We have already watched the first two episodes of Everything is a Remix.
Watch the final two episodes below. Then leave two thoughts per episode. After that, please leave two responses to the thoughts of your peers.
That will be a total of four responses.
Thanks.
Everything is a Remix Part 3 from Kirby Ferguson on Vimeo.
Everything is a Remix Part 4 from Kirby Ferguson on Vimeo.
In the video, everything is a remix part 3, I thought it was interesting that he says it is a myth that creativity comes from inspiration. It really is copying other peoples ideas and adding them to new things. I used to hate when people copied me as a kid and I just wanted them to get there own ideas, but now I understand that people are coming up with there own ideas and adding it to mine to make it something even bigger and better.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this! In elementary school I would get so mad if someone copied my work, but now I understand that copying is just the highest form of flattery.
DeleteI like the idea that everything is a remix part 3 introduces, with how we must copy and learn the basics before we can create something new. A musical prodigy doesn't begin writing songs until they have mastered the basics of key signatures and scales. By copying, we are able to provide ourselves with the building blocks to create something never seen before.
ReplyDeleteThis is interesting. Look at how all students are taught handwriting or cursive. I would imagine - from my own experience - painstakingly copying the exact format my teacher had up on the board (she had the letters - both lower case and upper case - up on the chalk board for all of us to see). The closer we were to being a precise copy of that format, the more praise we received.
DeleteYet, years and years later, my cursive looks nothing like that. I added my own style and originality to it to create a total remix.
I imagine most of us do this. Hence, that is why none of our cursive - if we even do it anymore - even looks the same!
For part 3, I like Ferguson's take on copying. Early on in the clip, he makes it a point to note that copying is how we learn . . . anything/everything. It's interesting to note what he says about an artist's early years, where they struggle through work or 'art' that is derivative. That simply means they are struggling to find their own "style." But style, as the first two episodes illustrates, is really just a remix or re-combination of what influences us. Nobody starts out original . . . we need to copy to learn and grow. Realizing this is a good thing for the fledgling artist or person. The key - at least I think the key - is to copy enough so that you develop skills (there you go Cal Newport) that allows you to develop your own unique blended style.
ReplyDeleteMy second takeaway from episode 3 is that copying is good. I know this is blasphemy, but I think it's good because it leads to competition. I like the Xerox and apple examples. If either of those companies had a monopoly on the market, there would be no competition. Without competition, there is little innovation. But because those companies shared ideas and stole from each other, there was a so much innovation when it came to the personal computer. Jobs has stated time and again that apple steals from others. Of course, it's ironic (and I think this is brought up in the fourth episode) that if you ever tried to steal anything from apple, Jobs didn't hesitate to hit you with a multi-million dollar lawsuit.
To be selfish, what I love about this unit where you present lessons based on each chapter, is that it gives me interesting ideas to steal and then implement in my lessons!
Episode 3:
ReplyDelete- I think the idea that copying is a good thing is something that we don't always think is true. Ever since elementary school we have been thought that copying is bad and that you need to come up with your own thoughts, but without copying we would never fully understand the subject we are talking about.
- I find it very interesting that Apple copied another company to build the Mac. We always think of Apple as being the company to invent the computer but in reality they just copied and improved the ideas of other computer companies.
I like that you talked about Apple because it is true, I think that Apple is the best and nobody will compare to them. But when you take a closer look, Apple only got to where they are now by coping other people and transforming there ideas.
DeleteI like how you touched on the fact that many of us believe that Apple was the original innovator of the computer. In reality, Apple stole Xerox's idea and took it in another direction. Copying allows us to become innovative and successful, rather than hinder our pursuit like we have been taught.
DeleteInterestingly enough, as a true hacker, Jobs' partner, Steven Wozniak, wanted to give much of apple's codes away for free. That's what hackers do.
DeleteIt's interesting to note that because so many companies - apple or IBM, horde their products, that such a monopoly led to the rise of Linux operating system, which rebelled against huge companies that wanted to horde designs and copyrights for massive profits. The hackers that created Linux did it so everyone could have access to their operating system for free.
