Jonathan emailed us last Thursday and asked us to read The Practice Of Everyday (Media) Life by Lev Manovich (2008) and consider the following questions
Question 1. The first part of the essay has lots of statistics about media use, can you add any personal experiences to support or contradict these facts? (The facts referred to above were about the move from consumer to active participant in web based activities).
Answer – Yes I broadly agree.
- I have moved from consumerism to interaction and to production
- But the internet offers different media streams now eg:
- Professionally produced and frameworks for active armatures (semi pro) to engage
(The author uses Wikipedia as his source, not an example)!
Question 2. Manovich suggests the merging and even reversing of De Certeau’s categories of ‘strategy’ and ‘tactic’, do you agree with this point? Is there a democraticing of media or is it still in the hands of ‘big business’
Answer – yes and no
a. Yes – digital products are often based on consumer customisation – a key difference between digital and manufactured products (where cheap but fixed products dominate) and so companies have adopted strategies of making this a feature of their software or platforms.
b. I agree that there has been a massive – truly fantastical – democratising of media for those with access to the internet. Many people who were previously just consumers are now producers.
But – its big business that sets the framework and terms of engagement – eg FaceBook, Google etc all determine how we interact, not us. (Manovich recognises this by his use of the term “templates”.)
Question 3. Does the mappability of web 2.0 structures mean that De Certeau’s categories are now irrelevant however you answer the question above?
Answer: No
We need a language that distinguishes between producers who produce digital stuff for its own sake and colonisers who produce or procure digital stuff to make money (whether or not the platform providers offer customisable platforms or not) because the intent of often different (but not always) and infrastructure makers who, in effect, set the terms of any relationships and determine how we engage.
In addition are there not two types of platform?
1) Fixed eg Tesco where it’s a portal to see and buy stuff
2) Customisable where user content forms the substance of the product
Moreover those who control internet access and traffic will always be in ultimate control
Question 4. What do you make of Manovich’s statement, ‘it is only a matter of time before constant broadcasting of one’s live becomes as common as email’?
Answer: true – but only for segments of the population
Question 5. Manovich makes a lot of the ‘conversation’, although he also says that further analysis is required to understand if web 2.0 inspired conversations are ‘a genuinely new phenomenon’, do you have any anecdotal evidence of the interactive, ongoing nature of the ‘conversation’?
a. Conversations are not new – no different than in any sphere – things influence each other. What is new about it? Well the fact that traffic equals money and conversations and interactions are indicators of traffic and so very important in commercial terms. This Manovich is right to cite motivation as key here.
Question 6.
1) So, is art still possible after web 2.0? Manovich’s belief is that most content is being produced by ‘prosumers’, young professionals or professionals in training. Do you think this will expand?
2) Does the development of ‘mash-up’ software tools have implications for creativity, copyright and/or authorship?
Answer
a. Of course professional art can survive the internet and art – it is just like the history of driving
i. First drivers = professional rare and employed for that skill (chauffer’s)
ii. Motorised vehicles become popular and so drivers become categorised as
1. Amateur/owners
2. Professionals who drive for a living
3. Elite drivers – eg racing
iii. As vehicles become widespread driving becomes
1. Everyday skill most people want/have
2. High skilled amateurs – with higher advanced driving qualifications
3. Paid professional skill often linked to other duties eg delivery, policing etc
4. Elite drivers still exists and make money
We can see how this is working now.
We all use the web –
Some of us use it to make and share art – eg on http://anomiepete.weebly.com/
Some of us use it to make share and sell art eg eg on http://www.saatchiart.com/photography
Question 7. How do you respond to Manovich’s final statement, ‘The real challenge may lie in the dynamics of Web 2.0 culture – its constant innovation, its energy, and its unpredictability.’?
Answer: It’s not a challenge it’s a fact. But Manovich’s use of statistics made me think about my own. What do these figures actually tell me? (all figures are as of today Monday October 27th 2014).
Flickr views of my photos and digital images …………………………………….. 1000,894 (all time) 105 today at 9.5am
Website views
– A Visual Discourse on Disability …………………………………………. 1 today
– Pete’s Other Photography Site …………………………………………… 0 today
– MA Fine Art Digital Website ………………………………………………. 1 today
Blog statistics
– Posts ………………………………………………………………………… 420
– Visitors ………………………………………………………………………. 5 today
– Views ……………………………………………………………………….. 6192
– Followers …………………………………………………………………… 100
– Comments …………………………………………………………………. 381
Conclusions
What does this tell me?
Manovick poses a central question thus:
“Or, more precisely: what are the relative weights between the ideas expressed in large circulation media and alternative ideas available elsewhere? If one person gets all her news via blogs, does this automatically mean that her understanding of the world and important issues is different from a person who only reads mainstream newspapers?” (Manovich, 2008)
1) The web offers me some platforms to show my work and engage with others who share similar interests. This means that communities of interest can be built where distance is not a problem. So I do become informed by sources other than mainstream providers.
2) That I am currently dependent on: Virgin for my Broadband, Weebly for my website, WordPress for my blog, and Microsoft for Live Writer and so am subject to how they configure the terms of my activity. So I have some control but they still have all the power…So for example they can exclude, include monitor, adjust and control both what I can say and how I say it.
3) Statistics are a currency and I could pay Weebly to see more statistics differently configured eg all time visits whereas WordPress provide this service free. Weebly and WordPress must make their money through traffic generation pulling in paying advertising as I don’t pay to use their software and platforms (which Manovick talks about I think).
So while there is know doubt that the internet is a game changer in terms of access and engagement Manovich’s argument about strategy and tactics being reverse misses the fundamental issue of control still being located with service providers. This can be seen in what I would term as colonisation. This is where small start ups are taken over and colonised by the bigger companies and so they keep on top and in control. For example Google have bought control of over 172 companies; Apple 62, FaceBook 49, and Microsoft 166.
—————
Manovich L. (2008) The Practice Of Everyday (Media) Life Available at: http://manovich.net/index.php/projects/the-practice-of-everyday-media-life [Accessed 24/10/2014]
anomiepete 