.  Thus while ideas on how to achive social change in the digital age don’t need to be changed, the opposition does. Government  has in the past and can continue to be the hero for change. Because in a democratic society in which new media is used to maximise our participation in the structures of government, government becomes us.

Referennces

Coalition of the Willing Wiki [Online, accessed 27/04/2011] http://cotw.cc/wiki/Coalition_of_the_Willing

 Knife Party and Rayner, Tim and Robson, Simon (2010) Coalition of the Willing [Online, accessed 27/04/2011] http://coalitionofthewilling.org.uk/

Rushkoff, Douglas (2011) ‘The Evolution Will Be Socialized’, Shareable: Science and Tech [Online, accessed 27/04/2011] http://www.shareable.net/blog/the-evolution-will-be-socialized

In speaking of the recent activism in Egypt in the face of Mubarak’s regime, Charles Hirschkind made the following intriguing remark:

“online activists have played a key role in transforming the conditions of political possibility in Egypt ” (Hirschkind 2011)

Through the use of social media such as Facebook, Twitter and blogging, many Egyptians have found power through numbers and power through the capabilities that these media provide. They are finally seeing the possibility and potential to participate in the political process after so much suppression.

The capabilities of social media is only truly effective through the powers in numbers discussed above. But its not just the fact that people are participating in political dialogue through a social network, but rather that this participation is occurring on a horizontal plane. There is no hierarchy in these new social networks but rather “horizontalisation”. Paul Mason write “Horizontalism has become endemic because technology makes it easy: it kills vertical hierarchies spontaneously, whereas before – and the quintessential experience of the 20th century – was the killing of dissent within movements, the channeling of movements and their bureaucratisaton” (Mason 2011)

(Click to enlarge)

This simple (and crudely drawn) image, I believe, helps depict the power of horizontalisation contained within the social network to empower people to seek change in contrast to the minimal force behind a hierarchical structure . At its core, this power is derived from that age-old adage of power in numbers. And what digital social media provides is an amazingly simple way to unite these numbers and share ideas, opinions and dreams for the future.

But how does the age of the social network affect government and political contexts in nations of relative political stability and democratic freedom such as Australia? The first observation to make is that every day social networking and mainstream media become more and more convergent. Information gathered and shared amongst regular people through digital media has the potential to become a part of the mainstream media within minutes. And what this means for government is that everyone has the power to make a claim or unveil a secret to the entire voting population. People have the power to participate in government and thus want the information they feel they rightfully deserve. Hence governments have adopted the movement towards transparency as depicted by Lawrence Lessig in “Against Transparency-the perils of openness in government” . “Transparency has become an unquestionable bipartisan value.” (Lessig 2010).

Overall, therefore, the new age of ‘Government 2.0′ will be one challenged by new media and the power of the social network to share ideas and rally people together.  But hopefully this will lead to an age of unrivaled participation in the processes of government, allowing us to exercise our democratic rights outside the voting booth alone. As Catherine Styles writes “What we need is a visualisation – a view that shows us government functions as a whole and enables us to explore the component parts. Then, we could add an architecture of participation – put it to users as to what issues should be put to the people.” (Styles (2009)) But this visualization is only possible through the continuously developing capabilities of digital media and the social network.

References 

Hirschkind, C. (2011) “From the Blogosphere to the Street: The Role of Social Media in the Egyptian Uprising”,  Jadaliyya. [Online, accessed 18/03/2011] http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/599/from-the-blogosphere-to-the-street_the-role-of-social-media-in-the-egyptian-uprising

Lessig, L. (2010) ”Against Transparency: The perils of openness in government.” [Online, accessed 18/03/2011] http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/against-transparency?page=0,0

Mason, P.  (2011) ”Twenty reasons why it’s kicking off everywhere.”  Idle Scrawls BBC. [Online, accessed 18/03/2011] http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/paulmason/2011/02/twenty_reasons_why_its_kicking.html

Styles, C. (2009) “A Government 2.0 idea – first, make all the functions visible” [Online, accessed 18/03/2011] http://catherinestyles.com/2009/06/28/a-government-2-0-idea/

This is what I believe characterises harmony.

What the third video represents is the melding and harmonizing of two completely songs, genres and cultures to create (what I believe) is something real cool and good to listen to. What I also like is that there is every chance this mashup was put together by some guy on a laptop or (better or worse yet) on DJ Hero (djing’s answer too guitar hero).

