The Soma Fountain, by Dave Jones

To my #cmp10 peeps:

4n9314 “I <3 Henry Jenkins” Harrison
Christy “Groceries have no meaning for me” Gilroy
Kelly “I’m really a bad ass in Jimmy Choos” Murphy
Sam “I get my own soundtrack at conferences” Evans
Shaw “I’m covering a murder trial this week” Day
Chris “G $ Zombie Killah” English
Laura “I’m sooo much cooler & nerdier than my kids” Bucholz
Liza “Oh God, what have I done?” Potts

I want to say thanks to all of you. Every Tuesday night for the last four months, I have eagerly looked forward to our class. I knew, at some point in each class, several things would happen:

1. I would smile and/or laugh at a pop culture reference that reminded me of something awesome. Or, I would find appreciation for a whole new piece of nerdery, something I hadn’t known before. Hello, Firefly!
2. I would learn something completely new — a new angle on something I had long taken for granted.
3. One of you would blow my brain apart, challenging me to put it back together in a way I could never have thought of on my own.

Moving to Norfolk was a big transition with a lot of challenges for me. But, every Tuesday night, all of you made it a little less difficult. To see this class come to an end is fulfilling in the sense that it points to new steps and ideas to be pursued. But it’s also sad. All of you challenged me and motivated me to learn more and to do more. And I don’t want to see that end.

Have a good summer and keep in touch. And, again, thanks to all of you for the best class I’ve ever had with any group of people.

And congrats to Shawn, and good luck in whatever you decide to do.

–Dave “….” Jones

This is a TED Talk from late last year, featuring Pranav Mistry, who is now officially one of my heroes. Though I’m not quite convinced that the portable, gesture-based systems he’s discussing here can quite catch on, nevertheless, it’s still pretty awesome and elegant. One day, I hope to work with and, more importantly, PLAY!!! with technology like this.

CeME just needs a grant… or a big investor…

The short clip of the train riders playing pong on the train floor is extremely fascinating to me. It’s a case of pulling participation out of the digital and placing it squarely in the physical world. And that is a growing interest of mine. I want to make the digital and physical converge in interesting ways. Ideas abound. But, I want to make something happen.

Ryan Moore (no dates)

I spent more than an hour hunting for anything on Ryan Moore. I found a pro golfer, a NASCAR driver, a software developer, a motorcycle stunt rider, and some kid’s MySpace page. Unless our man is the modern day Buckaroo Banzai, I’m thinking none of these are him.

Finally, I found his page for the Department of Sociology at Florida Atlantic University, where he’s an assistant professor.

I found no picture to prove it, but apparently, his students love him and think he’s pretty hot [link].

And Sells like Teen Spirit (2009) has a Facebook page.

“Anarchy in the USA”

Pivoting on the emergence of punk and hip-hop as reactions to the collapsed attempts at social change spurred on by earlier forms of music, Moore situates the evolution of these musical scenes against a backdrop of postmodern critiques of meaning and culture, as well as a Marxist critique of their contemporary economic contexts. He states that “such changes cannot merely be described as ‘economic,’ for they have given rise to a whole way of life where time and space are compressed, social relations are more fluid and ephemeral, and the commodity form infiltrates every aspect of everyday life” (p. 7). All of three are necessarily bound to each other if he is to form a full sociological examination of music as a line of cultural force in late 20th century western capitalist societies. (more…)

Mark Poster (b. 1941)

Mark Poster is an emeritus faculty member at the University of California, Irvine. You can find his faculty page here, although he is not listed in his department’s current faculty listing.

Wikipedia has the only extensive bibliography of his I could find. His last major publication appears to be his book, What’s Wrong With the Internet (2001).

His faculty homepage trumpets an award from Lycos (seriously…).

Interestingly, his output seems to have tailed off right about the time the internet started to turn much more participatory in nature.

“Postmodern Virtualities”

Poster constructs an analysis of the then-still-emerging internet in the mid 1990s as a vehicle for exploring the dynamic nature of subjective identities and relationships that inhere to postmodern culture. He quickly narrates the development of mass media as a (mostly) one-to-many system of information distribution falling under the hegemonic control of those with the financial resources to manufacture the necessary equipment and distribution infrastructure. The “bidirectional communication systems” constituted by the internet asked for a reassessment of media consumption and production as relatively cheap means of production/distribution could be more widely disseminated to the average consumer. (more…)

(b. 1934 ¦ Cleveland, OH)

Currently the William A Lane Professor of Comparative Literature and Romance Studies at Duke University.

His list of publications is downright mind-boggling, officially listing nearly 150 journal articles.

Our reading, published in 1984, would form the basis for Jameson’s 1991 book of the same title.

