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.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
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?
chaotic community?
Ang’s discussion of chaos in “In the realm of uncertainty” makes me think further about the categories often used to discuss fandom and their usefulness in understanding imagined networks. Ang argues that “infinite, contradictory, dispersed and dynamic everyday practices will always be in excess of any constructed totality, no matter how ‘accurate’” (I somehow lost my page numbers in my copy…the section is “beyond order and meaning”). But Ang’s continuing fixation on chaos seems to ignore or at least elide questions of communities. Ang says the question to ask is “why isn’t there more heterogeneity,” but it seems to me that one (too) obvious answer is the desire for community. Maybe I’m reading too simplistically here, but doesn’t Ang’s article call for a move away from an analysis that might lead us to look at gendered implications of reading and response, as Terranova does, because such examinations of identity would focus too strongly on fixed categories, as he suggests the TV companies are doing in their search for ratings. Ang says that it is “within these limits that ‘resistance’ to the dominant takes place”, but this resistance for Ang seems to be all about the “constant transformation of identities,” even as this is what consumer capitalism depends upon.
On second thought, though, as I am writing this I feel I am reducing Ang’ complex ideas to the same trap that Curran fell into in his misreading. So maybe I just would like us to discuss under what premises and terms we are able to have (I think necessary) conversations about difference and community within the realm of uncertainty.
Common ground between the modern and the postmodern
I feel that this post is going to be slightly less of a pure textual extrapolation than I like to aim for and more of an explication of my own thoughts on the utility of the transmission paradigm versus Ang's (?) indeterminacy of meaning drawing on Ang's observations.
One thing that continually bothers me about postmodernism is how it so frequently seems to validate a sense of uselessness. If the sender no longer has control over his/her/its message and meaning is created in myriad unpredictable interactions, how can we possibly gain any benefit from the study of this utterly chaotic system? Ang, (if that is his/her/its name...) I think effectively argues against the use of a transmission model of communication, but leaves very little in its place. Based on the observations Ang makes, it seems to me that one possible way to comprehend this new era of postmodern communication is not with the client-server transmission model, but with peer-to-peer. Ang notes that it is now well accepted that, "audiences are conceived as active producers of meanings and produce a diversity of readings" (168)... to me, this suggests that a fundamental change in communication in this new networked society comes from just that--the network. Previously in history, communication tended to operate one way; Roman currency bearing news of the new Emperor gradually diffused out into the provinces, but the Roman senator never had any need to contemplate the goings on in the provinces, European culture spread to colonized areas, but the colonies only sent back raw material instead of ideology, and the national press distributed information about the common imagined community that was the country to the remotest regions of the territory but was rarely influenced by the ideologies coming out of these areas. This was client-server, this was the myriad distant nodes of the network dialing in to the same message and granting so much value to that one transmitting node that the information it distributed was gospel and it seemed reasonable to describe the type of communication going on by juxtaposing the sender and the receiver as two separate entities. I think that networking has been the change that Ang picks up on in his/her essay.
Admittedly, Ang does identify Curran's conception of the transmission model as "simplistic" and "one-dimentional" (170) but in doing so I believe he does away with a useful tool in analyzing the status quo. It has been my experience that communication in the transmission style works on a small scale--a powerful orator can sway and persuade an audience. The difficulty that Ang seems to have with this model is that when it is blown up to a grand national scale, there is static--too much information flying this way and that do seem to cloud the transmission and blur the information being sent. However, I do not think it is proper to do away with the transmission model because of this but rather to reconfigure it; if the transmission model has legitimacy on a small scale, then perhaps it would be practical to analyze the whole of national and international communication as a series of interconnected transmission networks. In this context, every message released by, say, a large media organization is filtered through various networks to millions of nodes that now in a networked era have the power to process that message, rebroadcast it along the same channels that it followed originally and new ones. The message can collide with other messages, recombine and change in different nodes, and re-intersect the path of its origin to fundamentally alter the message received at every node in a multitude of ways. This interpretation preserves the conception of the transmission model on a small scale, as one communication of one sender to one receiver is liable to have an influence in that direction, but it also accounts for Ang's observation that any sort of massive distribution of a single message is necessarily difficult because of the exponentially larger amount of static that accumulates from a reverberating message. This reading both allows the use of the transmission model that has presumably demonstrated its utility in critical analysis before now, as well as introducing the new element of unpredictable static that Ang wishes to recognize.