Harmony is compatibility. But compatibility is not inherent, it is created. And often the greatest harmonic creations are those made from contrasting ideas.

In the field of “new media studies” as defined by Murphie (Murphie 2006) more people than ever have in their hands the power to create and share. This power, however, is clearly not compatible with traditional processes. And this is the issue that defines the music industry today. For years we’ve been told of the evils and illegality of piracy and file sharing, how the music industry is dying in the wake of music being downloaded and shared at next to no cost. Yet despite campaigns and high profile law suits, music file sharing has continued unabated.

So like in the creation of music itself, the creation of harmony between these non-compatible ideas is needed. Asher Moses, in an article for the Sydney Morning Herald, in March this year, suggested that the mainstream music industry was wasting its time in continuing to fight file sharing. He wrote that new studies had highlighted that  ”there is no evidence that illegal downloading has led to a decline in new music and it is the war on piracy itself that has docked big record label revenues by preventing them from embracing the digital age faster” (Moses 2011). He depicts the calls for the harmonization of new media processes and traditional practices, which would allow the music industry to continue to profit in this new age.

“Scaring the horses” is how Murphie and Guattari characterise new media’s impact on institutions like the mainstream music industry. The solution to such fright: the transversal thinking I discussed in my previous post. As Guattari’s somewhat abstract metaphor suggests if horses were wearing blinkers blinding them to their surroundings, a “certain traumatic encounter will be produced. As soon as the blinkers are opened, one can imagine that the horses will move about in a more harmonious way.” (Genosko in Guattari, 2000:118/Guattari, 1972: 79)

Journalism is another industry facing the same challenges as the music industry in the wake of new media. But I believe the blinkers are opening, and no longer the scared horses, the industry is moving towards harmony and compatibility. Mainstream and traditional media forms such as newspapers and television stations have embraced the capabilities of digital media technology. By thinking transversally they have opened up themselves to the capabilities of convergent media. The result: a more interactive and fluid media industry that isn’t locking horns with the bloggers and media creators who threatened the industry. Challenges are still to be faced, but the effort to harmonize and bring together contrasting ideas will ensure the survival and flourish of journalism in the 21st century.

References

Guattari, F.  ”l’inconscient machinique: essays de schizo-analyse”. (1979).  Paris: EncresEditions Recherches

Moses, A, (2011) “Music piracy war: are the big labels wasting there time?”, Sydney Morning Herald, 28 March.

Murphie, A. (2006) “Editorial”, [on transversality], the Fibreculture Journal, 9

Reading Greyson’s overview of the capabilities and future potentialities of what he calls augmented reality technology elucidates anticipation but also raises some difficult social and ethical questions; especially following previous consideration of media ecologies.

Already we have seen the emergence of our new networked society, pioneered by the proliferation of social media and convergent media technologies. It seems the inevitable next step is towards an even greater connected society facilitated by continuously advancing virtual reality (VR) technology. One of the (potentially arguable, as we will see) limitations of present social network technologies such as Facebook and Twitter is that it eliminates the face-to-face contact that is vital, I argue, for social development. With VR technology, this could be eliminated as our Facebook friends enter our homes, business associates enter our office with out leaving their building and foreigners enter our nations.

These amazing capabilities are destined to change how we think about privacy, ethics our social interaction and our perception of reality itself. The key to anaylsing and considering all these factors is transversal thinking. Transversality is a concept pioneered by Felix Guattari as an approach to the study of the emerging networked society. It challenges traditional single disciplinary thinking,  for example, considering something only through a political or ethical lens. Transversal thinking asks us to approach our interactions by considering these different critical ideas as a whole. In the process we can draw out new connections and ideas on how media ecologies and the networked society operates. As put by Andrew Murphie in “The World is a Clock: The Network Society and Experimental Ecologies”

“Thinking transversally is a challenge to disciplinarity in favour of a transdisciplinaryapproach to these interactions…think(ing) transversally is a response to political, social, and indeed ecological emergencies, occasioned in part by the network” (2004; 119)

By applying this way of thinking we can truly grasp the nature and machinations of the network society within different media ecologies. This will become even more vital as VR media proliferates. A new element of critical thinking will be added to the transversal approach, that is a consideration of the state of reality.

