Dropping Beats in the IMP Labs

U of R's Dr. Charity Marsh wrote her thesis on rave culture (how cool is she?) and her project, the Interactive Media and Performance lab, is a real hit with the school and the community. The labs include 2 rooms at the University of Regina: one with beat making machines, and the other with turntables for people to scratch records. The machines create beat loops, which can be far more intricate and automated than an actual drum set. Record scratching has of course been around since the invention of vinyl, and, needless to say, it's kind of awesome.

Dr. Marsh's lab centres around the creation of hip hop music. Her research and art explores the following areas: Canadian (Indigenous) hip hop culture, DJ culture, and Isolation, Identity, and Space: production and performance of popular music in Western and Northern Canada. If you want to read more about Dr. Marsh and her research, check out the IMP website. 

What kind of impact do the IMP labs have? I think the biggest one would be granting all kinds of people the access to high quality equipment. Hip hop music is a specific genre that has the potential to reach lots of people and help them shape their identity through music, breakdance, rap, and graffiti.  However, things like serious beatmaking and record scratching require expensive technology that would be out of reach for most people, especially if it's a hobby. The access to the labs provide opportunities for people to foster musical talent that they might not have utilized otherwise. Being a musician does not necessarily require a classical teacher and a cello or piano; this contemporary style could be more appealing to high school and university students.

The IMP labs are yet another marriage of music and technology. The best thing about this? It's accessible for everyone, so there is no excuse not to try it!

Copyright and Mash-ups: Issues, questions, and not many answers

"Copyright?" People exclaim. "Do you mean the fine print and the readme text files attached to my songs and videos?" While it might not be the most exciting topic to do with technology (drum-playing robots vs. Terms and Agreement... need I say more?), copyright law is nonetheless a vital aspect of any artist that wants to get their work published. I assure you, it DOES matter.

First of all, the film RiP! A Remix Manifesto deals with the issues that surface when a mashup artist dances with copyright law. This documentary is great. Watch it here. 

To narrow it down, this video deals with mash-up culture and copyright issues. It features the artist, Girl Talk, who creates music by mixing together snippets of other songs. Which, by copyright law, is perfectly acceptable to do in your own home if a) you paid for the music tracks used, and b) it is for your own personal use. Issues arise when Girl Talk performs at an event (which is, of course, the goal of any musician!) and has not received permission to use these songs from the artists/recording companies. Therefore, Girl Talk's performances are violating copyright law. 

Why doesn't Girl Talk just attain the copyright for those songs? 

Heh heh. 

The issues with copyright is that for Girl Talk to legally perform his mash-ups, he has to gain permission for each and every song that he plays. It's difficult to get permission from the record label, particularly if the company doesn't believe they have much to gain from their music being played in this context. For Girl Talk to license an entire set, he would have to cough up millions of dollars. Another factor? He's not a DJ, he does a lot more than press play on his computer. These songs have been stripped down and completely changed. A lot of the original songs are almost unrecognizable, and there are only pieces of it in an entirely new context. 

The question is, where is the line with copyright and mash-ups?

This video provokes thoughts from both sides of the equation. It really shows Girl Talk's creative process in creating his mixes (again, watch RiP!!). Mashups differ from other performances because the process is really more important than the final product. Girl Talk may be using other people's work as a starting point, but the final product is his own art-- it's like a music collage of found songs, but presented in a way that is different than the original artist. However, the fact that this is illegal raises the question: is art off-limits? And if it is, how are artists supposed to be free to riff off of ideas and become inspired if they are terrified of being sued? 

It's copyright vs. copy-left. Should art be public domain, and free to feed creativity? Or is copyright law something that should be enforced, the way it is now? 

On one hand, copyright law can severely limit creativity. And where does copyright law end? If songwriters start licensing their music and chord progressions, the music wheels are going to stop turning pretty quickly. People can argue that a healthy public domain is essential in order for artists to feel free to create. North American laws in particular are strict and manipulative for profit: a good example is the "Happy Birthday" song. The original writers are long dead, but the copyright has been passed into the hands of a company. Therefore, the company makes money every time this song is played on stage, screen, or online. This kind of copyright law only serves to profit companies, and doesn't help the artists at all. 