Here, you’ll find a YouTube video of a keynote lecture that “Fred” gave at Duke in 2008(?). [Would have embedded it, but Duke disabled the option.]

“Postmodernism…”

Where to even begin? The article is encyclopedic in its scope, both in terms of art objects discussed and in terms of the different valences that postmodernism had taken by 1984. To risk VASTLY oversimplifying this, the basic principle Jameson explores is the one most often attributed to postmodernism: namely, that a postmodern culture is one unmoored to any referent beyond itself, or one of its own creation. The results, Jameson suggests, stem from 4 “constitutive features of the postmodern” (p. 487): (more…)

Below is the paper proposal I’ve written up for CMP10. At the end you’ll find a YouTube video of a LBP level I’m discussing.

This paper argues for the synthesis of media studies with theories from professional writing to establish richer frameworks for the critical evaluation of participatory cultures and the mediascapes that materialize around them. As media production, distribution, and consumption are increasingly remediated through readily available consumer technologies like computers and mobile phones, a number of theories have been adapted or put forward to establish frameworks for critical and cultural analysis of media content. The most important observation to emerge from this scholarship is that such content is no longer simply an object of study, but a site of practice for the audience in convergent media systems (Jenkins, 2006 & 2009; Booth, 2008). The technologies available to consumers and the material work or play they support unmask the audience’s reception of media content by fostering audience activities with that content. Meaning is recast not only as interpretation, but as motives and goals enacted by the audience. The distribution supported by the participatory web places the products of the audience’s work or play into their own dynamic streams of activity, as well.

By fusing methodologies from professional writing and information design — deconstructed information architectures (Johnson-Eilola, 2006); activity theory (Engestrom, 2000; Spinuzzi, 2003) — with media convergence (Jenkins, 2006), we can map a method for analyzing convergent media experiences as emerging from activities that persistently repurpose and rehistoricize media content through computer supported collaborative work (CSCW). In doing so, we can bolster critical media studies scholarship by understanding the underlying capabilities and limitations that support convergence within the audience’s work.

I demonstrate the value of this hybrid method by tracing the audience work and play surrounding the level creation tools of Media Molecule’s Little Big Planet (2008). Specifically, I will focus on the licensing of Alan Moore’s Watchmen (1986 & 1987) as downloadable content offered by Media Molecule for players to use for their own creative projects. Content provided on the company’s website will be analyzed in conjunction with video of player-created game levels that make use of this content by recreating and adapting events from Moore’s original story and its film adaptation (2009). This will be bolstered by an activity theory analysis of Little Big Planet’s level and character creation tools to understand the design (and hence narrative) capabilities afforded to the player. Examining both the visual and narrative themes of the game design as well as the graphic novel, in conjunction with the work analysis necessary to create player-generated levels, will unveil new insights into the concept of audience practice as meaningful cultural engagement.

In recognition of the growing call for audience empowerment in media experiences, the final section of the paper will take up the common professional writing strategy of offering design solutions so as to better foster participatory engagement in media systems by looking at Little Big Planet and its community as an example of the successes of such systems.

Roland Barthes (1915-1980)

Barthes’ father was killed in WWI when he was only a year old. Raised by his mother, he dealt with repeated illness issues his whole life, including Tuberculosis. These problems kept him out of WWII. They also meant that he often had difficulty procurring teaching positions throughout his career.

He was also gay, and much of his work is often read in light of this fact. His resistance to bourgeois cultural values is often interpreted as a function of his sexual identity.

Barthes published extensively, solidfying his reputation as a scholar and theorist. “The Death of the Author,” his famous 1967 essay, argued that text created by the author supplanted the author’s authority within culture. Ironically, it also led to Barthes’ great critical reception by other literary theorists. Wikipedia has long bibliography of Barthes’ work.

“Mythologies” and “The Eiffel Tower”

Barthes saw myth as a set of semiotic relationships. And though, as any reader can see, he offers a meticulous and complex analysis of the semiotic operations at work, I’ve tried to keep it relatively simple for my own benefit. He calls myth an example of “speech” primarily because he sees it as a semiotic system. The easiest place to start are his assertions about myth’s function and character — that it commits “language robbery” (p. 131) by aiming for “immediate impression” rather than allowing thoughtful analysis (p. 130). Myth can do this because, through an elaborate semiological system, it “distorts” meaning by “distancing” history from the signifier. It doesn’t destroy this meaning, needing it as a vague and fuzzy base upon which to build. Instead, distance can be filled with whatever the bourgeois deem culturally or politically expedient by appropriating what they want from the meaning underneath. (Barthes sees myth as a distinctly bourgeois, right-wing phenomenon.)

