TY - JOUR
AU - Plaut, Ethan, R.
AB - Abstract In 2009, scholars and journalists hailed YouTube remix artist Kutiman's 8-video musical opus Thru-YOU as an icon of democratic cultural production. This article builds from a close reading of those videos—and survey of press coverage and relevant scholarly literature—to ask why people attributed agency to the remixed rather than the remixer when fragments were appropriated from essentially private citizens rather than celebrities. Those fragments are analyzed through a new tripartite framework for understanding the commons as a “goldmine,” “pot of dirt,” and “cutting room floor.” The concept of “transparency” allows reconception of remix neither as “bottom–up” cultural force nor as embodying the postmodern quality of being multiperspectival, but rather as subjugating individuals within the singular nonperspective of scientism. “Don't hate the player; hate the game.” (Ice-T, 1999) For a moment in 2009, the cacophony of YouTube's masses of amateur musicians—school bands, a middle-aged church organist, guitarists of every flavor, and even a theremin enthusiast—appeared to fall magically into lockstep and key. Israeli musician Ophir Kutiel, better known as Kutiman, created a virtuosic work of “editing” that transcends that term's connotations, an album built entirely from snippets of YouTube videos' audio. And this genre-bending tour de force, Thru-YOU (Kutiel, 2009), is as rich visually as aurally, a cycle of seven music videos, each built, like the songs, from visual snippets of the same 120-plus source videos, plus an eighth behind-the-scenes “making of” video. The audience can see every sound's origin, from school auditoriums to street corners and, most poignantly, messy bedrooms with modest decorations, details that make a house a home. For all Thru-YOU's lightning-fast editing and decontextualization, it replaces as quickly as it displaces, ripping a sound out of context for a song but simultaneously returning the sound to its domestic source by way of image, somehow embodying both postmodernity and a powerful intimacy. Beginning with surveys of remix theory and press coverage of Thru-YOU, I ask: When we remix home movies without permission, what do we call the essentially private citizens brought together through artwork in which they appear without having actively participated in its creation? In the case examined here, why did popular media erroneously represent these people—even if fragments of their images and voices were available from public or corporate sources, essentially private citizens nonetheless—as an orchestra of collaborators? This inversion results from Kutiman's meticulous citation and transparent method, ultimately subjugating people pictured in these videos—albeit unintentionally—through scientism, emphasizing transparency and neutrality to the point of impersonal rationality. This remix does not embody the postmodern quality of being multiperspectival, but rather the singular nonperspective of scientism, what Haraway (1988) called the “God trick of seeing everything from nowhere,” which undermines the techno-utopian assumption that remix is a populist force for liberation. Kutiman's greatest innovation is his visual index, akin to bibliography but transcending citation by showing rather than telling. This appeals to transparency, the unattainable ideal of full disclosure that reformers apply to government—for example, revealing sources of campaign donations much as Kutiman reveals sources of his samples—other institutions and even “society” in general (Brin, 1998). But transparency allows Kutiman to abdicate responsibility for his work. As scientists appeal to method and journalists to objectivity, Kutiman implicitly appeals to his index, effecting a misattribution of agency to people who are objects rather than subjects, pawns rather than players. From mixtapes to mashup and machinima, remix subgenres proliferate, and Kutiman has company in creating visual indices. Thru-YOU metavideographically represents YouTube's diversity and stands out for its uncritical popular embrace: Time Magazine named Kutiman's work one of “The 50 Best Inventions of 2009” (Abend et al., 2009), and imitators proliferated. YouTube artist Hookepack, for example, created a “Kutiman tribute” video of animals: a dog on kick drum, housecats on sitar and bass, and a beatboxing parrot (Mat ze, 2009). A cacophonous meta-Thru-YOU video (CTUBauerUK, 2009) rechopping and layering the seven videos of Thru-YOU itself also predictably appeared. Following the literature review below, I begin with a description of Thru-YOU and survey of popular press reactions thereto. That survey reveals a contradiction that I resolve through critique in multiple parts: the logic of citation and transparency; sources thereby revealed and understood in three different ways I call the “goldmine,” “pot of dirt,” and “cutting room floor”; and the performance of this transparency considered akin to a scientist's “methods section.” Having detailed all these ways Kutiman abdicates responsibility for his own artwork, I then describe how his audience is implicated through the physical apparatus of the personal computer in ways that transcend traditional cinema. My central claim: Artworks that appropriate fragments of essentially private rather than public lives—and attribute agency to those private citizens while denying them actual control—turn remix's assumed status as a democratizing or “bottom-up” cultural force on its head, instead subjugating individuals within scientistic structures of power. Remixing the canon and canonizing remix At the elemental level of the fragment, remix can be conceived as oppositional. As Adorno (2004, p. 57) noted: “The fragment is that part of the totality of the work that opposes totality.” Appropriation has rich histories in music (Arewa, 2005) and other media (Evans, 2009). Recent remix culture has been framed as populist (Lessig, 2008) or even revolutionary (Benkler, 2007; Jenkins, 2006; Potter, 1995). The prototypical remixer has moved from turntables to computer, but the “Robin Hood” sense of appropriating corporate product remains. Authorities regret using the term “piracy” to denigrate copyright violators because the term itself has been appropriated and embraced with connotations of adventurous outsiders stealing from the rich (Shastry, 2010). Remix has detractors, record labels protecting their business and critics who make arguments both economic and cultural about the difference between original and derivative work (Keen, 2007). Beyond this sense of taking is an important pleasure in the violence of decontextualization, described by mashup superstar Gregg Gillis aka Girl Talk as the ability to “put Elton John in a headlock, and just, you know, put a beat behind him and pour a beer on his head” (Gaylor, 2009). Questions of ties to origin or lack thereof recur for remixes: untethered to any particular point in space and time… [But] origin… is not entirely obsolete… Producers have a surprising reverence for the historicity of their source material. (Chang, 2009, p. 145) Lessig's (2008, p. 52) analysis concurs that a sample derives meaning from both its original and remixed contexts, but his legal project recommends abolition of requirements for permission in favor of a regime in which citation is, in itself, “sufficient payment.” But artists' norms are less legal than cultural. Hip-hop musicians flout the law but obey norms internal to their culture, within which the “community's ethics forbid publicly revealing the sources of particular samples” (Schloss, 2004, p. 13). Volgsten and Åkerberg (2006) give broader moral grounding, arguing that the diversity of local