Mix for the Listeners/Write for the Readers

The mix tape project highlighted the amount of effort that is needed to provide an enticing experience for an audience, for nearly the whole process centered on pleasing the target listener. For example, a relevant theme had to be chosen along with appropriate songs that conveyed the selected mood onto the subject. Liner notes, a title, and a cover design not only added a degree of variability to the mix, but also served as another form of engaging the listener, of layering down more icing on the cake. It all came down to what we, as DJs, wanted our listeners to hear and feel. Of course, this process involved taking some of our own tastes into account, for that's what served as the inspiration for our mixes. However, an effective mix tape, one that is listened to in full, must feature certain tweaks that are designed in some thoughtful manner around the listener. For example, for my End of the Day Brew mix, I had to have a general idea of what my friend would enjoy at the end of her day. Amy had to know which movies her friend had seen to create the movie soundtrack mix we listened to in class.

The same rules should go for writing. The mix tape assignment freed us out of the box so that we could view the “writing process” in yet another light. What should an author be worried about? Sure, getting a point across may be important, but the priority may lie in engaging the reader. It is important to keep the audience in mind when you write because that holds the power in generating creativity at the other end. That’s what keeps originality churning in our society. We all got something different out of DJ Spooky, but that’s because he created a unique product with flow and illustrations. He was inspired by personal events from his past, but he tweaked them in such a manner so that an audience would find the information appealing. Creating the mix tape has challenged me to approach and view composition as an act of engagement.

Mix Tape Essentials

I think the most important thing to keep in mind in making a mix tape is to provide an experience for the listener. You must engage your target audience in some manner to keep that person from ejecting the CD. It is important not to simply throw a random hodgepodge of songs on a blank CD and call it a day; although that is a mix of some sort, it’s not interactive enough. There must be flow, some type of storyline supported or created by the music, an experience from start to finish. This is challenging enough on paper, so doing it through music may even be tougher. I think that the liner notes will be key to the efficacy of the mix tape, for they will provide us, the mix tape creators, with an outlet to reveal our intentions if they are unclear through the music alone. Of course, mix tapes of the highest quality should be capable of standing independently without support, but the liner notes can add a whole dimension to the experience that we are trying to piece together for the listener. I’m looking forward to not only seeing how the mix tape turns out but also to hearing feedback from my audience.

Snip & Spin

In creating my cut-up, I used an in-fold method where I folded articles from the left side of a newspaper halfway onto articles on the other side. Although the result may have thin strings of coherency, I am most impressed by the creation of new words, such as "beeve," "infanerant," "altitillation," and "starsistent." This method allows us to appreciate our language for more than the meaning it is capable of producing. The juxtaposition leads to a creation of new sound from independent sources, essentially breaking ideas while connecting them simultaneously. This method transcends the boundaries of language, both within the mind and within the dictionary, and that is probably why it has stirred interest for so many years.

What's the Right Way to Write?

Since I wasn’t able to make it to class on Wednesday, I’d like to share my impressions of Serial Composition. The speech touched base upon what we discussed in class on Monday – reconfiguration of the writing process – but advocated for a different kind of change. The alterations we proposed on Monday seemed to add complexity to the process, creating more of an organic experience as opposed to a linear method. However, this work seeks to promote a minimalistic approach in order to promote the development of writing skills. I agree with this stance, for I never felt that 20 page research papers improved my ability to write. In fact, such length requirements often result in dry writing, making it especially difficult to “amaze” readers, which may possibly be the true purpose of writing.

The work also extended its argument to other media, such as art, mixtapes, and blogs. Keller’s argument against the convenience of our current technology in creating mixtapes really caught my attention, for I think this was the first time in our readings that someone besides a corporation was looking down upon the possibilities of the internet. He stated that “quality and discernment” are lacking from mixtapes these days because almost anyone can make them with access to nearly every type of song (free culture, in a way). Although this does not contradict my experience in the sampling project, I wonder how my mix tape experience will compare.

On a final note, do you think that your blog has enhanced your writing skills, or would a single thesis paper have been more effective?

Tell Me What You Hear

The unique thing about Rhythm Science is not necessarily the argument that it presents but rather the experience that it creates for the reader in delivering its purpose. It's all about going along for the ride and taking away certain aspects that personally resonate at a distinctive frequency. The message is, of course, in the words, but the structure of the book and the CD complement his argument. What is his argument? Well, I'd say that's highly up for grabs (perhaps that's part of the argument itself), but there is definitely something in there about a balance between pattern and ingenuity.

