In Convergence Culture, Henry Jenkins continually returns to the question of whether or not sites like YouTube will be able to remain driven by users or will get cannibalized by big corporations who want to appropriate the site for their own uses. Evidence of the delicate dance going on between YouTube and these corporations can be found in today's New York Times article, in the sports section, about the creation of an NBA channel on YouTube. The article reports that
"The deal creates an N.B.A. channel on YouTube (a tunnel through which the league will send authorized video); sanctions fans’ uploads (while still allowing the league to reject those it wants removed); and lets users post videos that show their best moves, which will be compiled into a weekly top 10 and shown on the channel."
Note how this deal ivolves a trade-off on all sides: YouTube gets the prestige of an "NBA channel," fans get to post their own videos, but the league can regulate the content. Lose, lose, or win, win?
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Monday, February 19, 2007
Discussion Questions for Jenkins, Chapters 1-3
Collectively, these chapters extend discussion of the transformation of the relationship between production, consumption, and distribution in networked public culture we encountered in the readings from last week. Perhaps the best metaphor for all of this is Pierre Levy’s metaphor of the “circuit” as outlined by Jenkins (95). According to Jenkins, Levy believes the “’distinction between authors and readers, producers and spectators, creators and interpreters will blend’” to form a “circuit” of “expression.” In TV shows like Survivor and American Idol the circuit is formed by knowledge communities that track and influence the production and consumption of shows like Survivor, and by voting that actually determines the narrative shape of American Idol. The chapter about The Matrix has more to do with the emergence of transmedia storytelling and the franchising of narrative across various media platforms. Here the circuit is between multiple, coordinated authors, on the one hand, and the participation of knowledge communities in what we might call fan culture. The underlying question in these chapters, it seems to me, has to do with what shape drama and narrative will take in a networked world in which production, consumption, and distribution become almost indistinguishable, and in which participation from the bottom up collides with the power of brands and franchises to exert power from the top down.
Some questions to think about for tomorrow night (as usual, feel free to comment on this blog ahead of time):
1. On p. 28 Jenkins references Michael Trossett on the concept of “narrative pleasure.” Is spoiling a form of narrative pleasure for spoilers, or is it aimed at ruining narrative pleasure? How much ambivalence is built into the whole business of spoiling (on both the part of the spoilers and the networks who try to manipulate them)? Is spoiling an adversarial activity or a form of participation in the show? Perhaps we can connect this discussion of narrative pleasure to the discussion of narrative in the chapter on The Matrix.
2. To what extent do the Survivor spoilers, in terms of their embodiment of “collective intelligence” and “knowledge communities” (27) constitute subcultures or undergrounds in terms of our discussion from last time? What do their activities, and the way they’re used by the network, suggest about the fate of networked culture as a location for underground or subversive activity? On p. 64 Jenkins claims that American Idol presents us with a “fantasy of empowerment” based on the idea you get to decide who wins. To what extent is our sense of empowerment in networked culture a fantasy?
3. Both Survivor and American Idol are examples of so-called “reality television.” What is reality television and how do you account for its emergence and popularity? What social, cultural, and political changes help explain its emergence? How is the interactive element of these “reality” shows connected, if at all, to interactive cultural experiences online?
4. Jenkins presents The Matrix as a transmedia form of “storytelling” and as a “franchise.” What is “transmedia story telling” and what does it mean to call it a “franchise” and its various elements “products?” (See pp. 94-6). Does transmedia storytelling further the commodification of art? Are we moving into an age of franchised narrative in which narrative pleasure is inextricably connected to marketing?