His most prominent example is this, the young black boy in French soldier’s garb, seen here. The image is an amalgamation of French colonialism and patriotism, expressed through visual signifiers, that is instantly recognizable as an attempt to perpetuate the myth of French Imperialism. Barthes’ purpose is to establish a rigorous method that can uncover the mythic operation at work in the image, and hence offer resistant readings of it. In Barthes’ terms, “he is the very presence of French imperiality” (p. 128, emphasis in the original). What he means is that recovering this image from its mythical structure is an act that simultaneously exposes the myth’s operations, as well as the history that is being marginalized. Repeatedly, Barthes argues that this marginalization, or distancing at work in the semiological system, amounts to a “naturalization” of the myth.

In some sense, there is a connection to be made between Barthes and Benjamin’s concept of the aura. In effect, Benjamin is arguing this same distancing between the foundation of reality and the experience of stories about reality. The mechanically reproduced work of art is a myth that can be understood as a decontextualization of the hard reality of the artwork.

Barthes applies this method to the Eiffel Tower as a way of explicating its differing relationships to Parisians versus outsiders. The feeling imposed by an experience — that which evokes sentimental attachment to abstractions about time, place, or event — can serve as a way of distancing the observer from the history that might be found in the pre-mythic semiological system.

But Stephen Colbert can explain it better than I can:

DALLAS W SMYTHE (1907-1992)

Smythe was a Canadian-born scholar who worked as an economist in a number of government agencies in the United States in the early 2oth century. He was vocal about his socio-political stances, which often left him at odds with authorities, including difficulties getting published when he turned to teaching at the University of Illinois during the 1950s. See his Wikipedia page for more, or see this encyclopedia entry.

The International Association for Media and Communication Research gives an award named in honor of Smythe for quality scholarship dedicated to exploring the relationship between media and political economy.

Dependency Road: Communications, Capitalism, Consciousness, and Canada (1981) is Smythe’s most widely known and excerpted work. He has a number of journal articles credited to him. An essay collection is also dedicated to him, and is, ironically enough, extremely expensive.

“On the Audience Commodity and Its Work”

Our excerpt, taken from Smythe’s 1981 book, seeks to recast critical Marxist theories about mass media, grounding them in a more “objective and realistic” theoretical framework (p. 231). In his estimation, previous efforts were, at best, incomplete because they did not consider “real life processes” (p. 231) that determined the relationship between media, advertisers, and audiences. He develops the concept of “audience power,” which he defines as an audience’s ability to “buy goods and spend their income accordingly” (p. 243) so as to perpetuate capitalism and therefore reify state-held power (p. 233). To accomplish this, Smythe argues that free- or leisure-time is really only an illusion that hides actual work and the commodification of virtually the entire life of any given individual who lives in a capitalistic society. By focusing conscious attention on the spectacle contained within media, “the real situation is mystified out of existence” (p. 241). Instead of viewing advertising as a necessity for creating and broadcasting media, Smythe views “non-advertising” content as a trojan horse really designed to sneak advertising into the homes, lives, and thought processes of audiences — what he terms a “free lunch” (p. 242-3). The effect, as he puts it, is to “reaffirm the status quo and retard change” (p. 243).

Questions and Connections

Several questions stick out to me:

• Is his approach any more realistically grounded than those he dismisses?
• How does his theory compare to other cultural materialist theories of media?
• How does the participatory internet alter or affirm his notion that industrialization destroys creativity (p. 233)?

Smythe is a determinist, but not in the same way as McLuhan. Whereas McLuhan sees all (or at least most) human agency as irrelevant in the face of technological form, Smythe sees technological form as an extension of market capitalist ideology, and as the site of a “social process” through which the relationship between people and commodities is formed. Instead of being the actor with the most agency, technology becomes the conduit through which agency is controlled. He’s similar to Williams in this point, yet the audience is just as unable to affect this process as they are in McLuhan’s scheme. The use of the “free lunch” is distracting enough to hide the areas in need of critical examination.

Thus, I find him oddly reminiscent of Gramsci, in spite of his insistence that he’s more “objectively” and “realistically” grounded than Gramsci and others. Really, he seems primarily intent on providing empirical evidence of media as a hegemonic process. Yet, he does seem just as guilty in over-generalizing his theories, particularly with respect to print journalism pre-WWI.

Thoughts?

Click to go to Ducheneaut's PARC information page.

Nic Ducheneaut completed his PhD in 2003 at the UC Berkeley School of Information.

He works as a senior researcher at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC). He primarily studies online game communities.

You can find a summary of his current projects here, and an extensive list of publications here.

He has a LinkedIn account and a Twitter feed. However, his Twitter stream is locked from general view.

Click the image to go to Moore's MySpace page.

Robert J. Moore formerly worked at Xerox PARC, and has also worked extensively as a game designer. Clicking the image will take you to his MySpace page, which seems to be his primary web-presence.

(more…)