We had the opportunity to have a discussion with students, artists faculty in Liepaja Latvia at the newly forming program in New Media at the Academy in Liepaja. Sadly the was not able to be recorded as our connections speeds were quite poor. But Stephan Crowley and Kory Boulier were able to participate and they give their reflections. Carl and Kristina form Liepaja gave some wonderful comments to questions asked. They are both working and developing k@2 (http://karosta.lv) as well as programming for the growing program. So, Stephan and Kory take it away...
6 comments:
Today's discussion, sadly- as Raph mentioned, could not be recorded; but hopefully Kory and I can articulate some key points in our interesting conversation about New Media.
First off, we decide we would refrain from trying to define what New Media is (a very debatable topic), and for arguments sake we agreed to just say that we had a common understanding of New Media and we would would try and answer what the overall objective is in New Media. Also, what makes viewers decide "that 'project' is New Media".
So, what does make a New Media "project" a New Media project? I had said that a project combines art and technology. Vague, yes- and I believe it's semi-accurate. But can something be New Media without having technology?
From what I recall (it was very glitchy) Kristina added that she believes New Media is not passive, rather it demands participation. She also made many points about information sharing. This idea allowed me to reflect what is going on amongst the p2p community, particularly PirateBay and their battle with Hollywood suits.
I think this is a very significant case that really challanges the movie and music industry in how they control their content.
To review this matter, please check out :
http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-to-hollywood-080312/
Now, Kristina also mentioned a documentary film that I was able to watch online for free (suggested donations). The film is Good Copy, Bad Copy (check out goodcopybadcopy.net)- a funny play on good cop, bad cop that really looks at the issue of sampling and mashups. For those of you who are unfamiliar with sampling and mashups, most rap music takes beats from other artist and use it to make their own music, called sampling. Mash-ups are when an artist takes vocal samples and overlays them on another artists music sample. (Check out GirlTalk's Night Ripper and DJ Danger Mouse's Grey Album (both stirred up the music industry).
This is an important issue amongst people who are in the realm of New Media because it is very important for us to be able to share and create information- the problem at hand is really capitalism (for more info on capitalist ass-holes review Milan Kohout's philosophy). What do I mean by that? Well, why do we have copyright laws? To protect those who are making money on an idea but also protect those with ideas from capitalists? Sounds good right?
What is also interesting is that I see musicians (like radio head) and film-makers (like the producers behind Good Copy, Bad Copy) who are saying "fuck the music labels and film distributors- we have the internet and world wide web, if you like what we have to say than you can support us by donating money and it'll go directly to us. pay if you want."
Is this idea 'New Media'? I would really like everyone's thoughts on this. Also, please review Girl Talk and Danger Mouse, their music can be reviewed for free, just search for it. I want to know what you think about this music (not just if you like it or not).
*Im responding to this purely from reading Stephen's post*
Refraining from defining New Media saves everyone a lot of headache. I feel that as a part of this year's capstone crop, we're all struggling understanding what it is. Sure we can come up with definitions that appease faculty, but we're all failing miserably on the innovative front. I feel as if we're so dull and unimaginative, sigh, I'm done with that thought now.
From what I gathered reading, I feel as if the discussion today was on Kristina's view of what New Media is to her. Is New Media passive? Not at all, but we need to truly come up with a solid definition as to what New Media really is. I'm tired of being pulled in different directions over whether or not technology is required for anything to be considered New Media. I don't know if I believe in it, but I know that there is evolution of Media.
This was a ramble, so I apologize.
I am a personal fan of The Grey Album Steve, and I feel that he is a musical genius, not to mention the fact that Sage Francis backs him up. (Another HUGE plus.) I feel that he is innovative in the musical world, but is it New Media?
Will, I do agree with you about Danger Mouse; I think he is very talented and very creative. Now, I am not sure if I buy the statements he makes about it being a purely accidental phenomena. I mean, he was well known during his own release of the Grey Album. As for the question whether it is New Media or not? We can argue that because we can argue what defines New Media. If we call it art, we can argue what art is?
