Everything is a Remix Part 3
by Kirby
If you enjoy this video and would like to support the series, please take a moment to donate.
Music Used in This Episode, Transcript, References, Subtitles and Samples
You can also view this video on YouTube
If you notice any errors in this video, I would appreciate if you could leave a comment below.
Nelson and Valdez of Wreck and Salvage each produced videos inspired by Part 3. Check ‘em out: Nelson, Valdez
Twitter
Facebook
Vimeo
Newsletter
GooglePlus
And somehow your work is inspiring, specially the last quote from Henry Ford
“Inevitable” is a strong word to use in Ford’s quote. I believe most people view inventions and innovation as inevitable. However we still rely on an individual to pioneer and press forward. If every single person truly believed that innovation was inevitable we’d all be waiting for inventions to manifest and will themselves into being. Furthermore, collective discovery certainly may exist… I just don’t prefer the name. Collective implies a group of minds working together. If 2 people come to the same conclusion working individually, they are still individuals who arrived at a conclusion individually. To attribute invention/innovation to a collective is collectivism at its simplest form.
good points. Maybe collective discovery does not convey the correct idea here. Simultaneous discovery?
I think a good thing to consider is collective consciousness.
I think what he meant by inevitable, is that sooner or later SOMEONE else would come along with that particular idea. So it just happened to be that he was the first.
I think it’s important to understand that sometimes people can consciously be aware of their influences, and other times it’s subconscious. And sometimes an idea comes to you out of nowhere, like hums, because i believe in some ways humans are fundamentally, like great art, irrational, so their creations can’t always be clearly pinpointed to an influence. (that’s not to say there wasn’t SOME kind of influence)
Yes, good points Roy. I think of it sort of like a network with a plenty of redundancy. All the nodes of the network need to be firing for anything to happen, but if some drop out, the whole thing doesn’t collapse.
We humans learn by copying; so do animals. If everything were copied to perfection, there would be no innovation and invention. Just look at Nature. DNA is copied and evolution occurs only if it is copied incorrectly. I suspect that some of the innovations are the result of a process that was not done “correctly.” Somebody screwed up a job and it turned out better. We would probably still be rubbing sticks for fire if we relied only on the “false copying” method of innovation.
One way how we force innovation is by introducing errors. For example, this is how pharmaceutical research works: Rather than feeding lab mice regular food you give them something different and then watch what happens. It is an “enlightened trial and error.”
We say that an invention was “inevitable,” but only in retrospect: “Well, sure, this was inevitable.” I suppose that going from a horse buggy to a car was “inevitable,” once the gasoline engine was invented. It was noticed in the film that many inventions occurred almost at the same time in different places. This might be a definition of an inevitable invention. It looks like that the conditions, the accumulated knowledge, the need was such the the invention popped out.
How about an invention that was not “inevitable”? Well, there was an engineer at 3M working on a better glue. He developed a lousy glue, but he turned the failure in a success and we got “Post-it” notes.
Actually the idea that our minds are separate is pure fiction maintained by our deluded egos – Jung’s Collective Unconscious (=Higher Intelligence), one big parallel processing CPU. Our individual consciousnesses are like the specks of light on the wall reflected by a mirror ball.
http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html
Well, I can’t say that you’re wrong about mind separateness being fictional, because I don’t have a proof for you, but your two supporting references don’t offer any proof of your unequivocal statement, and if you’re going to be unequivocal, you should provide a proof or at least an argument.
Jung’s idea about the collective unconscious has many interpretations by scholars. The more literal interpretations limit his idea to things that are genetically, or perhaps culturally, inherited that provide similar functionality and influence within consciousness, but are not connected or communicating between people. The less literal ones say that his various writings ‘hint’ at a connected layer of consciousness, or that they show signs that he wanted\would-have-welcomed a connected consciousness.
I also checked out the Ted.com video, and in the video the woman is describing her interpretations of her own internal experience. I have no problem with personal interpretations at all; they are called beliefs and I have many myself, but I don’t go around offering them as unequivocal statements.
So, not intending to flame, just letting you know that I followed your pointers and didn’t find what you apparently found.
Whoops, just realized I kept writing “consciousness” instead of “unconsciousness”…my bad.
