The remix project that I have undertaken is designed to investigate various notions of community, participation, the relationship between producers and users of content and the effects of digital technology on all of these. Over the course of the project I have compiled raw material from three primary sources – original art (used with explicit permission) from artist Michael “Ziksaur” Allen, music (again used with explicit permission) from The Large Hadron Collective and various photographs sourced from the photo sharing website flickr, released through the Creative Commons system. Using these to create a video, I have effected a fundamental change on the original pieces, through re-contextualisation and remediation, or otherwise put, fundamentally remixed them.

Michael Allen is primarily an illustrator, whose work I have adapted here for several reasons. Partly because his visual style suits and ambience for which I was aiming, but more importantly because he is himself a remix artist, in that he superimposes plain line drawings on photographs taken by photographers that aren’t himself. This idea of remixing a remix is one idealized in academia, notably by Lawrence Lessig, and practiced in pop culture, notably by musician Girl Talk. (Johnsen, Christensen, Moltke. goodcopybadcopy, 2007) Furthermore, my remixing of his original works extends to re-mediating them – namely, through animation of his static drawings. Again, this represents a fundamental change in the way his creations are consumed. This recontextualisation extends beyond this remediation however. The original drawings are an unconnected album, whose only real point of connection is a love/loss dichotomy. Some are even found as artwork to CD jackets, completely separate from any others. My work has, however, attached a linear narrative to these otherwise unconnected points. It has also changed the themes from love/loss to community and participation, contrasted with isolation. Finally, Michael is a resident of Sydney, and we exchanged materials using the digital technologies of the Internet.
It is with a similar mindset that I chose the work of the Large Hadron Collective to form the soundscape for my project, the LHC being a group of musicians who encourage remixing of each other’s work, as well as large-scale collaboration. Furthermore, the LHC typically produces ambient music designed to complement ideas of space and, unsurprisingly, particle science. The result of my work on two LHC tracks is a less ambient, more percussive sound. This was achieved using nothing other than sounds already existing in the original pieces, with minimal modulation. Finally, the backgrounds, sourced from flickr demonstrate further attention to the facilitating nature of the Internet, for content distribution.

As can be seen, I have approached this project attempting to articulate various aspects of participatory culture before even beginning my own work. All content has been distributed using the Internet, in the form of jpeg images and mp3 sound files, highlighting the idea that despite my work, the original content remains intact and discrete. My choice of content, particularly the work of Michael Allen is representative of a desire to show the depth possible with second or third generation remixes. That is, content that has already been shown in multiple contexts.

The primary themes of the animation are as follows: a rejection of the producer/consumer dichotomy as the only means by which content is distributed; the value of participation in creation of an environment; the increase in quality of life when engaged in a community and; the ease of distribution of data without loss in this new world. These are all important aspects of participatory culture, as defined by J.D Lasica in the online introduction to his book Darknet (Lasica, J. 2005.) This new form of participatory culture is facilitated largely through the ease of distribution and reproduction afforded by the Internet.

The video begins with a disembodied hand holding a spray-can. It paints a bleak picture of urban decay, in black and white, then a low quality outline drawing of a person sitting down within this. A brighter, more well-defined person moves into view and takes the spray-can away, before moving up to the line drawing person. She breaks open another spray-can, that has until now been a part of the background, or the environment in which these people find themselves. She dips her hand into the paint that issues forth from this, and uses it to draw the sitting person. He then comes alive, to take the question mark from her face, and throw it into the can. It explodes with colour, and washes away leaving a river of paint, on which the people can now sail away. Thus far we see the disembodied hand/spray-can representative of a producer, disconnected from its consumers. The producer is also the entity that holds the power in this situation, as it has created the (cultural) environment in which the consumer finds himself, a reference to the history of litigation to protect the status quo used by the producers of dominant culture at the time. (Doctorow, 2008, pp. 3-27.) In this case, the consumer and the product are the same thing. And, good though this product may be, as it matches its environment very well, it is improved (given bolder lines, brighter contrast, and brought to life) when it is adjusted by its peer (the woman who also has bold lines, a white body and the ability to move). With his newfound empowerment, the man immediately takes the opportunity to interact with the woman, by remixing her, that is, removing the question mark from her face. This question mark is emblematic of the anonymous nature of the Internet, as well as the current situation in which user generated content is at the fringe of society, and many of its proponents are simply anonymous people in a sea of other contributors. Indeed, an idealised notion of this user generated content movement is that people are making things for themselves, and the notion of a superstar becoming well known to many is not necessarily the main aim. (Discussion, iGeneration Honours group, 2008) In engaging with the woman, and remixing her he has made her known to him, and the audience. The man has also by now blown open the paint can, casting colour everywhere. He has now remixed the environment given to him by the original producer, and arguably made it better. The people, having empowered each other now leave and begin to engage with the world at large.