For me, I believe this is not just music and art but it's within the realm of New Media. So why is that? Well, for starters it is provocative- it challenges the current state of the music industry and copyright laws. It makes a statement about music and questions what and who defines what music is? Being provocative, I feel, is an important trait for something to be defined as New Media.
Tools that were used to create the mashups, Reason, Audacity or Soundtrack- standard pieces of software are making it easier for anyone with a computer and strive for creativity to create such pieces. Not having limited access, I feel, is an important part of the formula for something to be defined as New Media.
P2P networking made it possible to distribute this piece of work. This idea of being able to distribute material half a world away, spreading faster than the plague is a very big part of New Media. No longer do artists need a traditional gallery, a studio, or a company to share their work and get feedback. This form of distributing ideas and materials is very much a big part of how I define New media.
If you ever read Plato's Symposium, you can make connections to his view of what role (in his oppinion) an artist takes. Stating that they imitate life- so it's a copy of the true. He also admits that it may be even better than the true. And that is how I look at the work of Danger Mouse or GirlTalk. It's a copy of a copy, and creates something new, whether it's better or not is up to the viewer.
This lecture was a little tricky to understand because of internet issues, but the topics of New Media needing a push and interaction through participation to work, was something that I feel isn't touched upon enough by some professors. I will agree with Will on the fact that we're being conditioned to gear our work towards the professors view of New Media instead of just being creative.
Another musical group that mashes up vocals from one band and music from another is The Legion of Doom. They mix songs like "Screaming Infidelities" by Dashboard Confessional with "The Quiet Things That No One Ever Knows" by Brand New. Just for my two cents on that matter.
When it comes to the issues of copyright law, I am under the belief that there is the technology to share this information, therefore they should be a little more relaxed about the whole situation. But, then we start getting into a debate about the RIAA and MPAA and all their lawyers and bull crap.
Legion of Doom has been burning in the back of my mind for a while. It is an excellent remix band, but once again, not New Media.
Lately New Media hasn't been art to me, it has been trying to assist others in awareness about issues that affect us all; trying to go about things in a healthy innovative manner.
Though I was not there, i'd like to comment on a few of the things that have been said.
Stephen is right about defining new media, but also STEPHEN IS WRONG (isn't that the ultimate paradox of new media). What I mean is that New Media is everything and nothing all at once, it can be just some bullshit project that uses media (which is what the general public see as new media), but new media is defined by the artist I think. Obviously a painting is not new media (unless it does something new and provocative with the media), and just putting something online does not qualify it as new media (in my opinion). New Media FOR ME is the practical application of sociology. I am a huge sociology buff, and I love learning about social problems and dynamics in culture. The problem with sociology is that it does just that a lot of talk and a lot of research, and with the tools of new media it gives a place to do something about those conversations. You can build blogs to get the word out there. 2 summer's ago a hate crime happened to my mom and her partner and I didn't know what to do or how to react, so I made a web page, soon it turned into tons of emails in my inbox. Though that may not be NEW MEDIA per se, it used the medium in such a way to promote change, and to me that is a huge part of new media.
Also what Stephen says about P2P networking is right on the dot. On the outside it probably feels less "new media", but in fact it may be one of the most new media things of the last 10 years. Networking is a huge piece of the puzzle, and any way that can be done through traditional medias (movie, music, etc.) creates a conversation FOR new media.
In response to bringing up copyright law as Kory did, I am wishy washy on it. Anything I create has a CC on it (projects, photography, videos, EVERYTHING), I think the world should be a place of sharing , but I also require attribution, because it tracks a history and at least shows that the ideas have been worked upon. Copyrighting is selfish and only used to promote self-awareness and create tons of money, but you can tell those who use copyright vs. CC because copyright is about making money and CC is about making art, plain and simple. If people want to use my stuff, hey what a great compliment! If they want to buy something, EVEN BETTER , but that doesn't need a copyright on it. The music industry is going down with places like myspace and the ability to self-promote rather than through a label. I have plenty of friends throughout the country who are doing this, one really close friend has released her cd that she wrote, produced, and marketed herself. It is a great CD and she stands by never having a label because they are in the business of rape.
JUST SOME THOUGHTS, wish I could've been there ! :)
Post a Comment