There is potential that in the future two realities will emerge; the real and the semi-transient virtual world. This new reality will potentially operate under a different system of rights, ethics and social expectations and be impacted by different political and cultural pressures. The separate existence and subsequent interaction of these two realities can only be properly analysed transversally to grasp and understand the connections. It will be a society exposed to an entire different sphere of networked societies and media ecologies, more complex and interwoven than ever before.

Transversality is needed; as Murphie writes:

“A network is never fusion. Yet neither are environment, technology, and life,strictly speaking, separable. In fact, they individuate with each other, at the same time as the tensions between different individuating systems such as “life,” “technology,”and the “environment” give rise to multitudes of new differences—the more so themore networked they are.” (2004; 120)

References

Grayson, C.  ”Augmented Reality Overview”. (2009). GigantiCo. [Online, accessed 26/03/2011] http://gigantico.squarespace.com/336554365346/2009/6/23/augmented-reality-overview.html

Youtube. “Ray Ban Virtual Mirror” (2008) [Online video, accessed 24/03/2011] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E_T7hARgiM&feature=player_embedded

Murphie, A. ‘The World’s Clock: The Network Society and Experimental ecologies” (2004). Topia: Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies, 11.

Guattari, F.  ”l’inconscient machinique: essays de schizo-analyse”. (1979).  Paris: EncresEditions Recherches

It is so hard to contemplate the interaction between memory, thinking and action because simply put we still know so little about the mind, brain and subjective experience.

In this intriguing video, academic Jeff Kosmoski attempts to summarise his answer to the “hard problem of consciousness”.

One of the better elements of this video is Kosmoski’s succinct explanation of our actual problem in understanding consciousness (see 0:38). Put simply the issue is that we, as humans, struggle to understand how the physical activity occurring in our brains, that is the movement of neurons, facilitate the completely subjective thoughts and experiences we as individuals have every second of every day.

This is a loaded problem, and one I will happily (and necessarily) avoid in this blog. But what it does provide is an additional layer of required thinking when analysing the idea of the extended mind and mnemotechnics. The extended mind refers to the concept that the operation of the mind extends outside the realm of the body and actively exists in the physical environment. The concept is pioneered by Andy Clark and David Chalmers in their text “The Extended Mind” (Clark& Chalmers 1998). They consider the mind and the environment as a “coupled system” and it is this system that wholly facilitates our cognitive process.

Examples of this coupled system in work are wide and varied. As Bernard Stiegler highlights in his article “Anamnesis and Hypomnesis”, recording a thought or a reminder on a slip of paper causes part of our memory to be transferred to that physical object. He argues all human memory is “exteriorized” (turned outwards) and the method of recording our memory through mediums such as paper, video, sound recording etc, are examples of mnemotechniques with the mediums themselves examples of mnemotechnology (Steigler n.d).

But the extended mind operates in more complex and potentially revolutionary ways, as the video below highlights:

The vibrations caused externally to the body as a result of an interaction with the physical environment then interacts with the mind itself to allow the woman to catch the ball without her other senses such as sight or hearing.

The issue is, while it is fairly easy to conceptualize and see memories being extended outside the body what we cannot comprehend is how the mind itself allows for this chain of reactions to occur. What is happening in our mind that allows us to utilise pen and paper as a medium for extending our mind. But beyond that what is happening in our own brains that causes that memory to be recorded in a personal subjective way with an individual style of writing, individual handwiriting. Is the physical activity in our brain somehow different to everyone else on the planet?

This is the hard question of consciousness. Starting from Descartes’ theory of dualism (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(philosophy_of_mind) , basically the idea that the operation of our individual minds is not a physical process), theorist have pondered this question and have developed a range of, but ultimately flawed, theories and answers. In the end this will continue to place restriction on our complete comprehension and expansion of this concept of the extended mind.