Another Amazing Film. Worth the wait
This is a work of art
nice one, once again! lookin’ forward to part 4! cheers
Thanks for doing it again
Great work again indeed! The visuals are also beautiful and top-notch
But why the credits with the breaks after 6 minutes? It’s not immediately obvious that there’s more footage coming afterwards … Except by looking at the timeline of course
I can only imagine this is continuing the idea from the other 2 films? Who knows, but I totally anticipated this cheeky little twist was coming. Brilliant film.
Really good job.
Reminds me a lot of the study and book written by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi
http://www.amazon.com/Creativity-Flow-Psychology-Discovery-Invention/dp/0060928204
hmm… I wonder why that may be…
I think you missed the point by failing to mention how microsoft became microsoft in making PC’s popular by stealing Apple’s idea. (I’m pretty sure you saw Pirates of the Silicon Valley [1999]). I’m not a PC/Mac fanboy but that was fundamental to the spreading of the personal computer throughout the world.
Windows wasn’t a transformative technology and that makes it a less interesting topic. Microsoft is/was a popularizer. The original Mac was genuinely influential and that makes it more worthwhile to explore.
please post a link to any proof of this. As far as I have heard Microsoft (just like many) where equal competitors that never ripped Apple off, in fact apple ripped small companies off and now they are trying out the strategy of popularizing by spreading lies (Mac VS PC commercials) about Microsoft.
If you disagree with this, I do need sources where is all of this coming from, because either I didn’t hear about it or you are wrong. (both answers I would accept) Could you please forward the sources?
“If you disagree with this, I do need sources where is all of this coming from, because either I didn’t hear about it or you are wrong. (both answers I would accept) Could you please forward the sources?”
Mirta, please stop being so pompous and follow your own advice when posting accusations of theft by posting sources to where you are getting your information that Apple ripped off small companies. I know you may disagree with this, but I do need sources of where all this is coming from, because either I didn’t hear about it or you are wrong. [Source: http://www.everythingisaremix.info/everything-is-a-remix-part-3/, comment Mirta- June 30, 2011 at 7:10 pm, accessed july 10th 2011.]
here’s all the sources you need:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1mvN6lU0oU&feature=related
Microsoft is famous for its OS. What it did was made other computers friendlier. Apple made a complete package– an integrated one-piece computer with a functional, user-friendly graphical interface. The Macintosh became the first commercially successful GUI based computer because it was designed as a whole and as a whole was well designed. The same success would come when Apple released the iPod–not the first in its field but was so supremely well designed that others would emulate it because it works so well.
You are right, there is no “Mac vs PC” debate, because the Mac is a PC and Microsoft is an OS.
Is it just me you have a narration style of the one Carl Sagan putting certain emphasis on certain parts of the words.
The third part is a remix of the previous ones
Thanks
noooo, thats what part 4 is.
Hi,
I hate to be the one to point out an error, but as a copy editor I can’t help it.
At 2:40 in the video, you spelled “interchangeable” as “interchangebale.”
This is a wonderful series, and I really enjoy it. Looking forward to the next one!
Thanks Jen! That’s getting updated right now.
It might just be my player, but the audio seemed slightly out of sync with your speaking at the end of the video.
Yep, good eye. It’s getting fixed right now.
I really appreciate this work, Kirby.
But at the same time, I feel that it has as much of a grudge as it has a heart. Your narration is loaded with terms that negate, that void. And I don’t feel there’s anything you’re trying to fill the void with — or change it into.
Also, when I walk away from each new episode, I feel thoroughly dis-inspired and perplexed. Wouldn’t a project on human creativity hope to achieve the opposite?
Finally, as a creator with a few things under my belt, it doesn’t feel like you’ve really nailed anything about creativity itself. I don’t recognize any part of a human process here. Are you at too superficial of a level?
Now I’m left to simply go back to what I do… which I guess is derivative, but seems very hard and magical.
I’m simply puzzled as to where this deconstruction project hopes to locate itself in the canon of fruitful human endeavor.
Thank you for this space to comment. All the above aside, I truly do look forward to episode 4, simply for some resolution to the mystery you’ve expertly spun up.
Be well,
Chris
Odd, many people are getting the exact opposite emotional feeling from this. And I think I’ve said something pretty specific about creativity and I think the message is empowering.
I really don’t know how you’re getting these impressions but honestly, you’re not going to like Part 4 any better.
You don’t know how I’m getting disempowering impressions from a simplistic message that there is only an iterative method to invention?
Have you ever considered that there is also a method to invention that roughly follows this path: there is something I need or imagine, I will conjure whatever I require to fill that need or fulfill that imagining…?