5. On p. 96 Jenkins draws an implicit distinction between our fascination with how The Matrix (and, by extension, the other shows he’s discussed) operates technically and culturally, and whether it’s “any good” in aesthetic terms. This opens up a whole can of worms worth discussing, i.e. do interactive, networked, transmedia forms of narrative have aesthetic merit, or is this the right question to be asking. Does the shift toward interactivity, knowledge communities, and collaboration represent the development of new and more compelling narrative forms, or the dumbing down of those forms for the sake of interactivity? Will we soon be able to speak of the “narrative industry” as Horkheimer and Adorno could speak of the culture industry? For more on the topic of narrative see in particular pp. 118-19. Where is narrative headed, according to Jenkins?
Some questions to think about for tomorrow night (as usual, feel free to comment on this blog ahead of time):
1. On p. 28 Jenkins references Michael Trossett on the concept of “narrative pleasure.” Is spoiling a form of narrative pleasure for spoilers, or is it aimed at ruining narrative pleasure? How much ambivalence is built into the whole business of spoiling (on both the part of the spoilers and the networks who try to manipulate them)? Is spoiling an adversarial activity or a form of participation in the show? Perhaps we can connect this discussion of narrative pleasure to the discussion of narrative in the chapter on The Matrix.
2. To what extent do the Survivor spoilers, in terms of their embodiment of “collective intelligence” and “knowledge communities” (27) constitute subcultures or undergrounds in terms of our discussion from last time? What do their activities, and the way they’re used by the network, suggest about the fate of networked culture as a location for underground or subversive activity? On p. 64 Jenkins claims that American Idol presents us with a “fantasy of empowerment” based on the idea you get to decide who wins. To what extent is our sense of empowerment in networked culture a fantasy?
3. Both Survivor and American Idol are examples of so-called “reality television.” What is reality television and how do you account for its emergence and popularity? What social, cultural, and political changes help explain its emergence? How is the interactive element of these “reality” shows connected, if at all, to interactive cultural experiences online?
4. Jenkins presents The Matrix as a transmedia form of “storytelling” and as a “franchise.” What is “transmedia story telling” and what does it mean to call it a “franchise” and its various elements “products?” (See pp. 94-6). Does transmedia storytelling further the commodification of art? Are we moving into an age of franchised narrative in which narrative pleasure is inextricably connected to marketing?
5. On p. 96 Jenkins draws an implicit distinction between our fascination with how The Matrix (and, by extension, the other shows he’s discussed) operates technically and culturally, and whether it’s “any good” in aesthetic terms. This opens up a whole can of worms worth discussing, i.e. do interactive, networked, transmedia forms of narrative have aesthetic merit, or is this the right question to be asking. Does the shift toward interactivity, knowledge communities, and collaboration represent the development of new and more compelling narrative forms, or the dumbing down of those forms for the sake of interactivity? Will we soon be able to speak of the “narrative industry” as Horkheimer and Adorno could speak of the culture industry? For more on the topic of narrative see in particular pp. 118-19. Where is narrative headed, according to Jenkins?
From Networks to Networks: MTV in the Age of YouTube
Networks used to be built, owned, and controlled by media conglomerates and were synonymous with single brands: ABC, NBC, CBS, then later, PBS, MTV, HBO and Showtime. These networks produced shows and viewers consumed them. It was really as simple as that. Some, like Nickelodeon and MTV, became branded as networks appealing to a particular demographic. In the 80s and early 90s, for example, Nickelodeon was the primary single destination for kids, as MTV was for teenagers.
All this has changed with the rise of networked culture. In the world of networked culture networks aren’t built and owned by mega corporations but are developed by tech savvy young people like those who started MySpace, Facebook, and YouTube, networks that aren’t commercial but social. And the network doesn’t just consist of one of these sites but is made up of all of them. We put together our own networks on sites like Facebook and through the browser bookmarks we collect. When I look at the tabs running along the top of my browser I see “My Sites” which contains all of the sites I’ve created and those I subscribe to (from Blogspot to Netflix to Flickr and YouTube). I see a “News” tab, a “Shop” tab, an “Entertainment” tab, a “Travel” tab, a “Politics” tab, a “Blogs” tab, and so on. These tabs, collectively, constitute my network. It’s a network I’ve constructed and control. It connects me to other users who share my interests and keeps me up-to-date and entertained in the ways I want.
