My favorite reading this week has got to be Khun’s “The Rhetoric of Remix” for two reasons: 1) the fan vid “Closer“; 2) the article makes the clearest case I’ve yet read for the study of “remix” as most appropriately province of Rhetoric and Composition.
Khun states, “Paired with widespread editing tools, video remix has become an important form of communication and expression heretofore confined to the printed word alone, and as the semiotic field grows increasingly complex, so does the need for critical attention. Although recent attempts to define and categorize video remix are elucidating in some respects, ultimately, they prove limiting, and this is due in part to their nearly exclusive reliance on cinematic, rather than rhetorical, theory” [1.1].
The “Closer” example clearly demonstrates the limitations of a single “artistic” lens–cinematic, sound, etc.–for explaining the new experience that is created by the creative, intentional splicing of seemingly disparate images/sounds. It’s difficult for me to conceive of arguments against this editorial practice. And maybe that’s the clearest argument against Khun’s; sound and cinematic editing are long-standing “invisible arts.” The editing process (perhaps more than any other?) in the entertainment industries determines meaning even more than the “creation of parts” with which editors work. Perhaps sound and visual editors can claim province in discussions surrounding remix theories. I wonder to what extent editors and trainers of editors institutionalize discussions of critical theory, etc.
I especially appreciated Lessig’s rhetoric in his TED talk, too. Couching conversations about legality in the language of family is quite affecting. They’re gonna do it anyway; let’s not criminalize our children for composing from available (though not legal) materials. All of our warnings concerning copyright and plagiarism feed fears of “good students” (like myself?) who have no intention of “stealing” but do little to dissuade students who consciously want to steal. Discussions of plagiarism in academia rarely get deep enough, to the place where all knowledge is socially constructed knowledge. I often wonder where and when it’s appropriate to acknowledge certain voices in our field who have spoken loudly on particular issues, and when to take for granted that my audience understands the “knowledge” is ours, that I’m not supposing to come up with it as “my” idea….
Anyway… Khun’s avoidance of issues of materiality weakens her argument. She writes in section 5.5:
Today’s mediascape both reflects and reinforces our socioeconomically uneven world; by reading remix as a digital speech act rather than consigning it to a preexisting genre, we can help prevent digital discursive space from fostering the type of binaries that inhere in current generic conventions. Language is power. Progressive writing scholars have long argued that in a world characterized by social, cultural, and political disparity, one where language and dialects help keep class distinctions in place, there is no politically neutral use of Standard Written English, just as there is no way to select an image for remixing without implicating oneself in an ideological apparatus. But alphabetic writing practices were formed gradually, unlike the practices and norms adopted by those making digital arguments. With remix, we have a chance to change semiotic privilege by shaping the emerging discursive field to one that more readily reflects an equitable pluralistic culture.
**Except for the materiality of the remix culture and its economics! It’s an expensive venture to access the skills training, hardware, etc.–expensive both in economics and time–to participate in culture in this way.
One more note: TIME
I’m struck by the idea of TIME as an asset key to the success of a remix artifact. The best remixes seem to hinge on timing. The artist uses time and timing in order to produce meaning. I wonder if anyone’s written about that?
Leave a Reply