Your answer is simply that I can only use the loose, spare parts of civilization. Or that even if I’m in isolation, I will not create anything different than someone else will at essentially the same point in time.
I really don’t believe that you have thought much about human creativity. Your view is non-nuanced and basically ideological. And your “many people” who buy into this will only “create” things worthy of the label “derivative”. Truly.
Proudly, you would say.
Obviously the project is beneath you. Just go watch something else. Problem solved.
This is a good reaction to your video series, Kirby. He was posting defensive (offence is the best defense) statements because he was being challenged to rethink just how ‘important’ and ‘unique’ he is. You’ve provoked thought and insight, and he rebelled at what he saw. It’s his fault for not being able to face the truth of himself, not your fault for shedding light on a commonality shared by all human beings.
I do agree that this video series is topical and could delve much, much deeper than it does. I also understand that you don’t have the time and resources to do so. I’d love to see you make this into a feature-length documentary, but whether you do or don’t–thanks for making this video series.
I hate to see you get defensive here, obviously this project is important to you, but I have to say in some ways I agree with Chris, and in some ways with you.
I guess, by example, you make a reference to Newton and Gottfried Leibniz discovering calculus at the same time, which is true enough, but I have heard many scientists say that without Einstein (even with his flaws) and his theory of relativity modern science would have been held back 20 maybe 30 years. And that idea was an act of pure imagination.
If I were to some up how I feel, I would say that I’m scared of a future of derivatives, with a lifetime of knowledge one could never learn everything (which seems to me the only way to avoid being derivative) and I’ve always had a childlike wonder and hope that out of a whole existence one good original idea could change your life, or the world. And that’s not asking much is it? One single thought?
But in any case you inspire discussion, and that is a massive success of itself.
Sad troll is sad.
Thanks Kirby, loving the series so far!
Regarding Christopher’s comment: I think it simply reflects many people’s orientation towards the genius myth as a central tenet of their life philosophy. I remember having that same feeling of betrayal back in Art School when I learned that all the great “geniuses” of the modernist art movement were essentially appointed by a single kingmaker critic, Clement Greenberg. I wanted so deeply to believe in the myth of the lone world-changing genius, and that human society operates on a system of pure meritocracy. It was a let down to realize I had been chasing some phantom cultural construct.
However, as with any great challenge to one’s beliefs, you can choose to recoil in horror and grip ever more tightly to a comforting fantasy; or you can embrace the new enlightenment, use it to widen your world view, and become stronger for it. The choice is yours.
I think Henry Ford’s quote at the end works to encourage innovation and the human progress endeavor:
“To teach that a comparatively few men are responsible for the greatest forward steps of mankind is the worst sort of nonsense. ”
If we taught that only a few have done the greatest, then we discourage those who may not think of themselves as “great” to stop trying. Henry Ford seems to be implying that that is not ok.
well what Kirby is doing is deconstructing creative achievements down to like their basic elements and influences. Like deconstructing a building back to wooden planks and pipes and wires etc. He has pinpointed appropriation by other artists, so as to propose, “see, it’s actually pretty logical.” But that doesn’t mean that artists sit at a table and think of influences and references and determine ways to simply re-mix and transform them to make a movie, book, painting etc. I think it’s a more irrational logic that goes on in their heads. Even though Kirby was able to correlate scenes in new movies back to scenes from old ones, does not prove that the filmmaker/artist was actually conscious of his references and appropriation at the time of creation. Those references could’ve surfaced subconsciously, or it’s possible that they were completely original for the artist and simply happened to correlate to previous works of art. And just because you can pinpoint references doesn’t devalue the originality of a work of art for me. If the artwork goes beyond a simple compilation of references to say something new, or in a completely new way, it’s still novel for me.
I see where you are coming from, and i agree that it can put one in a corner, but I also found this video liberating because it’s basically saying that, “hey! deriving, appropriating and transforming is OK! in fact it has been, and can be done VERY creatively and successfully!” It still requires creativity to transform, re-appropriate, etc.
This is excellent. Very insightful.
I think creativity is often thought of as magic, and that a clear path of emulation is often scorned, when in actuality, it shouldn’t be.
Nice, but all of these seems profound and insightful only to those who have an ignorance of creative processes in literature and arts.
Compliment/Insult. Very nice.
Would you mind explaining how you arrived to this conclusion?
