Renegades

My main goal in creating this project was not only to produce an album which would be enjoyable for the audience I chose, but also to have some degree of social relevance and value. In keeping with this concept, I chose to title my mix tape project "Anthems for Revolution." The audience I chose is a friend who takes interest in current issues involving human rights struggles and humanitarian efforts. I chose songs that raise questions with regard to social, political, and moral issues and call for change and justice. I wanted the album to make listeners examine the world they live in, their understanding of it, and even themselves. That may be a bit beyond the reach of what a simple mix tape can accomplish, but I feel that the topic is quite important given the current state of the world we live in. Genocide, racism, poverty, violence, and political corruption are present in nations throughout the world, and it seems that Americans, in their sphere of relative wealth and comfort, tend to forget that such evils exist and even ignore the social injustices that are occurring right before their eyes. Making a mix tape with songs that address these issues is fairly trivial, but it at least creates an opportunity for questions to be raised. My target length was 90 minutes, which translated to 18 songs split between two discs. I chose songs based on the issues they raised and the effectiveness of their emotion and message. Most of the songs I chose were not in my music library before this project which aided me in avoiding the temptation of simply putting songs on a disc that I like and am intimately familiar with. I chose songs that aligned with one of two categories: songs that provoke thought and songs that incite action. The first disk represents "thought" and begins with a somewhat mournful and brooding tone. Over the course of the disk, the mood becomes more tense and pointedly angry. The second disk, which represents "action," has a poignant tone of criticism and dissidence. The climax is delivered in the form of "War Within' a Breath" by Rage Against the Machine, which is the most dramatic call to arms (be it taken literally or figuratively) on the mix tape. "If I Was President" By Wycleff Jean serves as the denouement. It is a reminder that change still depends on the individual empowering one's self and becoming intent on making a difference. Discussion is good and important, but only constitutes wishful thinking without action. For the liner notes, I used quotes from leaders, philosophers, and political activists as well as instances of political and social injustice to reinforce the message of the mix tape. For example, one track listing was followed by information about South African protesters who were massacred at Sharpseville by white police officers while partaking in a peaceful demonstration. If the music provided by the mix tape in conjunction with the liner notes can raise some degree of social awareness or interest, the mix tape will have served a purpose beyond simply providing casual music.

Scissor Hands

First, there was Vehement criticism of not just politicians. Must be prepared to face harsh streets. Police opened fire and momentous changes without sometimes even unfair and ill-founded criticism. Persons on a single day, October. Then there were people openly critical from the media, because it is extremely difficult. His rarest political interventions of imagination, initiative and flexibility prove the actual malice standard necessary for their Charusathien deputy prime minister. China. China's admission to the libel suit to succeed by the extremely well regarded individual, some opposition leaders congratulated 1990s primary sources of libel trouble for elecof. The Supreme court and adviser visit China. The open discussion of the tronic media were "shock jocks" such asnya was then the rector of Tham. Much for the military and radio call in shows (because liconfidence of the students) with dismissing Thanat Khoman abrogating. Cencees are liable for any defamation spoken. Students rejoice over the power to solving the National Assembly institute. The air by those calling in to preform wonders through asonal freedoms and reverting to the well being of the common clique and rests of the bureaucratic-military.

P.S.

P.S.-Did you hear the one about the airplane? Never mind, its over your head. POW!!! Man, after that I bet you don't even know what to do. That's some heavy throwdown action.

Subliminal Kid

I really like the stylistic choices which Paul Miller made in constructing his book. I think that the title gives an implied substantiation of value to the art of sampling. By making it a science, Miller says that it requires skill, ingenuity, precision, and vision. He creates a scenario in which sampling goes beyond a simple cut and paste methodology, but requires a specialized tactfulness in the arrangement of sound and meaning. Also, I feel that the green pages give a rhythm to the flow of the book. They seem to come at set intervals and reiterate previous themes in much the same way that a certain loop will flow throughout a song to create continuity. The hole seems to be a paradoxical reference and allusion to our attempts to fix meaning within text, music, and other art forms. The physical center point of the book is missing and the reason for this is open to interpretation. In a similar way, no distinct axial point of definition can ever be fixed for a text. Many different people will fill in the "gap" in different ways, making it impossible for there to ever truly be a center point. Miller leaves it up to the reader to attempt to fill this central deficit. I think that it is very bold and effective for Miller to have chosen such a conceptual and non-traditional method of creating a text. His book, in many ways, reflects the features and flow of the topic it is discussing.

