Our understanding of history and archive has changed over time as acknowledged by Jaimie Baron. History is currently understood in two perspectives; as a reference to past events and as a record and writings of the past. The understanding of history in these two aspects has encouraged knowledge of remix culture. History has encouraged derivative works through combining or defining the documented history to produce products and works that are unique (Baron, 156). Understanding remix culture would first involve understanding the references that were made to the past event.
Many people believe that most activities that were documented to be history have changed and they are new ideas. Most of the ideas of the past are essential, and hence they are brought back but in different forms. Changes in history have implied editing the actual events and products to make them relevant to the current situation (Baron, 156). The activities are an act of remix culture. Remix culture encourages creativity, and it is from the ideas that were developed before that factors that may have been omitted are determined and improved to bring about the new products.
According to Baron, one of the disparities that tend to confer to what she characterizes as an archival effect is archival footage. Archival footage has been in most cases defined in opposition to the footage created rather than that found for the films that we watch. She also argues that the definition of the disparity does not help when we are not sure of the person that may have shot the film in that part of the time. It is something that is rarely made explicit. The other disparities occurred when the same filmmaker shot gave footage at one time, and the proceeded to shoot another footage a decade later (Baron, 157). The different effects that the different footage may have cannot be efficiently be accounted for in such cases. According to here, it would be argued that the person who might have shot the footage is less important than the experience that the viewers get when they watch the film. The effect that is generated through the juxtaposition of the shot that is perceived as produced at different times.
Baron in her discussion compares and contrasts Tarnation with Grizzly man through considering the time that the two were shot. She states that the time that the footage was taken in both would lose meaning over time. She talks of a characteristic such as color which is essential in the footage. Both the shooting had some of her footage in the black and white color, and this later changed in the other episodes of the shootings (Pierazzo, 3). The age of the footages also differs when some parts are shot at one time and then the other after some period. In one archival footage, a character may be a child than in the other which is shot later has the character as an adult. In this case, Herzog’s appropriation of Treadwell’s’ video is not right. It does not give the right statistics. The audience in the cases may not be able to efficiently connect the occurrences in the different footages as compared to when the footages were consistent, and it did not take time before another was released.
The particular short reflected the notion of in appropriation in creating footages. In the festival, there was a great sense of dilution with the commercial media. The act is evident from the activities that were embraced or promoted in the festival. It was a festival mainly meant to showcase the experimental and found media and films. The festival shows dissolution as the artists do not concentrate on anything else but to showcase some of the moving-image formats that they might have managed and to probe their limits in different aspects (Pierazzo, 13). The festival just like other activities of many artists does not consider the aspect of the audience into consideration. They are mainly concerned about showcasing some of the skills that they have developed in the field and movie industry over a given period.
Just like most of the media showcases, the raw materials that they use are those that have surfaced in the recent decades. Some of these materials may not be appropriate or effective to the audience, but they still manage to incorporate them in their footages. Some of them are only understood by the owners and not necessarily the audience.
There are distinct differences and similarities between the notion of camera-style and remix culture. Camera-style was formulated as a concept in which the creation of film was considered as a form of audiovisual language (Pierazzo, 21). The filmmaker in these aspects was a kind writer in the light. The concept differs from that of remix culture where the filmmaker is not considered a kind writer is a light. The differences are that in camera-style, the techniques are mostly the original of the filmmaker while in the remix culture, the ideas that had been used by the other filmmakers are edited to give the current meaning.
The notions are similar regarding their relevance to the audience. In both camera-style and remix culture, they tend to focus on the current acts and factors that are important for the current audience. They are made relevant considering whether the audience would need at the immediate time.