Wonderful series, really well done. Copying and inspiration have been long recognised….
“If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” Isaac Newton – 1675.
It is interesting that I am now more comfortable with my projects that really just “hack” stuff ideas/things together. I used to feel guilty for not being able to create something “new”. However normally I do not want “new”, I just wanted to play, learn and get stuff done.
The Internet is a wonderful place for sharing creativity. A side effect of sharing is teaching.
Sharing, teaching, learning, having fun, re-mixing. All the same thing. We live in a golden age.
I may be wrong, but didn’t Darwin write his paper on natural selection many, many years (at least a decade, perhaps two) before Wallace wrote his?
I believe it was Wallace – who Darwin had been corresponding with and receiving samples from – being about to publish his findings, that prompted Darwin to publish his.
Not that it did either of them any good in the short term.
You have it right in the second paragraph — Darwin published because Wallace was on his heels.
Do you have a citation for the Henry Ford quotation? I can’t seem to find it online anywhere.
I liked your point about the movement of Apple towards a more simplistic approach. Apple did copy and change Xerox’s ideas. This is in opposition to Microsoft who blatantly copied Apple. Microsoft’s approach did not become either standard or easier until well after Apple lost Steve’s leadership and Microsoft had a few years to get some it right.
Question too, how much do you think the development of native applications for computing has played into this idea of copying?
I got it from How Breakthroughs Happen. I tweaked it very slightly.
http://books.google.com/books/about/How_breakthroughs_happen.html?id=9X7CnSbBqdoC
To the best of my knowledge, Apple not only combined and transfomed Xerox’s ideas into something new, but they also paid Xerox a lot of money for the right to incorporate ideas they saw on their PARC visits in their own products. I think this is an important historical detail in that it sets the “morality” of the copying apart from a mere uncredited ripoff.
Xerox was permitted to buy stock, which turned out to be pretty profitable. Xerox still sued Apple in ’89.
the point is still a good one. Especially considering that Apple went on to sue Microsoft.
This is awesome! Was it intentional to lead us into believing the final Henry Ford quote was indeed your quote?
Yeah kinda.
Talking about the thelephone, you didn’t mention Antonio Meucci who filed in 1871 a temporary patent (or a caveat, I’m not a native english speaker so I don’t know the exact difference between the two) for his ‘teletrofono’. It’s not to say that Bell didn’t file the first patent for a working phone, but it is one more esample about the fact that people from different cultures start working in the same ideas almost ath the same time.
I know, I know.
I couldn’t find an elegant way to mention Meucci without clouding the point I was trying to make. But yes, Meucci already had a similar device before Bell and Gray.
Also the radio was invented at the same time in russia by Popov and in italy by Marconi.
Both of whom were far behind Nikola Tesla–the man who ‘invented’ just about everything the modern world relies upon–including pre-marconi and Popov radio. The guys who get mentioned in the history books are almost never the ones who did the work.
return to the genius myth
Great stuff. If you haven’t read it already, I think you’d be interested in Steven Johnson’s Where Good Ideas Come From, which tackles a lot of the same issues as this video, including using some of the very same examples.
Even Steve Jobs, in interviews, has said that when he first saw Alto and Star it was obvious to him all computers would work that way. He just had the money, people, vision, and balls to get there first.
Without Steve, Jef, and the rest of the Mac team we would still have the web, Windows, Macs, menus and icons, and much that we take for granted today. Many would be called something else and the arrows might point to three o’clock instead of ten.
Well done, Kirby
This episode reminded me strongly of the old Connections TV series. That’s a compliment, not an insult.
Thanks! I love that series.
This is so true! I lost my job recently, so I made a 6-pack of energy drink replaced original tags with ones I made on my own with the web address to my portfolio instead of the original brand name, I took it to the advertisment agency where i wanted to work on monday morning. Eighter people in agency and my friends were impresed by my creativity, but the thing is that the idea originated from the present I once got from a friend of mine: she had no present form my birthday party so she went to the nearest 24/7, bought a can of “Level” energy drink & replaced last “el” with “on” to match my name.
People say I am creative, but I don’t agree. I just fit together things and make them nicer.
it’s called visual puns, or matching, it’s a contextual harmonization based on a mass pov, of shared-ness
Sorry if you’ve heard this before, but: were everything a remix, there couldn’t be anything. Think about it. So there has to be genuine originality, otherwise nothing could exist. So everything can’t be a remix. But if your definition of everything is selective, it of course can be whatever you want. A smaller everything could be pink-dyed puppies, another could be an everything where everything isn’t a remix. The everything where everything is a remix, seems to be tied to commercialisation. The everything where everything isn’t remixed, seems tied to non-commericalisation. So it would seem really creative minds aren’t so good at making money — which is probably why minds that are good at making money don’t have time for real creativity.