Cool and The Establishment

It seems that there are several inherent problems with Governor Granholm's "Cool Cities" campaign. The first dilemma is a misunderstanding of the definition of "cool." Cool is indicative to a culture which challenges social norms, mainstream thinking, or the establishment. When "the Man" picks up this culture for use as a means of attaining a goal of the establishment, the culture ceases to be cool. There is an inherent duality in the definition of cool. When it loses its controversial aspects and ceases to be a means of challenging the mainstream, it loses its essence. By being assimilated into the mainstream, it loses the aspects that make it cool. A second problem with the campaign is the demographic it appeals to. It is presented mainly on the digital platform of the Internet and intended to attract successful, white suburbanites. The culture which it uses to attract this group is drawn from African American music. Yet the campaign largely ignores making any attempt to appeal to African Americans. The medium which it uses for promotion is not readily available to many members of the inner-city African American groups. It appears that their culture is being exploited to appeal to and appease socially and economically prosperous white groups. The true meaning of this "cool culture" is being reduced to a promotional image. It seems that the efforts of the Cool Cities campaign would be better spent in an attempt to improve inner city life for those who already inhabit the streets of urban Detroit. Why exploit a culture in an attempt to appeal to mainstream-white ideals while failing to recognize, support, or give benefit to the source of said culture beyond trivializing and stereotyping its heritage? It may not be intentional, but the campaign is explicitly racist. What conclusion should urban African Americans draw from this campaign beyond, "White suburbanites are more socially valuable than you?" The campaign is ridiculous. It is unlikely that many will be convinced by an institutionalized notion of "coolness." Furthermore, for an establishment to rape a culture, of which it is not a part, for commercial use and to give no direct benefit to the group that is the origin of that culture is unavoidably racist.

Copyrighting the Brushstrokes

I found this experience of creating more artistic definitions of copyright to be provocative in several different dimensions. First of all, it forces one to truly look at how they feel with regards to copyright law. I feel that I had to examine my thoughts quite carefully in order to effectively translate them into a visual format without the aid of words for explanation. I feel that showing a viewpoint is much more difficult than simply stating it, but also much more interesting. Also, the project forced those who undertook it to deal with the problem of deciding if derivative works, which use copyrighted materials, can be considered works of art. I feel that there can be artwork which is created using previously created material as a basis. However, it is difficult to draw the line between what would be considered an artistic use of copyrighted material and what would simply constitute copying. When you look at the situation literally, using copyrighted material to create a derivative work is analogous to plagiarism. However, for some reason that is hard to define, I feel like derivative works have a far greater potential for creative value than does plagiarism.

I tend to feel that copyright often allows for a larger entity to, for all intents and purposes, tread on the individual. It seems that those who have expressed creativity in a way which creates some form of derivative work are usually fervently pursued by copyright-holding corporations who claim to have lost enormous sums of money. These companies usually desire compensation and attempt to strong arm individuals into fairly lucrative settlements ( from the company's standpoint). More disturbing, in my mind, than the attempts to stifle those who would build off of existing ideas is the fairly prevalent trend of forsaking creativity for profitability. It seems that many of the art forms of today, including music and movies, tend to create products rather than art. Music, for example, seems to be produced from a formula for chart success. once something is found which sells, creativity is abandoned in favor of reproducing the tried and tested profit-producing formula. It seems that there are fewer and fewer artists who are willing to exhibit truly original expression mainly because it just isn't as profitable as "manufacturing art." This, I feel, is the biggest shortcoming of the copyright system. It encourages artists to abandon themselves, what they stand for, and, often, their most loyal fan base. Overall, I feel that copyright is an institution which is based upon procuring profit for the production of marketable thoughts, ideas, and creations. It is an unavoidable condition of capitalism. However, I do feel that the protection it provides to creative works of all kinds is, to some degree, necessary.

