Terranova and Jenkins made me think about the possible ways that big media corporations and the users of their content (both as consumers and producers) could enter into a more collaborative or symbiotic relationship. Both Jenkins and Julie pointed out how corporations are learning how to harness user-generated content for their own benefit while offering little in return. Any benefit to the users usually comes in the form of elevating a select few while leaving the rest back where they started. Unlike Jenkins though, I think it is possible for the power structure to relax in such a way that media corporations and their users could mutually benefit from one another. Such an idea is being pursued this semester at Brown by a few of my friends. To summarize it in brief, these students have partnered with the National Urban Debate League, a non-profit, and Weinstein, a media corporation, to use one of its soon to be released films, the Great Debaters, as a platform to promote and strengthen urban debate. Part of their project is to coordinate a YouTube based debate and contest around issues stirred up in the film surrounding urban debate. Weinstein will benefit from the user-generated content on YouTube through added publicity for its film, and promoters of urban debate can hijack the film to communicate the importance of urban debate to the general public and as a way to reach out to inner city youth themselves.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Jenkins
Jenkins ends his article with the question of how much influence consumer-generated content will have on mass media companies. He believes the answer to this question lies in how seriously we take the rhetoric about enfranchising as a means of empowering consumers and ensuring brand loyalty. Jenkins writes that ultimately, the mass media companies are going to have to learn to distinguish between the gift economy of the internet (with its creative repurposing) and for-profit use (and pirating, etc.). Doing this, he believes, will give them the legitimacy they need to “reign in” on the piracy that threatens their livelihood. Given that, earlier in the article, he somewhat romanticizes folk culture and the creative production it fosters, I feel this is an unsatisfying end to his argument. He seems to be admitting that in the end, the only way to resolve the conflict between fans and corporations is through a “reappropriation” of a site of reception that networks cannot currently control. Although he encourages collaboration, my question is to what extent do we believe that collaboration is truly possible? He implies that in the end, the “best” fan/consumer-generated content becomes a part of the mass media franchise itself, as in his examples of various consumer-filmmakers who ended up being financed by corporations to work for them. To what extent do we believe fans truly can gain power in Jenkins’ model in which the “best” fans become a part of the media conglomerates themselves? It seems to me that within his paradigm, control will always end up in the hands of the media companies. If there is value in simply producing without a thought to an end goal, then why does Jenkins suggest that media companies must tolerate and make concessions to fans, but only in order to gain more control over their intellectual property?
Halo 3's Fan Fiction
Fan fiction always depressed me as the realm of the hopelessly geeky. The only thing worse than actually producing fan fiction, I reasoned, was watching it. Tuesday's lecture not only changed my perspective on the practice, but reminded me of my own twisted history with fan fiction.
For a brief...two year...period in high school, I was an avid fan of the machinima web series, Red vs. Blue (www.redvsblue.com). Machinima is a form of animation that uses video games as a means of producing their visuals. Red vs. Blue relied on a bug in the code of the original Halo first person shooter video game for the Microsoft Xbox - which caused avatars to appear to look up when they lowered their weapons - in order to craft an episodic comedy about two rival armies, stationed in one of Halo's multiplayer maps. It turns out I wasn't their only fan. The series became so popular that Microsoft actually bought the creative franchise - which was produced using their own coding - and allowed the Red vs. Blue writers to market the series through the company. For Halo 2, Microsoft intentionally left the bug from the first game in, so that Red vs. Blue could continue in the Halo 2 engine. For the recently released Halo 3, they went about 1,000 steps further. Now every gamer can craft their own machinima series in the game engine, as every single game played on a player's Xbox360 is saved their hard drive, and can be later viewed from any angle and any avatar's perspective. Videos can be uploaded and shared across the Microsoft XboxLive network or even over the internet. Moreover, they included a special "Forge" feature in which gamers can add any object, weapon, or vehicle to any map, and produce all kinds of new game types, and, more importantly, machinima movie sets.
Jenkins quotes Grant McCracken, "Corporations must decide whether they are, literally, in or out. Will they make themselves an island or will they enter the mix?" Although the television industry is seemingly waffling over how much control to give its fan-fiction producers, the video game industry looks to be far more supportive of this 21st century genre.