There is some argument for originality, but I don’t see its validity in the context of human creations. There is always a connection tied to the “why” of something being created, even if distant, to something existing. Following the trend in technology of the video, I’ll address the commercial v. non-commercial aspect; Open source software isn’t any less derivative, there’s still something already in existence that feeds an urge or need to develop that software to do something specific. Maybe a clearer example would be pink-dyed puppies. Nature/God created the plant life that contains the pigmentation used in dyes, thus the dye is derived from nature and modified to apply towards the goal of changing a puppy’s hair color.
Sorry in advance if anyone decides to go all Johnny Flame about Nature v. God and originality, not my intention.
If I’m not mistaken, the idea is not that literally everything is a remix, but that new ideas are almost always born of past experiences. The subconscious will use the experiences of one’s life in the creative process and these new ideas are filled with unoriginal ideas. This series does not mean that people cannot be inventive and original, but that the human experience is never only a solitary existence, in one way or another we all live this life together.
The reminded me of concept of general purpose technologies. The idea being that specific technologies need to exist to allow a trajectory of new technologies. Without their existence, no evolution can be made.
Awesome! Clear end very well executed. Extra!
I can heartily recommend the seminal BBC documentary “Connections” by James Burke. His technological world history is superb in debunking the solitary genius-myth and can be viewed in its entirety on YouTube (first part here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcSxL8GUn-g) with consent of his estate. Made at the end of the seventies, it still retains its brilliance and urgency.
And I do think this production owes a lot to it.
Why i’m having problems watching this?
Vimeo. Probably the worst video delivery network available. This is what keeps me from watching and enjoying these videos. Although I’m not a huge youtube fan, it would be a much better option than Vimeo.
Odd, I find Vimeo way faster than YouTube. YouTube and Blip.tv versions are coming shortly.
As my dear, departed mother used to say, “No one has a monopoly on ideas.”
Simpson’s did it.
Visually stunning job collecting, creating, and editing. The style supports your thesis nicely.
Kirby,
I’ve been following this series with fascination since you first started putting it out.
Far from being discouraging, the notion that creation and discovery are not exclusively original phenomenon, but in fact RELY upon imitation and recombination, is an incredibly hopeful message. It means that everyone, everywhere, can and does have the potential to shape the world we live in, and that humanity is not helplessly dependent upon tyrants and savants for their happiness. Hail the human mind!
And hail to spontaneous order. We need alot more of it.
Thank you for this series Kirby!
After the first two episodes I was all prepped to write a blog post citing all the reasons why I disagree with the idea that “everything is a remix”. In my head the title translated to “everything is unoriginal” or “nothing is original”. It’s a deflating idea that probably wouldn’t keep many people inspired to create. Thankfully I’ve learned that sometimes we have to keep listening/watching in order to get to the heart of the matter.
After watching episode 3 I walked away seeing this differently. What I saw were hints, winks and nods to a much larger idea. This idea is related to Jung’s concept of the collective unconscious. My spiritual philosophy refers to this as the One Mind that works in all, through all and as all. It is this mind that is Creative Intelligence itself. We, however, are the conduits through which it acts. This concept of One Mind is akin to the Observer in Quantum Physics.
I’m not sure if you’re planning to touch on how findings in quantum physics relate to how we create, but I would love to hear your thoughts on this. A quantum take on the title would probably be “Everything is Connected”.
Having come full circle, I am inspired and enlightened by this series and I eagerly await episode 4.
Be well!
thank you for making this beautiful project even more beautiful by putting the outro of Knife by Grizzly Bear in the video. that’s my favorite band <3
Have you ever seen the TV series “Connections” with James Burke ?
Interesting parallels on creativity.
This series essentially confuses Innovation with Creativity. To Innovate is to Remix, to Create is produce something original and new. The evidence shown is selective, emphasising one part of the story and applying it to the whole without qualification. This is always dangerous because, ironically, people will remix it. There’s no doubt this is brilliant work, but it’s colloquial generalisations produce stereotypical assumptions. These can be used/remixed to justify in principle, all manner of plagurism, while denegrating real originiality and true genius.