For the project, I tried to illustrate the implicit connection between copyright law and monetary gain. Also, I attempted to illustrate what I feel are the effects of copyright and money on the creative spirit. I Feel that the first work, which used any image, was easier to create. This is mainly due to the fact that there were enormous amounts of ready-made images at my disposal. The second work, however, was able to maintain the point of the first work fairly well. I feel that the first project is currently a more effective statement, but had I sketched original artwork or taken original photographs, I feel that the second could have potentially been more powerful. This is mainly because I would have been able to create my own images solely for the purpose of illustrating my point, as opposed to recycling images and attempting to make them fit. As a whole, the project helped me to further understand the value of derivative works as legitimate creative entities.

Oppressors Mourn; Freedom to the VHS

So, I have been reflecting more on the monumental Sony Decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court found that Sony was not guilty of facilitating copyright infringement by producing VHS copying machines. I believe Lessig touches on this case at some point in his discussion. This was a controversial decision, as the ability to make copies of VHS tapes greatly increased the ease with which one could mass produce and sell said copies. However, when one really stands back and examines the big picture, the decision seems straight forward and appropriate. Would it be sensible to try the CEO of a gun company as an accessory to murder because one of his products was used in violence? Would it be fair to accuse a plastics company of involvement in drug trafficking because some of the syringes the produce end up in the hands of heroine addicts. Obviously, I believe companies should be accountable for the safety of the products they manufacture, but when a legitimate product is abused, the individual who abuses it becomes responsible. This is not to say that all of the people who use copying machines to back up their collections and so forth are doing anything questionable, but those producing and profiting from large quantities of copies should be punished, if anyone. It is this small minority alone that is even conceivably guilty of any wrong doing. I am really tired. The end (it seemed a bit heavy, so I thought maybe the mood should be lightened a bit).

Box Robots: A Movement in Cardboard

I'm feeling really down with this sampling project. It seems to me like it will be really fun, but also quite challenging. It will be somewhat difficult to depict the complexities of thought and speech through the use of images alone. This is especially true when the topic is as specific as copyright law. It is a very interesting challenge, which is compounded by the fact the the project must be re-done using material that is in the public domain. It seems more like something that would be done in an art class than in an English class, which, in my opinion, rocks. I'm really curious to see the imagery-fueled depictions of copyright that others create. I would like to use a lot of really dark material, but I am not sure how controversial this project can be, and I don't want to freak anyone out either. There is a delicate balance between the ridiculous sarcasm that amuses me and the things that make other people uneasy. Such is the life. On a side note, I just got done making a robot suit out of boxes and accordion venting. If that doesn't make a statement about copyright, I don't know what does.

America, Censorship, and You

/\ /\
ll possibly copyrighted material ll


I found this image to be quite powerful and also to depict a darker truth regarding free speech. Time and time again in this nation the ideal of freedom of speech has been tested, and in several instances the constitutional right has provided little protection on the behalf of those who are openly critical of unpopular government policies. Some examples include the McCarthy witch hunts and black listings, the use of government troops to disrupt protests during the Vietnam war, and the more recent attempts to make flag burning illegal. While one may not agree with the political and moral stances of the individuals from the preceding examples, they still, in theory, have the right to voice their opinions. However, when the views that they express are in staunch opposition to the policies of the government, especially policies which