In the video, everything is a remix part 3, he says that we have always had many different ideas and concepts, but technology is exploding this. I agree with this because with technology we have a lot more things right at our fingertips and we have access to so much more information. It is so easy to google a word we don't know or find more information for a presentation we are doing.
ReplyDeleteIn part three, I think it was important that he mentioned that you can't just master something right away. You need to copy other people. This allows you to learn from whatever some one else did and build something, not completely new, but something that is different and shaped by those before. Another thing that was mentioned was the fact that even if the people that we think of for inventing things, like Edison and Darwin, someone else still would have thought of the idea. That point really shows how unoriginal everything really is.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this because if you could master something right away, you would never learn anything. I think it allows some creativity too because you have someones idea, but you have to think out of the box to develop your own idea to add onto it.
DeleteEverything is a remix part 4: I like the idea of copy, transform, combine. I think that everything we do involves one of these 3 things. You might think you have a really good idea, but if you google it, most of the time someone has already thought of it, or done it. You can still use this idea though t branch off into something else by combining your thoughts and theres.
ReplyDeleteI like how you said if you google your idea it is probably out there somewhere already. It is actually so true. There are so may people with different thoughts and ideas in the world we will never be able to come up with something that is truly our own idea. It is also so easy to find and copy other peoples ideas because of how connected we are.
DeleteEverything is a remix part 4: Authors of books are a good example of the copy, transform and combine method. Every book you read you can find where they got there ideas form another book. When Charles Dickens says that authors should not become rich, I disagree with him because even though every book is similar in some way to another book, most of them are unique in a specific way too.
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of the quote "It may have been written before but not by you" because even though something has been done before, that doesn't mean that you can't put your own twist on it and make something new.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI like how everything is a remix part 3 touches on the fact that the Xerox computers, Alta and Star, were the blueprint that Apple used to create the Macintosh. Essentially, the Macintosh stole everything from the two computers, but because of the different direction the two opposing companies went in, Apple became the famous company it is now. Steve Jobs copied the idea of Xerox, but he expanded it out to be much like a family based appliance, rather than Xerox's office based orientation. These two different directions led the companies to very different pathways, despite fundamentally having the same computer.
ReplyDeleteComment #1 for episode 4. We are all great examples of 're-mixes,' for that is exactly what we are. We are re-mixes of our parents' traits. Nature/God/The Great Spirit . . . whatever you want to call it . . . never makes an exact replica (even identical twins are truly identical). In fact, if you prescribe to the theory of natural selection, nature/god is pretty ruthless when it comes to weeding out the species that don't have the best remixes of traits. Just look at the dinosaurs. They had it great for hundreds of millions of years . . . until something (an asteroid, volcanic activity, a gamma ray burst, dark matter . . . take your pick) changed the climate drastically. Those species with the subtle traits that allowed them to adapt to the colder climate and lack of plant life, survived the mass extinction. Some (such as ants and sharks) are still around today.
ReplyDeleteI think the legal aspect of copyrighting is a bit absurd. I mean George Harrison being sued for "subconsciously copying" something or how John Fogarty was sued for ripping himself off? That's ridiculous.
Steven Johnson was talking about a new creative alternative to strict copyrighting laws. He gave a scenario of two companies, Goodyear (a tire company) and Reebok (a shoe company). If Goodyear were to come up with a new type of rubber that last longer and wears down considerably less, they, no doubt, would want to keep that information from other tire companies. However, their breakthrough in rubber would help Reebok create a longer lasting (and, thus, better) shoe. So why couldn't these two companies, who wouldn't be competing against each other, be able to share this new technology instead of horde it? I think this new type of "shared" information/technology is hopeful.
Episode 4:
ReplyDelete- I've never heard the term social evolution before but I think it is a really cool way of putting into perspective how social ideas form, spread, and change.
- I don't agree with the idea of intellectual property. How can a thought or an idea be thought of as property? More that one person could have the same idea but the person that patents the idea is the one that makes money off it. I don't think that is very fair either. Our society is only worried about ourselves and we don't care if we steal someones else ideas. But when it happens to us we freak.
