Reading Response Three

Art Studio: The Artist’s Perspective: Multimedia Assignment Form for ARTS-235			Date: 3/17/2010 Name: Michael Widener Major: MMDD Specialization: Computing Year: Senior
Type of assignment [ ] Semester project √ Blog entry / Reading response [ ] Technical evaluation [ ] Exhibition			Title of the assignment: Viola, Wright, and New Media Reading response
A description of the assignment. Throughout the semester, readings will be assigned which correspond to the area of multimedia we will be discussing or to the specific project you are working on. The readings will be discussed in class and the student will post a response to the reading on his or her blog.
Content of the assignment. We read three assignments during the Spring Break - Utopian Plagiarism, Hypertextuality, and Electronic Cultural Production, "Will There Be Condominiums in Data Space?", and Principles of New Media. Each reading appears to be a chapter or portion of a larger work. In the first reading, Plagiarism, Wright wrestles with the implications of discrete segmentations of information leading to easier rearrangement. In other words, he points out that technology, and the Internet have made it ever more possible to rearrange previously combined information into new structures. For example, video before it was digital was more likely to remain as originally produced. Now videos are digital, on YouTube, and downloadable, re-editable, with relative ease compared for the pre-Internet time period. Wrights asks if this constitutes a new, broader common knowledge such that taking these discrete pieces of larger works and rearranging them no longer constitutes plagiarism. He uses the term loosely in the sense that by definition if you call something plagiarism then it's already settled that the violation is established. However in this reading, the author uses the term to refer to copying parts of existing works and including them in other works. It's really a discussion of sampling or copying. Where do we draw the line on using a part of something we didn't create? I personally feel you must define that line based on the audience consuming the work. If the audience is a commercial one, I think more credit and permission to original artistic parts used in a work are due. If educational, I believe fair use and existing latitudes are sufficient. When learning to edit video, I often must use existing works as the learning process is separated from making video and editing video. When making it, I make original work. That's usually separate in most lower division courses from heavy editing. In this regard, using existing video works when making a project whose assignment is to edit, not create, is legitimate. Given the landmark case involving Pink Floyd's victory over their record label not to break up their album and sell individual songs, it would appear that commercially using discrete parts of existing artistic works generally still seems regarded as a violation if the artist deems it so. However, personally, people will continue to use technology when accessible to customize their lives and that will include rearranging artistic assets they purchase if doing so yields perceived benefit. The second article, "Will There Be Condominiums in Data Space?", also discussed the re-structuring of artistic data. I found the discussion less engaging in that it was more abstract from my perspective. However, when read and taken together with the first article, discussed previously, it's ramifications have more relevance and my entry above reflects the ideas from this article and ties them to the ideas in Wright's. I think the article goes a little far in the sense that it claims that interactive technologies in the hands of consumers will eventually lead to a loss of identify for an original work of video, for example, as the consumer will have so much freedom to edit and alter as to rearrange and leave forever changed, the original video work. I can't say I agree with that prediction. I have seen the result of too much inexperienced freedom with respect to artistic choice. For example, when word processors first emerged, everyone wanted to make personal font choices and some were completely unreadable. Basic design principles were spread to new users essentially reminding them that just because you can doesn't mean you should. I think the same will occur with video editing in spite of new interactive freedoms in editing. There's a reason film makers, authors, designers, spend a life-time honing their craft. Consuming professional interactive video and other artwork from experienced and talented makers will continue to, in my view, outpace consumption of inexperienced interactive video and art because professionals spend more time and focus making sure their work connects with the audience on levels that professionals can see when non-professionals cannot. It takes experience to glean the connects and harness them to an audience's enjoyment. There will always be a gap between this professional experience and its inexperienced counterpart. The third article is a series of terms that give shape to the world of New Media and there is little need to repeat them here in the blog.
	Biography of the author.	Michael Widener was born and raised in Berkeley, California. He is a thoughtful, quality-focused web programmer with accomplishments in computer problem solving and Internet business start-ups.