concepts of music oblige samplers to consider not only intellectual property law but also the context-specific impact on the sampled. Christen (2005, 2012) makes a similar argument about the inadequacy of copyright as an ethical system for cultural texts and artifacts beyond music. Authorship and texts Lessig, Benkler, and Jenkins attack the binary of consumption and auteurship, seeking collaboration across space and time. Lessig adopts “remix” for his term of art with sample-based music and Wikipedia as core examples. Jenkins's (2006, p. 257) frames his argument around “convergence” of production and consumption. Benkler attempts to include individuals but largely theorizes the network, with Wikipedia and open-source software his main examples. None accounts for what of the self—not only labor, but also elements of one's identity—inheres in cultural products. Rather, Lessig's remixers and Jenkins's fan-producers draw on corporate productions for their creative fodder, while Benkler's networked nodes appear to feed on impersonal or anonymous data. None emphasizes the possibility that our ability to manipulate information might also be an ability to manipulate one another, ignoring the possibility raised by Berland (2008, pp. 29–32) that technology inches us away from meaningful collaboration, musical and otherwise, and toward centralized control. Recent critique and extension of these arguments includes Bruns's (e.g., 2008) coinage “produsage”—a blend of “production” and “usage.” Bruns draws on Toffler's (1980) then-neologism “prosumers,” negotiating middleground between Jenkins's optimistic “convergence culture” and Terranova's (2000) bleaker descriptions of digital “free labor.” Jenkins's free-market account attributes an unrealistic amount of agency to people inundated with corporate media; Terranova's Marxist critique of the online “social factory” points to real problems of alienation but obscures the liberatory potential of play. Between these positions lies one problem treated in this paper: whether Kutiman's “orchestra” participates in any meaningful way. But Jenkins and Terranova agree that midcentury industry is a poor model for digital practices, and Bruns is right that this is not solved by glomming together more words into phrases such as Benkler's “commons-based peer production.” Bruns's contribution of the term “produsage” is a useful provocation but is a bit misattuned to etymological and vernacular context: “Produce” originates in the idea of extending, developing, bringing forth and into being; “user,” however, is often a dirty word, as users of drugs and lovers. In Silicon Valley the term is sometimes invoked diminutively, with mere “users” dismissed as the ignorant other of digerati such as hackers. This diction is no isolated trifle. The proliferation of English portmanteaux is, for obvious reasons, acute in scholarship on remix and mashup. Even core notions are ill defined, with “remix” and “mashup” loosely tied to borrowing, combination, pastiche, bricolage. “Mashup” music prototypically involves two or more preexisting songs—often vocals from one and instrumentation from another—combined to make explicit reference to recognizable originals. At its best mashup is a combination not of the merely unrelated, but of the exquisitely unrelated, resulting in cognitive dissonance, ironic kitsch, even uncanny beauty. Navas (2010) helpfully outlines taxonomies such as remixes dubbed “extended,” “selective,” and “reflexive” as well as mashups “regressive,” “reflexive,” and “regenerative,” but his terms overlap: “Reflexive Mashup is… Regenerative Remix” (Navas, 2010, p. 158). Navas criticizes Ferguson's videos series “Everything Is a Remix” (Ferguson, 2010) because “the way some of the material is presented begins to water down the very foundation of the term ‘remix’” (Navas, 2011). However, Navas (2010, p. 159) himself gives quite a broad definition: “Generally speaking, remix culture can be defined as a global activity consisting of the creative and efficient exchange of information made possible by digital technologies.” The popular press also struggles with these terms. The New York Times recently applied “remix” to, for example, race (Saulny, 2011) and pasta primavera (Bittman, 2011); the term “mashup” was applied to weddings (Freedman, 2011) and the nation of Slovenia (Sherwood, 2011). The vernacular is revealing: Mashup is sometimes called “bastard pop,” referencing not only the fruit of forbidden relationships but also “pop” sources derided in other remix cultures. This context is crucial because Kutiman's work is subtly different, a subgenre all its own that derives power from its particular sources and method of citation. Information systems and ideology Lessig defends remix as a productive practice strangled by copyright. This argument appeals to the rationale of laws in place, assuming production is the goal: “copyright law … [is] justified if it produces incentives to create speech that otherwise wouldn't be created” (Lessig, 2008, p. 96). Lessig and others (Jenkins, 2006) suggest technology transforms consumers into producers who reinterpret media into new forms valuable enough to balance corporate loss. But volume of production and profit might not be appropriate measures of success (Fiss, 1998; Keen, 2007; Volgsten & Åkerberg, 2006). Lessig distinguishes between “commercial,” “hybrid,” and “sharing” economies—and praises them all as valid—but they are all still framed as economies. As Christen demonstrates in her work on Aboriginal cultures of information, remix cannot be adequately understood, ethically and otherwise, solely in these Western cultural and economic terms: As much as it's hard to disagree with Lessig that [certain types of remix are] part of political disobedience and cultural production… The rhetoric of freedom—free of restrictions—replays the structure of enclosure, open for some closed for others… the cultural commons solution buys into a mutated colonial logic that once produced the museum of mankind ideal of cultural collection; innovation and preservation for some, erasure for others. Instead of reproducing this either-or debate (public/private, commons/enclosure, pirates/purchasers), we should ask where the lines of this commons are drawn and by whom. (Christen, 2005, pp. 333–334) Jenkins's argument, like Lessig's, assumes production as the measure of success—also like Lessig with an undercurrent of democratic rhetoric—but allows more space for corporations as productive. Benkler (2007) uses metaphors of life such as “ecology” but pays less attention to the possibility that information might be personal, describing an actual life rather than being metaphorically alive. Benkler uses the term “private” largely in reference to the “private sector” and “private property,” while “personal” typically applies to computers rather than the information they contain and transmit. Sinnreich (2010) collapses binaries such as art/craft, artist/audience, original/copy, and materials/tools, suggesting that remix, which he prefers to call “configurable culture,” is productively hostile to Enlightenment rationality. He addresses troubling possibilities that: configurable culture's technologies might be used by anarchic individuals to undermine institutions, or by fascist institutions to undermine individual liberty (2010); technologies such as keyboards and sampler/sequencers might impose strictly tempered tonalities and regulated rhythms, respectively, that replicate the status quo (2010); contemporary music cultures' obvious gender divides might persist in practice as techno-waste persists in landfills (2010); and more commonly cited concerns such as corporate cooptation. In