This transformation from a world of corporate networks to user networks is characteristic of the world of convergence Henry Jenkins writes about in Convergence Culture. The nature of the changes he’s writing about are dramatized in an article in today’s business section of New York Times about how, in a multi-device, multi-platform, multi-channel world of online convergence 16-year olds have stopped flocking to the MTV network and have started building and programming their own networks. As a result, the article reports, MTV “has suffered a decline in ratings and cultural cachet.” MTV was a brand with an edge until “competition for its core demographic started coming from all fronts, from video games and social-networking Web sites to amateur clips on YouTube.” Now “consumers come up with their own reality narratives” and have, in effect, taken over the means of production. And the old networks are struggling to respond along the lines outlined by Jenkins. The article quotes Christina Norman, MTV’s president, as saying that “It’s true that our viewers are telling us that they want an experience beyond linear television . . . MTV has a history surrounding the consumer with both long-form and interstitial content, and I think we can deliver on a two-way relationship with our audience.”
How far behind the times can you get? As Jenkins makes clear, shows like “Survivor” and “American Idol” have been delivering on this two-way relationship for a long time, and one wonders why it took MTV so long to figure out it had to catch up. Interactive programming is clearly the wave of the future for television, but is it a future already killed off by online networks? Check out the article.
All this has changed with the rise of networked culture. In the world of networked culture networks aren’t built and owned by mega corporations but are developed by tech savvy young people like those who started MySpace, Facebook, and YouTube, networks that aren’t commercial but social. And the network doesn’t just consist of one of these sites but is made up of all of them. We put together our own networks on sites like Facebook and through the browser bookmarks we collect. When I look at the tabs running along the top of my browser I see “My Sites” which contains all of the sites I’ve created and those I subscribe to (from Blogspot to Netflix to Flickr and YouTube). I see a “News” tab, a “Shop” tab, an “Entertainment” tab, a “Travel” tab, a “Politics” tab, a “Blogs” tab, and so on. These tabs, collectively, constitute my network. It’s a network I’ve constructed and control. It connects me to other users who share my interests and keeps me up-to-date and entertained in the ways I want.
This transformation from a world of corporate networks to user networks is characteristic of the world of convergence Henry Jenkins writes about in Convergence Culture. The nature of the changes he’s writing about are dramatized in an article in today’s business section of New York Times about how, in a multi-device, multi-platform, multi-channel world of online convergence 16-year olds have stopped flocking to the MTV network and have started building and programming their own networks. As a result, the article reports, MTV “has suffered a decline in ratings and cultural cachet.” MTV was a brand with an edge until “competition for its core demographic started coming from all fronts, from video games and social-networking Web sites to amateur clips on YouTube.” Now “consumers come up with their own reality narratives” and have, in effect, taken over the means of production. And the old networks are struggling to respond along the lines outlined by Jenkins. The article quotes Christina Norman, MTV’s president, as saying that “It’s true that our viewers are telling us that they want an experience beyond linear television . . . MTV has a history surrounding the consumer with both long-form and interstitial content, and I think we can deliver on a two-way relationship with our audience.”
How far behind the times can you get? As Jenkins makes clear, shows like “Survivor” and “American Idol” have been delivering on this two-way relationship for a long time, and one wonders why it took MTV so long to figure out it had to catch up. Interactive programming is clearly the wave of the future for television, but is it a future already killed off by online networks? Check out the article.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
More on Obama and Facebook
Today's Washington Post contains an article on the proliferation of Facebook pages dedicated to mobilizing support for Barack Obama's presidential candidacy. The article exemplifies some of the possibilities discussed in the "Networked Democracy" essay we read. There is also some discussion of what I think is the more interesting story, the appropriation by Obama's site of the MySpace/Facebook social networking format. It remains to be seen whether this device will translate into something that really propels his candidacy, but it's certainly something worth keeping an eye on.