For a brief...two year...period in high school, I was an avid fan of the machinima web series, Red vs. Blue (www.redvsblue.com). Machinima is a form of animation that uses video games as a means of producing their visuals. Red vs. Blue relied on a bug in the code of the original Halo first person shooter video game for the Microsoft Xbox - which caused avatars to appear to look up when they lowered their weapons - in order to craft an episodic comedy about two rival armies, stationed in one of Halo's multiplayer maps. It turns out I wasn't their only fan. The series became so popular that Microsoft actually bought the creative franchise - which was produced using their own coding - and allowed the Red vs. Blue writers to market the series through the company. For Halo 2, Microsoft intentionally left the bug from the first game in, so that Red vs. Blue could continue in the Halo 2 engine. For the recently released Halo 3, they went about 1,000 steps further. Now every gamer can craft their own machinima series in the game engine, as every single game played on a player's Xbox360 is saved their hard drive, and can be later viewed from any angle and any avatar's perspective. Videos can be uploaded and shared across the Microsoft XboxLive network or even over the internet. Moreover, they included a special "Forge" feature in which gamers can add any object, weapon, or vehicle to any map, and produce all kinds of new game types, and, more importantly, machinima movie sets.
Jenkins quotes Grant McCracken, "Corporations must decide whether they are, literally, in or out. Will they make themselves an island or will they enter the mix?" Although the television industry is seemingly waffling over how much control to give its fan-fiction producers, the video game industry looks to be far more supportive of this 21st century genre.
Open Source Definition/ Gramscian
Hey guys,
These were two things in the readings (Terranova, specifically) that I needed to look up. In case you didn't get a chance to check these out:
Open source is a set of principles and practices that promote access to the design and production of goods and knowledge. The term is most commonly applied to the source code of software that is available to the general public with relaxed or non-existent intellectual property restrictions. This allows users to create software content through incremental individual effort or through collaboration.
The open source model of operation can be extended to open source culture in decision making, which allows concurrent input of different agendas, approaches and priorities, in contrast with more centralized models of development such as those typically used in commercial companies.[1] Open source culture is one where collective decisions or fixations are shared during development and made generally available to all, as done in Wikipedia. This collective approach moderates ethical concerns over a "conflict of roles" or conflict of interest. Participants in such a culture are able to modify the collective outcomes and share them with the community. Some consider open source as one of various possible design approaches, while others consider it a critical strategic element of their operations.
Before the term open source became popular, developers and producers used various phrases to describe the concept; the term gained popularity with the rise of the Internet which enabled diverse production models, communication paths and interactive communities.[2] Later, open source software became the most prominent face of open source practices.
Antonio Gramsci (IPA: ['_ram_i]) (January 22, 1891 – April 27, 1937) was an Italian writer, politician and political theorist. A founding member and onetime leader of the Communist Party of Italy, he was imprisoned by Mussolini's Fascist regime. His writings are heavily concerned with the analysis of culture and political leadership and he is notable as a highly original thinker within the Marxist tradition. He is renowned for his concept of cultural hegemony as a means of maintaining the state in a capitalist society.
These were two things in the readings (Terranova, specifically) that I needed to look up. In case you didn't get a chance to check these out:
Open source is a set of principles and practices that promote access to the design and production of goods and knowledge. The term is most commonly applied to the source code of software that is available to the general public with relaxed or non-existent intellectual property restrictions. This allows users to create software content through incremental individual effort or through collaboration.
The open source model of operation can be extended to open source culture in decision making, which allows concurrent input of different agendas, approaches and priorities, in contrast with more centralized models of development such as those typically used in commercial companies.[1] Open source culture is one where collective decisions or fixations are shared during development and made generally available to all, as done in Wikipedia. This collective approach moderates ethical concerns over a "conflict of roles" or conflict of interest. Participants in such a culture are able to modify the collective outcomes and share them with the community. Some consider open source as one of various possible design approaches, while others consider it a critical strategic element of their operations.
Before the term open source became popular, developers and producers used various phrases to describe the concept; the term gained popularity with the rise of the Internet which enabled diverse production models, communication paths and interactive communities.[2] Later, open source software became the most prominent face of open source practices.