REFERENCES

Wikipedia. “Dualism (philosophy of the mind)” (2011) [Online, accessed 18/03/2011] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(philosophy_of_mind)

Wikipedia. “The Extended Mind” (2011) [Online, accessed 17/03/2011] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Mind

Steigler, B. “Anamnesis and Hyoomnesis” (n.d). Ars Industrialis. [Online, accessed 17/03/2011] http://arsindustrialis.org/anamnesis-and-hypomnesis

Clark, A & Chalmers, D  ”The Extended Mind” (1998) Analysis 58:10-23

Chalmers, D. “The Extended Mind Revisited (1/5) at Honk Kong” (2009). [Online video, accessed 17/03/2011] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S149IVHhmc

Dalton, S. “E sense” (n.d) [Online video, accessed 18/03/2011] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHTtri5jGDc

Komoski, J. “Solving the Hard Question of Consciousness ” [Online video, accessed 18/03/2011] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQKNhQ0Spqw&NR=1

At its simplest I was informed “media ecology can be defined as ‘the study of media environments, the idea that technology and techniques, modes of information and codes of communication play a leading role in human affairs’” (Strate 1999). So the media ecology is the interactions and connections of media outlets, forms and content and their impact on us as humans, contemplated and analysed in the form of an environment/ecology. To me thinking of machinations of media in this way allows us to better grasp the (often very difficult to understand) concepts raised.

But this definition also served to raise my big question: where is the impact of humans on the ecology? Should we just be considering the media ecology as the impacts of media on us and our interaction with it? Or should we be asking how do human decisions, relationships and (most vitally in the present day) networks shape the media and the ecology it operates within?

In his definition of media ecology, Neil Postman writes media ecology “tries to find the roles the media force us to play, how media structures what we are seeing, why media makes us feel and act the way we do” (Postman 1970) But an analysis of these factors cannot be achieved without first contemplating the role of people in shaping the media itself. Not simply content, but media forms and methods of production and publication. This isn’t a case of the chicken or the egg,  but rather it is people’s impact on the media environment first that in plays a large role in determining how it then affects us as individuals and a society.

The examples raised in the Paul Levinson are perfect at highlighting the humanistic drive behind the media ecology. He discusses the development of writing as form of media. He considers the Egyptian system of hieroglyphics  and the creation of the phonetic alphabet and its role in representing different things including the “unrepresentable” (i.e. a monotheistic god). He writes of the “monopolies of knowledge” held by ancient Egyptian priests through their position as the few people who were able to write and understand the complex system of hieroglyphics. They were the prime influences on the media form of their time. Using this control they were able to ignore the orders of their Pharaoh to begin developing hieroglyphics to record the details of a new religion structure and maintain a system that most suited them. In this context, hieroglyphics, as a form of media, played a vital role in influencing and structuring both the present and future Egyptian populations. But it was humanistic elements including a desire for power and control on the behalf of the priests that influenced the structure and operation of the media ecology itself.

This example, of course, is a fairly simplistic (and primitive) example of cyclical nature of the media ecology. That is – people shape the media who in turn shape people. But it is a clear reminder of the importance of considering human relationships and networks and how they both directly and indirectly shape the media ecology which in turn shapes us.

REFERENCES
Wikipedia. “Media Ecology”. (2011) [Online, accessed 12/03/2011, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_ecology]

Neil Postman. “The Reformed English Curriculum.” in A.C. Eurich, ed., High School 1980: The Shape of the Future in American Secondary Education (1970).

- Taken from: Media Ecology Association. “What is Media Ecology” (2009) [Online, accessed 12/03/2011, http://www.media-ecology.org/media_ecology/]

Levinson, Paul. “The First Digital Medium” in Soft Edge; a natural history and future of the information revolution (1997). London: Routledge.Pgs 11-15

Strate, L 1999, “Understanding MEA” , In Medias Res, vol. 1, no. 1, Fall, p. 1.

REMIX CULTURE- Remix culture is a term employed to describe a society which allows and encourages derivative works. Such a culture would be, by default, permissive of efforts to improve upon, change, integrate, or otherwise remix the works of copyright holders. (Taken from Wikipedia)

I am no digital media expert. I’m still recording TV through a VCR and video cassettes. I can barely comprehend making videos or animations or ‘mashups’ using just my laptop (I had to type mashup into google to check I was using the term correctly). Yet I envy this whole new breed of creative people; people who make their own videos, mix their own songs, and utilise other people’s content to create something new and funny, which in turn is used by others to re-create it once again. Take the “Socially Awkward Penguin” meme (below). It is a simple and  brilliantly funny example of how digital media and remix culture is opening up all these avenues for individual creativity. (Excuse the partial crudeness)

I don’t believe this new era of content creation is beyond me, I just don’t know how to do it. It is unfamiliar and therefore hard to get my head around.

This tale of my own inabilities and inhibitions can be used as a metaphor. It is definitely a very simplistic metaphor, but to me, at its heart, it represents the key factor behind the tension between this growing remix culture and traditional media practices and institutions: unfamiliarity and a lack of recognition.