MySpace and Identity Production
Dana Boyd has what looks like an interesting essay on how MySpace functions as a site for identity formation. Boyd is an interesting digital culture critic. I heard her on a program on Open Source a few months ago. If you want to check out her work take a look at her extensive writings on her blog, apophenia. She has a Best of Apophenia page that collects her writing under a set of pretty interesting subject headings. Worth a look.
Networked Publics Conclusion Now Online
Kazys Varnelis, one of the co-authors of the essay "Networked Place," has published a concluding chapter to the Networked Publics book. You can find it on his website, which is full of interesting essays, including one about the Prada store in Los Angeles. I haven't read either of these pieces yet but will try to do so during the break.
Monday, February 12, 2007
A Few Questions for Tuesday Night
Place Essay
How well does the spatial metaphor work for talking about the web? Does it make sense to talk about networks as places?
The “Networked Place” essay links networks to Habermas’ notion of the “public sphere.” To what degree does the web function as a public sphere? Who has access to it? Is it class or culture bound in any way? The “Networked Democracy” authors claim the web provides “broad availability” as a place for deliberation. Is this really correct? To what extent do “the digital divide” and cultural differences related to online practices qualify these claims?
To what degree does the network get characterized as a “place” for identity formation? What are some examples?
Culture Essay
This essay focuses on the converging relationship online between cultural consumption and cultural production, with a particular focus on music. What are the key aesthetic, ethical, and legal issues that come up here and how do we begin to sort them out?
How can we link Benjamin’s discussion of the loss of the “aura” to this discussion of cultural production? What happens to “originality” and “authenticity” in the kind of work discussed here (DJ Dangermouse, Deconstructing Beck)?
Why do the authors see mashups and remixing as “post pomo” (p.2)? Couldn’t a case be made that remixes and mashups simply build on and extend forms of creativity central to postmodernism or even modernism? (Think “The Waste Land” or Ulysses, for example).
Jenkins on Convergence Culture
Jenkins points out (p. 13) that media critics call the tools we use to access content “delivery technology.” What are the implications of thinking of the book as a “delivery technology?”
Jenkins cautions against reducing “media change” to technological change because that “strips aside” something “cultural” (15, top). What’s he getting at here?
A major issue that circulates through a number of the essays has to do with the tension between the web as a user-driven medium that generates content from the bottom up and as a medium large corporations want to appropriate and control for their own purposes. Jenkins treats this as a kind of paradox on pp. 17-19. To what degree is networked public culture susceptible to appropriation and control by corporations that dominate traditional cultural forms? This could be connected to the question raised on the bottom of p. 1 of the networked democracy essay: Is the internet “convivial?” Does it empower people and make the medium difficult for elites to control, or not?
Democracy Essay
The political remixes discussed in the essay (pp. 15-16) are entertaining, but do they really have any real political force or power?
The authors claim the web provides “broad availability” as a place for deliberation. Is this really correct? To what extent do “the digital divide” and cultural differences related to online practices qualify these claims?
How well does the spatial metaphor work for talking about the web? Does it make sense to talk about networks as places?
The “Networked Place” essay links networks to Habermas’ notion of the “public sphere.” To what degree does the web function as a public sphere? Who has access to it? Is it class or culture bound in any way? The “Networked Democracy” authors claim the web provides “broad availability” as a place for deliberation. Is this really correct? To what extent do “the digital divide” and cultural differences related to online practices qualify these claims?
To what degree does the network get characterized as a “place” for identity formation? What are some examples?
Culture Essay
This essay focuses on the converging relationship online between cultural consumption and cultural production, with a particular focus on music. What are the key aesthetic, ethical, and legal issues that come up here and how do we begin to sort them out?