I really liked the social evolution part too, I think it would help on a large scale to explain this whole phenomenon in order to make intellectual property less of a taboo.
DeleteSocial evolution is fascinating. I like to look at trends, especially in clothing. When I was a kid, I recall my older brother having a pair of bell bottom jeans. My father hated them.
DeleteYet, in the late 1990s, guess what made a comeback? Bell bottom jeans. Only they were remixed by some of the modern jean companies and updated.
The same is true with music. In the 1980's you had hair bands that were slick and overproduced (think of Warrant, Bon Jovi, and Def Leppard). They remixed the 1970's sound with some glam rock imagery and came up with something different.
Then - thanks to Nirvana - the Grunge wave (Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, and Stone Temple Pilots) came in the early 1990's. It was everything the Hair Bands weren't. They didn't look like girls in tons of make up. Their songs weren't about parties and sex and rock and roll.
They combined a little of the Beatles with some of their own hard edged sound and created - not something new - but something different.
In the late 1990s and 2000s music was slick and over-produced. You had Britney Spears who auto-tuned all of her recordings and then you had pre-packaged boy bands that met a certain formula for success (The Back Street Boys or NSYNC).
Then in the 2010s things went old school again with throwback bands like Mumford and Sons and The Black Keys, where there was zero auto-tuned music and many of the musicians played multiple instruments.
I agree that it is hard to consider ideas as property. I think the biggest problem with it is when companies are over describing their ideas or products. Because that eliminates so many other possibilities just because some one is being greedy.
DeleteI thought the Henry Ford quote in episode 3 was really interesting because he is so heavily credited with the assembly line and the automobile. His quote basically said that everything piggybacks off another thing and creativity is simply being in the right place at the right time and having a good idea of a way to merge things together. "To teach that a comparatively few men are responsible for the greatest forward steps of mankind is the worst sort of nonsense." -Henry Ford
ReplyDeleteI liked that too, it showed that he obviously knew he was building off of the ideas of others and wanted to encourage it as well as not make people think that it was all his originality.
DeleteIn episode three, I liked that he gave examples of copying first in order to build a good foundation of understanding. I liked that the outlined that you must first copy, then use your creativity to come up new improvements, then connect different ideas to form a new and creative one. One example was that of Henry Ford who is heavily credited for the assembly line. He didn't invent the assembly line, or automobiles, but was the first to pair those ideas and others together.
ReplyDeleteI agree, I think the fact that he used examples helped in understanding this concept.
DeleteIn part four, I like the use of the term "Social Evolution". I've never heard or thought that before and it is an interesting concept. That is because it easily shows how ideas evolve just as nature does, with copying, transforming, and combining. The second thing I found interesting is just the overall idea of intellectual property. It is hard to think of an idea as actual property because, as I mentioned in the second half of my response for part three, different people can have the same ideas. Although, it was easier to understand when he put into different words, saying how we are okay with copying as long as we are copying someone else. We don't like when people copy our ideas.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of social evaluation, it's interesting to look at child rearing practices. What amounts to child abuse today (leaving kids home alone for extended periods or even spanking them) was just normal parenting practices 75-100 years ago.
DeletePeople in the 1950s would think it absurd to put a child in a "time out." They'd just spank them. Today, they'd have the cops called on them in a minute.
Of course this applies to so many other things in our world. As a research project, it would be interesting to see what other evolution of social thinking would be different today from 50 years ago.
Perhaps I should do the exploratory essay AFTER Steal Like an Artist. I could have students explore an aspect of social evolution.
Thanks for the idea. I'm totally going to steal it for next semester!
Video 2: This makes me think of how strict we are about plagiarism. I understand not completely taking credit for something, but a lot of research is about building of off the ideas of others and the facts that they've found. It makes it stressful because you always worry about what someone might consider plagiarism.
ReplyDeleteI think this also ties into the other video when he mentions that the same idea can occur to different people. Just because you have the same idea as some one else doesn't mean you can completely take something from that person. Also, when you put the work into something, you don't what to complete throw that away because someone else is also working on something similar. At least I think that is what you are saying.
