(Source: IDC List)

Thu Apr 13 19:13:28 EDT 2006

A Conversation between Manovich and Lichty
LM: We live in ‘remix’ culture. Are there limits to remixing? Can
anything be remixed with anything? Shall there be an ethics of remixing?

PL: Actually, I don’t think we live in a ‘remix’ culture, I liken it
more to pastiche or collage, or even object-oriented culture. To remix
is to take cultural elements and transform/repurpose them tot he point
where the source referent is obscured, idsappears, or its signifying
power is backgrounded to the point where the new ‘author’s intent
overrides. This is actually tightly linked to issues of intellectual
control/copyright…

In an object-oriented culture, the artist is more like a
bricoleur/collage artist where elements of culutral and content and
contextual ‘code’ are combbined and thend compiled for transmission
throughout that culture. The material is then, ideally, available in
the cultural databes, with the new components added by the artist, to be
upgraded/reassembled/recompiled..

Therefore, I have few or no problems with an ethics of the remix as
such, as the singularityof the artist as such as singular entitiy in
light of a distributed, networked culture, is circumspect.

LM: In the last few years information visualization became increasingly
popular and it attracted the energy of some of the most talented new
media artists and designers. Will it ever become as widely used as type
or photography – or will it always remain a tool used by professionals?

PL: Actually, in the hands of the VJ, there are alrready real-time data
visualization tools ready and in use through inexpensive packages,
freeware, & open source. I also understand that many VJ packages are
severly limited, but others have excellent potential for low-cost data
visualization.

In addition, programs like VVVV, PD, Onadime, Keyworx, and even fairly
accessible programming environments like Blitz3d, Java, Programming, and
Python can allow users to c reat data visualizatin environments (2-or
3D) _fairly easily_ and at low cost.

LM: Today cinema and literature continue the modern project or rendering
human psychology and subjectivity, while fine art seems to be not too
concerned with this project. How can we use new media to represent
contemporary subjectivity in new ways? Do we need to do it?

PL: This really depends on what we mean by being subjective. Some of
the award-winning fine media art seems to be very much about conveying a
human moment/experience. David Crawford’s SMS contains a great deal of
frozen pathos in the way his programs access his stop-motion experices.
Barney’s Cremaster does not seem to be wholly formal, either. But I do
agree that a lot of fine art does lack a subjective component at this
time, and I consider this part of the era. This will come and go.

LM: ‘Blobs’ in architecture and design – is this a new ‘international
style’ of software society, here to stay, – or only a particular effect
of architects and designers starting to use software?

PL: Probably towards the latter. Adoption of new technologies often
spurs practitioners to explore their new potentials, and this becomes
evident. My belief is that after a certain point in time that the
‘styles’ of the blob and other architectural forms will see some sense
of integration.

LM: While the tools to produce one own media have been more accessible
and more powerful, people never consumed more commercial media than now.
Thus the essential division between ‘media amateurs’ and ‘media
professionals’ which got established in the beginning seems to be as
strong as ever. In short, the 1960s idea that new technologies will turn
consumers into producers failed over and over again. Will this situation
ever change? What will be the next stage in media consumption after MP3
players, DVD recorders, CD burners, etc, etc, etc.?

PL: The producer/consumer model really depends on the modes of
production and consumption being examined. If we look at Antin’s model
of video vs. television (grass roots/distribution vs. institutional
transmission), I would say probably not, although the model might be
changing. To consider this question, I think that one has to reevaluate
the models of the producer and the consumer. Production is not merely
about making the product; it is also about having the promotional and
distribution methods/infrastructures to transmit the message-unit and
get it seen/consumed.

Can we say that the consumer will somehow get access to mass-market
distribution channels mainly because they can make mass-market format
media? Mostly not, for obvious reasons. However, can distributed media
transmission models like Video IPods redefine transmission and
distribution models? I don’t know – maybe.

To ask which medium will arise next is difficult, and seems more of
interest to marketers/manufacturers than consumers and grass-roots
producers.

I think we can look at criteria for such a medium. There will have to
be mass market saturation of technology. This is evident in terms of CD
players, DVDs, VCR, IPOD, and so on. In short, there has to be a format
and a platform that there can be a one-to-many model. For the
grass-roots, there has to be some ease of use and ability to
effortlessly get basic elements of high quality. Media artisanry is more
of a cultural than a technical issue, and is beyond the scope of the
question.

Lastly, and probably the most compelling, is the argument that there has
to be content worth looking at, and making people aware of it. In an
era in which there is exponential growth in media production, it’s
increasingly difficult to get media in front of eyes, so one has to be
increasingly savvy. That might be the reason for tactical media, but
that’s another topic.

Thanks for the questions.
Patrick