Ft. Homie the Homer as Rapunzel 

In The Language of New Media, Ch. 1, Lev Manovich speaks about the 5 principles of New Media. These principles are the following:

• Numerical Representation – think of Mathematics. As said in the text, “an image or a shape can be described using a mathematical function” (p.27). Numbers dictate and through the use of algorithms new “media becomes programmable” (p.27).
• Modularity – refers to the fact that new media objects are made up of independent modules that are made of smaller modules. “Media elements, be they images, sounds, shapes, or behaviors, are represented as collections of discrete samples (pixels, polygons, voxels, characters, scripts)” (p.30).
• Automation – looking at it from a very basic level, this is where the numbers (Numerical Representation) and Modularity (the pieces within the pieces) come together. The fact that New Media is programmable and made up of smaller pieces makes it easy for one to manipulate and create automatically. And that’s all that automation is really – the ease with which one can manipulate, and how automatic creating becomes.
• Variability – the definition for this principle is in the name (but all are, to a certain extend). This principle simply states that New Media objects exist in multiple versions. The nature of New Media simply allows for an infinite number of possibilities to be possible within one object/work.
• Transcoding – And lastly, this principle basically has to do with how we, Humans, respond. Once the New Media, the data, is presented to us what do we make of it? How does it affect us? Transcoding is how we represent and understand the logic which is influenced by the computer.

Yes, the MASSAGE.

I found it quite interesting how on page 26 of the reading it is stated that, “all media are extensions of some human faculty – psychic or physical.” This part of the reading goes on further to state that the wheel is an extension of the foot, the book an extension of the eye, and the electric circuitry and extension of the central nervous system. I believe this to be true, to a certain extend of course, but I believe it. The things that we interact with, media in this case, further our reach. They may help us touch more, without the need to literally touch.

Another part of the reading that caught my attention was that found on page 8, which states that “societies have always been shaped more by the nature of the media by which men communicate than by the content of the communication.” Now, I agree with this, but at the same time have some difficulty with it. For while I know it isn’t putting down the importance of content, at a very basic level the message that it conveys is that the way it is said is more important than what is said. My issue with this is that it may very well be that one has a message that can profoundly impact the world, but if the right communication method isn’t available societies won’t be shaped as much as it could’ve. This worries me when it comes to societies which may not have access to a lot of the tools/technologies that many Americans (for example) may take for granted.

Lastly, since this is already MEGA late and I had watched the RiP!: A Remix Manifesto Documentary Film before arriving here I would like to say that a part of the passage instantly brought me back to the film. The part states as follows, “our time is a time for crossing barriers, for erasing old categories – for probing around. When two seemingly disparate elements are imaginatively poised, put in apposition in new and unique ways, startling discoveries often result” (p.10). It made me think of a Remixer’s Manifesto and how we need to limit the control of the past.

Reading this article made me think of career choices…It made me think of why I’ve been so stagnant, and why making a decision as to what exactly I want to be has been such the dilemma for my person. I grew up wanting to be a scientist – the crazy dream: an astronaut. That dream, however, for a number of reasons (that I would rather not elaborate on) seemed further and further away from me around the time that I always figured it would seem closer (based on steps: where are you studying, what are you studying, where are you working, etc..)…I started to fall in love, but I had always been in love with life and the beauty that is found in even the biggest of messes.

I fooled myself into believing that I could make art, fooled myself and when I arrived as an official fool with a self-tailored degree in Dramatic Writing, Film and Social Change I still kept running. I kept on running away from myself, I had been running for quite some time, I kept running for quite some more. I ran because I felt that I could not marry my two loves, like this world needed so much specialization that if I didn’t want to be mediocre I had to completely turn to Science or completely turn to Art. But reading about digital technologies as tools reminded me that I live in the future, and in the past there were even more limitations (in a sense) and many people still managed to marry the two (Art & Science).