How can we link Benjamin’s discussion of the loss of the “aura” to this discussion of cultural production? What happens to “originality” and “authenticity” in the kind of work discussed here (DJ Dangermouse, Deconstructing Beck)?
Why do the authors see mashups and remixing as “post pomo” (p.2)? Couldn’t a case be made that remixes and mashups simply build on and extend forms of creativity central to postmodernism or even modernism? (Think “The Waste Land” or Ulysses, for example).
Jenkins on Convergence Culture
Jenkins points out (p. 13) that media critics call the tools we use to access content “delivery technology.” What are the implications of thinking of the book as a “delivery technology?”
Jenkins cautions against reducing “media change” to technological change because that “strips aside” something “cultural” (15, top). What’s he getting at here?
A major issue that circulates through a number of the essays has to do with the tension between the web as a user-driven medium that generates content from the bottom up and as a medium large corporations want to appropriate and control for their own purposes. Jenkins treats this as a kind of paradox on pp. 17-19. To what degree is networked public culture susceptible to appropriation and control by corporations that dominate traditional cultural forms? This could be connected to the question raised on the bottom of p. 1 of the networked democracy essay: Is the internet “convivial?” Does it empower people and make the medium difficult for elites to control, or not?
Democracy Essay
The political remixes discussed in the essay (pp. 15-16) are entertaining, but do they really have any real political force or power?
The authors claim the web provides “broad availability” as a place for deliberation. Is this really correct? To what extent do “the digital divide” and cultural differences related to online practices qualify these claims?
Friday, February 09, 2007
Networked Presidential Campaigns
Take a look at this video Barack Obama sent round today to people who signed up on his website. It provides a sneak preview of his announcement tomorrow that he'll be running for President. Listen carefully to his description the role his website will play in the campaign, especially the way his people will apparently be adopting social networking as a format for linking up and mobilizing supporters . This is all connected to the discussion in one of the essays we'll be talking about on Tuesday, "Democratic Deliberation and Mobilization on the Internet." This isn't meant to be an endorsement of Obama's candidacy, of course. What's interesting here is how his campaign is going to mashup myspace social networking and the power of individual blogs. Have a listen. If you want to see the reformatted website with the networking capabilities Obama describes it's now up and running.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Web 2.0 ... The Machine is Us/ing Us
Check out this fabulous video introduction to what we'll be covering the rest of the semester, all packed into a tight 2 1/2 minutes. Thanks to Steve Jones for sending it our way.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Back to the Future
Click on this image and read the caption. Too cool. Just e-mailed to me and I'm told it's in image from a 1954 Popular Mechanics Magazine. I'm missing that steering wheel on my Macbook!
Convergence in the Technoculture Industry
Two side-by-side articles in this morning's New York Times caught my eye. The first, "A New Boss at NBC, and Even Newer Issues," is about the challenge Jeff Zucker will face as he takes over NBC in dealing with the digital revolution that is moving much TV content online to sites like YouTube. The second is about a deal Wal-Mart has made with all six major Hollywood studios to begin selling downloadable movies online. The convergence of these two articles on the front page of the business section dramatizes how shifting systems for delivering televsion and film programs are disrupting traditional business models. This is a classic contemporary example of conversion, where two media that decades earlier converged in our living rooms -- TV and film -- are now converging online. This isn't just business news, of course, since the changes discussed in the two articles are bound to have a long-term impact both on how we experience visual entertainment and the aesthetic forms that entertainment takes.
If you don't have a New York Times subscription you'll find links to both articles at the top of the News section of the course website.
If you don't have a New York Times subscription you'll find links to both articles at the top of the News section of the course website.