Of course the issues go deeper than this, remix culture and traditional media are definitely at odds (as will be illustrated below).  To suggest, however, that remix culture is fundamentally at odds with traditional media implies that these tensions are deep-ceded, irrevocable and potentially unresolvable. This would be a sad indictment, and in reality, simply can’t be true. Traditional media, mainly broadcast, with which remix culture has the greatest clashes, is not about to wither and die. Neither is remix culture going to fade away like some fad. What is needed is a recognition of these differences and a recognition that for the future benefit and growth of both, resolution is necessary.

A Two-Sided Sword

In conducting any research into remix culture it is practically impossible not to run into Lawrence Lessig. Not only did he coin the term, but he is one of the greatest advocates for reduced copyright laws and greater access to original content for all people to remix and recreate. Personally, I was absorbed by a speech he gave at the TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) Conference in 2007 (take a look if you have the 20 mins to spare)

He speaks of the power and brilliance of digital technology to spur on remix culture and this new era of user generated content and creativity. He proposes the lifting of copyright restrictions on content to be utilized for creative and non-commercial purposes.

On first view, remix culture and the growth of social networks that have the capability to allow us to share this new found creativity appears to be a social revelation, which it is. It is vital, however, for the resolution of the tensions between remix culture and traditional media to gain an understanding of the position and opposition of traditional outlets.

Whether intentionally or not, the wave of support behind remix culture and the highly egalitarian terms with which it is spoken of, has led to a somewhat vilification of traditional media and practices, specifically those that control content. But we have to remember, traditional broadcast media (that is television, radio and traditional music production), have been the dominant content providers for almost a century. Their practices of content distribution that have become inherent are, as Lessig would call it, “read-only”. Technological restraints and commercial interests have prevented any meaningful movement towards remixing content until the end of the 20^th century. The dominance of broadcast media has meant the law and commercial regulations have moulded around these methods it utilises. This is how we evolved into a society in which authorship legally entitles you to complete control of content.

Traditional media intuitions and practices rely upon a direct relationship with producers of content for their profitability. In turn producers need to see profitability in their work to continue to create.

So therein lays the tension between remix culture and traditional media. One side, propelled by the developments of digital media and communication, advocates free and shared content creation and re-creation. The other side, whose tried and true practices have been dominant for decades, advocates content control for commercial gain and the protection of intellectual property.

Now to me, there doesn’t seem to be any fundamental conflict. Just two concepts or cultures created from contextually different ideals. As it stands however, remix culture and traditional media are at loggerheads more often than not. But if the two sides aren’t fundamentally at odds, resolution must be possible. So what is the answer? It may seem obvious, but the answer is compromise. A compromise between the commercial needs and property rights of traditional media and content creators, and the social benefits that remix culture provides.

A Case of too many Molotovs

To illustrate my point I want to write about an example where remix culture and traditional media unnecessarily came into conflict.

The example I am writing about is unusual in the context of remix culture vs. traditional media as it isn’t the typical big corporation trying to take down the remixing ‘little guy’, a scenario that continues to play out in courts across the Western world. In contrast, this example involves two people, both who could be considered ‘little guys’ and artists. The difference between them is that one creates in the midst of remix culture while the other is a product of past media practices. What is highlighted is how the ideologies of strict and complete ownership of original content, promoted by strict copyright laws as a product of the practices of traditional media, evoked a conflict that should never have been. All that was needed was some concession and compromise.

Joy Garnett is an American artist who takes news photographs, scientific imagery and military documents from the Net to create paintings. She ‘remixes’ these original images in an attempt to examine the contemporary impacts of a society dominated by commercialism in which media, politics and culture all intersect.

In 2003, Garnett revealed Molotov, a painting that depicted a photograph she had found on the Internet.

It was soon discovered that this image was part of a larger photograph taken by Susan Meiselas in 1979. She took the photo whilst working as a photojournalist in the Central America nation of Nicaragua in the midst of the Sandinista Revolution.

Meiselas proceeded to issue a “cease and desist” letter to Garnett, claiming copyright infringement. It demanded that Garnett remove Molotov from her website, transfer all rights of the painting to Meiselas, and credit her in all subsequent reproductions. Initially, Garnett agreed to credit Meiselas on her website but would not transfer the rights of the painting, arguing that she had sufficiently transformed the image and was allowed to do so under her fair use rights (one of the few, but limited concessions of copyright law). After the threat of further legal action Garnett withdrew the painting from her Site and Meiselas did not pursue the matter any further.