DeleteVideo 2: It's interesting how he talks about the public domain too. With how much things are advancing in recent years, would it make sense to shorten the amount of time before something becomes public domain? If you gave enough time that an exact copy wouldn't benefit but the technology or innovation could be used for the future?
ReplyDeleteVideo 1: The idea that we are okay with copying as long as we are doing the copying is something that I think needs to be a lot more open to discussion. If we confront this problem and accept it as true, we are closer to getting over it. If we never mention it or just skirt around it it will just get worse.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this. Copy wright infringement is getting out of hand because no one is willing to address the problem. We are only preventing ourselves from finding new ways of innovation when we refuse to let others use our work. Addressing this problem could help us find a new path that is not corrupt with greed.
DeleteVideo 1:I liked that they gave a parallel between technological and thought innovation and evolution. It makes it a lot more clear, and easy to understand, even t hough the lines are so blurred these days.
ReplyDeleteIn Episode 3, he talks about how the computer was not originally meant for the home but someone with a simple idea changed the whole world. He simply said, these should be at home, and it was simply a new twist on an already created product. It really just slams the point home that ideas are not completely original but combined concepts.
ReplyDeleteI think it is ironic in everything is a remix part 4 that by trying to prevent other people from "stealing" our ideas, we are actually prohibiting ourselves from further advancement. Ideas grow and build upon each other, not to be hindered to due copy wright infringement. If copy wrights had been a major issue during the time of Steve Jobs, Apple might not have risen to the global company it is today, and the idea of the iPhone might have never come. We discourage people from building upon others ideas', when really, we should encourage it.
ReplyDeleteI really like what you said about how we are hindering our advancement- which is the complete opposite of what copyright and patents were intended for. I think our society has become too selfish. We only look out for ourselves and forget to encourage each other to grow and expand our ideas.
DeletePart Three:
ReplyDeleteA lot of what was talked about in this video reminded me of the concept of the adjacent possible that was discussed in SGTCIY. Towards the end, he asks about what the world would look like today if the inventors hadn’t followed through or weren’t able to complete their inventions. He says that the world actually wouldn’t look that different because there was someone else out there with a similar idea, close to a breaking point. Creativity isn’t an out of the blue “light bulb” moment, rather a slow process that finally reaches a tipping point and spills over to create something different.
Another thing I found interesting was when the video mentioned that we can’t come up with anything new until we’re fluent in the language of our domain, and the only way to become fluent is to emulate what we’ve already seen and learned.
Part Four:
I liked how he compared the generation of new ideas to the market economy where they are bought and sold. It’s not something you really think about naturally– creativity and buying and selling, but that’s the reality of it today. Ideas are thought of as intellectual property.
I found it interesting how different the original intent of copyrights and patents is from how they are used today. Initially, they were used to promote creativity and learning, but now they've been overtaken by greed. I also like how he stated that it’s not up to corporations and the government to change this, it’s up to us.
I love that you brought up the language quote from the video. It made me think of gaining career capital, because no one can go out and do something worthwhile in any field if they haven't learned the field inside and out. You can't start out making original, great work, you need to practice other people's work and learn from them first.
DeletePart 3-
ReplyDeleteOne thought I had in episode 3 was on the different concepts of copying, transformation and combination. I think it is crazy how someone would think of switching something to make it better, or easier. How would they think of combining several parts that would create something groundbreaking.
Another thing I thought was how did the person get the Macintosh computer cheaper and easier to us than the Alto, or the Star. Like they transformed the star into a computer that was easier to use but never gave the Star any credit for it.
I think they could make them cheaper because they didn't have to charge pretty much labor cost for the years that it took them to produce the product. The basic idea was already completed, so they just had to change a few things, the parts were readily available, and it didn't take nearly as long to produce as the original. Its like making a presentation in that it takes so much less time and effort when you start with a template.
DeleteThe theory at the end of Part 3 is very similar to the “adjacent possible” in SGTCIY. Both of them suggest that innovation is going to happen at a certain point that isn’t dependent on a solitary genius. I liked the quote from Henry Ford. We have a tendency as a culture to idolize the people who make it to the very top of an industry. Simultaneously, we forget the countless discoveries and innovations that helped these people achieve superiority to their peers.
