Today’s Remix Culture class is about fan writing, collective writing/creation and vernacular creativity. Students have read these articles:

We’ll talk a bit about key concepts in these articles (cultural studies: audience as co-creators of meaning, vs today where they’re more literal creators; amateur, prosumer; , and then move on to explore a case study, which admittedly only minimally involves remixing. It heavily involves responding to mass media/celebrities though, so I’m using it anyway. We’ll look at Dan Bull’s “Love Letter” to Lily Allen and the media fuss it’s gained. Groups of students will be given different tasks and then we’ll all come together to discuss the case and in particular, ideas about democratisation of the media (or not) and the power relationships between celebrities and “ordinary people” and the media.

Here are the tasks groups will work on and present to the class:

  • Who is Lily Allen? What did she recently say about copyright and piracy of music? Can you summarise a few media/popular responses to this?
  • Who is Dan Bull? Was he well known before this video? What other things has he done/made? Were they popular? Is his Twitter account popular? What kind of things does he write there?
  • How popular is Dan Bull’s video? It was featured in the free London newspaper Metro – how important was this mainstream media attention in making the video popular? Was it featured in other mainstream media? Has it spread in other online/social media? Summarise the video’s rise to fame.

    Once we have the “facts” of the case on the table I want to discuss the way Dan Bull used a celebrity to pull himself (or perhaps better, his message?) into public view (see also his Twitter feed where he comments Yoko Ono, for instance), and the relationship between mass media and this kind of viral media. Is Dan Bull simply playing us – is this a carefully planned market strategy to get famous? Or is he just as dependent on mass media as the rest of us? What’s Lily Allen’s position in all this?


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

1 Comment

  1. […] H??res kjent ut, eller hva? Men dette er ikke en beskrivelse av remikskultur p?• nett. Det er slik Jeff Bishop og Paul Hogget i 1986 beskrev subkulturelle fellesskap organisert rundt felles interesser (side 53, sitert i Jenkins, 1992: 280). […]

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.