the end, though, Sinnreich too sees in remix a liberatory force. Ball (2011) is explicit in his hip-hop activism against the privileging of scientific knowledge and the “colonial” projects with which it is often associated. He reads mixtapes as an “emancipatory journalism” throwing off the yoke of pseudo-social-scientific objectivity (cf. Schudson, 1981) that prevents journalists from challenging the status quo. Volgsten (2006) argues that the Enlightenment notion of music as autonomous, absolute, or nonreferential is a chimera, that music exists in discourse about music, so is ideological (cf. Adorno, 2002; Goehr, 1994; Street, 2003). My analysis acknowledges that music is ideological but denies that remix is necessarily postmodern in the sense of resisting rationalization and linear progress. Rather, remix in certain cases reinscribes elements of that high-modern ideology. Critical perspectives on remix While authors discussed above represent a dominant “free-information” conception of digital appropriation, critical perspectives abound. Even among proremix thinkers one finds apprehensions about corporate cooptation. Furthermore, a chorus of naysayers has derided sample-based music as artless theft (e.g., Keen, 2007). Critiques of the everywhere and forever of technology, of ubiquitous surveillance and everlasting data, are treated by Andrejevic (2007) and Mayer-Schönberger (2009), respectively. These authors are tied together and distinguished from Benkler, Jenkins, and Lessig by the digital commons' return to Earth: For Keen the commons is less fertile than barren; for Andrejevic and Mayer-Schönberger it is not simply expansion of public resources but incursion on the private. The argument below proposes a new framework for the commons—the “goldmine,” the “pot of dirt,” and the “cutting room floor”—elucidating possibilities of both liberation and control. What Is Thru-YOU? Kutiman, at home in Tel Aviv, idly downloaded drummer Bernard Purdie's video, planning on playing instruments on top of those drums himself (Heffernan, 2009). But he added another video musician instead and quickly spiraled into two months of chainsmoking and obsessive editing to create Thru-YOU, which includes links to the 120-plus original source videos. Mostly the editing is fast, but there are longer shots, and sometimes the screen divides to show multiple sources at once. The first video, “The Mother of All Funk Chords,” opens with Purdie and a couple of other at-home music teachers' DIY videos reordered to suggest a conversation. Then the layers build: guitars, hand percussion, brass, until the song arrives with Brian Fox, whose appearance was summed up by Virginia Heffernan of The New York Times: A charmless white room then fills the screen for a bunch of beats. Its few appointments include a school desk, a nondescript computer, a plastic laundry basket and a halogen torchière lamp of the kind common to dorm rooms and starter apartments in the 1990s. Then a middle-aged man enters with a harmonica. The introversion of the living space is suddenly undone as the room becomes a stage set for purposes of the video, with the musician singing in an ersatz Joe Cocker mode. The aging musician, whose forced concept of rock and roll appears to have been nourished in this sad room, has been turned by Kutiman into a rocker king. (Heffernan, 2009) Heffernan seems not to have clicked through to Fox's original video, which shows a bandleader planning a tour (Fox, 2007), but the majority of people in Thru-YOU appear to be genuine amateurs and even nonmusicians. The stars of video after video emerge from living rooms, bedrooms, and street corners. This upends the flashy imagery of the music video genre but appeals to voyeuristic curiosity. Links to original source videos for each sample complement this visual bibliography, so a curious listener can click back to watch an entire video from which Kutiman has taken only a single 16th note and its corresponding blip of an image. Kutiman created his own website to showcase Thru-YOU, but also posted it back to YouTube, which has been rightly regarded as its native habitat. He only appears in the “making of” postscript video, which reads as an addendum—and extra level of transparency—but unless otherwise noted, references to Thru-YOU in this article refer to the seven music videos. Popular reception Rather than reduce superstars to fodder for his sampling pleasures, Kutiman appeared to do the opposite: pluck nobodies from obscurity to offer them a moment—some a few minutes, others only a single 16th note—in the limelight. A LexisNexis search for “Kutiman” covering a 1-year period beginning March 2009 returned 43 documents. Some references, in publications such as washingtonpost.com, The Observer (England) and The Times (London) were incidental. However, substantial mainstream media coverage included The New York Times, CNN.com, National Public Radio (NPR), The Jerusalem Post, The Guardian (London), and prominent blogs such as Gawker, Techdirt, and Mashable. The gist of this coverage was that Thru-YOU communicated themes of empowerment through “distributed” stardom, “transparency,” and a “flattened” artistic world. A full survey of blogs was impossible. A May 2010 Google Blogs search returned more than 3,000 results for the term “Thru-YOU” combined with “Kutiman,” and more than 19,000 for “Kutiman” alone. But a limited scan suggests online publications offered similar analyses, often with more evangelical fervor than the mainstream press, as in this Huffington Post piece: Kutiman … captured the Zeitgeist of the moment—a time when our rapidly evolving Internet culture is toppling old regimes and handing over control of popular information to people like you, me, Kutiman and his YouTube orchestra… In politics, economics, arts and culture, an era of privileged access is giving way to something that's much more decentralized, participatory and personal. (Karr, 2009) Kutiman encouraged this interpretation. In his eighth video, the “making-of” segment, he addresses his “orchestra” as collaborators: “I would like to thank all the people and artists that took part in this project. I had a great time searching for you, and working with you.” He later said: “I was looking for—I don't know if the term is right—good people… it felt personal for me. I actually felt like I am working with these people, watching them for hours and hours, and so I was looking for people I wanted to collaborate with” (Anderman, 2009). Heffernan (2009) too sees the common man triumph: “Kutiman collected an array of striking sounds and images … and pressed them into musical service … The housebound noodlers of the world now miraculously jam together.” The phrase “pressed into service” rings true but refers to inanimate sounds; the players themselves “miraculously jam together.” Also: “Virtuosos with smug expressions do win the riffs sometimes, but the whole belongs to all the participants—and Kutiman, with a maestro's sense of orchestration, lets the sad-sack types periodically upstage the showoffs.” Heffernan ruminates on Kutiman's aforementioned soliloquy: “‘I had a great time searching for you.’ Kutiman's voice on this line is surpassingly romantic. It's also modern. What [Thru-YOU] expresses best is the love of the mixer for the mixed.” The logic of citation Lessig, referencing his own book, Remix (Lessig, 2008), blogged simply of Kutiman's work: “Watch this, and you'll understand everything and more than what I try to explain in my book” (Lessig, 2009). But Lessig's concept is legalistic, asserting that citation should be, in itself, “sufficient payment” (Lessig, 2008, p. 52). Why is acknowledging another person reduced to a monetary transaction? Kutiman also focused on money as the point of contention, saying: If the musicians I sampled want a cut, I will give it to them, but I'm not earning anything from Thru-YOU … I guess that they uploaded their work to YouTube because they wanted it to be seen … I'm not earning any money, so I don't see why anyone should be upset … It's not like I went to their houses and filmed them playing for an audience without them knowing. (Thill, 2009) While Kutiman may not have earned money directly from this project, it garnered him both name recognition and commercial projects derivative of Thru-YOU for Craftsman Tools (2010) and Vodafone España (2009). Moreover, blanket assumptions about diverse YouTube users' intentions seem misplaced, and whatever legal and economic arguments one might make, sampling practices are cultural and polyvalent, which Sinnreich too underestimates: Nearly every style of configurable music has developed its own language of what is typically called “citation” in academic research and publication—rejecting the notion of creation ex nihilo that underpins the modern framework, and positing all cultural production as a collective enterprise. The variation between styles… seems to reside more in questions of sample size and recognizability than in disparate levels of dedication to the ethic of acknowledgment. (Sinnreich, 2010, p. 196) But one need not cite one's sources to deny creation ex nihilo any more than reveal a secret recipe to acknowledge a dish has ingredients. Norms against revealing sources arose partly due to legal constraints, which might be skirted if a source was unknown, and partly due to physical constraints (e.g., scarcity of classic vinyl LPs). Hip-hop is more alchemy than science, as sample-based musicians' aesthetic and ethical choices prize insider knowledge, challenging legalistic or techno-deterministic interpretations (Schloss, 2004, pp. 26–30). Volgsten and Åkerberg (2006) argue that sale of “rights” is fundamentally perverse, that legal permission should be transcended by a post-Habermasian “ethics of care” wherein samplers consider possibilities of harm to the sampled. Pop musicians' appropriations from indigenous and other so-called “world music” (Feld, 1988, 2000) present especially problematic case studies. Christen's development of digital archives for Aboriginal communities presents a related challenge: [Open access] and public domain … advocates' faith in openness as an end in and of itself has distracted them from seeing the possibilities of alternative access regimes that are neither oppressive nor controlling, but based on divergent social and ethical systems … In recent debates about digital technologies, access to the pubic domain, and privacy, there is a false choice between content creation and passive use; between open systems that promote democratic participation and closed systems that encourage oppression; between human beings as autonomous authors or communities as homogenous creators. (Christen, 2012, pp. 2878–2879) Thru-YOU has typically been interpreted in those narrow terms. Press coverage largely supported Kutiman's position, including rave reviews from some surprised to find themselves in his videos (Nissenbaum, 2009), but players in Kutiman's “orchestra” uncomfortable with the spotlight would likely find silence the best option; the so-called “Streisand effect” suggests speaking up would draw unwanted attention (in the years since Thru-YOU was published, some original source videos have been deleted or password protected, though it is difficult to determine for exactly what reasons). Below the original videos from which Kutiman's samples were taken on YouTube, there are hundreds of comments, some respectful, some predictably lecherous. One telling note came from a singer, Mandy, posted below the video (Mandyvabks, 2007) from which Kutiman lifted her image and voice: My first time seeing the Kutiman video there was already 200,000 views and i was like OMG if that many people watched it........IM ALMOST FAMOUS! lol!!!!!! i dont know that i want to be that big tho, i like being able to go out and not be bum rushed…lol....Youtube is cool with me tho.....this may be just enough for me… Not every YouTube user shares identical assumptions or sophistication. Some dream of fame, others not. YouTubers might use the site as a technology of freedom (cf. Pool, 1983), but some musicians in Kutiman's “orchestra” seem caught unaware by someone else's camera. Secrecy is not to public life as privacy is to private life; trade secrets are quite distant kin of memories valued because we keep them to ourselves. This misfit of analogy across incommensurable value systems is why remixing a top-10 song is different from Kutiman's use of a parent's footage of a school band performance. With private citizens' expressions appropriated, the discourse was reversed, with Kutiman's sample sources in a “global jam session” (Gogan, 2009; pkay, 2010) rather than the “headlock” in which Girl Talk held Elton John. This rhetoric of participation finds its foundation in Kutiman's transparent process, and thus in an implicit abdication of his responsibility. Transparency in Kutiman Scholars' go-to visual metaphors for understanding media include frames, windows, and mirrors (Friedberg, 2006) not to mention the panopticon (Bentham, 1791; Foucault, 1979), which has been applied to new media (e.g., Constantinides, 2012) and refashioned a “panaudicon” among some listeners. I rather analyze Kutiman's visual citations—showing origins of every sound—as a form of transparency. This resituates Thru-YOU in a Western epistemology that, despite a distrust of vision stretching back to Plato's caves, has been dominated by sight and its metaphors (Crary, 1992, 2001; Rorty, 2008). Kutiman's remix artistry embodies not the multiperspectival postmodern but rather the singular nonperspective of scientism, the “God trick of seeing everything from nowhere” (Haraway, 1988). The effects of Kutiman's transparency are knotted. I propose a new taxonomy in response to the question: How are we to regard this collection of more than 120 videos from which Kutiman has taken his samples? Is it a goldmine of undiscovered talent, a pot of dirt from which a single flower has grown, or Kutiman's cutting-room floor? The goldmine This first interpretation falls in line with the rhetoric of Kutiman's popular reception, suggesting that the voices are not Kutiman's own, but those of his “orchestra” of undiscovered virtuosos. Here, Kutiman holds a baton rather than a scalpel, or is a medium through which others are given voice. Where Kutiman has taken a single 16th note, it would be hard to argue this perspective. But Juice Lee's rapped verse in “I'm New,” for example, runs more than a minute (though Kutiman subtly snips and realigns the vocals to his digital metronome). The goldmine interpretation also suits other sampling practices that refer to cherished originals, as in hip-hop's reverence for classic soul and funk LPs (Schloss, 2004). The pot of dirt Is Thru-YOU rather a single beautiful flower that has grown from the mere pile of dirt that is YouTube? This interpretation emphasizes Kutiman's agency, framing him as auteur. Kutiman stumbled upon undiscovered talent but more often made ingenious use of pedestrian or even painful recordings. Unlike “quoting” in jazz or academia, Kutiman gains legitimacy from neither his audience's prior knowledge of his source nor his source's credibility. Nor does he derive status from his sources' rarity or secrecy, as do disk jockeys (DJs) who show off their collections of rare LPs or hide sources as trade secrets (Schloss, 2004). Kutiman upends these conventions by