WHAT IS IT?: Digital Artefact for DIGC330. Exploration into online collaboration, utilising self-reflexivity to analyse my experience, the process, and comparing it to that of my co-collaborator.
HOW’S IT RELEVANT?: Utilising the internet as a means for connecting people to create. Discusses recording parts in separation, and techniques to blend the separate recordings together when recording in different locations at different times.
CRITICAL OPINION: While this post sets up an in depth exploration of collaborating online, it was a very structured process which was defined before beginning each piece. What hasn’t been approached in this artefact is the idea of improvised collaboration: something I’m exploring in my BCM112 artefact
WHAT IS IT?: Practical illustration of the intended Digital Artefact.
HOW’S IT RELEVANT?: This post explores a process of how to create my digital artefact, highlighting the desire for having separate videos for each part in order to create further collaboration, while also giving insight as to the raw parts used in the process of creating the combined videos.
CRITICAL OPINION: While it creates a simple guideline for those who wish to collaborate, it doesn’t emphasise my desire for the different parts to remixed and re-imagined through a process outside of the linear one listed, such as remixing the videos without adding new content.
WHAT IS IT?: Digital Music Album
HOW’S IT RELEVANT?: This website is a collection of songs ‘composed’ by sourcing unrelated youtube videos, and editing them to create new derivative works. This website demonstrates my idea of remix for my digital artefact.
CRITICAL OPINION: This is the sequel to his album “Thru You”, and it really highlights the ability to collaborate with others online. One of the things I really like about this video is the credits Kutiman gives to each of those in the video. Although they did not know they were taking part in the project, and his final pieces were never intended by the collaborating musicians, Kutiman has gone out of his way to give credit where credit is due.
WHAT IS IT?: Digital Duet, created through Smule Sing.
HOW’S IT RELEVANT?: Jessie J recorded her part and welcomed anyone who wanted to duet with her to create another part in response, to be mixed together. This is the underpinning concept of how I want my project to work: instead of creating a structured guideline for what has to be done, I’ll creating an opportunity for each clip to be interpreted in a way I might not have imagined.
CRITICAL OPINION: This clip worked really well in this example because Jessie J often makes comments during the performance, offering the verbal prompts, while Tom Bleasby has responded to them in a confident manner, creating the illusion that they are doing it simultaneously instead of as separate tracks.
WHAT IS IT?: YouTube video which combines a number of separate video recordings to create a new compilation, and interesting mashup.
HOW’S IT RELEVANT?: These videos existed as separate entities, yet work together to create this remix of the original content. Although I’m currently not looking to source videos from YouTube which aren’t specifically targeted towards my artefact, I want to carry the idea that the collaboration can evolve through the process of adding a new element each time.
CRITICAL OPINION: One of the key features of this source is the use of links to showcase the original videos which have been combined to create the final rendition. This gives the viewer a greater understanding of the process of the piece (should they be interested).
WHAT IS IT?: An online interactive art piece, utilising various YouTube videos to which enables the viewer to create a new derivative work each time they explore the project.
HOW’S IT RELEVANT?: Solomon aggregates a number of video submissions which are in the key of Bb, allowing for these videos to be played at various times, creating a remix each time a viewer explores the collection.
CRITICAL OPINION: This art piece is a response to the affordances YouTube allows: that is, the playing of multiple videos at any one time. Solomon explores this musically, creating a new way to interact with music online. While he called upon users for further submissions for 2.0, I think he falls short by not calling for those exploring the project to upload their ‘compositions’ created through playing with the site.
WHAT IS IT?: Online ‘production company’, which aims for an open collaboration process, inviting anyone with an idea and an internet connection to contribute.
HOW’S IT RELEVANT?: This website is the ultimate representation of where my idea is leading. It aims to bring together people online to create, remix, and build upon different parts of creative ideas.
CRITICAL OPINION: This website capitalises upon the dialogic nature of the internet, allowing people to utilise it to construct creative derivatives of a large collection of works. This builds a community of creatives with tangible projects as an outcome.
WHAT IS IT?: Discussion on electronic music, history of sound/recorded media, explores the concept of rip-mix-burn and the relationship of text and art in a multimedia context.
HOW’S IT RELEVANT?: Miller looks at how tools change the way culture functions. He draws a comparison between remixing live and pre-recorded music, which is a different take to the way in which most people approach remix (@17.30). This creates a clear link between remix and improvisation.
CRITICAL OPINION: Miller explores concepts in music theory of repetition, minimalism, and modality, as core features of remix. His analysis of structure within remix allows for an understanding of how the history of music and composition has informed our approach of remix in today’s culture, which is something I had not considered before, despite my musical background.
WHAT IS IT?: Text exploring online crowdsourced art, and how the internet has created a medium which allows for collaboration globally, external from real time.
HOW’S IT RELEVANT?: Discusses the internet as a participatory platform, how it allows for the rise of the prosumer, and how it can change the approach to art from the creative community.
CRITICAL OPINION: The internet as a network of connections of people, creates a platform which promotes collaboration, whether it be through discussion or art. Literat’s discussion of authorship raises some interesting questions in regards to my own works: who owns the collaborative works when they are finalised? Is it the last person to last add to the project? Or am I, as the ideator, the author of this collaborative process, despite utilising original elements from other people? If it is the latter, is the art my idea, and the final piece just a secondary element of that?
WHAT IS IT?: Discussion of changes to YouTube, focusing on video responses.
HOW’S IT RELEVANT?: Kevin highlights the original intent of YouTube video responses: a dialogic system to foster community/allow interaction between content creators. This was originally the way I was hoping to call for collaboration within my digital artefact, as it allowed clear credit to be given to the contributor, while also easily showing which video they are interacting with. Because of its removal, my channel will have to act as an aggregation of the content which is being responded with.
CRITICAL OPINION: Kevin highlights the need for YouTube to control what people watch next, and this is an interesting perspective on why the video response section was taken down. Instead of citing the press release from YouTube which discusses the low click through rate of these videos, he thinks beyond this by considering the original intent of this feature. What he hasn’t considered is the abuse of this tool (particularly ‘The Reply Girl’) as a secondary reason for it’s removal.