The real question posed by Michael Feldstein is not the one in the title but whether 'remix' is a type of consumption, and he argues that it is. He writes, "What I particularly like about reframing this sort of integration as 'active consumption' rather than production (or development) is that it moves the boundary between “users� and system creators while still allowing that boundary to persist." By contrast, I don't want that boundary to persist. When I buy a chair from WalMart (not that I would ever buy a chair from walMart, but I digress), I may be depicted as a 'consumer' of the chair, but by the same token, WalMart is a 'consumer' of my money - money which I produced, and not someone else. By keeping the boundary between consumer and producer, it is in a way implied that the only useful thing I can produce is money (and that my employer is somehow the real producer of whatever 'things' it then 'sells'). That doesn't work for me; it entrenches an asymmetric relationship, and asymmetric relationships are, in the long run, unstable, whether in learning, in employment, or in Web 2.0.
Today: 2 Total: 23 [Direct link] [Share]