What happened next is testament to how, in the age of digital media and social networking, individuals have greater creative freedom, and even power. Traditional media must learn to adapt to this change.  News of what had happened to Garnett and Molotov was published on internet sites that promoted new media art. Soon supporters, who were outraged at this use of copyright law to suppress a legitimate artist, began publishing Molotov on their own sites in protest. Through social networks and blogs, the story went global with more and more people either uploading the image on their sites or creating and publishing derivatives of Garnett’s original artwork. It was a loud and clear protest against the suppression of fair use rights. The action taken became known as the “Joywar”.

Here are some of the ‘remixes’ of Garnett’s original ‘remix’:

In this affirmative action we instantly see the power of digital media to defy and protest. In April 2006 Garnett and Meiselas were both asked to speak at a symposium entitled “Comedies of Fair U$e”. Meiselas was given an opportunity to defend her legal pursuit of Garnett. She claimed that as a photojournalist her mission was to provide a cultural and historical context for the images she captured. She argued that in appropriating the ‘Molotov Man’ (as he became known), later found to be a man named Pablo Arauz, her original work had been devalued and that Pablo’s context had been “stripped away”. She said that while “technology allows us to do many things….that does not mean we must do them” and that she felt it her role to protest against the diminishment of Pablo’s act of defiance.

On face value, these seem legitimate and passionate arguments. But the issue is, whilst Meiselas promoted a connection with and an obligation to the subject of her photo, in actual fact she never sought permission from Pablo to take the photo in the first place. Then in her subsequent writings on the photo, not once did she mention the man she professed to have had such a protective connection with. A connection so strong that it prompted legal action when the image was artistically appropriated by Garnett.

If this is the case, where did Meiselas’ objections truly come from?  Meiselas is a product of traditional media production; an era dominated by a belief in a right to sole and complete ownership of content. But as Garnett exemplifies, with the rise of the Internet and digital technology, this right may be professed and punishment enforced, but it cannot be fully protected. Nor should it be. Garnett artistically transformed a powerful image for the purposes of creating a powerful message (and certainly some economic interests came into play). She was not ‘ripping off’ Meiselas’ work, nor do the thousands of people who remix original content every day. They are creating something new out of something already created, often for a cultural benefit.

I believe that Meiselas’ position as a photographer, whose work is centred around creating something out of someone else’s personal image, should enable her to not only sympathise with Garnett but respect her appropriation. Evidently she remained indoctrinated by a copyright ideology that is propelled by commercial interests but justified as a protection of individual rights. This may have been viable in the past, but as technology evolves, and remix culture expands, so must the mentality of content creators.

Conclusion

Overall, what I am trying to portray from the above case study is a sense of the needless tension between remix culture and traditional media if compromise is achieved. Garnett did not defile or copy Meiselas’ photograph she effectively remixed it. In essence she created something new. Those who in turn appropriated her painting in support for her were also creating something new. In contemporary culture this is an inevitable cycle that should be promoted. That is not to say that the rights or commercial interests of Meiselas or any other creator should not be protected or acknowledged. But a middle ground exists.

There isn’t enough space here to go into it today, but concepts such as fair use and creative commons licences and the establishment of what is and is not permitted in remixing original content are the key to resolving the tensions between remix culture and traditional media practices and institutions.

As we can see these tensions are not fundamental, they are expected, but resolvable. Traditional media is trapped in a context dominated by copyright laws and as American copyright activist Michael Harrington describes, a “damn accounting hyper-legal mentality.” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt0ASo_6Sdg) But this will change as remix culture continues to expand and compromise is achieved. In the end this is the only way forward to an exciting new age of constant creation and recreation in which digital technology allows for so much individual flair and social connection.

All Content and Videos referenced are publicly available at the links provided

The videos incorporated and used for research were:

Socially Awkward Penguin Meme: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90NGT6qXHGw&feature=related

Larry Lessig- How creativity is being strangled by the law: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q25-S7jzgs

Walking on Eggshells: Borrowing Culture in the Remix Age: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt0ASo_6Sdg

The Evolution of Remix Culture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BZ06Kwbi5s&feature=related