But on the other hand, copyright is important. Musicians, writers, and other artists work hard to create, and they deserve recognition. To put all art into the public domain can be seen as a way to put all artists out of business, because that is to say their art is worth nothing. Copyright laws preserve an artist's integrity and originality, and also gives them the recognition they deserve. Artists deserve to make a living for their work! No one would walk up to a doctor and say "you should treat all your patients for free, because everyone deserves health care and procedures at no cost."

Copyright law and ethics apply to many types of art and science: code, writing, graphics, music, film, etc. It is important for people to be educated on the topic, to avoid breaking the law. However, I believe it's also important for us (new generation of artists) to consider the line where copyright and creativity intersect. 

There are a lot of questions in this post, and not many answers. Comment your thoughts below!

Art and Social Media

Art has been part of culture for thousands of years: social media has a short history, but today, it arguably makes a bigger impact on people's day-to-day lives than art. By "social media" I'm talking Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and other platforms that allow people to update their statuses via text or photographs whenever the need arises. Smartphones allow social media users to exist in a state of suspended updates-- there is no turning on and off. People are always connected. What's interesting about social media is that it levelled the playing field for self-expression. Social media dictates that everyone can express themselves and upload their thoughts with very limited filters. The problem with that? It changes everything for artists. Art is about self expression as well, and if everyone can post their ideas online as they have them, there is more to compete with.

Ben Davis, associate editor of Artnet Magazine, uses semiotics to rationalize the overlapping circles of artists and social media users. He uses a semiotic square, which visually represents possible relationships within generated parameters.

As seen in this representation, Davis argues that there is a considerable difference between involving social media in art and using social media in art. "The utility of this operation is that it lets us see that the question of "art and social media" actually involves an opposition between two different fields, with different logics: a relatively exclusive, closed-in type of expression vs. a relatively open, relation-based mode of operation" (Artnet article).
For example, Mann Bartlett's performance at the PPOW Gallery. For 24 hours, Bartlett recited whatever people sent him over Twitter. This is an example of creating art with social media, because the social network was essential to this piece. However, Brian Piana's piece "Ellsworth Kelly Hacked My Twitter" used pre-existing Tweets as colour blocks against an abstract grid. The difference between the two pieces is that while Piana used Twitter in his piece, he did not use it in a live, social way. Bartlett used the immediacy of Twitter to generate his performance.

The artist Megan Smith demonstrated use of Twitter in her own art pieces. She created devices that streamed Tweets from the surrounding area. This is definitely an example of using social networks in artwork, similar to Bartlett's live performance. In this piece, Tweets are being scrolled through in real time, using Twitter to its full capacity. How is this art? By capturing the thoughts of people from a single physical area, rather than a group existing only online, it provides a cyberspace snapshot of the public's feelings and actions at a particular time.

In CTCH 110, we experienced using social media for purposes other than a person is supposed to do. How are you "supposed" to use Facebook or Twitter? Well, technically, it's to create your own personal profile and connect with other people. However, my group didn't do that. We created a web personality by making a Twitter account with one purpose in mind. It's called @Mediocre Haikus... Clearly, the goals here are for humour, not changing the world. Check it out here.

Operating a Twitter profile whose sole purpose is to publish mediocre haiku poetry sounds somewhat useless, and perhaps it is (but it is a low-pressure creative outlet). However, internet personalities are common and often powerful. In this case, it's an anonymous account that creates one thing. That generates the reputation. The tweets are humorous and satirical, which could attract followers who want to be entertained (which is the main purpose of social media). The real seduction in "Internet fame" is the power a person gains from their followers. Brief decades ago, this wasn't noteworthy. Now, there are people that make their living from the Internet. YouTubers such as Jenna Marbles or Mike Falzone literally get paid to make videos expressing their views and opinions.

Mike Falzone makes videos including witty commentary and tips on how to live your life. People take his advice very seriously, and why? Because he has millions of YouTube subscribers. Because his monetized YouTube videos supplement his income considerably. Because his fame (as a musician and comedian, as well) came from his Internet presence. 

In conclusion, I suppose I could summarize that to be fluent in social networking is to have power. Whether you use or involve social media in your art, or if you depend on your Internet presence, whether anonymous or literal, that is the way you are going to reach a lot of people. The problem is having the unique visions to make yourself stand out from the millions of opportunities for user-generated content on the Internet.