In my first blog post from the 21. August 2009 I talk about exactly the same problem, I find myself face to face now, the definition problem. After the class I have written this kind of definition:
In our class DIKULT 204 at the University of Bergen we’ve been talking of Remixes as something that uses already existing resources to transfer them into something new. We’ve had a look at several examples and most of them took several different sources to be put together into one new something for example a youtube video. But there was one example where an artist took something that was already there and only transferred it into a new context (Marcel Duchamp took an urinal, signed it under a different name and gave it to an exhibition where it was presented as the fountain).
But the example of the urinal still falls out of that whole scheme. And already in that first blog post I have also asked this question:
Or what about movies which adapt for example Shakespearian plays? Most of the time only the main themes and plot are used and a lot of new stuff is added to transfer the “old play” into the “modern world”. Are those movies Remixes?
Which I have answered myself with “yes” over the next few weeks. But today at my presentation this “yes” was put into question again by people in class and I realized that I have no single source to support that idea. So where do I get that from? How can I argue that using Shakespeare as a source for a movie is indeed a Remix? It makes me a bit desperate not quite knowing what to do now, as I really should get on with writing. But this is an essential question for my research paper, so I need to get it answered before I can move on to the real writing…