Context and Definition
When one considers the interconnectedness of the modern era, the concept of “open” cannot be ignored in creative and intellectual endeavors. We live in a world of vast cultural and knowledge exchange that occurs daily across granular and global levels of interaction. It is unfortunate, then, that copyright laws and concepts of intellectual property do not reflect this interconnectedness. While leaders in the open movement encourage creators to consider the 5 R’s of Open (retain, reuse, revise, remix, and redistribute) when licensing creative works, the copyright industry continues to treat these works as property (Jacobs, 2012; Green, 2016). As noted by TEDGlobal Director Kirby Ferguson, although the intent of patent laws is to “promote the progress of useful arts,” they often have the opposite effect by “stifling the root of creativity” (Jacobs, 2012). Beyond the strict regulations put in place by copyright and patent laws, when an individual borrows the ideas of others and meets significant financial success, they may experience loss aversion and a change of perspective (Jacobs, 2012). Consider Steve Jobs who, in the 1980s openly admitted to stealing everything, yet, in a patent dispute with Android, threatened the equivalent of nuclear war (Jacobs, 2012). Pot? Meet Kettle.
Before we continue, it bears merit to take a few moments to define the concepts of “remix” and “mashup.” According to Jessell (2013), remixing is defined as “the act of rearranging, combining, editorializing, and adding to [an original work] to create something entirely new” with the “added benefit of drawing on emotions and associations to enrich a message or point of view.” To remix, then, is to participate in “cultural evolution” wherein a creator practices “meaningful appropriation” by drawing on the patterns, processes, concepts, or characterizations of another to add to the collective body of culture or knowledge through creation and innovation (Murray, 2015). Along similar lines, mashups “[reframe] the original narrative [or content to]…produce a fresh perspective on both the source material and the context in which it first existed” (Murray, 2015). Mashups, then, take advantage of readily available tools on the Internet to “[integrate] complementary elements from two or more sources” and diffuse the product to expanded audiences (Rouse, 2016).
So, what are innovators and creators to do in this world of mashed and mixed messages, creative abundance, and overzealous lawsuits? In “Embrace the Remix,” Ferguson posits that to “remix” is to “copy, transform, and combine;” compellingly, he also defines these three elements as those most basic to creativity (Jacobs, 2012). Embrace that line of logic and the argument makes itself – “everything is a remix” (Jacobs, 2012).
As a connected society that embraces access to our common historical and cultural past, some might argue that increased access has informed this modern concept of creativity. That argument, however, demonstrates a shallow understanding of creative expression in the past. Much as Shakespeare borrowed from his contemporaries, Michelangelo created a mash-up of biblical stories in the Sistene Chapel, and scientists, such as Galileo and Copernicus, built on the discoveries and theories of others, creators of the past borrowed from those who came before by “[building] on, [taking] inspiration from, [appropriating, and transforming]” their work (Jenkins, 2006; Murray, 2015). The past stands as a landscape where “collaboration [was] a boon to creativity” and “creativity came from without, not within…proving [dependence] on each other” (Murray, 2015; Ferguson via Jacobs, 2012).
Although the passage of time is generally marked by progress and positive change in the cultural landscape, in many ways the modern era and the “challenges of [defining] originality and freshness in a world where creativity takes root in what has come before” seem to be a devolution of sorts (Jacobs, 2012). We live in a world where access to information and the free exchange of knowledge thrives, yet members of intellectual and artistic groups cling to outdated notions of ownership and creativity. Given the arguments presented, it is clear that intellectualism and creativity are in a time of reconception and transition. One can only hope that, over time, society will embrace the idea that greatness comes from “being inspired by great things, and combining/transforming them into something entirely new” (Jessell, 2013). This ability to creatively express oneself and transform existing knowledge, ideas, and works seems fundamental to the concept of modern society and, as Lawrence Lessig, co-creator of Creative Commons, notes “no free society should restrict” the “right to [remix as] a critical expression of creative freedom” (Murray, 2015).