deriving power from his sources' lack of credibility or skill and their easy availability, akin to sculptors who work with found materials, embodying the cliché about one man's trash being another's treasure. So when the audience goes to the source videos, they are bound to be both delighted and disappointed: Either the original is painful to watch, so throws Kutiman's genius into relief, or is a pleasure in itself, so deflates the image of Kutiman as auteur. The cutting room floor What is the meaning of showing us the cutting room floor, and why do we wish to see it? The Thru-YOU viewer who clicks her way back to the original source videos encounters what later became—perhaps was destined to become—Thru-YOU. Those videos are written into history through appropriation, thus destined to remain forever on Kutiman's cutting room floor as if it was the only place they could have ended up (unlike typical mashup fodder such as top-10 hits, which already have a place in the pop canon). Many of these formerly anonymous people were performing for the camera, but they were not performing for Kutiman or his audience. And some of them appear recorded unaware. Without regard for performers' intentions, the moments Kutiman sampled are now a part of the canon. But those moments left on his cutting room floor—the hours of unused footage to which Kutiman's index points—are negatively defined, culturally afloat, neither kept for their signifying value nor allowed to disappear into the obscurity of ephemera. They are trapped not in the canon but in its liminal spaces, its remainder. Thru-YOU's “method section” Now we turn to an interpretation not of the source videos, but of Kutiman's citation itself. I argue that the Thru-YOU “orchestra” is misdescribed as having agency because Kutiman has abdicated responsibility for his artwork on the model of a scientist's method, via the mechanism of transparency. By revealing sources and method in a way inseparable from aesthetic content of the work, Kutiman shifts emphasis from the remixer to the mixed. Consider the term “transparency,” which recently joined “retweet,” “sexting,” and “bromance” on one list of overused words that should be banished (Erb, 2010). The surge in usage largely centers on disclosure by governments and corporations (Fung, Graham, & Weil, 2007). Communication researchers have applied the concept to journalism (Allen, 2008) and museum design (Olesen, 2008). Full disclosure is a defining ideal of science (Carey, 2008, p. 61), shifting emphasis from the scientist and her conclusions to sources and method. Journalists appeal to professional objectivity—employing citation and other strategies to purge reporters' voices from their work, evoking a nonperspective—explicitly modeled on science a century ago (Schudson, 1981). Kutiman's transparency is the remix equivalent of this “just the facts, ma'am” epistemology, promising depiction of things as they simply are. Transparency is often positive, but I argue it is dangerous when reified as a value in itself. Entertain the reductio ad absurdum of full disclosure (cf. Plaisance, 2007) taken literally, including every detail of who, what, when, where, why, and how: no more military secrets, anonymous sources, confessional privilege, or secret ballots. Associations between trust and transparency are spurious. Complete trust renders transparency unnecessary; complete transparency renders trust meaningless. Omniscience and faith are mutually exclusive. In the wake of Bacon, Locke, and Newton's concepts of empiricism, science developed myopic focus on quantitative evidence, inflicting a loss of the sense of science's own beauty (Tiezzi, 2005). This privileging of particular modes of scientific investigation and knowledge excludes other forms of inquiry not only within fields conventionally understood as academic sciences or even humanities (Sorell, 1991) but also in society writ large (Stenmark, 2001). Although von Hayek's (1944, p. 268) pioneering work refers to scientism as a “tyranny,” he adds: It need scarcely be emphasized that nothing we shall have to say is aimed against the methods of Science in their proper sphere … But … we shall… [call] that slavish imitation of the method and language of Science… “scientism…” (von Hayek, 1944, p. 269) Some argue that this “slavish imitation” has led to a generalized version of the condition described above of insensitivity toward other people reduced to objects (Sorell, 1991). As an artwork lauded for its adherence to scientific method, Thru-YOU is a particularly acute case of the monotony brought about by this collapse of distinctions between science and humanities (Sorell, 1991). As Rorty (2008, pp. 388–389) reminds us, our “fear of… ‘scientism’… being turned by too much knowledge into a thing rather than a person… cuts off the possibility of… human life as poetic rather than merely contemplative.” Rorty is particularly relevant because Thru-YOU's index appears comprehensive; every fact of its existence appears not merely told, but shown. Rorty finds ingrained in Western language a “correspondence” theory of knowledge that stretches from the ocular metaphors of Greek antiquity's mind-as-mirror to today's taken-for-granted terms like “clarity” by which we misconstrue what we see not as a sensory construction, but as the thing in itself. I argue that the mistaken ideal of “transparency” is tied to the possibility of a single complete description of the world. Kutiman's visual index appeals to faith in what we see, showing the classroom trombonist and mother singing to her baby. A parenthetical (Author, Year) does not fill one's mind like the sight of a beautiful teenager singing in her bedroom or a drummer in a stylish hat pounding his kit. Kutiman's transparency goes beyond citation to a new logic of reference tied up in the relationship between sound and image. The section below refines this argument by considering medium-specific questions about Thru-YOU as music and cinema for the personal computer. The voice that is seen DJs collect records for their rich crackle and physicality, to be spun, manually scratched on turntables, and as a physical inscription of vibration, whereas “fidelity in a digital system is the Sony-Phillips convention” (Rothenbuhler & Peters, 1997, p. 253). DJs consider the process of collecting, of “digging in the crates,” an art in itself practiced through listening (Chang, 2009, p. 147). Kutiman's Internet-age form of crate-digging achieves a kind of simulacral fidelity, being true to a copy with gritty digital realism in its pixelated low-fi aesthetic, like photographic authenticity in patina and unrepaired scratches (Olesen, 2008). Kutiman reenacts the ritual of crate-digging through searching and listening, clicking from video to video rather than flipping through LPs. Many sample-based producers take pride in their ability to manipulate pitch and other sound qualities, but Kutiman says he pitch-shifted only two or three off-key vocalists (Block, 2009). This emphasizes Thru-YOU's fidelity to its sources as well as Kutiman's artistry as listener rather than manipulator. This framework of passive genius fits with the abdication of agency detailed above, suggesting a closer affinity to the audience as fellow listener. Thru-YOU's relationship between sound and image runs contrary to the logic of cinema. Audiences perceive movies as primarily visual but privilege audio recording in a special way, thinking they hear voices but see only a copy of the image (Silverman, 1988). Thru-YOU, however, is less a picture that talks than a voice that is seen. Rather than a camera's shot/reverse shot placing audiences in someone else's gaze, Kutiman sings in other people's