Sounds like magic to me, man.
If you’re going to use words like colloquial, you should really know that the possesive form of ‘it’ is its, not it’s. Also, you misspelled plagiarism. Oh, yeah–and you missed the whole point of this video series. On the plus side, when you read your own comment I’m sure you stretch your arms out and fold them behind your head, lean back, and congratulate yourself on what a smart bastard you sound like. Unfortunately pseudointellectuals like you love trying to poke holes in things that are simple. News: all universal truths are simple, but that doesn’t make them less true, profound, useful, or timeless. Complexity is the bastion of the inept. Now allow me to stretch my arms out and fold them behind my head, lean back and be the smug bastard for 5 mintues before someone gives ME what for.
Try this. Think of something you consider a truly original creation, then google it and look up how many references to past work it actually incorporates. If you can find something that, beyond reasonable doubt, is completely original, please reply with a link. Otherwise, I think it’s more of a stereotypical assumption to believe that there is such a thing as “real originality and true genius” in the first place, and the idea of plagiarism is based on that very assumption.
So great! I cannot wait for the 4th installment. I showed this to my father and at the end of each episode he clapped and yelled, “Bravo!”
That’s lovely.
Wow, unbelievable. You’re doing a great job with this series. You know, I remember being somewhat aware of this idea of everything being based off of something else. Then I was taught about Joe Campbell in my senior year of high school. However, while I understood that technological,scientific, and mathematical innovation was built off previous findings, I never thought of things like that being a synthesis of many other fields.
You know, I think it still takes a creative individual to be able to synthesis things into a successful new “innovative” something. To think, Henry Ford is revered today (particularly here in my home city of Dearborn) as an entrepreneurial and engineering genius, while all he did was combine 3 already developed inventions/ideas to create what became the backbone of entire nation. It reminds me of the story of “Archimedes” with the density of the kings crown. Also, the thought that what I’m typing write now probably isn’t original kinda makes me feel a bit… NOT original. Anywho, this stuff is great Kirby, can’t wait til’ the next installment, and I hope you have other stuff in store!
Nice copy via Adam Curtis ; )
Fantastic Series of films, looking forward to your next project!
Are you specifically staying away from the word “precedent”. In the design world this is the word that acknowledges that we are referring directly to the past.
cca
As a creator, I find much of this very true. I feel that we as humans cannot help but take inspiration from people we idolize, admire, and see as “innovators” ourselves. However, I think what causes a product worthy of revolutionizing a genre- be that film, music, or anything else- is the particular set of interests a personal holds. I’d like to believe that each person hold their own unique interests, desires, and motivations.
I see a few negative comments on here like you are personally attacking originality or creativity, but you’re making a brilliant point, Kirby. We are shaped by the things that precede us, but in unique ways. Bravo.
amazing work.
thanks a lot my friend!
Hey! Looks who’s in the credits!
Did I blink and miss it, or did you not receive enough submissions for the “remix our logo” call on your blog to feature in the video?
Excited for part four!
No, I got a good amount of submissions, but I just couldn’t make it work visually. Sorry!
Amazing work, congratulations!
wait a minute… you’re kind of a remix of Death Cab for Cutie’s Ben Gibbard… right?
https://img.skitch.com/20110625-8ufax86e32jxw3ew79hid3ixgu.jpg
Obviously we’re totally different — I part my hair on the other side.
I think it’s important to state that even though all great inventors stood on the shoulders of giants themselves, not everyone is a great inventor. All virtuosi have once copied others, but certainly most people copying others are not virtuosi.
i agree with most you are saying but, it sometimes sounds like your saying that, that idea of a machine that will change the world you drew with a crayon and paper isnt original because we have all the things to build it, and you didnt create crayons and the Egyptians invented papers soooo yeah your a knock off
Everything is a Remix
Thank you for putting some Aphex Twin in your episode. I’ve been enjoying your series and am a looongtime evangelist for Richard D. James (who seems to have somehow gone un-noticed for years). It was great to hear two versions of a great song. Thanks for that and keep up the great work.
Kirby,
You are officially my new hero. I’m doing ‘remix’ as part of a Uni subject called Digital Story Telling. Your movies on this subject have really helped me to better understand the concept involved.
Thank you
Sal
Meh,
After, the 1st 2, I was really looking forward to this episode but, it didn’t grab me like the previous ones.