Ang takes issue with the transmission model in part because it assumes a level of control of the sender over the receiver when, as Mark Poster argues, "it is faced with the formidable task of unveiling structures of domination when no one is dominating, nothing is being dominated, and no ground exists for a principle of liberation from domination" (170) If no domination is visible, I would suggest that is because we do not look closely enough. As I mentioned, the transmission model does have legitimacy on a small scale, and so by viewing the modern interconnected world as a series of small one-way messages with double-links and loops and circuits, then I think we can get a better picture of what has remained constant and what has changed, and from there base the new theory that Ang searches for in "In the realm of uncertainty."
One thing that continually bothers me about postmodernism is how it so frequently seems to validate a sense of uselessness. If the sender no longer has control over his/her/its message and meaning is created in myriad unpredictable interactions, how can we possibly gain any benefit from the study of this utterly chaotic system? Ang, (if that is his/her/its name...) I think effectively argues against the use of a transmission model of communication, but leaves very little in its place. Based on the observations Ang makes, it seems to me that one possible way to comprehend this new era of postmodern communication is not with the client-server transmission model, but with peer-to-peer. Ang notes that it is now well accepted that, "audiences are conceived as active producers of meanings and produce a diversity of readings" (168)... to me, this suggests that a fundamental change in communication in this new networked society comes from just that--the network. Previously in history, communication tended to operate one way; Roman currency bearing news of the new Emperor gradually diffused out into the provinces, but the Roman senator never had any need to contemplate the goings on in the provinces, European culture spread to colonized areas, but the colonies only sent back raw material instead of ideology, and the national press distributed information about the common imagined community that was the country to the remotest regions of the territory but was rarely influenced by the ideologies coming out of these areas. This was client-server, this was the myriad distant nodes of the network dialing in to the same message and granting so much value to that one transmitting node that the information it distributed was gospel and it seemed reasonable to describe the type of communication going on by juxtaposing the sender and the receiver as two separate entities. I think that networking has been the change that Ang picks up on in his/her essay.
Admittedly, Ang does identify Curran's conception of the transmission model as "simplistic" and "one-dimentional" (170) but in doing so I believe he does away with a useful tool in analyzing the status quo. It has been my experience that communication in the transmission style works on a small scale--a powerful orator can sway and persuade an audience. The difficulty that Ang seems to have with this model is that when it is blown up to a grand national scale, there is static--too much information flying this way and that do seem to cloud the transmission and blur the information being sent. However, I do not think it is proper to do away with the transmission model because of this but rather to reconfigure it; if the transmission model has legitimacy on a small scale, then perhaps it would be practical to analyze the whole of national and international communication as a series of interconnected transmission networks. In this context, every message released by, say, a large media organization is filtered through various networks to millions of nodes that now in a networked era have the power to process that message, rebroadcast it along the same channels that it followed originally and new ones. The message can collide with other messages, recombine and change in different nodes, and re-intersect the path of its origin to fundamentally alter the message received at every node in a multitude of ways. This interpretation preserves the conception of the transmission model on a small scale, as one communication of one sender to one receiver is liable to have an influence in that direction, but it also accounts for Ang's observation that any sort of massive distribution of a single message is necessarily difficult because of the exponentially larger amount of static that accumulates from a reverberating message. This reading both allows the use of the transmission model that has presumably demonstrated its utility in critical analysis before now, as well as introducing the new element of unpredictable static that Ang wishes to recognize.
Ang takes issue with the transmission model in part because it assumes a level of control of the sender over the receiver when, as Mark Poster argues, "it is faced with the formidable task of unveiling structures of domination when no one is dominating, nothing is being dominated, and no ground exists for a principle of liberation from domination" (170) If no domination is visible, I would suggest that is because we do not look closely enough. As I mentioned, the transmission model does have legitimacy on a small scale, and so by viewing the modern interconnected world as a series of small one-way messages with double-links and loops and circuits, then I think we can get a better picture of what has remained constant and what has changed, and from there base the new theory that Ang searches for in "In the realm of uncertainty."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)