In Harper’s Magazine article, “On the Rights of Molotov Man“, a photographer and a painter argues about the copyright of one remixing paint from a photo. The article also talk about how the decontextualizing and remixing of the images affect the meanings. Cause the paint remixed from the photo becomes a symbol instead of a picture. This reminds the idea in the last reading that everything is an remix. It is interesting to see things change greatly by adding new elements in it. It inspires me of the way of remix in some way.
In the second reading, the author also talks about the remix of art works. He discussed several cases about artists borrow materials from other art objects and transform into new creations, nowadays, are still considered plagiarism rather than a kind of art. Does the influence has to be visible so that the art can be called art? I do not think so.
Based on the readings for this week, I think the interactive media needs an interactive attitude as well as interactive techniques.