To build upon the idea of “open” work, “open source” seems to be a very relevant issue in the history of human beings. The simple idea that rules here is the fact that without free culture and the relative openess of works, ideas, programs, there becomes room for stagnation and control. Those whose view free culture as a positive attribute to society value innovation and creativity which to me, is the building block of life. Comparing the natural sciences and their emphasis on evolution, there is no controling mechanism that inhibits the ability of life forms to evolve, to progress, to change. Withing the structure of open work, we see how people may build upon the past by changing the past, by changing the face of works, by adding and substracting ingredients into the melting pot of creation. The main advantage is the progressive attitude which shows how creativity shall persist in the most effective way if it is shared, and promotes social well-being.
I believe that the digital networking systems put pressure on the rights of individual expression and also social control. How can you cite sources for intellectual property? And if you could in material concerns, where does justification come from it the digital arena? Maybe our hardware has become a police state as Lessig points out in his final speech, where any push of a key, every moment of the mouse corresponds to a system of survellance. There is an automatic almost robotic form of control when digital processes are involved. It becomes a matter of having legislation in cyber space, where the parameters of property and the rights given to a work become an infinite search. The human imagination must not become victim to the digitally enhanced system of control. Our right to use public information as a tool for our own intellectual nourishment is as natural as a flower reacting to climatic changes. With control of our very right to manipulate this information to the benefit our ourselves and society, we lose our freedom to live.
I think protection of the artist’s original work is valid, yet conceptually, the artist has no right to own the viewer’s interpretation of its meaning. Clearly, the labor put behind a work calls for a certain level of valuation, but with that said, how can one define the artists creative output as a right to be controled, measured, marketable, authentic? When a piece of art enters the collecive consciousness, it is owned by everyone. If you think about the inspiration, the reference points by which an “original” work derived from, you can see that it becomes the artist infringing upon the public domain in the first place. As an artist responds to the world around him or her, in physical or cyber space, “the work offers convergence of concepts, life views, attitudes, and a wide variety of different ways of being understood(Eco).” The reciprocal nature of creativity allows for a contant flow of info to be passed onward in a state of “perpetual transformation” as in the Baroque Poetics that Eco explains.
As a body of work, the Coca-Cola campaign “The Coke Side of Life”, demonstrates a valuable remix of styles, cultural views, and symbols.
http://coke-art.blogspot.com/2007/10/pixecute.html
All the work in the Coke Side of Life Remix Gallery promotes the artistic and creative approaches to one common idea, “explosions of Happiness” or “positivity”. From this commercial product comes a remix of sources where the symbolism and meaning takes on geographical and cultural phenomena. There is a good and bad side to this expression though. For one thing, the innovation comes from a network of creative minds working together on opening the minds of people around the world to the diversity of perspective, the various ways of approaching “happiness”, then there is the flip side. The fact of the matter is that Coke is using this form of remix to sell a product where creativity is not the focal point but an after-effect. One sees the coke brand, then the ways of re-creating its marketability to the masses. The scary part is how much influence this company has on the world wide market. How does this powerful position affect the public domain’s approach to creativity? Are you to imagine ways of marketing a system of commercial prowess, or to connect to other ways of perceiving imagery and culture?
An example of my personal use of remix, in general terms of culture, can be seen here.