If you've listened to the CD and have trouble visualizing the argument dispersed within the beats, I would suggest checking this out. It's a music video for one of DJ Spooky's creations on the Riddim Warfare album that he mentions in the text. What do you pick up from this video? I definitely see the fusion of the material and digital world (virtual city and millipede) as well as the manifestation of our "era of multiplex consciousness" that is mentioned in Rhythm Science.

A number of quotes have grabbed my attention, but the one that really raised a flag was the following: "When people are faced with conditions where 'conservatives' control the zone, they have to innovate to get their message out, but innovation leads to constant elevation." This automatically made me think about my sampling experience and how I felt that my permission based culture collage was more effective (elevated, so to speak) in portraying my message. DJ Spooky recognizes that there are restrictions on free form in our society, but our craftiness in working around these boundaries is what keeps that record table spinning throughout the book.

A Vision of ©larity

I found this sampling experience to be a lot of fun. The last time I had to make a collage was back in art class in high school, but two things differed about this assignment. Everyone seemed to use pictures from the internet as a main source, as opposed to magazine clippings or something along those lines, and there was a restriction on the range of material for the second experiment. I was originally worried that this would serve as a barrier to my creativity, but, in actuality, it only forced me to think further outside of the box.

The first experiment was undoubtedly easier, for the main challenge was to formulate a visual argument. Thanks to the insurmountable amount of information on the internet, it was fairly easy to convey that argument from mind to matter, putting all technological difficulties aside. The challenge of the second experiment, at least in my case, was essentially to portray the same argument in a different manner. I found this to be difficult not necessarily due to the available resources but more so due to my stubborn mindset; once I visualize something, I find it hard to switch it up. However, being placed in that situation only stimulated my creativity, for I had to work above and beyond my original intentions.

The product for my second experiment portrayed my message more clearly. I didn't really have trouble attaining the materials I needed, albeit there was usually a greater variety of the copyrighted material, but perhaps this restriction forced me to choose my pieces more carefully, leading to a less convoluted argument. Unless my case was odd, I may conclude that less permissible material seemingly leads to more clear-cut and thoughtful creations.

I don't think Lessig would be too pleased with that conclusion; in fact, neither am I. Without the extensive work of putting together a Creative Commons, I would have had to attained permission from a number of copyright owners, most of whom I would probably not have heard from in time. If anything, current copyright laws allow the creative expression of only those who are dedicated enough to jump through a number of hoops, which in my case were mental. People who aren’t issued mandatory assignments will never wish to deal with that, and thus copyright currently suppresses the cultural expression of the masses.

Here is my remix of Malarie's piece.

Code & Order?

I personally found Lessig’s argument in Free Culture to be hammered home by a hypothetical situation briefly presented in chapter 10. Lessig is concerned that code is reigning over the domain of the internet, as opposed to appropriate law. On page 161, he frames a perspective by comparing the situation to a system in which vehicles could inform state authorities “the speed at which you traveled at every moment that you drove.”

Sound absurd? Surely there are appropriate times for pushing the pedal beyond legal limits. Perhaps you have someone that needs to get to the hospital, or traffic is moving at a faster speed. However, here’s the problem: code does not allow for leniency. It is incapable of discretion, as mentioned in class. Such a system should therefore not be allowed to regulate internet content. After all, code doesn’t know whether I will use material in a legal manner. The code created by Adobe could not recognize that Lessig was reading his own book on their e-reader, for he was still denied the option to copy, print, or use the read out loud feature on his own property. Unfortunately, technology is heading in this direction where code dominates law in the digital world.

This technological development along with the emergence of the internet is making the call for changes in copyright law even louder. The government has to do something to ensure that they are in control, as opposed to code or five enormous companies. However, the government must take into consideration the indirect effects of their jurisdiction as well, so that our culture will not stifle but rather be allowed to flourish.

Cultural Roadblock

As we’ve been exploring the effects of current copyright laws upon the development of culture, one common theme has struck me as being especially irritating. From what I have gathered, it seems that the major companies that adhere to copyright laws are, in actuality, abusing them. The companies that file lawsuits against individuals who may possibly be guilty of infringement are more concerned with making a hefty profit instead of the theft of originality in the form of unique ideas. For example, Lessig’s Free Culture notes that the RIAA demanded an insane amount of money from the college student that created the search engine for his campus. The figure they asked for rivaled the profits that recording artists, the actual creators of the disputed material, make on a yearly basis. I assume that these artists are more concerned with the theft of their originality, so, hypothetically, if they did not mind, were the copyright laws justly applied? Apparently so, for another case study featured Fox demanding a vast amount of cash for a short Simpsons clip that Matt Groening, the creator of the series, already approved. It seems that copyright laws are being taken advantage of and not employed for the purpose of protecting ideas, for even when permission from the creator is granted, consequences are likely to result.

