Text and Hubris

Caught this on Eye blog and had to link it for any who may have missed it. This is a fantastic retro cover that is far more honest than Fortune 500 wanted it to be. The rest of us just wish it wasn’t true. This is a great example of the power of art, design and commentary. Take some time on the large version on the Flickr page. It is well worth examining closely.

Saw this on Pharyngula and had to repost it!

This was in response to a question about allowing unsigned applications in the next iPhone OS.

There is so much wrong with this I don’t even know at what point to start. First off, Steve Job is an idiot for making this comment. Flat out, this has to be the most idiotic justification for limiting unsigned apps I have ever heard. You know what I am doing while typing this, I’m streaming porn to my wife’s iPhone (no worries, both hands are on the keyboard). Isn’t it Stevie boy who’s been preaching about the wonders of HTML 5? Guess what that Hi-Def video that is so touted is going to be playing you turtlenecked prude, PORN! The iPhone has been a tremendous porn device and you know that is probably the one thing that closed off POS has going for it.

Any company that feels it should limit what I can and cannot view on hardware that I purchase is not a company I trust. I like to be in control of what I view and don’t view. I like to control which applications I install and I do not want or need some moralizing hipster telling me what is or is not appropriate. Maybe I don’t like Apple’s software. Maybe, just maybe, somebody did it better. It doesn’t matter. In Apple’s closed system you are stuck with exactly what Apple believes you should have. This is not a system I would consider worthwhile. Now, the main poobah himself is telling us that one of the those things we shouldn’t have is porn.

Well Steve, get fucked. Make it into a video. It might do you some good.

Laura Miller has an excellent article up on Salon about the remixed text, “Axolotl Roadkill,” by Helene Hegemann. When this first broke, I was rather critical of Miss Hegemann’s rationalizations. Her attempts to claim that her text was always meant to be offered as a collage comprised of other works seemed a hasty excuse once she was caught. I’ll give Hegemann credit, though. She did a great job of selling her excuse shaping it as nothing more than another in a long line of issues born from the generational divide. She claims, stealing a line from Wil Smith, that “parents just don’t understand” and her book continues to sell.

There is no doubt that remixing is important and that it ultimately provides for creative collaboration on some fantastic levels. This collaboration only works when artists are acknowledged for their work and allowed to maintain their desired level of creative control. Admittedly, there is a point at which this control should wane and I am open to arguments on how long that should be but the creator of a work should have creative control for some time. The creative commons works because that is precisely what it does. New art is created from a mixing of older pieces and any credit that is due is given. Hegemann conveniently left out that final step and that is where I take issue.

The idea that this type of copying is acceptable because “originality is dead” has never held much sway with me. That argument is really just as an excuse to write shit and claim it wasn’t your fault. I have no issue with the adoption of styles and prose that mirror another artist as this has been going on for as long as we have had something we could term art. I even agree with Hegemann’s argument, as Miller references, that you can weave another author’s text in with your own to create a sort of dialogue. I have done something very similar to that in several papers. I always make sure to offer an attribution, though. That’s where the line between remixing and plagiarism stands and where it should remain.

Well, the reviews are in and lo and behold I stand with those who actually see something wrong with Apple.

I understand the arguments. I’ve read them ad naseum and frankly I don’t really care whether anyone buys one or not. I know that I won’t. I won’t for the same reason I won’t buy an iPhone and the same reason why I gave my iPod touch to my son. I find Apple’s idea of application and hardware distribution odious in the extreme. I believe that any company that acts as if it should be the arbiter of which applications I can install or design is wrong. I find any company that is so obsessed with control and which invokes that control in the name of protecting us to be suspect and disingenuous. This is especially true when this company has already made application acceptance decisions based solely on the content of an application.

It is true that the iPads will most likely be successful for Apple. While the hardware input specs are lacking and the lack of an external memory slot is pathetic, I doubt that will have much of an effect on purchasing behaviors. This is especially true considering the level of hype that Apple has been able to build. As for content, I will do my utmost to make sure that the internet content that I produce is compatible with the device. I have no issue is developing content as long I never have to submit anything to Apple and I sincerely hope that they open the platform up. Jobs has proven himself in this regard, though, so I won’t be holding my breath.

I do believe that tablets will prove to be an interesting new medium and I am pleased to see so many on the horizon which will not be subject to the same restrictions. That said, I am concerned that others will try to adopt Apple’s model. Microsoft has already started down this road with its application store for the next generation of its Windows Mobile OS. There is a lot of opportunity ahead but there is also a lot of risk. I hope that in the rush ahead we do not give up more than we gain.