This group found differentiating between remix and composition difficult just as Selber and Johnson-Eilola did. They write, “[w]hile we could continue to maintain that original composition and remixing lie on different planes of value, the distinction between the two planes or levels seems increasingly difficult to maintain" (391). The idea of originality was the focal point for our discussion comparing the two practices. This is also an important question for Lessig, as it is often used to question the credibility of remixers (74).

 

Why can’t the remixers create their own content? "Their meaning comes not from the content of what they say; it comes from the reference, which is expressible only if it is the original that gets used" (Lessig 74). As seen in The New Work of Composing, multimodality (audio, visual, and text) allows a composer to combine, layer and/or juxtapose elements to create meaning. In Mr. Secrets, for example, the music played by the author’s father—when heard alongside the images and letters Tony O’Keefe uses to compose—holds a different meaning than when that music is heard on its own.  Lessig makes a similar argument in his discussion of pop star SilviaO’s experiences with remix (15-17).

 

The article “Re-inventing Invention: A Performance of Three Acts” within Ball et al., The New Work of Composing defines composing as it relates to creative juxtaposition. They begin their article by citing a classic composition textbook by Mckown and Sparke: “There is only one way in which a person acquires a new idea: the combination or association of two or more ideas he (sic) already has into a new juxtaposition in such a manner as to discover a relationship among them of which he was previously unaware” (2). Further emphasizing the importance of juxtaposition Garrett, Landrum-Geyer and Palmeri call on the work of Ann Berthoff: “meanings don't come out of the air, we make them out of a chaos of images, half-truths, remembrances, syntactic fragments, from the mysterious and unformed. When we teach pre-writing as a phase of the composing process, what we are teaching is not how to get a thesis statement but the generation and uses of chaos” (qtd in Garrett, Landrum-Genery, and Palmeri 1.1).

 

Juxtaposition for Lessig and Garret et al. encompasses a central tenet for defining composition and remix. Defined in this way it can said that they are functionally interchangeable. By accepting the interchangeability of composing and remixing, Lessig would prove to be correct that remix is nothing new. What is new are the means of composing and the ability for individuals to disseminate or circulate their cultural products in new ways. Calling remixing “new,” then, is a misnomer; rather, newer technologies make remixing more practical—both physically and economically—and more widely accessible. Certain types of composing or remixing has become more economically practical because digital technologies have made accessing materials and creating copies relatively inexpensive for individuals within a certain economic bracket (Lessig 38). In other words, while remixing used to require more extensive economic resources, the price of production is falling. Remixing is more physically practical, as one can create a composition herself rather than needing to rely on “expert” or professional resources and materials. Many sound and video editing programs, for example, can be navigated through the use of online tutorials or forums or by simply playing around with the program.

 

In addition to greater accessibility, digital technologies enable wider circulation of both materials and tools for remixing (cf. Lessig’s discussion of ccMixter). The author’s purpose and the media s/he selects to fulfill that purpose, a definition that all three readings support guide the process of remixing.  What is created—as well as the materials used to create it—is tied to the purpose for composition and the media the author/s decide to use. Again, remixing as defined above is not new, but technology has made it more practical and more economic to access the elements and media used to compose.
 

Popular usage of the terms composing and remix would position remix as a form of composition. All remixes are compositions but not all compositions are remixes. The tension between the above definitions and the popular use of the terms was pervasive in our discussions, specifically regarding the idea of originality. We do have some concerns regarding the authors’ ideas about remixing and multimodality. Namely, that different social groups have different standards for what is/is not acceptable for remixing alphabetic texts and other texts—such as image, audio, video, and so on. We also had trouble with trying to define “originality” and deciding when/if it is necessary in particular social contexts.  These concerns will occupy the remainder of our blog post.
 

Academia: Privileging of Text and of Originality

 

Naturally, we found ourselves focusing a good bit of time on texts within academia. Remixing that does not include “original” text seems problematic in academia because alphabetic text tends to be privileged over other kinds of text. For example, students generally cannot turn in work that doesn’t include at least some “original” (i.e. created by the student) text. (Unless, of course, the student is assigned a remix, which may not be a common occurrence.) A student can use templates and work from examples, but the student’s voice/original text typically has to be a major, identifiable aspect of the composition.  Although Lessig makes the case that the use of quotes can be a kind of remix (51-52), Selber and Johnson-Eilola claim that original text is often considered more important than the quotes—or any visuals or audio—a student might include in a composition (378). We can see this in FYC classrooms at FSU:  students are required to complete plagiarism exercises and to sign a document stating that they know what “plagiarism” is and that they will avoid it in their own work. Another example could be the widespread use of programs like “turn it in,” which identifies “plagiarism” by highlighting “non-original” phrases and/or passages.