ReplyDeleteEpisode 3: I like how he talks about multiple people coming up with the same idea at the same time but only one getting credit. It kind of shows the faults in our system because we are so focused on the idea of "one" winner that others with the same idea are forgotten. It can be extremely frustrating to be the forgotten person who had the same idea, like when someone retells your joke louder and everyone thinks it's theirs.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with this. Like the example of the original having a harder time selling because the copy doesn't have to charge as much. Its interesting to me how who gets credit depends mostly on luck when people produce similar ideas and products at the same time.
DeleteAfter watching part 4, I like how it address the fact that when we copy, we can justify it, but when someone else copies us, we despise it. This has lead us to coming up with the idea of patents, which allows simply the idea of something to be protected and receive a monetary compensation if the "idea" is stolen. I feel as though this discourages us from learning and pursing new ideas, fearing that somebody else may have already patented the idea of the idea. Rather than allowing someone to use our already existing idea to better the world, we wish to only better ourselves.
ReplyDeleteThat’s what annoys me about patents and copyrights. Obviously we don’t want the original creators to miss out on getting credit, but patents (and the fear of a lawsuit) seem to keep people from trying things. Maybe shortening the life span of copyrights/patents would help.
DeleteIn episode 4, they talked about how people view ideas as property and get very territorial over them. Then he showed the example of Steve Jobs and how in the 90s he was very willing to admit that they were, "shameless in stealing great ideas." Then in 2010 he was quoted saying, "I'm going to destroy android because its a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this." I think I found this so interesting because in my ethics class we were talking about how people are prone to rationalize their own ideas and convince themselves that there is nothing wrong with their actions. Then, they will turn around and crucify someone for the same actions.
ReplyDeleteThats so weird. I'm pretty sure I do the same thing, but I find it really weird. We never want to admit that we we're wrong, but we can immediately point out someone else's wrong.
DeleteThis is interesting because it shows some flaws in our society. It is easy for us to pick apart another person and tell them what's wrong with them but it is so much harder to look at yourself and see what needs fixing.
DeleteIn episode 4, they talked about social evolution by the means of copying, transforming, and then combining ideas. This transformed the market economy and caused original ideas to struggle, eventually leading to the availability of copyright. Nowadays, original ideas cannot compete with copies because the originals have more costs to cover while the copy simply has to cover the cost of the product.
ReplyDeletePart 4-
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting that he said ideas are regarded as property, as unique and original lots with set boundaries, but ideas are layered, interwoven, and tangled. When the system conflicts with reality the system starts the fail. The one little thing, reality, can mess up one perfect thing but its not able to be a thing without real things that happen.
I don't think its fair how copying is easier to do the inventing things, because the original idea is worth more and you should have to add the costs of the original idea into copies of it.
Part 3
ReplyDeleteI liked the introduction. The necessity of copying before you can produce your own quality work hasn't really entered my mind before, but it's true. You don't start out writing you own piano pieces, you learn to play other people's first. You need to understand the people that came before you in order to do something better or different.
I think it's amazing to see all of these great inventions broken down. We often think of creativity and new technology as an individual lightbulb moment, all of a sudden one genius created something brand new. I liked that he broke it down and showed us how all of the parts for those 'inventions' already existed, and all the creator had to do was simply combine them or make a few tweaks.
I kind of felt like I knew about 'Everything being a remix'. Like sequels to movies and books. Or turning movies into books. But after watching this video, I feel like I have a better understanding of this concept. Society teaches us that its a bad thing to copy people. This video completely contradicts that
DeleteThoughts about Part 4:
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to do a study examining whether we actually have less innovation because of copyright restriction. We seem to be at a place in time where things are changing at a faster rate than ever before. Logically it would seem like legal guidelines might limit change, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Perhaps the competitive atmosphere is assisting innovative thinkers in some way.
That's exactly what I was thinking during the video! I wondered if we might have more innovation and creation without the guidelines. I never thought about how restrictions could actually make creators more competitive, pushing them harder to have the best first.