So why do these companies demand ridiculous amounts of money for potential violations? As the MPAA official stated in the video we watched in class, the purpose is to instill fear in the public. He admitted that the MPAA will never be able to bring piracy to a halt, but they are able to use scare tactics (i.e. lawsuits) to guide society towards what they deem as acceptable conduct. What this official fails to realize, however, is that such behavior by the MPAA deters creativity in our society. Sure, the video featured a number of exceptions from Girl Talk to Brazilian DJs, but the fears and inconveniences associated with copyright demotes creativity and creates an overall negative impact on originality. This use of fear is reminiscent of the tactic employed by the plagiarism statement we explored earlier in class. Was that effective in curbing plagiarism? Is fear really the only way to protect creative property? It seems to me there is more harm than protection.

No Seriously, I Actually Wrote This

This plagiarism experience turned out to be more of a challenge than I had expected. As I mentioned in class, the assignment was rather time consuming, which I found to be ironic. After all, plagiarism is generally perceived to be practiced out of laziness for ingenuity, to cut corners, and to make deadlines seconds before they pass. But this project made me wonder whether I’m wrong. Perhaps stringing different literary works into a cohesive flow really is an art that requires skill and deserves appreciative value. Maintaining a single voice throughout my essay was undoubtedly the hardest part, and I would argue that the ability to pull off such a feat easily should be favorably acknowledged.

Think of all the room there was for creativity. Sure, Scot gave us a specific recipe, but we all created our own signature dish with a different flair of spices (jumbling word order, altering sentence structure, using synonyms, etc.). We weren’t simply reassembling a puzzle straight out of the box; rather, we juxtaposed pieces from a number of puzzle sets so that they would not only fit but also form a new picture of our own. Plagiarism can therefore be an art form, and, in my book at least, deceptive plagiarists (aka those that don’t get caught) have gained a bit more of my respect, though they still trail behind ghostwriters quite a bit.

The key word in that last sentence, however, is “can.” I am still a firm believer that plagiarism should not be tolerated in the university setting. We pay a wealthy sum to exercise an originality of a different kind (that is, unless we are art majors I suppose). We are graded and judged on how well we are able to formulate our own ideas, how well we can create our own puzzle pieces and assemble them for our readers. I stand in support of the idea of having a plagiarism policy, but I still feel that certain changes must be made, which are highlighted here.

Where's My Check?

I decided to ghostwrite Kevin Slane for a number of reasons. Not only is he a journalist major here at UW-Madison, but he is also one of my closest friends. Brandt’s “’Who’s the President?’” alluded to the importance of a close relationship between author and ghostwriter, so when Kevin informed me that he had a movie review to write for The Daily Cardinal, I figured that imitating his style would be a piece of cake.

Little did I know that purchasing the movie ticket would be the easiest part of the assignment.

After taking in one of the most bizarre movies I had ever seen, Kevin shared the main ideas he wanted to emphasize in his review. As I jotted his opinions down, he dug up a couple of his writing samples. Upon reading these various works, I quickly realized that Kevin enjoyed employing a witty yet critical style in his writing. I found this to be unsurprising, for Kevin, along with being one of the funniest guys I know, also writes for CollegeHumor.com on a regular basis. I knew that I had a pretty sizable challenge on my hands, but I was excited nevertheless. After all, I rarely get the opportunity to exercise my creative writing skills.

After sitting in front of my computer screen with a blank Word document for a good 10 minutes, I realized that my excitement was rather short-lived. Even though I had the ideas right in front of me, I was unable to relay them in an acceptable style. This was extremely frustrating, for typically the hardest part of any paper is coming up with ideas. Once those thoughts are formed, they tend to naturally flow through the fingertips. Instead, I had to laboriously construct every sentence, being mindful of the language I used. I tried to condense the paper with puns, jokes, and clichés, but the further along I got, the less it seemed to sound like Kevin. It felt like this was neither my writing nor his; by emphasizing a facet of his style, I created a hybrid writing fashion.

In fear of overdoing it, I emailed Kevin with the first half of the review. He said it looked pretty good, so I continued being as “punny” as possible. I sent him my first complete draft, but this time I included his name at the top of the paper. He seemed to take more time with a return email, in which he stated the following:

“Some of the clichés feel forced in my mind. Overall, not bad, although if the question is whether I'd be ‘pleased’ if that was your ghostwriting for me, the answer would be no. Here is some of the touching up you should do to pass for my style...”

