Rough Abstract - "Identity, Process, and Product in the Remix Age"
_________________________________________________________

With remixing, the individual parts of the piece (colors, guitar chords, vocals, etc.) become increasingly less important. This was inevitable, as synthetic creation and high-fidelity, easy-access storage of data increased in scope and potence. Within the limits of human senses, there is a saturation point wherein all the basic building blocks are already archived or are easily and routinely createable. The next step, should progress be allowed to continue, is in the order of the constituent parts. Every piece is remixable, a selection of parts with which any other part can be combine. In this, what we learn to value is not the fixed pieces (song A, painting B, yo momma), but the processes which digest them, the DJs, visual artists, and algorithms. This means a pseudo-spatial division, attaching values in something approaching a regional sense, where the size of the region is defined by accessibility, productivity, themes, style, and a logo, name, or title. These definitions, with borders in the land of Intellectual Property being as vague as they are, are reinforced by context, continuity, and sheer volume. The borders mutually reinforce the context they finds themselves in, even as they grow, like towers leaning on each other for support. Similarity in the product from one creation to the next allows some type of linear connection to be attached, helping to verify the sameness of the source. Sheer volume allows, through probability, that the associations with those borders (the logo/name/identity/title of the process producing the product) remain with the process who produces the most product with the given identifiers (logo/name/identity/title).

With this whole scenario, a beautiful collusion of Identity of Creator and Divestment from Creation occurs. Since the product is ever-changing, the consumers reduce the amount of value they put onto the actual, disposable product and place more value on the creative process that made it. Most creative processes are inside of entities, like mankind. Thus we move from a contemplative aesthetic where the solid, unchanging object is venerated to one where the object is almost unimportant, where the loss of the process is worse than the loss of the product. In this way, the method and methodology of the artist is almost more the actual art, with the product being the tangible, exchangeable secretion. Thus, we raise ego and individual to a height, which probably makes them egotistical, corrupt, trite, and absurd. But it doesn't go down like that. Since the very system that allows the exaltation of the process/processor is possible only through fast, universally accessible data and data storage, all honors, props, and laurels go increasingly to a virtual identity. Just as in graffiti, the product is public, by a very specific individual which can be linked to other products, but who is not connected to the product EXCEPT during and through its creation. After creation, the product is public domain. There is little room between creation and product within which to achieve personal gain, which means that it is more likely to be art for art's sake. Expression because there is something to be expressed. More importantly, with how fast and easy data can spread, there is no way to identify the creative process in question except through its created products. The process is defined by the product, like clay hand defines the cast it came from. How then, can an artist make a living? See : Street Performer Model and Ransom Model. Essentially, patronage (by masses or wealthy investors) or a sample/incomplete product that becomes complete when a certain level of donated funds is reached.

Still, there will be some products that are more appreciated than others, so this is not absolute in any sense. Hopefully, a certain balance between appreciation for product and appreciation for process will be reached.