it knows itself to be unethical, there has been a tendency to suppress the controversial dialogue. Currently, there are numerous instances in which the individual rights to free speech have been abused. For example, some who have chosen to speak out against the current administration have been labeled as "unpatriotic" and had there reputations severally damaged. Others have been subjected to wire tappings that would have previously been considered to be quite illegal. Rage Against the Machine was labeled as "anti-family" and its members were accused of being terrorists by some Republican senators. The claims are ridiculous and are simply the result of the senators attempting to discredit the band through the use of slander. The group has been scathingly critical of many politicians and their abuse of government power which has earned them a good deal of disdain in the political world. Others have been put on terrorist watch lists for joining the Peace Corps or working with Doctors Without Boarders in the middle east. The main point seems to be that even in a democracy, those in power fight to retain their power. Greed appears to be an inevitable element in any human organization. Not to say that all people are corrupt, but all have the potential to be. When the corruption of a politician has the potential to be exposed, this greatly threatens their power, and in many cases, people will go to great lengths to silence the source of the discrediting information. This is one of the main faults that is inherent within free speech. Those in power and those with the proper connections will always have some ability to silence the common critic and/or "create" information to fortify their position. This is not to say that the first amendment is not important, but it can only be 100% effective in an ideal, non-existent world. It is important for authority to be criticized and for ideas to be questioned, for it is by these means that societies are bettered and governments are reminded that they exist to serve the best interests of the people and not of their wallets or egos.

Go Comments.

It's Fun to Steal

Wow! Plagiarism is fun AND easy! Thanks Scot Barnet! Sorry, I just really feel that there should be some kind of infomercial advocating plagiarism with an easy to use "How To" guide. I do not really think that the emotional and ethical impact of this project was as intense as would be expected if one were to actually undertake the process of plagiarising a paper. The element of stress that would come with literally stealing the written work of others was completely absent from the experience due to the fact that we were asked to plagiarize. Overall, the project was fairly relaxing. I was able to machine out a four page paper in a fraction of the time which it would normally take to fabricate a legitimate paper. Furthermore, I had to do very little critical thinking, and even less in terms of active involvement. The majority of the work involved was simply passively copying work that someone else had done before me. This raises another point: I truly believe that plagiarism such as this is nothing short of blatant theft. For me, the offense is particularly heinous because it does not merely involve material property, but taking credit for the work and creativity of someone else.

I think that the key to being a successful plagiarist is all in the sources. Selecting sources that are fairly obscure and have a style and voice similar to one's own are particularly important aspects of creating a forgery. Internet sites seem far too obvious and easy to find. Also, genuine, cited information should be embedded at various points in the work. I was actually somewhat surprised at how easy it was to plagiarize a full paper. I suppose that I will find out soon enough how effective my plagiarising process was. Given the ease of producing a plagiarized work, I may be inclined to plagiarize more often (insert sarcastic tone).

Ghost Writing Experience

For the most part, I really enjoyed the ghost writing experience. It presented a unique challenge in terms of the application of writing skills. It did not, however, sway my views of the ethics regarding such a practice. I still feel that in the end, ghost writing is an act of deceiving the reader. In many ways, taking the words of another and stamping your own name on them constitutes the very definition of plagiarism. Even if the author is profiting from the transaction and is able to relinquish the ownership rights to their work with no reluctance, I still believe that it is wrong for someone to receive intellectual credit for a product that is not theirs. If one does not have the skills to produce literature, it is simply fraudulent to imply that such talent exists. I believe it is analogous to a "singer" who lip syncs. If they do not have the vocal capacity to perform, why would they be allowed to retain such an occupation?

In my personal experience, I ghost wrote a description paper for a friend. She was required to use descriptive language to depict a location that was of special significance to her. The most difficult part of this assignment was describing a place I had never really seen, much less been to. I asked her to talk about the area in a very open and free-flowing conversation. I took notes of specific words that she used in order to get a feel for the way in which she interpreted the landscape. It was also difficult to capture the emotions and sentimentality of another person.

Overall, my friend said she was pleased with the way the paper was written and the language that was used. Obviously, there was some differentiation between her description and mine due mainly to the fact that I had no visual experience with the area being discussed. I found her ideas regarding employing ghost writers to be interesting. She said that if she ever were to have a paper ghost written, she would hire several different people to write different versions and then choose the style which she like best. This idea had never occurred to me before, and I think it stems from perfectionism. Even though this project seemed to go fairly well and was entertaining, I am still opposed to the idea of ghost writing.

