In his piece titled “Uncreative Writing, Managing Language in the Digital Age ” Kenneth Goldsmith states the following to define nude media: “Once a digital file is downloaded from the context of a site, it’s free or naked, stripped bare of the normative external signifiers that tend to give as much meaning to an artwork as the contents of the artwork itself” (Goldsmith, 72). Goldsmith gave an example of a New York Times article having small differences from the hard copy to the web version. The web version had a sans serif W in the word Washington instead of a classic black serifed T for Tony (72). The hard copy article was taken and put online and when it appeared online, some of it’s original external signifiers were altered. This online version was a nude form of the hard copy. It is a form of nude media.
Does nude media translate over to Creative Commons media? I personally think that nude media can apply to Creative Commons media. Creative Commons media provides art work that can be shared by anyone. There are certain restrictions depending on the creator of the work, but if it is on Creative Commons it can be shared in some shape or form. So how can a piece of art work on Creative Commons translate into nude media? If someone takes a piece of work from Creative Commons, and takes it out of it’s original element, and puts that piece of artwork into an atmosphere of their own, they are making that piece of media into nude media. If someone takes a photo from Creative Commons and shares it own their own blog, they are stripping that media externally and therefore making it into a piece of nude media. Another example of a piece of art work taken from Creative Commons and being transformed into nude media would be if someone took, for example a photo from Creative Commons, and if the creator put a license on it that people who want to share the photo can alter the photo, and if the person sharing the photo adds small differences to the photo, for example adding an arrow if they want to point something out in particular, that would make this piece of artwork a piece of nude media. If the original piece of work is being altered in some way, it would be considered nude media. So yes, I do think nude media can come from Creative Commons media and I think the two can be connected.
I find nude media to be very interesting. I had no idea art work could be classified this way until we learned about this is class. It’s weird to think that if an original piece of work has been altered even in the smallest way or taken out of its original element, it can be considered nude media. There is probably so much nude media out there that we do not even recognize to be nude media. Just like the New York Times example. That was a public piece of nude media that people probably did not even think to be considered nude media. Very interesting!