 

In fact, the academy values originality so much that a professor can be denied tenure if s/he does not publish enough single-author articles and/or if s/he has only produced an anthology of others’ articles (which is, itself, a kind of remix). If academia does not always value collaborative articles or anthologies for tenure, it is unlikely to value compositions and/or remixes that do not include “original” writing, a fact with which Selber and Johnson-Eilola take issue. Selber and Johnson-Eilola conclude their article by suggesting that we “[s]top encouraging students to produce ‘original’ texts all the time” and “[t]ell them, at least occasionally, to work on texts that are complete assemblages” (400). They imply that this shift could have the power to transform the value that academia places on certain kinds of texts.

 

“Originality”: How is it defined and when is it needed?

 

Academia, then, values original writing, but in the context of remixing “originality” can be difficult to define.  According to Lessig, Selber, and Johnson-Eilola, and Ball, remixes are original because they create a meaning distinct from that found in the individuals elements used to compose the text. Adding traditionally “original” text—the kind valued in academia—is not a necessary component of composition or remix or of “originality”; so, where does “originality” begin and/or end?  It may be that different communities of practice have different standards regarding “originality.”

 

We may argue that, when a DJ creates an experience from manipulating previously written material, s/he is creating an original composition. In the context of DJs, it may be that the definition of originality is more focused on the final project rather than on the samples use to create the product.  The opposite may potentially be said of academic texts, as, within this community of practice, publishable and profitable works often require some sort of originality amongst the elements used to create them.  Even amongst text, however, there are exceptions.  Contemporary poetry, for example, often organizes texts found through Google searches or spam to create poetry.  Thus the definition and importance of originality may shift according to the community of practice.

 

What is socially acceptable in non-academic contexts? What are the perspectives on remixing outside of academia?

 

Even still, there still may be some kind of overarching standard in terms of originality. The examples in the preceding section focus almost exclusively on academia, but the claim that different communities of practice define and value originality differently may hold true outside of academia as well. We recognize that drawing hard and fast boundaries between academic and non-academic contexts is problematic, but for the purposes of our discussion, we feel that identifying trends in these non-entirely unrelated contexts is useful for thinking about “originality.”

 

In general, though, text-based communities of practice outside academia tend to value alphabetic texts differently than other forms of media, meaning that remixing text—creating a composition solely from non-original fragments—may often be less acceptable than for other non-alphabetic texts.  We’re led to this conclusion because remixing alphabetic texts seems less common than remixing music or video.  Though Zines are a form of remixing (in fact, they are the only form that we could come up with in our brainstorming session), even they tend to contain at least some “original” text.  Even in non-academic contexts, many alphabetic texts contain at least some original components.

 

Remixing in music seems more acceptable than in alphabetic text, as there may be a wider variance of definitions of and attitudes about originality. Although DJing may be gaining popularity, there may be some communities of practice in which remix is less valued that the production of original music. Lessig’s discussion of Girl Talk provides a particularly salient example.  Although Girl Talk was accepted by some parties – such as Rolling Stone and Pitchfork – there are other members of the musical community who did not accept the remix – those who retaliated by limiting Girl Talk’s circulation (Lessig 11-13).  It may be work noting that the objections Lessig discusses seem to come from the business rather than the creative section of the community (although even here those boundaries are problematic).  Granted Girl Talk is an isolated example [Workman note: I don't think it is], but it points to a divide within the community in which definition and value of originality vary. 

 

Communities of practice associated with film also seem to value traditional originality; although scripted film may value it more than documentary.  Some documentaries—Room 237, for example—are comprised entirely of pre-existing footage.  The film—which presents various analyses of the Shining—is a remix of footage and stills from the film, pre-existing footage about the film, and scenes from Kubrick’s other works.  Even in this case, though, the narration accompanying the film is original. People are also using multimodality to “remix” popular movies, such as Star Wars Uncut.  In Star Wars Uncut, composers are assigned 15 seconds of film to remake in another medium, and these short remixes are combined to recreate the entire film.  These examples, though, exist outside of traditional, commercial film. 

 

This list of examples is by no means exhaustive and there are significant contingencies within the larger communities of practice – text, music, and film – that may not be represented; however, it does become clear that issues of originality are salient to composition/remix.  The acceptance of this new work seems, in many respects, to be contingent on issues associated with originality.  It is also worth noting that in many instances where traditional “originality” is valued, that value is tied to economic concerns.