And so, how can we engage in critique and practice when there are these sorts of considerations and, at times, roadblocks? Media stylos are Eric Faden’s answer. They are liberatory and subversive, and Faden seems fully invested in such forms of critique. While the media stylo may hold this sort of potential, it is unclear what the boundaries of a media stylo are. Kuhn’s work on the video remix as digital argument illuminates more clearly how critique of media can emerge from audio-visual media form. While video remix has been defined in various ways, including Eli Horwatt’s more categorical checkbox based understanding, the practice of video remix is one of criticism and critique of media. We can use remix to form arguments and to think differently.
Our practice in almost any way shape or form can be critique, practice is the opportunity for productive critique. I want to emphasize opportunity. Media production does not necessarily demand critical practice, but I think it opens the opportunity for productive conversation. A practice of media production does not always lead to critical analysis, but constructing media under or in our own terms is where a glimmer of power lies for me. This is where I return to authorship. “In our own terms” is essential in that we cannot replicate oppressive structures through rhetoric, which is why Kuhn’s argument is so convincing for me. We may not know what certain forms have ideological attachments, but in fact, they do.
Media producers must use forms and rhetoric in innovative ways, and these forms and indeed, rhetoric itself, can a space where we resist the dominant narrative and attempt to subvert the oppressive structures in our lives. Understanding rhetoric and enhancing literacy, making connections, being connected, are imperative, and these are the terms in which I want to produce media.