David Goldschmidt
Since the beginning
Works in San Francisco, California United States of America

Discussions (151) Opportunities (3) Events (0) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Speechless (or Sublime)


Speechless (or Sublime)" is a kind of video essay (about 4 minutes
long) mashed by me. Its a large file and will probably take 5 to 10
minutes to download (sorry).

Here is the url
http://www.mediatrips.com/mash/speechless-or-sublime.mpg

david goldschmidt
david@mediatrips.com

DISCUSSION

$100 to EFF


I would love to absolutely prove that NEVER in the history of the United
States has anyone ever been criminally charged for mashing copyrighted
content.

I'm doing this becasue I want to try and counter some of the FUD effects
that the MPAA, RIAA, and others have caused around this issue.

There is more info at my blog www.mediatrips.com

best,

david goldschmidt

DISCUSSION

Re: animal charm


Hi Jim-

Thanks for all the great feedback. I checked your site and respect your
old-school credentials. Good stuff. What new projects are you working
on? Would you and/or Rich be interested in helping out as a guest
blogger? Let me know and I'll send you the guidelines for posting.

I think I understand your concerns about how I chose to position "Media
trips". I see it like this. I am a "fair use" activist. My primary
goal is to let people know about their RIGHTS. And, in no uncertain
terms, you have the right to rip and remix copyrighted content. There
are restrictions but the RIGHTS are there. And remember, criminal
"copyright infringement" charges against mashers is quite rare.

See:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html

Jim Fetterley wrote:

> 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.

When I read statements like this I often think of documentary filmmaker
and author Michael Rabiger. He writes of mediated truth, "Only the
audience and the audience's knowledge of life can determine if a film is
'truthful'."

> 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.

I chose simple or "casual" language becasue I want to take some of the
"activist" mentality out of media-mashing. In some ways, I want to
relax the issue ... to encourage people to remix as a means of personal
expression and not as an act of civil disobedience. I encourage
personal creativity not political activism.

>
> 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."

I chose language like "popculture content" for its simplicity. I'm
trying to show that media-mashing is both legal and relatively easy.

>
> Who knows, maybe I'll just cc this to the animalcharm email list to
> see what discussions come of it.

Yes, please do. I will do the same on my lists. And feel free to post
my reply.

david goldschmidt
san francisco
www.mediatrips.com
david@mediatrips.com

DISCUSSION

[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 <Jim.Fetterley@calarts.edu>
To: david@mediatrips.com
CC: rich@animalcharm.com

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

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Re: Quotation (was: why so little discussion?)


i love this quote ... it's my new favorite. "appropriation as talisman
against personal assimilation"

In my opinion, remixers can create new and original aesthetics (just
like other artists) but there may be an inherent distaste for mashed-art
because the process (of remixing) reveals, in a patently obvious way,
just how repetitive humans are -- dare i say replicant/borg.

thanks for the great quote curt

best,

david goldschmidt
www.mediatrips.com

curt cloninger wrote:

>I am always looking for this kind of maturation -- the self-reflexive, self-conscious, uber-media-aware gradually being replaced by simply interesting art about existence. A good example to me is DJ Spooky's music vs. DJ Spooky's theory. The music is so rich and fascinating and autobiographical and essential. It's an urban lifestyle strategy/celebration -- appropriation as talisman against personal assimilation (an intuitive solution to Bunting's proposed dilema -- "own, be owned, or remain invisible"). But DJ Spooky's theoretical prose is like watching the paint dry. The fact that he is able to map mix culture backwards to 20th Century French philosophy is interesting I guess, and it may evangelize some Lev Manovich types to frequent the occasional late night electronica fest, but it's almost like reading a novelization of a film. I'd rather just listen to the mix.
>
>Marisa asks, " Does the medium make any difference [vis appropriation]"? In terms of ease of artistic production, definitely -- digital media + global networks = ease of remix.
>
>Pre-net/google, I doubt I would have ever explored something like this:
>http://computerfinearts.com/collection/cloninger/bubblegum/picture/
>
>But, like Michael, I'm not entirely convinced that "remixity" ["quotations intended"] is uniquely intrinsic or inherent to the underlying ethos of all digital art (although maybe it is, and there are sure plenty of people trumpeting the fact that it definitely is). Maybe remixity is just the most immediately obvious thing to do with digital media, and so we see a lot of it simply because the novelty hasn't worn off yet. One way or the other, it's safe to assert that digital art makes remixity and appropriation feasibly/logistically easier from a production standpoint.
>
>_
>
>michael wrote:
>
>I'm always faintly taken aback when I read assertions
>like this.
><It seems that 'quotation' lies
>at the heart of "postmodern" cultural production...
>That is, simulations, appropriations, and
>self-referential "deconstruction" have been cited as
>both harbingers and cornerstones of artistic "work">
>All these characteristics can be found in most periods
>of art, in music ( variations on a theme of...),
>visual
>art ( such and such *after* such and such) and
>literature ( pretty much the whole of Shakespeare).
>Its perhaps a question of degree, of the ( sometimes
>deeply desperate) self consciousness of deployment
>which marked the something new in post modernism.
>What interests me is the feeling ( and I referred to
>this specifically in an earlier post in this thread on
>MTAAs wonderful 'five small videos' ) that this self
>consciousness is disappearing, that we're perhaps
>returning to an earlier kind of practice where
>quotation (and the cloud of concepts related to it) is
>merely one scarcely remarked weapon in the artist's
>arsenal, to be wielded relatively unselfconsciously.
>I mean I've not done a *scientific survey* or anything
>- but it's a feeling that we're moving into a period
>of *consolidation* of artistic language, of an
>*application* of lots of the formal shenanigans of the
>last half century of so to something that is concerned
>more with a profound combination of the intellectual
>and the affective & which is also aware of its place
>in an ongoing tradition ( and this does not of course
>imply massive surface complexity -what 'five small
>videos' has in common with a Schubert Lied is the
>appearance of *necessity* -"yes that's the only way it
>could be!" - and hence simplicity, but a simplicity
>which isn't exhausted the first or the second time
>round but continues to reveal new layers, new meanings
>on repeated engagement)
>The recent work of MTAA is inceasingly beginning to
>feel to me like an exemplar of this tendency ( another
>significant one being for me the work of Alan Sondheim
>which if people don't know they absolutely *should*
>http://www.asondheim.org/ ).
>The thrust (and also the appeal) of the two video
>pieces seems to me not primarily formal, conceptual
>or didactic in some way, but affective, rich and open
>ended; aware of its place in tradition and paying due
>homage to it but not simply smart commentary on it.
>+
>-> post: list@rhizome.org
>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
>+
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>
>
>