Andreas Müller-Pohle’s Blind Genes (2002), which is mentioned in the Digital Technologies as a Tool reading, is art and science. Müller-Pohle “searched a genetic database on the Internet for the keyword ‘blindness’”(p.51), used what he found on the data available and made art.  “The DNA bases CGAT (Cytosine, Guanine, Adenine, Thymine) were then positioned in blocks of ten, translated into Braille and coloured – A: yellow, G: blue, C:red, T:green…Through a process of data translation, the genetic, organic ‘code’ for blindness manifests itself as Braille, the code and sign system that establishes an ‘interface’ with the seeing world” (p.51). His work is an example that the two can be married, the reading is an example that they are married quite often – although, perhaps not in notable amounts.

ON SEEING THE BRICK:

The author of this articles believes “that animation as a film language and film art is a more sophisticated and flexible medium than live-action film, and thus offers a greater opportunity for film-makers to be more imaginative and less conservative” (p.6).  Shortly after this statement the author quotes the animator Alexandre Alexeieff, who states that, “contrary to live-action cinema, Animation draws the elements of its future works from a raw material made exclusively of human ideas, those ideas that different animators have about things, living beings and their forms, movements and meanings. They represent these ideas through images they make with their own hands. In the casual concatenation of their images – a concatenation they conceive themselves – nothing can be left to chance. For this reason, creation requires an exceedingly long time which is out of proportion to live-action cinema. But the repertoire of human ideas is inexhaustible” (p.7).  And while I understand the view where this information is coming from, I am not completely sold on the idea.

The world that we live in is surrounded by human ideas, the chair I am sitting on right now is a human idea. It may not be MY idea, but how I decide to use it, where I decide to place it, etc., in a live-action film will certainly have some effect. Manipulating the world around one to share a vision via a live-action film can be very imaginative and quite provocative. I believe that placing Animation vs. Live-action film (cinema) to say which is more undisguised can prove to be a mistake, for they are different ways in which to express what the mind makes of all this called Life. I have watched many films that left me wanting to become an actress because of how real it was, because of how it speaks. The person(s) controlling the live-action film also have to take the time to create what they want their product to convey. The big difference here is the process which the two undergo, but I don’t believe that such should be the reason to say which is more imaginative. They each have their limitations, and when grading for creativity this shouldn’t be overlooked.

I would like to start this post by saying, Thank you!

Thank you because I now want to learn more about Girl Talk, Lawrence Lessig, copyright laws, and funk music in Rio. I like when films or art in general introduces a specific idea but gets at the bigger picture, which may seem like the obvious thing art should do but not all art does that.

To quote the narrator of the Rip: A Remix Manifesto film, “this is not a world made up of passive consumers anymore, that era is over. This is a world made of collaborators.” And as collaborators the future dictates that we should unite, combine, extract (from the old) and revive (the new). Girl Talk represents a very interesting character, for on one hand he may appear to be this crazy kid who puts music together and jams. An artist (to me) or phony [to some], who makes Mashups of songs using a computer as an instrument. But on the other hand, he’s a scientist – a Biomedical Engineer, to be exact. I completely agree and love the part in the film in which he speaks about his work as a scientist in comparison to his work as an artist. Girl Talk explains how even very broad ideas are patented, and how if one has an idea which may be better but far too similar to something that was previously presented the idea won’t gather any attention. Now, this is quite unfortunate if you ask me, because in the world of Science – in the world we live in – a small modification/alteration could save or destroy. Girl Talk and I are on the same page about how the world of Science would be far more developed if things were done in a much more open way. We need to quit just talking and exiting, we need to talk and sit down. We need to talk and listen, we need to talk and exchange.

The real issue here is greed (the thirst for power). I found quite humorous and crazy how the Disney Corporation had an issue with the Very Important Babies Daycare Center in Florida, all because of some Disney characters on the walls. How ridiculous can a corporation get? Apparently, as far as saying that such actions violate copyright laws because it may give the impression that Disney is affiliated with the center in some manner. But all of this occurs after Walt, after the Master Sampler himself is gone, which brings me to:

“A Remixer’s Manifesto

• Culture always builds on the past
• The past always tries to control the future
• Our future is becoming less free
• To build free societies you must limit the control of the past”

The real problem here, once again, is greed (those established powers don’t want to make way for the new). And it is this ‘greed’ that limits us as a whole. Because in reality the copyright laws have lost track of what they were set up for and have gone down a road in which the main motive is to make a profit, not protect.