They first encounter a man sitting alone and looking downcast. Upon sailing up to them the man looks over to them, and gives a copy of his face to the man in the boat. He then smiles, and the couple sail off. The main themes of this scene are again, the value of the remix – the original man is now a third generation remix, his appearance coming from three different sources. Keen eyed viewers will notice that the face given to the man in the boat is different from the face of the man on the bench. It is to be assumed that the face itself has undergone a remix, so it is better suited to the new man, rather than being an unadaptable production line stamped entity – a relic of the producer/consumer dichotomy. Secondly is the sense of community fostered by participation – the man they discover sitting on the bench is sad and lonely, and when given an opportunity to engage with his community (of white outline people) he becomes happy. These themes are again explored in the third scene, in which the couple come across a giant, again without a face, who takes a face from them and puts it on himself. The face is again remixed to suit the giant who is using it. The face is now a third generation remix, and can be thought of as a cultural meme propagating itself throughout society, adapting itself as necessary. Obviously it is a useful piece of information, as everybody begins without it (except the lonely man, who seeds it) yet by the end everybody has it, and has wanted it. The people here are arranged in what can be described as a peer-to-peer network, with information flowing between people as nodes. (Jensen, 2003, Chapter 1) This situation is one that is mutually beneficial to all involved, even if they do not necessarily contribute the network in the same way. The lonely man shares his face, and receives companionship in return. The giant is given a face by the boatists, and in return throws them to where they wish to go, something they couldn’t otherwise achieve.
The final scene again looks into the relationship between peers and their environment. When the piano is struck by the two people, the music changes; they are in effect playing it, and at the same time changing the harmony of the scene, or changing the climate in which they are. Beside the credit roll is a final image of the couple, this time seen to be sharing legs and feet, and looking the happiest they have yet. They are symbolically and literally entwined and together, and it is through their travels throughout the world creating each other that they have become this way. It indicates the fundamental interconnectedness of people, and how this can be brought out through participation in the exchange of ideas, for a mutual gain.
Choosing Flash animation for this project was done because of the suitability of the medium for adapting my chosen source materials – hand drawn pictures and photographs, particularly with the attempt of bringing them to life. Thematically, Flash was a good choice because it is a wholly digital tool, and defines itself as such. (Adobe Advertisement) In portraying the value of digital technology, using a technology other than digital to create this portrayal could be construed as insincere. It is not without its drawbacks however – some animation frames definitely skip and jump about in a way that is distracting to the eye, and continuity between the static images and their animated counterparts is at times sloppy. This was not an anticipated problem. Similarly, it was somewhat difficult to mix the sound with the video in a satisfactory manner. My original intention was for notes of to be struck as the characters jumped on the piano keys, but the timing of this proved too difficult, and I settled instead for a simple harmonic shift. However, these problems are negligible compared with the benefits of the medium, particularly when such a fundamental reworking and remediation of the source material is necessary to my aims for this project. I believe I have remixed these works in a meaningful manner, both in terms of medium and in terms of context. Whilst remaining recognisably similar to the work of the original authors, these artworks are transformed through my efforts.

Primary Sources:
Allen, M. a_mixtape? (2007) [picture] Used with explicit permission from the author.
Allen, M. Also Newish (2007) [picture] Used with explicit permission from the author.
Allen, M mixtape_september_2006 (2006) [picture] Used with explicit permission from the author.
Allen, M. Real Old (2004) [picture] Used with explicit permission from the author.
Allen, M. Real Old, Again, Again (2003) [picture] Used with explicit permission from the author.
Allen, M. St James Park, London (2004) [picture] Used with explicit permission from the author.
Allen, M. [untitled] (2008) [picture] Used with explicit permission from the author.
Allen, M. ZiksauR (2008) [picture] Used with explicit permission from the author.