Remixing the Mix, Mashing Self
In the process of developing a broad definition of remix and mashup and then applying it to my personal experience, two quotes stood out: Kirby Ferguson’s idea that “art cannot be created or destroyed – only remixed” (Jacobs, 2012) and Cory Doctorow’s notion that those “not making art with the intention of having it copied [are] not really making art for the 21st century” (Murray, 2015).
While I wholeheartedly embrace these concepts from an artistic standpoint, for the purposes of my argument, I posit a remix of each: “knowledge cannot be created or destroyed – only remixed” and those “not creating knowledge with the intention of having it copied [are] not really making knowledge for the 21st century.” Bearing this in mind, then, I further refine my global definitions above as follows:
- Remixing meaningfully appropriates, and properly attributes, the thoughts, concepts, and ideas of others through rearranging, combining, editorializing, and adding to in the process of creating and defining new knowledge for the collective body to freely access and openly use
- Mashups reframe original and integrate complementary knowledge (thoughts, concepts, and ideas) to create a new perspective, freely accessible and open for use, on the body of knowledge and the context in which said knowledge occurs
As a student in the Interdisciplinary Studies PhD program, my research represents both a remix and mashup of my fields. While the Education Department is my official home at the University, my coursework focuses on education, historiography, archives, technology, and design. Each of these fields embraces different paradigms, methodologies, and theorems that come together to form their collective bodies of knowledge. As the researcher, it is my job to find the intersection and identify complementary practices (mashup) within each to create new knowledge (remix).
Knowing that this will be my life for the next four years (Who are we kidding? Likely more.), I wanted to examine how the content with which we interact in our courses complements our prior experience and existing knowledge (mashup) and encourages us to reconsider how we approach and develop new knowledge within our fields of study (remix). The video below represents a brief attempt to do so.
(Post-Note: The title is remixed from a quote accredited to Sir Isaac Newton and Bernard of Chartes, “We stand on the shoulders of giants” (Jessell, 2013)
Citations
Green, C. (2016, December 21). Presentation to UAA. [Presentation notes].
Jacobs, L. (2012, August 10). 14 brilliant quotes on remixing. TED Blog. [Web Log]. Retrieved from http://blog.ted.com/14-brilliant-quotes-on-remixing/
Jenkins, H. (2006, July 13). Learning by remixing. Media Shift. [Web log]. Retrieved from http://mediashift.org/2006/07/learning-by-remixing194/
Jessell, M. (2013, April 30). Remix culture: Rethinking what we call original content. Marketing Land. [Web log]. Retrieved from http://marketingland.com/remix-culture-rethinking-what-we-call-original-content-41791
Murray, B. (2015, March 22). Remixing culture and why the art of the mash-up matters. Tech Crunch. [Web log]. Retrieved from https://techcrunch.com/2015/03/22/from-artistic-to-technological-mash-up/
Rouse, M. (2016, January). Mash-up. What Is. Retrieved from http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/mash-up
”We remix knowledge by mashing what we learn with what we know to create something new.”
Yes! Yes! A thousand times yes! (I thought I’d stand on the shoulder of giants for a moment there.)
I left this comment on Valerie’s Remixes and Mashups post:
While I think there is general agreement on the distinctions between remixes and mashups—as so aptly delineated by your global definitions—I think it’s also the case that in remixing and mashing up the many disparate elements of information that we encounter we are doing exactly what you suggest; we’re constantly remixing mashes and mashing remixes as we interpret and make sense of things, and in doing so we are creating new knowledge for ourselves and, potentially, others. And I probably shouldn’t say that we’re “creating” new knowledge—it’s more accurate to say that knowledge isn’t really created, it evolves from everything that has gone before. We may see relativity as a completely new concept of how the universe works or Kandinsky’s abstractions as a new way of painting, but both are reactions to (or remixes and mashups of) what was already known about physics or art. It’s useful to think about remixes and mashups as distinct activities—which they are on some levels—but it’s also a bit of a heuristic distinction. We’re just doing what we do.
This is a brilliant and thoughtful way to end the semester. The entire experience has been rewarding for me on so many levels, not the least of which is the opportunity to interact with your work. Thanks, and please keep in touch.