voices (making Thru-YOU aptly titled). The rapid cuts between disparate camera shots are nondiegetic, unsuited to the linguistic analogy of editing as the syntax of cinema (cf. Silverman, 1988 on “suture”). One might project Thru-YOU on a screen, but YouTube is the work's native habitat, and Thru-YOU's inversions are particular to the personal computer. Computers now have built-in cameras and microphones, often two tiny pinholes, designed to be almost invisible. When using a computer as a videophone, people watch friends in almost-real-time and talk to the screen rather than staring into the camera (Gemmell, Toyama, Zitnick, Kang, & Seitz, 2000). In some sense, then, they regard camera and screen as one. Kutiman's vocalists often recorded themselves seated at a computer in a domestic space. The prototypical audience sits similarly surrounded by their own quirky mess, so the screen forms an uncanny window or mirror. This is true of other YouTube talking heads, but we peer into Thru-YOU's faces and homes in unintended ways. It is too strong to say Kutiman used musicians against their will, but neither did he have consent. Consent and privacy take on multiple definitions on YouTube. What is this bedroom as production studio (e.g., Sinnreich, 2010) or, more to our point, broadcast studio? YouTube was first conceived as a personal storage facility for uploaders to share with friends: In these early days, the website carried the byline “Your Digital Video Repository,” a statement which conflicts somewhat with the now-notorious exhortation to “Broadcast Yourself.” (Burgess, Green, Jenkins, & Hartley, 2009, p. 4) This tension persists between YouTube as archive and ephemera, with users unaware of how little control they have in this corporate/public space where empowerment and voyeurism uncomfortably coexist (Burgess et al., 2009). YouTube gives uploaders little control over licensing and officially bans downloading of content from their site but leaves the system open to technological workarounds for the community that downloads and remixes (id., p 63–4). Users of varying sophistication face contradictory, overlapping sets of rules from government, corporations, and community as well as the “laws” of code, in Lessig's phrase. Participation need not even entail content creation: “[T]he practices of audiencehood—quoting, favoriting, commenting, responding, sharing, and viewing—all leave traces” (id., p. 57). Technologically enabled participation fosters real connections (Baym, 2010; Boyd, 2007) but in this case it seems absurd to suggest that anyone except Kutiman himself “participated” in Thru-YOU. Development studies scholars—a community quick to deploy the term “transparency”—have even described pseudoparticipation as a “new tyranny” (Cooke & Kothari, 2001). Yet whether commenting on a video or merely watching it, moving its “views” counter one notch forward, in some sense YouTube users “participate” by leaving a digital trace. Thru-YOU's pleasures are voyeuristic, peering through the screen/camera (window/mirror) into someone's home in a way the depicted did not intend. The audience thus is not totally passive but instead “participates” in Thru-YOU, becoming complicit in the violence of decontextualization, the “headlock” in which Girl Talk so enjoyed holding Elton John. Remix reduces performers to material for a new creation, with Kutiman at the helm, wielding not a baton but a scalpel. Technologies that might make a Kutiman of any one of us are more likely to make us into fodder for someone else's creation. Thus viewers have dual identifications with people they see and the one they do not: Kutiman himself. Conclusion Lessig (2008) attacks copyright law for empowering corporations more than individuals, defying its stated intent to foster production. But his suggestion that citation be “sufficient payment” assumes citation is normatively good and “payment” an appropriate term. The wanton remixing of someone's labor of love might devalue it in ways that have nothing to do with sale (Bambauer, 2008; Volgsten & Åkerberg, 2006), and multiple regimes of value, some economic and others not, overlap in systems Stark (1999) has called “heterarchies.” The epigram with which this article opened—“don't hate the player; hate the game”—addresses the tension between a system and actors within it. Ice-T offers pimps the absolution we give to scientists and journalists, as well as Kutiman: the back door of attributing power to a system rather than the people who act—or “play”—within it (the “mirror phase” bind Lacan [2004] describes as seeing and being seen, speaking and being spoken, might expand to playing and being played). Furthermore, that system is of the established order, suggesting a possible answer to Lévy's question: Until now we have only reappropriated speech in the service of revolutionary movements, crises, cures, exceptional acts of creation. What would a normal, calm, established appropriation of speech be like? (Lévy, 1997, p. 171) We find not only resistance to and appropriation of pop culture through détournement (Debord, 1983) but also private citizens' faces and voices in bricolage. Thru-YOU was regarded as revolutionary but is rather more “normal, calm, established” (Nothing is more established than scientific rationality). Thru-YOU derives power not from revolutionary populism, but from the benevolent dictatorship of Kutiman as virtuosic listener at the door of a society accustomed to techno-exhibitionism and surveillance. The press received Thru-YOU without alarm at its appropriation from private citizens, mistaking the “orchestra” for participants—or perhaps pretending it were so—implicitly denying the appropriation as such. Irreconcilable notions of DJ as auteur and sources as participants trouble remix's reputation as populist, oppositional and multiperspectival. Thru-YOU's power, derived from misattribution of agency through its visual index, reframes the artwork as subjugating people within dominant ideology aspiring to the singular nonperspective of science. Recent revelations of global surveillance have perhaps put some damper on misconceptions of digital media as inherently liberating, but scientism, including the ideal of transparency, runs deeper. Still, this article overstates its case to counterbalance utopian visions of appropriation and the commons. One might more generously read Thru-You as an attempt to bridge an exaggerated gap between citation and originality, might even manage to see this artwork (or any other) as both democratic and postmodern. Haraway's “situated knowledge” attempts a kind of transparency without the “god-trick,” after all. Furthermore, this article assumes nothing about Kutiman's intentions, which were never the question. Heffernan was insightful when she wrote, “What [Thru-YOU] expresses best is the love of the mixer for the mixed.” It is appropriate to end, then, by betraying the love of the critic for the critiqued, and to do so speaking thru Kutiman: It really was fascinating to see people sit at their home and, and just doing—doing their thing. And it was sad, like, to see the loneliness in people, and sometimes it was happy and funny, and it was really human, so I think that's what really caught me in this project. (as quoted in Leadelnet, 2009) Acknowledgments The author is indebted to Profs. Fred Turner, Theodore Glasser, Peggy Phelan, and Douglas Kahn; readers from the International Communication Association, the Oxford Internet Institute's Remix Cinema Workshop, the Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, and Communication, Culture & Critique; and his fellow graduate students—Christine Larson, Solomon Messing, Morgan Weiland, Anita Varma, Dean Eckles, Andrea Won, and others—without whose help this would be lesser work. References Abend , L. , Altman , A., Bates , T., Cruz , G., Dorfman , A., Duerr , C., et al. ( 2009 ). The 50 best inventions of 2009. Time Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1934027,00.html Adorno , T. ( 2002 ). Essays on music . Berkeley : University of California Press . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Adorno , T. , & Hullot-Kentor , R. ( 2004 ). Aesthetic theory . New York, NY : Continuum . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Allen , D. ( 2008 ). The trouble with transparency . Journalism Studies , 9 ( 3 ), 323 – 340 . doi: 10.1080/14616700801997224. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Anderman , J. ( 2009 , May 10). All together now. Boston Globe. Retrieved from http://www.boston.com/ae/music/articles/2009/05/10/all_together_now/ Andrejevic , M. ( 2007 ). iSpy . Lawrence : University Press of Kansas . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Arewa , O. B. ( 2005 ). From JC Bach to hip hop: Musical borrowing, copyright and cultural context . North Carolina Law Review , 84 , 547 . OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Ball , J. A. ( 2011 ). I mix what I like!: A mixtape manifesto (1st ed.). Oakland, CA : AK Press . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Bambauer , D. E. ( 2008 ). Faulty math: The economics of legalizing the Grey Album . Alabama Law Review , 59 ( 2 ), 345 . OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Baym , N. ( 2010 ). Personal connections in the digital age . Cambridge, England : Polity Press . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Benkler , Y. ( 2007 ). The wealth of networks . New Haven, CT : Yale University Press . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Bentham , J. ( 1791 ). Panopticon or the inspection house . London, England : Printed for T. Payne and Son at the Mews-Gate . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Berland , J. ( 2008 ). Postmusics . In G. Bloustein (Ed.), Sonic synergies: Music, technology, community, identity (pp. 27 – 37 ). Burlington, VT : Ashgate . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Bittman , M. ( 2011 , May 11). The pasta primavera remix. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/magazine/mark-bittman-the-pasta-primavera-remix.html Block , M. ( 2009 , March 16). Remixing YouTube, one video at a time: All things considered. NPR. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101959636 Boyd , D. ( 2007 ). Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life . In D. Buckingham (Ed.), The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation series on digital media and learning—Youth, identity, and digital media volume (pp. 119 – 142 ). Cambridge, MA : MIT Press . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Brin , D. ( 1998 ). The transparent society: Will technology force us to choose between privacy and freedom? Reading, MA : Addison-Wesley . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Bruns , A. ( 2008 ). Blogs, wikipedia, second life, and beyond: From production to produsage . New York, NY : Peter Lang . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Burgess , J. , Green , J., Jenkins , H., & Hartley , J. ( 2009 ). YouTube . Malden, MA : Polity Press . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Carey , J. W. ( 2008 ). Communication as culture, revised edition: Essays on media and society . New York, NY : Routledge . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Chang , V. ( 2009 ). Records that play: The present past in sampling practice . Popular Music , 28 ( 02 ), 143 – 159 . doi: 10.1017/S0261143009001755. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Christen , K. ( 2005 ). Gone digital: Aboriginal remix and the cultural commons . International Journal of Cultural Property , 12 ( 03 ), 315 – 345 . doi: 10.1017/S0940739105050186. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Christen , K. ( 2012 ). Does information really want to be free? Indigenous knowledge systems and the question of openness . International Journal of Communication , 6 , 2870 – 2893 . OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Constantinides , P. ( 2012 ). The development and consequences of new information infrastructures: The case of mashup platforms . Media, Culture & Society , 34 ( 5 ), 606 – 622 . doi: 10.1177/0163443712442704. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Cooke , B. , & Kothari , U. ( 2001 ). Participation: The new tyranny? London, England : Zed Books . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Craftsman . ( 2010 ). Craftsman music experiment—Craftsman labs. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAgyDhWk5tE Crary , J. ( 1992 ). Techniques of the observer . Cambridge, MA : MIT Press . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Crary , J. ( 2001 ). Suspensions of perception . Cambridge, MA : MIT Press . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC CTUBauerUK . ( 2009 ). Re: ThruYOU. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xb_30vC4OUw Debord , G. ( 1983 ). Society of the spectacle . London, England : Rebel Press . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Erb , R. ( 2010 , January 1). “Chillax” and “teachable moment” make list of banned words for the new year. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-01-01/news/1001010049_1_words-and-phrases-toxic-assets-banned Evans , D. ( 2009 ). Appropriation . Cambridge, MA : The MIT Press . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Feld , S. ( 1988 ). Notes on world beat . Public Culture , 1 ( 1 ), 31 – 37 . doi: 10.1215/08992363-1-1-31. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Feld , S. ( 2000 ). A sweet lullaby for world music . Public Culture , 12 ( 1 ), 145 – 171 . doi: 10.1215/08992363-12-1-145. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Ferguson , K. ( 2010 ). Everything is a remix part 1. Retrieved from http://vimeo.com/14912890 Fiss , O. M. ( 1998 ). The irony of free speech . Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Foucault , M. ( 1979 ). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison . New York, NY : Vintage Books . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Fox . ( 2007 ). Blues harp & vocals from Brian Fox of Brian Fox Reloaded. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NutUFs9nK_M Freedman , S. G. ( 2011 , February 11). Non-Jews begin to embrace ketubah wedding tradition. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/us/12religion.html Friedberg , A. ( 2006 ). The virtual window . Cambridge, MA : MIT Press . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Fung , A. , Graham , M., & Weil , D. ( 2007 ). Full disclosure: The perils and promise of transparency . Cambridge, England : Cambridge University Press . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Gaylor , B. ( 2009 ). Rip: A remix manifesto . New York, NY : The Disinformation . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Gemmell , J. , Toyama , K., Zitnick , C. L., Kang , T., & Seitz , S. ( 2000 ). Gaze awareness for video-conferencing: A software approach . IEEE Multimedia , 7 ( 4 ), 26 – 35 . doi: 10.1109/93.895152. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Goehr , L. ( 1994 ). Political music and the politics of music . The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism , 52 ( 1 ), 99 – 112 . doi: 10.2307/431589. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Gogan , K. ( 2009 , May 17). Futerra sustainability communications—Blog posts from kirsty-gogan. Retrieved from http://www.futerra.co.uk/blog/kirsty-gogan Haraway , D. ( 1988 ). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective . Feminist Studies , 14 ( 3 ), 575 – 599 . doi: 10.2307/3178066. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Hayek , F. A. v. ( 1944 ). Scientism and the study of society . London, England : The London School of Economics and Political Science . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Heffernan , V. ( 2009 , May 3). World music. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/magazine/03wwln-medium-t.html Ice-T . ( 1999 ). Seventh deadly sin. Atomic Pop. Jenkins , H. ( 2006 ). Convergence culture . New York : New York University Press . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Karr , T. ( 2009 , March 12). The future begins thru you. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-karr/the-future-begins-thru-yo_b_174483.html Keen , A. ( 2007 ). The cult of the amateur . New York, NY : Random House . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Kutiel , O. ( 2009 ). Thru-YOU. Retrieved from http://thru-you.com/ Lacan , J. ( 2004 ). Écrits: A selection (B. Fink, Trans.). New York, NY : W. W. Norton . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Leadelnet . ( 2009 ). Ophir “Kutiman” Kutiel. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU3EZ3C0Nug Lessig , L. ( 2008 ). Remix . New York, NY : Penguin Group . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Lessig , L. ( 2009 , March 11). Remix: Buy the remix. Lessig Blog. Retrieved April 2, 2010, from http://www.lessig.org/blog/2009/03/remix_buy_the_remix.html Lévy , P. ( 1997 ). Collective intelligence . New York, NY : Plenum Trade . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Mandyvabks . ( 2007 ). An original song by me MANDY!!!! Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08kufPBJx0M Mat ze . ( 2009 ). Hookepack Kutiman-style animal mix. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUmEMnLrElI Mayer-Schönberger , V. ( 2009 ). Delete: The virtue of forgetting in the digital age . Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Navas , E. ( 2010 ). Regressive and reflexive mashups in sampling culture . In S. Sonvilla-Weiss (Ed.), Mashup Cultures (pp. 157 – 177 ). New York, NY : Springer . Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/index/R7R28443320K6012.pdf. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Navas , E. ( 2011 , September 3). Notes on Everything is a Remix, Part 1, 2, and 3. Remix Theory. Retrieved from http://remixtheory.net/?p=480 Nissenbaum , D. ( 2009 , May 27). Using video clips, Israeli DJ creates a million-hit wonder. McClatchy-Tribune News Service. Retrieved from http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/05/27/68923/using-video-clips-israeli-dj-creates.html Olesen , B. B. ( 2008 ). Truth in 3D: displaying historical evidence at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum . In C. Garsten & M. L. D. Montoya (Eds.), Transparency in a new global order: Unveiling organizational visions (pp. 25 – 41 ). Northampton, MA : Edward Elgar . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC pkay . ( 2010 , January 25). Global jam session. MTV Music Blog. Retrieved from http://blog.mtvmusic-q.mtvi.com/2010/01/25/global-jam-session/ Plaisance , P. L. ( 2007 ). Transparency: An assessment of the Kantian roots of a key element in media ethics practice . Journal of Mass Media Ethics , 22 ( 2 ), 187 – 207 . doi: 10.1080/08900520701315855. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Pool , I. d. S. ( 1983 ). Technologies of freedom . Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Potter , R. ( 1995 ). Spectacular vernaculars: Hip-hop and the politics of postmodernism . Albany : State University of New York Press . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Rorty , R. ( 2008 ). Philosophy and the mirror of nature: Thirtieth-anniversary edition . Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Rothenbuhler , E. W. , & Peters , J. D. ( 1997 ). Defining phonography: An experiment in theory . The Musical Quarterly , 81 ( 2 ), 242 . doi: 10.1093/mq/81.2.242. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Saulny , S. ( 2011 , February 10). Race remixed: In a multiracial nation, many ways to tally. New York Times. Retrieved from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E01E5DA1E3BF933A25751C0A9679D8B63&smid=pl-share Schloss , J. G. ( 2004 ). Making beats . Middletown, CT : Wesleyan University Press . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Schudson , M. ( 1981 ). Discovering the news . New York, NY : Basic Books . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Shastry , S. ( 2010 , March 17). Internet piracy taking big toll on jobs. Reuters. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/17/us-eu-piracy-idUSTRE62G3BU20100317 Sherwood , S. ( 2011 , August 5). Slovenian rhapsody. The New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/travel/in-slovenia-visiting-ljubjana-piran-and-maribor.html Silverman , K. ( 1988 ). The acoustic mirror . Bloomington : Indiana University Press . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Sinnreich , A. ( 2010 ). Mashed up: Music, technology, and the rise of configurable culture . Amherst : University of Massachusetts Press . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Sorell , T. ( 1991 ). Scientism: Philosophy and the infatuation with science . London, England : Routledge . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Stark , D. ( 1999 ). Heterarchy: Distributing intelligence and organizing diversity . In J. Clippinger (Ed.), The biology of business: Decoding the natural laws of enterprise (pp. 153 – 179 ). San Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Stenmark , M. ( 2001 ). Scientism: Science, ethics and religion . Aldershot, England : Ashgate . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Street , J. ( 2003 ). “Fight the power”: The politics of music and the music of politics* . Government and Opposition , 38 ( 1 ), 113 – 130 . doi: 10.1111/1477-7053.00007. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Terranova , T. ( 2000 ). Free labor: Producing culture for the digital economy . Social Text , 18 ( 2 ), 33 – 58 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Thill , S. ( 2009 , March 25). Kutiman's ThruYou mashup turns YouTube into funk machine. Wired. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/03/kutimans-pionee/ Tiezzi , E. ( 2005 ). Beauty and science . Southampton, England : WIT . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Toffler , A. ( 1980 ). The third wave . London, England : Collins . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Vodafone España . ( 2009 ). BeatClip #02/Editado por Kutiman, creado por ti. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6FVxDnyr78 Volgsten , U. ( 2006 ). Between ideology and identity . In S. Brown & U. Volgsten (Eds.), Music and manipulation: On the social uses and social control of music (pp. 74 – 100 ). New York, NY : Berghahn Books . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Volgsten , U. , & Åkerberg , Y. ( 2006 ). Copyright, music, and morals . In S. Brown & U. Volgsten (Eds.), Music and manipulation: On the social uses and social control of music (pp. 336 – 364 ). New York, NY : Berghahn Books . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC © 2015 International Communication Association
TI - Enlightenment, the Remix: Transparency as a DJ's Trick of Seeing Everyone from Nowhere
JF - Communication Culture and Critique
DO - 10.1111/cccr.12107
DA - 2016-06-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/enlightenment-the-remix-transparency-as-a-dj-s-trick-of-seeing-1WICYsJa6A
SP - 303
VL - 9
IS - 2
DP - DeepDyve
ER -