Antonio Gramsci (IPA: ['_ram_i]) (January 22, 1891 – April 27, 1937) was an Italian writer, politician and political theorist. A founding member and onetime leader of the Communist Party of Italy, he was imprisoned by Mussolini's Fascist regime. His writings are heavily concerned with the analysis of culture and political leadership and he is notable as a highly original thinker within the Marxist tradition. He is renowned for his concept of cultural hegemony as a means of maintaining the state in a capitalist society.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Recuperation and Resistance
In Ang's article "In the Realm of Uncertainty," we are presented with a model of repressive tolerance and resistant viewership that simultaneously exalts and shuts down any action fans could try to take: "...the desire to be different can be simultaneously complicity with and defiant against the institutionalization of excess of desire in capitalist postmodernity." She then goes on to quote Certeau's assertion that such tactics can be read as "'escaping without leaving.'" So audience recuperation is the derive is a line of flight, but none of these get us anywhere outside of the field that is always-already late capitalism: the territory of the global culture industry. Such mixed messages of hope and hopelessness almost seem to solidify the very notion of postmodern media/art. Speaking between the lines of power only serves to constitute that system: there is no outside. I find this hypocritical, beautiful, and unassailable. Its consequences and implications are uncertain.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Fandom and History
What seems so facinating to me is what Coppa said at the beginning of her article about fans either not caring about or not having access to fanfiction/fandom/fan history. It sounded as if she was rather disappointed with many fans for not caring about fan history and she seems resigned to the fact that only "true historians" will ever really care about the history of fanfiction.
But is this such a bad thing? Coppa doesn't bring it up again in the end of her article-- instead, she seems happy with the major new artworks and fandoms appearing all over the internet and with the dozens of new communities based around those fandoms. Is this "loss" of history bad for the imagined communities or has there been a shift into a more post-modern outlook (like Hegel's "temporal modality")? Instead of nostaligic writing by and a visible seniority/hierarchy among fandom members, there is "new" art/writing/vidding/etc. all over the internet and a lack in any sort of structure or history throughout fandoms. Like the Filipino prisoners dancing to Thriller, there seems to be a lot of fanfic nostalgia without memory-- terms like Mary Sue, crossover, and slash are still used, older shows (such as Battlestar Galactica) are resurrected, women writers are still the majority, etc. Members of the fanfic communities, know all these terms, shows, etc., but they care and/or know little about the history behind them.
This type of shift in the fandom community-- from zines where members could only exist by going to conventions and being invited into the community to internet communities where members (or anyone) can freely browse through videos, writings, art, etc.-- indicates not a loss of temporality, but an increase in modality. History is no longer the focus because history does not matter to the continuation of these communites. What matters is the amount and variation of fan art/writing/vidding/communities one can find and the increased creativity within those areas. If these fandoms keep allowing new art to be recognized, the members of the fandom have ensured the continuation of that community.
But is this such a bad thing? Coppa doesn't bring it up again in the end of her article-- instead, she seems happy with the major new artworks and fandoms appearing all over the internet and with the dozens of new communities based around those fandoms. Is this "loss" of history bad for the imagined communities or has there been a shift into a more post-modern outlook (like Hegel's "temporal modality")? Instead of nostaligic writing by and a visible seniority/hierarchy among fandom members, there is "new" art/writing/vidding/etc. all over the internet and a lack in any sort of structure or history throughout fandoms. Like the Filipino prisoners dancing to Thriller, there seems to be a lot of fanfic nostalgia without memory-- terms like Mary Sue, crossover, and slash are still used, older shows (such as Battlestar Galactica) are resurrected, women writers are still the majority, etc. Members of the fanfic communities, know all these terms, shows, etc., but they care and/or know little about the history behind them.
This type of shift in the fandom community-- from zines where members could only exist by going to conventions and being invited into the community to internet communities where members (or anyone) can freely browse through videos, writings, art, etc.-- indicates not a loss of temporality, but an increase in modality. History is no longer the focus because history does not matter to the continuation of these communites. What matters is the amount and variation of fan art/writing/vidding/communities one can find and the increased creativity within those areas. If these fandoms keep allowing new art to be recognized, the members of the fandom have ensured the continuation of that community.
imagined communities and art
I want to discuss how media fandom and "free labor" in the the digital economy has allowed for new art forms to appear across the internet. I was particularly interested in this topic after watching the imeem links on the lab notes that were sent to us through email. Watching "Us" by lim and "walking on the ground" impressed me with the artistic capabilities of the creators but it was also intriguing that they were both videos that were somewhat related to the history and future of "vidding." These were art forms that were created as a result of neighboring fandoms such as television, movie, internet fandoms; the creators are able to write and display their history and even predict media future in an advanced form of editing that offers endless possibilities of artistic expression. These videos were amazing and they were also examples of terrnaova's "free labor" which brings up another topic--what is the relationship between fandom art and the late capitalist cultural ecnomy today?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)