Quirk, J. Europa (2008) [audio] Used with explicit permission from the author.
Quirk, J. it’s time to go home (2008) [audio] Used with explicit permission from the author.
*These audio tracks have since been made available at www.myspace.com/thelargehadroncollective

Alley Piano – BrianWarren. Uploaded September 18 2008
http://flickr.com/photos/vistamonster/2868180078/ (CC AT NC SA)
Urban Decay – stop.down. Uploaded September 13 2007
http://flickr.com/photos/stopdown/1376260505/ (CC AT)
Mountain Creek Lake Sunrise-3 – MelRick. Uploaded August 30 2008
http://flickr.com/photos/melrick/2811818730/ (CC AT NC SA)
Rock in the River – DanielJames. Uploaded May 21 2007
http://flickr.com/photos/revjim/507568161/ (CC AT NC SA)

*CC = Licensed under the Creative Commons
AT = Attribute
NC = For Non-Commercial Use only.
SA = Share Alike

Secondary Sources
Doctorow, Corey (2008) Content. San Francisco: Tachyon.
goodcopybadcopy (2007), dir. Andres Johnsen, Henrik Moltke, Ralf Christensen, prod. Rosforth
Jensen, Scott (2003) The P2P Revolution. http://www.nonesuch.org/p2prevolution.pdf First accessed Sept. 21 2008.
Lasica, J. D. (2005) Darknet http://www.darknet.com/2005/05/darknet_miniboo.html First Accessed July 27 2008.
Lessig, Lawrence (2004) Free Culture. New York: Penguin.

In addition comments by the members of the iGeneration Honours group 2008, both in the course blog (http://igeneration.edublogs.org) and in personal discussions have been of invaluable assistance.

A peer to peer network is inherently suited to the exchange of information or files between its users. It encourages its members to share content with the rest of the group, and, unlike a regular client/server system, is made better through more participation from its members. And so, members of such networks use this functionality to share content with each other on a large scale, and within this, share content illegally. That is, distribute illegal copies of songs, television programmes, and/or film to each other with no regard for the copyright laws that may pertain. While reading these works below, keep in the back of your mind the above paragraph. Also, consider these questions:

1. Do p2p networks encourage peer creation of content in any major sort of way?

2. How can p2p networks be considered a more participatory medium for exchange of information than say, broadcast, or even client/server systems.

3. What are your thoughts on the argument that p2p and piracy can serve as free advertising for artists?

4. How can this means of distribution help existing communities to communicate?

5. Have you ever used a p2p network and if so, have you felt like you were participating in it, in a meaningful or positive way?

6. Is the internet based type of piracy much different from earlier types – copying cassettes for instance.

7. Are internet based networks much different from “real world” types – ‘zine publishing for instance.

Reading

Johan Pouwelse The BitTorrent P2P file-sharing system

Baptiste Pretre Attacks on Peer to Peer Networks (*For this one, the important bits are the Introduction, Chapters 2 and 3 and the Final Conclusion. There are some interesting bits and pieces distributed throughout, but a large part of it is technical things that aren’t really of interest. Even some parts of the important bits aren’t of much use to us, so don’t worry if something isn’t quite getting through.)

Scott Jensen The P2P revolution (The second section of this has a fair amount of technical stuff that doesn’t really matter, so is skippable.)

Eric A. Taub Off New York Streets, Film Piracy Is Online

Dan, writing in the New Media Research Studio Internet Piracy and the Delicious Aroma of Waffles

To reiterate, there is a lot of technical stuff in some of the sources which isn’t necessary for our purposes.

Finally, I’d like to draw a hypothetical situation for you all to consider with all the above in mind:

There is a(n illegal) p2p network of which you are a member. What characteristics does it have? For instance, is it capable of keeping your location and identity secure? Is it large and anonymous, or small and private? Are you concerned with people leeching off the network and not contributing? Do you want good download speeds? Are you concerned by companies deliberately inserting bad data to the network?

In the course of the interview with Ben, I hoped to discover his opinions on various topics and themes relating to community and participatory culture. These topics and themes are well suited to Ben, in his position as both a producer and consumer of music in the current transitional climate. That is, music is now easier than ever before to produce, and indeed reproduce. The traditional support structures for emerging artists remain, record labels and publishers, with their capacity to both publish the records that contain the music, send them across the world and advertise them to people who may be open to hearing the music. Now one asks oneself “are these necessary”, given the increased ease of distribution afforded by such technology as streaming, or the social phenomena of social networking sites, such as Myspace. Furthermore, Ben offers an insight into the nature of “community feeling” when this is detached from a physical space, and instead triggered by a common interest or similar.

