So now that I have described why I chose a blog, its time to pick a new topic.
Week Two: Remixing Literacies
This week, the thing I just can't get over is the idea that all new media is "remix," as authors Colin Lankshear and Michele Knobel put it in their book, New Literacies. They suggest that the new literacies consist of remixing words and content in the same way that DJs remix music. They are taking old things and putting them together to create something new. They even go so far as to say, "we remix language everytime we draw on it" (107). I would say that this definition is a bit too overreaching. If literally everything is remix, even this sentence, then the term has no meaning and no use. Isn't being able to create new sentences to convey different ideas the purpose of language?
I have chosen to redefine remix in a more useful light: Remix is the use of preexisting ideas, images, sounds, texts, and other media to create a new work. It combines old ideas to produce something unique. Rather than taking this down to the level of words, it must involve something digitally tangible (like an audio clip, a picture file, a video, etc) or a developed idea.
For this reason, Lankshear and Knobel seem to contradict themselves here. They assert that all writing is remix, but they took the time to write a book about how their ideas are different and useful in describing our literacy practices in education using examples that already existed. If they are going to stick with their concept of remix, they wouldn't have felt the need to write a book. They could have written a short article with a lot of links.
So a digital collage is a remix but my sentence is not. Now that I have a working definition of remix, I can move on to other subtleties.
With the technological advances such as the internet, more importantly web 2.0, it seems that literally everything has been said and posted online. It is almost impossible to come up with a truly unique idea, so people fall back on drawing from other ideas. I am the perfect example right now, as I sit here writing this blog. I am drawing from Jenkins, Lankshear and Knobel, and many of the other authors that discuss literacy. Perhaps my spin on remix is not new at all. My ideas and words are already old before I even begin.
I suppose that all new literacies are essentially remix, as they are a result of what Henry Jenkins calls convergence culture. With convergence, many forms of media come together so that one idea can span multiple media. Nothing new is happening except the bringing together of preexisting technologies to foster knowledge communities and collective knowledge.
What Lankshear and Knobel DO get right is that remix as a literacy practice is important to understand. It has a cultural impact. Their examples of anime, photoshop and fanfiction all affect the lives of those who are interested in them. The remixing of ideas, particularly in photoshop and fanfic allow anyone to get involved in the diegesis of their favorite movie, book, or game. It greatly enhances the fan experience by allowing them to participate by making the world their own. This type of remix would fall under my definition. The world is what is important to the fan, not the words used.
Just as an interesting sidenote: I found this video sort of introducing new literacies, and Jenkins is in it! They mention remix, which shows how important the idea itself is to the new literacies.
I feel that I have rambled adequately. Literacy is quite the enabler.
Megan
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Lankshear and Knobel do not contradict themselves at all. I do believe that you have misinterpreted the idea of remix.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, even in the world of remix, which is referenced on page 81 on New Literacies, it is still valid to use writing to prove a point. The definition of remix used to involve writing itself, but now is shifting away from solely using text. According to Lessig, the definition of remix has expanded so that "it is not just words, it is words, sounds, images, and video." If you are looking at New Literacies (the book), you might notice the quote on page 116, "the strong trend towards using material from a range of literary and non-literary sources is a product of our technological ability to surf, sample and mix." This might explain and account for much of the shift between older sources and digital ones.
Therefore, remix is “21st century writing.” Writing does involve words as well as ideas and the likes, so your definition of remix is too narrow. That is the strength in Lankshear and Knobel's choice, it encompasses everything, while still paying attention to the creative value of remixing.
Remix does not mean that ALL writing is preexisting or that the work that has been remixed is now redundant. Remix actually means the opposite if it is presented in a slightly different manner. Remix allows slight variations on ideas so that they can be ever refined and adapted to suit the specific needs of individuals. The fact that Lankshear and Knobel pulled together information to make their point about educations and to explain their definitions creates a source that has validity. Their examples do not differ from examples used in 1950's academic papers and cited in the bibliographies except that they are newer and often digital. The reliance on outside sources is not a weakness of their book, but a strength that enables them to make a unique point.
I will stick with my definition for excluding words. Let's look at the original remix analogy of DJs. They take different elements and mix those elements together. For example, they might take a base line from a song and combine it with a recorded drumbeat. What is important is not the fact that they are using sixteenth notes tied to whole notes, but the fact that the effect has a certain quality. Likewise, the actual words individually don't matter as much as the ideas behind the use of words in a new literacy.
ReplyDeleteI find it helpful to think in ideological terms rather than in bits. Sure, letters are like protons and neutrons forming words that are each atoms, but one atom matters very little in an entire universe. The fact that they form larger substances is more valuable to the average human being. The meaning that words provide far outweighs exactly what word is being used, so long as the meaning is conveyed.
Especially when considering social practices, it is helpful to think big picture rather than word by word.
Your point about the collection of ideas to produce a different idea is legitimate though, thank you! Also you identified the driving factor behind the shift to remix: "our ability to surf, sample, and mix." We can now access anything we want, and probably anything we want via the internet that can back up our ideas.