2. it occured to me after re-reading all of this and teaching in an effort to procrastinate a class on org communication, that much of innovation is actually about reuse of ideas. In fact, in a BBC video about IDEO, director of IDEO pretty much states approximately the following: “good design is inspired stealing of ideas implemented in any number of domains” – if the very base of our creativity often comes from this “inspired stealing”, then over-regulation of this process may, in fact, be detrimental to not only iterative innovation but radical innovation as well.

As these bottom-up archives become more robust and easier to search, particularly if they are accompanied by commenting and link counts and other mechanisms for building authority, they may find enough willing creators and “remixers” to be self-sustaining. I doubt these homegrown archives will replace mainstream distribution completely, but the hegemony that now constrains the inventory will find itself eroded and our options as both creators and consumers has the potential to open up in ways we probably can’t even envision at this point.

I am cautiously hopeful for the first time in a while.

Irina – great food for thought!

Kevin B – i really like the thought of clothing and accessorization as remix. Oooooh….. Oooh!!!

Joe – but it’s not just about knowing what they can and cannot do. It’s about having the freedom to produce for fun and culture and to share with friends.

Kevin S – i do believe in IP, but not the all-encompassing version that we’re currently aiming for. If you privitize everything, it grinds creativity to a halt. Creativity and innovation are fundamentally about making connections between different ideas and building something new with them. No one innovates by sitting in isolation.

Kenton – i totally totally disagree. We copy constantly. You learned to speak by copying what you’ve been taught. Creativity, imagination… this is all about repurposing what you see and mixing it with something new.

And, of course, people generally ascribe their own meanings to mass cultural products, rather than interpreting them identically, whether it’s the newest Faint song or the latest Tim Burton movie. It’s what we were discussing the other day, glocalization….

Re: communication, though — even before new media, people have relied on all kinds of cultural signifiers to communicate identity. Fashion comes to mind pretty quickly. We’ve just quickly adapted new media to serve that purpose, from usernames and avatars to .sig files and emoticons.

I suspect that Adorno would caution, though, that the problem with mass culture still lies with its mass producers, who still retain power through their control over production. Do we want to use the language of mass media, even if we’re appropriating it, or do we want to create our own, uncopyrighted language instead? Of course, it’s a moot question when tackling corporate interests regarding copyright law — but I suppose the alternate approach is to reject relying so heavily on canned references as signifiers, and instead producing our own.

Many of extremely popular media icons, at least in music, performance and art, are, indeed, brilliant artists, capable of producing brilliant art that happens to be appealing on many levels, one of which is mainstream. They question current culture, push current culture, and, in some ways define and reflect it. They also work as boundary-crossing unifying points. The bring people together in ways that are quite unique and very important. Maybe CC/EFF shouldn’t go after the mainstream artists. Instead, maybe CC/EFF need to support artists that start out with the CC/EFF model and have the potential to become cultural icons and thus gain power to perpetuate that model as viable. That would be an important step in the debate.

By the way, on the topic of Britny or Christina not being great artists, check out Christina on one of the tracks off the latest Herbie Hancock album. You may be surprised.

So copyright is “an incentive to creators to create in the first place” — well, how silly is that, when you think about it? Humans don’t need “incentive” to create — we are creative by nature. What copyright gives the “incentive” to do is make money. And that’s the heart of the debate — the imaginary line is drawn so that legal and business weenies can decide who gets to profit from natural human creativity. The twisted logic of capitalism has effectively inverted the natural order — to suggest that the artificial structure of monetary incentive is needed to produce the natural incentive to create is exactly the kind of doublethink that permeates capitalist culture.

I agree with you that the CC is not creating culture “in the same way” that mass media products are — and I think that’s precisely what makes it so valuable. Mass media products embody the ugliness of fame and cultural icons because media sold to the largest possible mass of the masses makes the most cash. But it’s not a healthy relationship, nor is it natural. Mass media products are about the cult of personality, not because media produced by Christina and Britney is great art by great artists (lord knows…), but because media produced by Christina and Britney sells a shitload of copies. The only reason we can even speak about art that is “mainstream” is because MSM’s business model has been holding sway for many decades — it is only very recently that the tools of production have become cheap enough for the once-passive masses to become actors in cultural production and distribution. The proliferation of things like the ringtone mashups reveals that what the once-passive masses are discovering is precisely the natural joy of creation. It’s more fun, and more emotionally/spiritually satisfying, to make your own stuff (and share it with your friends) than simply passively consume culture that is handed down. The RIAA knows only how to make a business model out of the latter — but they’d better figure out right quick how to make a business model out of the former if they wish to retain any semblance of relevancy in the future. CC art embodies the natural joy of creation and sharing far more than it embodies any sort of business model. I think it would be a shame if CC/EFF focused on the output of mainstream artists whatsoever — who cares about the mainstream artists? That’s the point. In the same way that blog world has subverted MSM not by replacing it, but by creating an alternative model in which the A-list doesn’t *have* to matter — cultural transmissions can have their value in their local domains without achieving some kind of global recognition — CC art is creating a parallel world in which actual, reachable individuals (as opposed to icons) are creating and sharing art and finding cultural currency in their local domains, with some of that art reaching wider audiences because of its appeal and its quality moreso than any predetermined structure of fame iconography. Indie doesn’t have to become pop (though it *is* getting heavily co-opted by labels right now), and the discussion doesn’t have to be a competition that CC/EFF needs to win. However, CC/EFF embodies an aesthetic of human naturalness that the RIAA would do well to clue into if they want to figure out how to minimize the revenue loss they are experiencing as more people lose interest in passively observing (and consuming) icons.

the amount of new content – as well as the people creating it has swarmed skyward – i am dissappointed that most of the creation seems to be copying someones copy.

why are so many re-makes being mixed or filmed? with the ease of access to tools – one would think the time would be for amazing new trends.

how long before the herd of people copying people leads to everything seeming homoginized? (which is what my eyes seem to see – my brain says, “you have to be kidding me? this is the best we can do?”