DeletePart 4
ReplyDeleteWhen he pointed out how we think of ideas like property with distinct borders was eye opening, because they really aren't. As he goes on to prove, no one idea could stand on it's own. It's interconnected with a whole host of other ideas that are attached to other ideas and so on and so forth.
I had no clue that's what copyright and patent laws were originally for. I think of them as a way to protect your idea, but he worded it a lot nicer. One thing that interests me is what would happen if we didn't try to horde our ideas, if we collaborated with people who were thinking the same things as us instead of trying to get our product out first. Although, on the other hand the laws make sense, especially since the original creator wasn't able to compete.
I agree with you. Copyrights and patents seem like a better idea to me now that I know their original purpose. Big corporations have twisted it though. The way copyrights and patents are used now seems rather greed based. If we had rules that were a bit more lenient that would maybe help people to collaborate more.
DeletePart 1:
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with the “everything is a remix” idea. It’s hard to think of something that doesn’t borrow from a predecessor. Even the oldest books borrowed themes from previous stories or legends. Interestingly, most great authors know/knew this. (J.R.R. Tolkien wrote an essay that addresses this.)
Personally, I believe that we would be extremely restricted if we didn’t borrow/steal/remix each other’s ideas. It feels almost unkind doing it, but most advances depend on copying. Transformation is obviously an important step though. I’ve heard about it a lot in artistic circles, and I’m curious to see if it’s mentioned in “Steal Like an Artist.”
Part 2: I’m taking a film appreciation class this semester, so this was a particularly relevant episode for me.
ReplyDeleteIt’s interesting how many movies copy a small range of revered classics. Also, most popular movies have elements that they copy from other similar films. “Everything is a Remix” is practically a description of the movie industry! It honestly gets boring how often directors decide to redo a particular movie or theme. It’s funny, if people know that something is a “remix” they tend to value it less. Really though, the best films are the ones that copy better than all the others.
Part 3
ReplyDeleteSaying we cannot introduce anything new until we know how to copy people. Nobody starts out original. I feel like I already knew this. We learn from experiences, teachers, reading. Then we take what we learned and use it in the future and create new ideas. I kind of find it ironic that teacher and society have taught us not to plagiarize. When in reality we all are in someway copying one another.
One of my favorite parts of "Everything's a Remix Part 3" was how first we copy, then we transform, and combine. They go in a talk about how everything we use at one point was someone elses idea. It was transformed and combined with many other ideas. One big example was the computer. Xerox actually had the first one, the alto. Then apple took that idea and made the Mac. They merged the desktop computer with household appliances. They transformed the mouse and double click. In ways they combined and transformed to make it more user friendly.
Part 4
ReplyDeleteWe can steal other peoples idea, but they cannot take ours. I find this extremely relatable. Our society, me included, focuses more on the negative aspects in life. Even if there are many great parts of someones day, they will focus more on that one bad part. I found it very interesting that Steve Jobs would claim that Apple steals many ideas, but when some one stole theirs, he threatened them.
Lawsuits. Patent and copyright suits are a huge thing now a days. Back when nobody cared if someone borrowed their idea. Now their are people that who patent and copy write things they never plan to create. They do this just to sue people and make money. Others will sue even if they are rich and famous. This is something the really bugs me. I think it is a real problem. How are we ever going to advance and create new things if trolls prevent us from doing so?
In Everything is a Remix part 4, he discusses the Copy, Transform, and Combine method and it reminds me of how books are written. All books can be traced back to having one of seven basic plots that take place in different worlds. Authors simply copy a plot they like, transform where it takes place and how it unfolds, and combines elements fro several other books to finally create their own "original" book. We copy, transform, and combine ideas because, by building off of things that we know people like, we are more likely to hit the jackpot of originality.
ReplyDeletePart 4: One of the things I hate most is that you can patent ideas. It doesn't make sense that you can copyright something that doesn't even exist outside of your imagination. And, with copyrights and patents, we limit our world's ability to expand and invent because at every turn there is something else that you can't do or incorporate.
ReplyDelete