This is a huge piece and a full response, in my opinion, would require a whole essay. So, I’m going to focus on one issue which I found ubiquitous, yet contradictory throughout the piece, it essentially boils down to the dichotomy of the argument and the alphabet.
At various points in the piece Kuhn asserts that remix should be treated as a digital argument. Simultaneously, however, she suggests that remix is becoming a vehicle of speech working towards Berger’s conception of a language of images.
This seems fairly innocuous at first, but I found it to be a deeply problematic undertone, as remix cannot simultaneously fulfill its mission as an objective form of speech and a critical commentary/contextualization.
The question for me, then, became, which one is it? Is remix argument? Is it truly that more revolutionary than literature?
I’d say no.
I think digital media is completely analogous to the written word, and just as argumentative. You have landmark pieces, cinema : novels, that are truly revolutionary and then you have pieces that comment on them in light of previous works. You have their likeness re-used such that fantasy novels resemble Tolkein and superhero movies resemble The Dark Knight. Similarly you have anthologies of authors works and montages of pieces of media, as well as fan-fiction of both.
Remix isn’t nearly as revolutionary as it’s being made out to be and is just a product more people having access to the new library and printing press.