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Plans for Tuesday Night's Class
We’ll spend the first half of our time on Parts 5 and 6. They deal broadly with how cultural studies critics theorize personal and cultural identity (for purposes of our discussion I think it makes sense to approach sexuality, gender, and the concept of “queer” as identity categories along with race and multiculturalism). The theoretical approach here is generally poststructuralist and narrowly deconstructive, i.e. essentialist or foundationalist conceptions of identity, race, culture, gender, and sexual orientation have given way in our own time to social constructionist models based on a deconstruction of the nature/culture binary. Much of this may be familiar from introductory or advanced level theory courses you’ve already had (our Introduction to Graduate Studies, for example), but we will certainly spend some time dealing with questions you’ve got about 1) the theoretical concepts During reviews in these sections, and 2) how the topics he covers translate into major issues of practical interest to cultural studies critics. If you want to post questions here that would be great.
After the break we’ll spend the remainder of our time on Parts 7 and 4, in that order. Part 7 discusses the general interest in “popular culture” among cultural studies critics, and Part 4 deals with specific examples of popular forms of interest to cultural studies critics—TV, music, and “technoculture” (the list is by no means exhaustive, of course). These two sections, taken together, make for a nice transition to our study of popular culture in the form of networked public culture. As such, it seems to me we’ll want to orient our discussion of these sections around how the landscape of popular culture has changed in the few years since During wrote his book. How has TV changed, and to what extent is it marked by its convergence with the web? With regard to music, building on the foundation During reviews, how would we want to approach the study of music given developments related to its online use During doesn’t discuss? And finally, his section on “technoculture” is a brief, early sketch of the terrain we’re about to cover. We should try to talk briefly about some of the key developments that have transpired since the publication of his book as a way to begin to frame some of the topics we’ll be covering the rest of the semester.
Feel free to post questions – and suggestions about specifics you’d like to see us cover – by using the comments feature here. I’m outta here for the Super Bowl.
After the break we’ll spend the remainder of our time on Parts 7 and 4, in that order. Part 7 discusses the general interest in “popular culture” among cultural studies critics, and Part 4 deals with specific examples of popular forms of interest to cultural studies critics—TV, music, and “technoculture” (the list is by no means exhaustive, of course). These two sections, taken together, make for a nice transition to our study of popular culture in the form of networked public culture. As such, it seems to me we’ll want to orient our discussion of these sections around how the landscape of popular culture has changed in the few years since During wrote his book. How has TV changed, and to what extent is it marked by its convergence with the web? With regard to music, building on the foundation During reviews, how would we want to approach the study of music given developments related to its online use During doesn’t discuss? And finally, his section on “technoculture” is a brief, early sketch of the terrain we’re about to cover. We should try to talk briefly about some of the key developments that have transpired since the publication of his book as a way to begin to frame some of the topics we’ll be covering the rest of the semester.
Feel free to post questions – and suggestions about specifics you’d like to see us cover – by using the comments feature here. I’m outta here for the Super Bowl.
The Racial Politics of Being "Articulate"
Another news story this week bears on our discussion Tuesday night of race and idenity, of course, and that's Sen. Joseph Biden's remark that in Barack Obama we finally have an "articulate" (not to mention "clean") African American leader. There is an intelligent discussion of this incident in today's NEW YORK TIMES.
Friday, February 02, 2007
Is Obama Black? Race, Identity, and Multiculturalism
A number of the issues Simon During explores in his discussions of race, identity, and multiculturalism surface in an interesting article in today's New York Times entitled "So Far, Obama Can't Take Black Vote for Granted." The article details the perception among a lot of African American voters that Obama somehow "isn't black" because his father was African, his mother was white, he grew up with white grandparents in Hawaii, and lived for a time in Indonesia. One person interviewed for the article even questions whether Obama is American. It seems that Obama's attraction as someone who embodies "multiculturalism" is off-set among many black voters by a wariness about his status as an "African American." If "African American" is something like a biological category, it certainly seems Obama is African American. But people interviewed in the article implicitly see "African American," or "black" as a cultural category. I think it would be helpful to reference this article and the issues it raises as we discuss During's chapters on identity, race, and multiculturalism. Feel free to comment on the article here if you'd like.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
