http://bfpa.dreamhosters.com/nma2015fall2015/lina/

In this piece, Lev Manovich have an in depth discussion of the principles of new media. He said that these principles are not to be obeyed by all new media, but in one way or another should be of general considerations.

RIP: A Remix Manifesto proves to be a really informative and visually stimulating film. I find the overall quality of the film absolutely pleasing and aesthetically valuable overall. I enjoyed how it’s edited and produced a lot.

Going into the subject of the film, my stand would be on the side of Girl Talk. For me, remixing songs should not be seen as stealing other people’s work or properties. I believe that since nothing is original anymore, music should be easily accessible and less dramatized legally. For me, as long as credits are given to the original composers, singers, or producers of a piece, one should be able to freely express his or her own take on such piece or should be able to use the piece for a bigger project combined with other pieces. I agree with the film when it tackled the issue of copyright infringement as against freedom of speech. Technically, altered versions of songs have different aspects and elements so they should be considered new products. They should not be seen as “rip-offs” or “copycat” versions of the “original” pieces used. Again, they should be perceived as another person’s own creative versions and works.

I find it ridiculous how one corporation owns rights to a “public commodity” song. I believe that the law should be like when companies’ names become public lingo for usage, like “google”, the company should rename or rebrand. In music, I believe that when a song like Happy Birthday is globally used and translated, the song should be free for the public and not restricted by a bigger entity. Additionally, I find it ludicrous that “private” musical pieces can’t be used in films and likes unless used to give a point. What if a filmmakers point is just to up a films audio quality? Are as entertainment and as emotion stimulant not good enough points? I know if were a producer or a composer, I would be extremely happy to allow filmmakers, known or indie, to use my pieces. As long as, again, I get credited at the end and get asked permission before getting published or posted.

Artists and corporations would argue that it’s like stealing paintings or pirating movies, and they have a big point. The thing is music is a different form of art. Music is a more flexible and “easy” form of art. Laws and regulations should level to music’s accessibility and flexibility. The challenge is to find a middle ground where artists and remixers can both be happy to collaborate and use each others’ works conveniently and without crazy restrictions.

https://soundcloud.com/cenjay/quickly-shady-lol-ew

The reading, Seeing The Brick, made me realize and appreciate how creative and inventive human kind is. I always find it interesting knowing about how things of the present came to life and the innovative developments that took place and that keep taking place to support their presence. In this case, I enjoyed learning about the history of animation – the different meanings of “animation” to different parties, the early forms of animations, the first methods of producing animations, and the important people behind the industry. I didn’t expect animation to have such deep roots because it still seems modern to me at this point of time. It has quite a deceiving facade as one would think that it’s just a 21st century innovation because of today’s modern technology for animation. I can only imagine what other developments may happen in the future. Are we going to be using robots instead of using computer softwares? Are we going to see a new and cheaper means to make animation a faster process? Will it still be called animation in the future? What will Disney’s next big thing?

It’s really so striking and inspiring to me how what once was just a dream is now a big reality:

“There will be a time when people will gaze at [paintings] and ask why the objects remain rigid and stiff. They will demand action. And to meet this demand the artists of that time will look to the motion picture for help and the artist, working hand in handwith science, will evolve a new school of art that will revolutionise the entire field.” (Quoted in O’Sullivan, 1990:26)

I enjoyed reading this article, Digital Technologies as Tools, as it talks about production of art using digital means and the aesthetic impact they create. It was just a little overwhelming at times when artistic jargons and names are used. I had to look up people and terminologies every now and then through out reading this piece.

One of the artists that struck me the most is Nancy Burson. I really admire her initiative in the development of morphing technology which is now used by law enforcement officials to locate missing people. I think it is the best example of art put to good use and not just for visual pleasure. Artists nowadays just produce art for their viewers’ and their own gratification. Modern art now for me is just about being unique, finding a different medium and specializing in it, and just for entertainment. What Nancy Burson serendipitously done should be an example to all artists. Art should be purposive and can help societies towards progression.

On Nancy Burson’s website, I learned that she also has a Human Race Machine. It is so interesting to me because I initially thought it is pointless to see myself in another race until I realized how effective it would be to help people be more culturally aware and be positive about diversity. This work of hers only proves how obsessed she is with faces as her artistic theme. Even the article, Digital Technologies as Tools, pointed out that her work “consistently addressed notions of beauty as defined by society and culture.”

I liked how she creatively plays around with faces for different reasons and come up with a simple but purposive tools to drive innovation and social welfare in the world.