Its probably because I am more familiar with the material in this episode (technology) than the other episodes (older music and movies). I also didn’t like how your mac fanboyism comes through. Why to mac fans feel the need to evangelize about their platform every chance they get?
Seems to me that if you want to talk about how the personal computer was popularized, you should mention the most popular personal computer platform, wintel.
Or maybe talk about how 1 man started a revolution by creating a kernel that is used everywhere, from tiny phones to supercomputers.
Looking forward to see where episode 4 takes us.
there’s more in the market than Apple. Apple didn’t merge the buttons too as far as I know Apple had only one button from the beginning it’s just that later competitors added an extra button. Or am I wrong?
I think everything is a variation of something else. But don’t let that stop you, how many people still pay to taste vanilla every day?
I see a lot of the commenters view this work as evidence that collectivism is more in line with reality than individualism. I’ve seen it said here that this blows away the myth of the meritocracy.
I couldn’t disagree more. The video series is correct: everything is a remix. Innovation is built upon the lessons of the past. However, that doesn’t mean that everyone should take credit for everything because our “collective consciousness” brought us this new thing – quite the contrary – it is up to those people who think they can improve on things and take the risk and the time necessary to actually put action to the ideas, they deserve the credit and the monetary rewards that come from it.
Now, this doesn’t mean that they should have a legal monopoly on their implementation of past ideas. But it does mean they deserve the credit and reputation that comes with being first. For more on this concept please see the book “Against Intellectual Monopoly.” http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm
Amazing Film.
did a cmd F for McL and got the boop sound. so i’m going to guess that while this is good, it jogs on the same spot the Baldwin doc Sonic Outlaws did, however, perhaps there’s some graphic design element going on here, to make this repeat seem, oh, I don’t know, like a new insight. Just have to mention this for those that want to research more than what’s here, to get, the most important aspect to this subject. C O N T E X T.
Creativity is about problem solving by using one’s skills to bring about something new that has value. It should meet a need or help accomplish a goal.
I agree that early on, copying does help one begin to develop skills, and it does lead somewhat to knowledge and understanding. Witness art students copying masters in the Louvre. But I’m not sure your thesis is complete that the overall process of creativity is one of “Copy, Transform, Combine.”
I gravitate more to the work of E. Paul Torrance, otherwise known as the father of creativity, or Alex F. Osborn. Also, Bob Eberle wrote a simple book in the mid-90s outlining the process of S.C.A.M.P.E.R., which offers a better take on copy, transform, combine.
S = substitute
C = combine
A = adapt
M = modify, magnify, “minify”
P = put to other uses
E = eliminate
R = reverse or rearrange
Take, for example, the Special Olympics. Eunice Shriver “substituted” intellectually disabled athletes for pro athletes in Olympic-style games. The result has changed the lives of individuals throughout the world.
Did she “copy” the Olympics? Yes, I suppose, but not quite like how you describe copying in your videos. In other words the key here is Substitution. You might say that that is what you mean by Transformation. But merely describing the Special Olympics as copying and transformation is too vague. SCAMPER is a workable way to understand and implement the process of creativity.
And of course, there’s a helluva lot more than SCAMPER to it, but, that’s for another time.
Nevertheless I enjoyed your videos immensely. Great filmmaking.
Just chiming in to add to the voices that do not find this at all discouraging.
We all learn by mimicking, emulating and interpreting. It’s the way we see things that makes each of us unique.
I work in a creative field (who doesn’t?), it isn’t alchemy.At any given time there must be a thousand things influencing my output.
I do marvel at the true creative geniuses that seem capable of pulling fairy dust out of thin air, but even they will reveal often they’ve combined influences that are freely available in abstract ways you might never have thought to.
I think a big part of that spark comes in our formative years, making it extremely hard to qualify.
“Progress happens when all the factors that make for it are ready, then it is inevitable.”
Sums it up wonderfully.
Of course, sometimes you are the final piece of the puzzle.
If nothing else, I appreciate your use of “CE” and “BCE.” Thank you for being secular! Great piece as well.
I’m fascinated by the videogame industry and especially the burgeoning app games that are transforming people’s leisure times, looking in depth into many their roots and heritage are blatant, I also particularly like how modern tech can take something old and glitz it up for the modern age as in this cross-cued and glammed up Fairy-Tale http://www.gametrender.net/2011/11/reading-grimm-on-amazon-fire.html
支持了！加油！