The Dystopian Remix Age: Post-Postmodernism?
Last year, I interviewed Max Tannone—the DJ responsible for layering Radiohead with Jay-Z several years ago—about his musical projects and how he came to start “mashing” sounds. The most telling part of the interview was Tannone’s remark that “mash up” was derogatory and that “remix” was a better way to describe what he was doing—even if the stratification was a messy one. Why was this so important?
Remixing has evolved into a process applicable well beyond the borders of music and is propelling the current cultural movements away from postmodernism toward something else. Remix is essentially a tweaked redux to the point where the new entity is simultaneously the sum of all of its parts and yet separate from them—defined and then re-defined. The debate over the legality of remix (and perhaps social acceptability of such) is seen in the patent law debates, instigation of the Creative Commons license, APIs, and the globalization of “sharing,” in general. Who owns what? Can ideas and thoughts be owned? (Take a look a user/privacy policies at Facebook or Google and tell me what you think.) Patent law, copyright, and intellectual property rights are the direct result of postmodern thought: everything is individual.
In this way, the notion that nothing is universal (or community-owned perhaps) and everything is subjective/individual is the acknowledgement of postmodernism. However, in doing so, our acknowledgement of that notion is universal and therefore defeats a “definitive” of postmodernism. It’s also invited a little modernism back into the art world, insofar as people are “remixing” for the sake of novelty. While something new is created, what is new is fashioned together from pieces of diverse origin that are somewhat globally-recognized. One could posit, even, that the remix movement/culture is a reaction to postmodernism.
Add to this dystopianism and its entrance into popular confabulation and the result is a 21st century version of doublethink. (If you don’t know that term or where it came from, please find a copy of George Orwell’s “1984” as soon as possible.)
What I mean when I assert dystopianism are some of the ideas purported by Orwell (and many other authors of the genre)—Big Brother, government/organization ownership, and so on. Technology has allowed us to decrease the gap in understanding how universal, but unique the human experience can be and a great many positive things have come about. On the other hand, given the discussion of who owns thoughts and ideas and how much power or influence an organization (including the government) should have, technology and its many minions is a negative entity…Hence, the doublethink. (And hence the hearkening back to postmodernism with its subjectivity assertions.)
If one considers the ideal world of remix, everything is shared and built upon in an arena of coexistence—everyone is an owner, much in the same way a co-op operates or even communism (on paper) is supposed to work. Even digital journalism has joined the conversation, contributing to the discourse about the importance of crediting your online sources (whether this is important and valid or not is another discussion.) But again, this doesn’t account for human nature, which history shows includes greediness.
So here we are…postmodernism still exists, but viewing it through the lens of the current world complicates things. Yes, ideas and life experience are subjective, but our recognition of this is universal—remix is both an acknowledgement of and reaction to this. Legalese bolsters postmodernism, but clouds the current outlook with very technical yet passive dystopian obstacles—government agencies and large corporations own a hell of a lot of our personal thoughts and anecdotes and whatever else we choose to blather on about. Remix challenges these legalities both literally and culturally.
Is this the direction postmodernism is going? If so, what the hell are we going to call it since it isn’t exactly postmodernism (not that postmodernism dares definition)?
New web app is like Pandora for your tastebuds
I interviewed these guys recently—really interesting web app that’s sure to be a hit with bloggers and foodies alike.
Do not go gentle into that good night
Tonight I found out that a friend of mine from college, a professor still teaching at the school, passed away rather suddenly and abruptly at the age of 59. A great man, former military, who taught kids how to draw. He’d just returned from a trip to Thailand.
This is the second death that I’ve heard about by way of FB in the last three weeks and as the news of his death travels, I am both amazed and grateful for Facebook in way that I haven’t quite accepted yet. It has allowed the hundreds of thousands of us that were his students, his military buddies, his friends, and his family to share in our grief from all over the place. Some of these people I haven’t seen in several years—we keep in touch with the occasional email or the once in a blue moon phone call. In a way, we are able to reach out to one another, have something to touch that Tom “touched” even though it isn’t “physical” per se…
Over the last few years, I have learnt about the passing of several friends by way of the internet—specifically Facebook—and have made much fuss over the inappropriateness of such notification. I suppose my opposition came from the fact that I grew up in a time when such terrible news was passed by way of telephone, letter, and in person. However, as time has passed and the breadth of my social circle has scattered itself across the globe, the quickness with which news spreads online has somehow allowed me to be closer to those who mutually share in loss—no matter where in the world they may be.
I don’t know quite what to say. The shock of it all is so fresh. To share the news is to somehow share with one another a mutual understanding of the loss we all share in the absence of the ones that left us too soon.
The Emerging Epicenters of High Tech Industry
Click here to embiggen
Boo-rah for Colorado & D-Town!
Source: soupsoup