This was extremely frustrating and nearly disheartening. He not only started deleting and rewording sentences, but also changing their structure altogether. I was offended to a certain extent because although the review was not written in my style, I still felt that he was degrading my creation. Once I went through with certain corrections, he suddenly became pleased, telling me “I really like your imitation of me, it captures my style pretty well.” This was slightly reassuring, but, I wondered, why didn’t he suggest all of those edits before his name was on the piece?

Besides realizing that creative writing does not come naturally to me, I took away a number of important lessons from my experience. Authorship and ownership, for example, are inseparable concepts. As soon as Kevin saw his name at the top of the review, he realized that the words in front of him fell under his responsibility, which sparked an editing rampage focused on making the writing style more as his own. This supports the notion in Howard’s “Modern Authors” that proprietorship is an essential aspect of authorship. In ghostwriting, along with all writing, “property and original genius are mutually entailed” (79). Ghostwriters must therefore relinquish their ties, and because of their ability to detach from what they produce, I have gained more respect for them. Even though ghostwriters may disagree with what they are writing about or have different viewpoints compared to who writes out their paychecks, it is difficult to allow others to take all of the credit for something they do not labor over.

The Wrath of Plagiarism - Fair?

“The Anxieties of Authorship and Pedagogy” is a very interesting read because it highlights the elusive nature of plagiarism. Howard clearly avoids pinpointing specifics as universal examples of plagiarism. Plagiaristic ideals can vary in degree, are dependent on context (for example, the act of reapplying professors’ ideas on exams is exempt from being stamped with the plagiarism label), and range from one institution to another. With so many fuzzy corners and variables, only one thing is clear; the odds are stacked up against the writer. As students, we suffer because of not only the fear that is instilled in the “Plagiarism Statement” but also the uncertainty of wrongdoing that shadows over every word we type.

The “Plagiarism Statement” that we examined in class is very gatekeeper-esque. It automatically assigns blame, frankly stating that the student “should know” what qualifies as plagiarism. Why should all of the responsibility be in the student’s hands if the teacher is additionally supposed to work as a facilitator? Leniency is also lacking from the statement, for phrases such as “will not be tolerated” and “will automatically fail” are used. How can such ultimate, criminal sentences be justly applied if the very essence of plagiarism is open-ended and, to a certain extent, undefined?

The elusive nature of plagiarism is highlighted right within the “Academic Misconduct Rules and Procedures” brochure. In the section entitled “Some Special Points About…,” collaboration is treated on a case by case basis, while plagiarism is rigid and closed to individual interpretation. The writers of this manual seem to be ignorant of what Howard discussed throughout her essay. Moreover, this format implies that collaboration is different from plagiarism. However, some would deem both as synonymous acts. In fact, in Howard’s piece, Richard A. Fass finds buying a paper online to be just as bad as seeking a “writing tutor’s assistance in the ‘style and structure of a paper.’” Does this mean I am automatically plagiarizing if I seek help from the Writing Center? I think that’s absurd. Fass and the university need to get with the program and reevaluate their stances on plagiarism by looking through Howard’s eyes.

Ghostwriting - Who's at Fault?

As we begin to tackle the issues of ghostwriting, I wonder whether the act is as bad as it may initially seem. After all, Scot said that ghostwriting is a common occurrence in the real world that extends beyond the store bookshelves. There are probably countless memos and reports that are signed by lower level employees under different names on a daily basis. If these acts do not concern us, then why should we look down upon a celebrity who has his or her employees do the same?

I attended the Barack Obama rally on Tuesday, and his speech raised issues of authorship in my mind. I don’t know whether the speech was ghostwritten, but does that really matter? The central ideas that he expressed were undoubtedly his own and seemingly ones that he will adopt if elected as president. Who cares if they were pieced together by a different individual? After all, if we consider Barthes, that “imposter” would only be exercising his/her sole "power [...] to mix writings," and that individual’s claim on the piece would end as soon as the writing began. Moreover, Obama, through the act of his unique presentation, may be viewed as adopting ownership and thusly, at minimal, partial authorship over the speech.

I think the concern with ghostwriting stems from our inability to allow for text to stand on its own. We always need to tie writing to a certain person’s name, and if we are deceived, we feel our reading experience is in some way affected. Perhaps we need to learn how to interpret and appreciate what we read without reaching beyond the text in front of us. The blame may not lie on those who employ ghostwriters. Instead, we as readers may be the ones at fault.