Ben’s opinion is that Myspace is not an ideal space to open a dialogue between fans and musicians, and that it doesn’t really open any new channels of communication and interconnectedness. Although theoretically musicians will communicate with the fans who are their Myspace “friends” this is hardly a dialogue. Fans may post on the wall, and bands may send out bulletins, or write blog notes, but neither is really engaging with the other. To continue along this manner of thinking, online interactions between fans have existed without Myspace, in the form of forums on bands’ official sites. However, one could contend that Myspace, being a Social Networking Site (SNS) engages fans in a manner different from forums, in that it works on a more web-like framework. A fan who looks at a band’s Myspace will see links to personal profiles of other fans, and, perhaps more importantly to other bands, who presumably share some common ground with the original band. While a forum may offer this as a feature, it will be because a user has gone out of their way to create it, whereas it is an integrated feature of Myspace. Whether this feature is promoting of a participatory culture or not is open to conjecture, but it definitely does simplify and extend the web nature of a fan community on Myspace.

On the relationship of a band and a record label, Ben clearly feels that bands are still reliant on the support offered by a record label. In order to reach upper echelons and traditional ideas of success it is necessary to have a label, an opinion which rings true, at least as far as I have researched, not knowing of anybody who has achieved widespread commercial success in the truest sense of the word. Incidentally, projects such as DJ DangerMouse’s The Grey Album may not have directly earned the authors any commercial capital, but have acted as free advertising for their later careers, thanks to the social and cultural capital they have earned. Ben views the relationship between artist and publisher as being two-way, with neither being taken advantage of, at least in concept. In practice he has concerns and cites the work of Steve Albini as an example. However, he believes a strong internet following grants a musician a large bargaining chip in negotiating a record deal, and that it is advantageous to have an internet following, even if it no more than a means to an ends. One can contend that if an artist doesn’t necessarily wish to achieve the traditional measures of success, and instead tailors their work to a market that wants low output from individual producers, but a high degree of specialisation. This market model is highly suited to participatory means of distribution, being as it follows the Long Tail theory of economics. The relatively small number of people who are looking for this musician’s product are able to find it thanks to various mechanisms in the internet – tagging of related music, online shops – and given it is exactly what they are looking for, will buy it.

Ben sees geographical proximity is a necessary stepping stone, more effective earlier than the internet community, and not as far reaching, particularly in a place like Perth. With this in mind, he also feels a connection with other bands based on nothing more than similar musical style, and hopes they would share this emotion. Clearly he feels a sense of community with these people, based on their common interests, which is commonly accepted to be a trait of people immersed in participatory culture, articulated by Henry Jenkins (among others) – “People who may not ever meet face to face and thus have few real-world connections with each other can tap into the shared framework of popular culture to facilitate communication” (Jenkins, Henry ‘Quentin Tarantino’s Star Wars?: Digital Cinema, Media Convergence, and Participatory Culture’ accessed Sept 2008).

Ben offers an opinion that is somewhat reserved about the potential for fullscale change, and almost suggests that the present system is not going to change, at least not for musicians who hope to appeal to (and be exposed to) a large audience, the scale of which we are familiar with today. As an exploration of themes, I feel the podcast went quite well, with satisfactory answers coming to questions posed both by an interviewer and a listener. From a technical point of view, the sound seems crisp and audible above a faint room noise, with no glaringly obvious pops and crackles. The aimed for feel, of a low-budget bedroom/pirate recording is captured in the narration at the beginning and end. The levels are consistent across the multiple takes, providing a seamless transition from one piece of audio to the next. The experiment of having the music panned hard left seems to work also. All in all, the project I believe is a success.

chrisnben [4:58]

References

Anderson, Chris (2004) ‘The Long Tail’ http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html accessed Sept. 2008.

Boyd, Dana M. and Nicole B. Ellison (2007) ‘Social Network Sites Definition, History and Scholarship’ http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html accessed Sept. 2008.

Albini, Steve (1993) ‘Some of your Friends are Already This Fucked’ http://www.negativland.com/albini.html accessed Sept 2008.

Jenkins, Henry (2003) ‘Quentin Tarantino’s Star Wars?: Digital Cinema, Media Convergence, and Participatory Culture’ http://web.mit.edu/cms/People/henry3/starwars.html accessed Sept 2008.

The music you hear on this recording is written and recorded by Ben Johnston and Chris Ardley, and is used with permission.