Ghosts in the Political System

The more time I spend thinking about the functions of ghost writing within politics, the angrier I feel. The purpose of the democratic process is to elect leaders who have the credentials necessary to be successful in representing a nation. Leaders should establish themselves os advocates of what is just within society, as well as catalysts for change in those areas where proper emphasis was previously lacking. Words are powerful tools and can easily become weapons. The ability of a leader to speak and think in a sharp and eloquent manner seems to be of the utmost importance, especially given the prominence of the shadow which the U.S. currently casts upon global politics. The words our leaders implement can have long lasting effects, which may be productive or detrimental depending on the speaker's skill. It is for this reason that I believe that leaders should be held to a certain standard of communicative skill. To simply rely on vague, background entities to put words into the mouths of a global superpower is ridiculous. I want to know that the words of the person I vote for are truly their own. If they do not have the skills required, they have no business in the political world. It seems there is an utter lack of accountability in our government today, and creating a responsibility gap between our leaders and the words that they put forth only serves to fuel this problem. To say that ghost writing allows for a "checks and balances" approach to speech production seems naive. Checks and balances are fairly thoroughly provided for in the constitutional outline of our government. If the president feels that he needs someone to proof read his speech, fine. However, there is an enormous difference between seeking constructive advice and contracting for outside construction. As for time constraints, If G. Dubs can afford to take the grossly extravagant amounts of vacation time that have been an indicative of his term, I think he has time to write his own speeches. And I am not in any way saying that I would want the fate of our nation placed solely upon the "original" words of Bush, but I am saying that we should have considered his shortcomings more thoroughly before placing him at the helm. We should not resign ourselves to accepting deception and unoriginality in our leaders simply because it has become the norm.

G.W.

I am really looking forward to trying out this ghost writing project. I think that the most difficult part of the whole affair is going to be finding someone who has something that needs to be written. Also, the concept as a whole is rather interesting. It is not the overall quality that is important in this project, it's being able to shed your own writing style and pick up the pen from a completely different perspective.m I am curious to see how difficult it is to match the frame of mind of someone else.

Questions of Aura

Benjamin describes an intangible and elusive element of original artwork which, though it can only be explained in the vaguest of terms, is weighted with great value. This distinct, creative enigma, which Benjamin has termed as the "aura" of a work of art, is immediately stricken from its source of influence upon the mechanical recreation of the art form. To me, the most interesting question with regards to the aura deals with the conditions of its value. Why, when two pictures look identical in every aspect, is the original bestowed with such significance? It seems of little sense to claim that there is great meaning in the deliberate form of a painting, only to dismiss the importance of an object of the same form but different conception. If the objects have the same form and function, and therefor should logically hold the same truths within them, why are those born of men viewed so differently than those born of machine. It seems to me that there is a mysticism with the romanticized ideal of human creativity which most wish to cling to. The possibility of mechanical recreation of such artistic endeavors destroys this illusion of aura for some by collapsing the singularity of the work. However, the artistic spirit and creativity in which the work was conceptualized is preserved. It is not the idea that the machine creates, simply the form. The complex web of thought and emotion which constitutes the experience of both artistic creation and perception are things which machines know nothing of. Furthermore, it often occurs that the meaning and cultural significance of a work are overshadowed by the intoxication with its aura. Mechanical reproduction is a tool for stripping away this veil and bringing the true virtue of the art to the masses.

Breaking the Bonds of Authorship

After further contemplation of the concepts presented by Barthes, I find the notion that the association between an author and their written work can actually detract from the individual experience in regard to that literature extremely intriguing. It seems that the process of assigning proper authorship, and thereby ownership, has had such pointed emphasis placed on it as of late that the author and their work can, at times, become synonymous. People can draw conclusion about the text between a pair of covers without ever opening them. If a title and Author name are provided, inferences about the textual content will be drawn from what is already known about the individual creator of the work. Barthes's proposition that for a work to be properly experienced in all of its possible avenues or perception and individual, creative interpretation, the author must fade into the shadows. This creates a situation in which the reader is able to experience the text without being bound to the notion that they should contemplate it in a specific and predetermined manner. However, in a world of continuing global interconnectivity, as well as creative profitability, I feel authors will be ever more reluctant to allow their readers to forget who is responsible for the creative work.