Welcome to the Future

Check out this advertisement from Cisco, a company striving to establish what they have coined as the “human network.”

I find the potential for the future portrayed in this video to be really exciting. Bias as it may understandably be, the video highlights the positive effects that hopefully will result from the evolution of the type of technology that we discussed in class. One part of the video even shows off a service similar to ImaHima in “Smart Mobs: The Power of the Mobile Many.” Rather than focusing on the dangerous aspects of this technology that Cisco does not address in its ad, I would like to delve deeper into what was focused upon.

“Welcome to a place where books rewrite themselves.” Did I just hear Barthes fall out of his chair? It seems that this blooming technology has fervently resurrected the author from the grave. The Great Unwashed, as Howard would refer to them, can access and edit websites such as Wikipedia, which is also featured in the video, to rewrite articles in pursuit of the ultimate truth. How would Foucault react to this technology? I have a feeling that he would approve, for he states in “What is an Author?” that, “In the future development of science, the founding act may appear as little more than a particular instance of a more general phenomenon which unveils itself in the process.” Foucault realized that at least a specific genre of writing is dynamic, and the new technology that we have at our disposal has made the whole “unveiling” process more convenient.

Is there a downside to exposing the Great Unwashed to a “library [that] travels across the world?” Moreover, if this library is virtual as portrayed in the video and in the form of a database such as Wikipedia, where do responsibility and ownership lie? As members and contributors to the “human network,” do we own the information available to us on the internet? If so, then once again I question the idea of plagiarism. Perhaps these concerns need to be addressed by the network as a whole; after all, “we're more powerful together than we ever could be apart.”

Reflections on Barthes

In The Death of the Author, Barthes rather confidently announces the “scriptor” as the successor to the “author.” I feel that Barthes took time with his choice of words, for the imagery that the terms convey strengthens the overall argument portrayed in his work. When I think of an “author,” an old man sitting cozily in a leather armchair in front of the fireplace with a pipe in hand is the first image that comes to mind. A “scriptor,” on the other hand, seems to be unattached to his work, much like a scribe. I envision a “scriptor” relying on outside sources, having much less of a personal say in his work compared to an “author,” who attempts to transfer his whole mind onto a different medium.

Here’s the thing. Although I seem to understand Barthes (or rather, to take emphasis off the author as he would prefer, the message in the text) from an overall standpoint, I become confused as I try to dissect specific parts of the reading. Barthes states that “the modern scriptor is born simultaneously with the text.” If this is so, then how does the "scriptor" obtain the “dictionary,” as Barthes calls it, upon which his work relies? I just don’t seem to understand how the creator of a work can be nonexistent before the work’s creation. I can see how Text never ceases to flow over the course of time, much like a river, which is what From Work to Text touches upon. However, I feel that one must drink from this river before channeling information into text form, inevitably having to exist beforehand.

Perhaps I am overanalyzing and belaboring over picky details. Barthes may even agree, for he claims that modern writing can lack meaning. Brought about by Surrealistic ideals, modern writing “carr[ies] out a systematic exemption of meaning.” In other words, I may be trying to stab at something that isn’t even there. Barthes warns that “the space of writing is to be ranged over, not pierced.” I argue that I would not have as great of an appreciation of the text if I did not take time to inspect it carefully, such as, in this case, the subtle differences between “author” and “scriptor.” Simply glancing over text also goes against what I have been taught in English courses such as AP Literature, which emphasized breaking the text down into its elements.

One final idea I want to toss out there is how this modern depiction of a “scriptor” ties into plagiarism. If we are all simply “scriptors,” can we be held accountable for plagiarizing? After all, our “only power is to mix writings.” Do DJ’s get in trouble for creating mixtapes and mashups? Why didn’t the idea of plagiarism keel over along with the “author?” I think our course is heading in the direction of answering these questions, so it’s good to keep them in mind.

A little background

I pride myself with having an insatiable desire to discover the world around me. For this reason, I have traveled across the globe and have experienced a number of life-long memories, from whale watching off the coast of Australia to living amidst mountains covered with vineyards with a small family in Southern France. It is also for this reason, in part, as to why I am a sophomore at UW-Madison studying Bacteriology; the world that exists at more of a micro scale is just as intriguing.

As far as campus involvement goes, I am an officer of the Alpha Gamma Rho Fraternity. I am also beginning to get my feet wet in an oncology lab. Once I complete my undergraduate education, I plan on returning to my hometown of Chicago to continue on my intellectual journey.