Ethics in Art: MASHUP
By BARTON BUND
Mashup is a crude name for a controversial art form. This collage of previously created work into a new and different form altogether has been getting more and more attention lately. There are great examples like mashup artist Girl Talk, who creates entire records made up of samples of other artists. There have been innovative mashups like The Grey Album, Danger Mouse's combination of Jay Z's Black Album and the Beatles' White Album. Is it art? Well yes, of course it is.
Art is information. It is an object that transmits some kind of information to the viewer, however abstract. It is a crafted object. In that regard, mashups are, of course, art. And clever art, too. Mashup offers commentary on culture that can create a Beatles and also a Jay-Z. It is a comment on the listener, who embraces the idea of pulling them together.
What kind of art is it? It is its own genre, and does not need to be compared or put in the same category as traditional, original music that is generated by an artist. It is a different animal altogether, with its own aesthetics. It is a different kind of experience, a different kind of information transfer. When one listens to Girl Talk's Feed the Animals, one laughs and marvels at the crazed, yet marvelously crafted juxtapositions of 80s pop and more contemporary hip hop. The record is a party in a can. The familiar tunes, mashed up together with a rap sensibility, creates a perfect dance record. And that is one of Girl Talk's objectives. Beyond the abstract commentary we might imagine he is making (Girl Talk is the stage name of artist Gregg Gillis), the work succeeds and makes for a magnificent night at a club. Hip hop and dance music have been using samples for generations now. The mashup that takes place in a club is nothing new.
Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is a popular contemporary literary example of the mashup. Author Jane Austen's novel has been augmented by Seth Grahame-Smith, transplanting a zombie-horror story into the classic romance. The book works as an experiment and is a very fun read. This book, along with the samples found in modern music, choose not to hide their mashing-up of sources. The fact that they are a mashup is as clear as it could be. They make it clear and obvious to the consumer, and can be quickly forgiven by those who choose to buy it. Austen is in the public domain, and can be used any way we choose.
Girl Talk's record is available at his website for free. You can choose to make a donation, or not. Check it out now by clicking here. He has taken the money aspect out of it, and has cleared himself of some legal trouble. He is not technically making money off of the work of others. Mashup is allowed, and acceptable in carefully chosen circumstances. Laws of Fair Use could allow me to publish a quote from someone else in my essay here, as long as I cite it properly and comment upon it. If the quote or the image is a part of my own essay, then I can use it as long as I am reviewing it or commenting upon it.
A recent New York Times article talks of a controversial new case of mashup and mixing. 17-year-old German author Helene Hegemann's Axlotl Roadkill is selling like mad, and receiving awards and other praise for its compelling story of teens wrapped up in Berlin's drug and party scene. But the success of the young writer is tainted by allegations that she stole the work from bloggers and other writers, in fact lifting entire pages from the work of others. The theme of the novel deals with intellectual theft and mashing-up. The author claims that the work uses sources as inspiration, and that the writings of others are all a part of the greater story of youth culture. Her act of plagiarism is part of the art, she is saying. A new generation of writers and artists could be emerging with no regard for the legal implications of the possibly dishonest practice. In Roadkill, Hegemann used the work of others without changing it or adapting it significantly, in some cases.
Is it the folly of youth? The naivete of the young? I doubt it. A generation that has grown up with computers and easy copy-and-paste technology certainly knows that they are lifting and using the work of others when they are doing it. Without attributing it, and without getting permission. It is one thing when the sampling is laid bare. Or when proper fair use practices are in place. But the institutions that publish and award authors ought to know better. Perhaps they were better to put the book online, give it away for free and ask for donations.
When artists have such easy access and such ease at adapting the work of others, it brings up all kinds of questions of artistic integrity. Integrity is not just a thing that matters to some artists. It is a thing that matters to the entire world of art. If plagiarism is allowed to run rampant, and awards can be bestowed upon questionably dishonest work, then we are in for a battle. This is not adaptation we are talking about any more. When the work of one artist is disposable enough to be used freely in the work of another, and bought and sold in the marketplace, then we have a problem.
I cannot pass judgment on the work itself. If the art is good or bad is not the issue, not for the moment. The issue is the changing dynamic in art that is brought about by changes in technology.
