Response to "On Media" -- Harris

In this article, ON*****Media, the writer give us a general idea of what is the "Post Media", which he believe is the "current climate of the arts", and "there is only dynamic iterations of form". The iteration of form somehow lead me to think of the how advance in technology like video, video editing software, has change the media.  the iteration of form, the repetition, the copying and remixing of an art piece is what illustrate the "current climate of the arts".

In the series of video " Everything is remix" pretty much summarize in a world where all media is being mass produced at an impossibly fast rate, it seems destined that anything "original" will end up copying some existing piece of work, even if that is unintentional (i.e., the moment in "Everything is a Remix" featuring George Harrison's 'subconscious' copying of an early Motown tune.) Even when unintentional, many artists display copying, no matter how minute it may be. This copying may not manifest itself so obviously as George Lucas' shot-for-shot matching of Kurosawa in "Star Wars," but may instead take shape in terms of form and style. I am not entirely convinced by "Everything is a Remix," of the fact that we all stand much to gain from copying.

Hollywood has created a formula for all movies, and the entire art of film has been com-modified and standardized. We all crave this universal movie formula, and the culture industry understands it can make money off of that formula by reusing it again and again. Our cultural experience is thus com-modified, and, subliminal or not, all artists are susceptible to this standardization of culture. This makes it impossible to create anything that is truly "new" or even "art" for that matter, since (at least according to A & H) art should be art for its own sake and not have any monetary value.

While this seems a bit extreme, I think there is some validity to it. "Everything is a Remix" even references this point during part two, when it points out the fact that 74 out of 100 blockbusters from the past year have been remakes of or sequels to existing films. "Transforming the old into the new is Hollywood's greatest talent," claims the narrator. He goes on to explain that the remaining "original" blockbusters were all genre movies which "stick to pretty standard templates." (key word there, STANDARD). The narrator seems to be ragging on Hollywood here for its incessant use of copying which, of course, serves the main purpose of giving audiences what they want. Hollywood has determined that what audiences want (or, at least, what they think they want) is what they're USED to. The narrator says that directly at some point in the video, but I couldn't find the actual quote.

This is the one hiccup that I personally find with the video's argument. He' all in favor of copying, but here he seems to be ragging on Hollywood for doing just that. He even admits that indie art films, the holiest films of the film world, are susceptible to standardized formulas, thus making them nothing more than elaborate money-making schemes. Given this, it would seem that not all copying is good, especially copying that is used to take advantage of the public, but he never seems to make that admission.

Just like any other creative person, I see the nuisance of copy and patent trolls and wish they would all got discard. I think copying and building off the work of others is the best way we can enhance ourselves artistically and scientifically. It just seems like there's a pretty big gap between what should be considered "good" and "bad" copying that goes unexplained.