[Fwd: animal charm]

hey-

I have been blogging at mediatrips.com for a few months now and recently
received the below email. I found it to be an interesting critique and
I thought some of my fellow rhizomers may enjoy it. I will post my
reply shortly.

david goldschmidt]
www.mediatrips.com


——– Original Message ——–
Subject: animal charm
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:40:52 -0800
From: Jim Fetterley <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]



David-

I have been following mediatrips since I believe it's inception in Oct
04. Thanks! I am one half of the media cannibal crew, Animal Charm. We
have been jamming since 1996 when we made our first videos in direct
response to Craig Baldwin's Sonic Outlaws and the Critical Art Ensemble's
book, Electronic Disturbance. Since then, we have performed
internationally from private parties to film festivals and museums- with
the main agenda of using copyright infringement as a source of
entertainment that informs an open discussion around these timely issues,
while actively seeking out a dialog with like minded individuals. Please
check out our purposefully anachronistically confused web spot,
www.animalcharm.com

In addition to some projects I had never heard of like the ten by ten web
site, what interests me most about mediatrips are some of the statements
made in the *about* section in relation to some of the cultural producers
you have chosen to highlight in "a guide to artists and producers who
(sample) (remix) (mash) popculture content to create something new and
original." I completely agree that a new media literacy is needed to
navigate the volatile legal realms the info age has brought, although I
find that framing "media mashing" as the NEW literacy, or NEW criticism
can be counterproductive, even irrelevant, or antithetical to the larger
cause a site like mediatrips is fighting. With a definition like that, one
may wonder why Quentin Tarantino or the creators of that newer Starsky and
Hutch film are not represented here- just kidding, but in a way that is
where we are historically. If a corporation would like to pay for the fees
of culture jamming, they easily can to create a new legality out of the
recombined corner they have painted the consumer into. Likewise- in the
extreme, al Queda can be viewed as a culture jamming force. The times are
dangerous and definitions can often be inadequate to lay out a framework
for what mediatrips is dangerously representing. Media representation is
what we're talking about here in this particular context of literacy, and
there are traps to fall into that mimic the very systems meditrips seems to
deconstructing. The strength of a non centralized network of data,
whether it be a single byte or a whole burgeoning movement, is that it
cannot be fully documented, or pinned down to any singular user or singular
cause- even the concept of multiplicity is rendered useless when speaking
from the *ether*.The intent of mediatrips to casually represent these
moments in a blog form has made me rethink some of the language and
definition problems that arise in creating an expository collage like
mediatrips. It makes me think that it is not the radical content of these
cultural practices that is most threatening, but rather the formal
presentation and distribution models that seem to be putting current
outdated market forces on their heads.

Your reference to "Popculture content"seems to exclude those cultural
producers whose recombinant sources are born out of data mining what falls
out of the vague definition of "any audio, video, image or text produced
by the world's major media and entertainment corporations." For example,
in the case of Steve Kurtz, the recombinant materials he had obtained were
the lab equipment and two strains of harmless bacterial material-one of
which is used in high-school biology classes. And the idea CAE lies out in
their book, The Molecular Invasion, of fuzzy sabotage, also falls out of
this definition of media mashing. Not that I am criticizing you, but in
my own head I want to have a clear idea of what the connection is both
metaphorically and politically, and why he was singled out as an example of
what the consequences of his collaborative contemporary art practices could
be in the new Patriot Act USA. It is obvious with CAE's work from the
past, why you would include it, but since I first heard this story, I
always wondered if the exhibit would have been shut down if they were able
to install it had his wife not passed away that evening, or if he had not
called 911. The real threat to the 1989 bioterrorism law, and the Patriot
Act, and to the FBIs concept of security, had nothing to do with the
literal content in his studio, but rather the metaphorical content in CAEs
writings. That is a very subjective opinion on my part and this case is an
exception because it is chocked full of unusual circumstances, but what are
the connections to copyright infringement other than prior writings by CAE
that must have struck a chord with the original Terror Task force that
found the *hazardous* materials, as well as, the prosecutors who kept at
the case. Maybe it was not the SOURCE of the content being provided in
CAEs writings, but the OPEN form of what that writing can logically be
concluded to any number of audience interpretations/actions. OPEN OPEN
vs. OPEN SOURCE and Charlie Manson come to mind- if that makes any sense.

If I had a blog, I would remix www.mediatrips.com with a formal device that
strategically places my prior concerns into the subtext for the audience to
come to their own content to create something new and original. Who knows,
maybe I'll just cc this to the animalcharm email list to see what
discussions come of it. Thanks again, and good work. Had I not blabbed so
long, I would contest that sampling popculture IS a crime, and that it IS
an act of civil disobedience- under the current legality of the
distribution models where capital is exchanged for cultural product. I
will have to write another email to go in to those feelings.

Jim