Posts Tagged: amateurization

Earlier in the week, I posted framing questions regarding the growing trend of amateurization. I questioned some of the ways that amateurization will continue to challenge and expand our creativity, as a society. Jenkins’ theory of participatory culture was further demonstrated in the documentary we watched in class on Wednesday, dealing with the related issue of copyright infringement. Copyright issues have certainly become a highly debated topic within the entertainment industry. The documentary specifically emphasized the immediate effects within the music and movie sectors worldwide.

Returning to the idea of amateurization: copyright infringement issues come into play as soon as you start examining much of the user generated content that is easily found online. Take YouTube, for instance: a hefty portion of the video content includes video “mashups,” parodies of now-famous news clips (Bedroom Intruder song, anyone?), remixes of popular songs and even entire TV episodes that are posted without permission. In some ways, it can be argued that the thought, time and effort put into these instances of amateurization, fosters the creative energy of our society. At the same time, there is a sector that would argue against the spread of this content due to directly ripping off others’ work. As I saw this tension played out in the documentary, I began to question whether we can ever achieve some degree of a happy medium between allowing the creation of amateur content (in an effort to encourage creativity, free of restrictions) and limiting the sharing of content that isn’t completely original (to avoid copyright infringement.) It’s a topic that we will continue to debate in the years to come, and perhaps we will never reach a direct solution. But regardless on where you personally stand on the issue, this generation is inarguably the first that is witnessing the revolutionary trend of amateur-infused content, reflective of the larger theories of collaboration and participatory culture, which is ultimately fostered by the Web.

Week 5: Amateurization

Quentin Tarantino’s Star Wars
– Henry Jenkins

For the longest time fans of media (whether it be music, video, print, digital, or whatever) were solely on the receiving end of whatever the producers gave their audiences.  Now the fans have the opportunity to take the content they love and manipulate it.  But should we consider this a welcome opportunity?  Copyright is always one of those scary topics that people think they understand.  Where do we draw the line on borrowed content?  Thanks to the digital age, there is a growing tension between receivers and producers.  But which side should be upset?  Should we have access to what others have created and fashion those ideas into something new?  Or should the producers have the sole right to limit how their content is used and intervene in the sharing process?

In “Quentin Tarantino’s Star Wars”, Henry Jenkins explains that the interactive model of mass media is more symbiotic than the old model to which we have become accustomed.  He argues that culture is the result of fans interacting with the content they love.  We are no longer parasites that simply feed off whatever is handed to us. We respond and remix.  We reshape and create new ideas.  But somehow copyright always gets in the way.  Yet, it seems that the knowledge and severity of a judge in a copyright case would have a significant impact.  The laws still seem fuzzy to me, and I’m sure others feel the same.  Why else do we have groups trying to find loop holes in the system.  Something isn’t clear.  Jenkins stresses the need for regulations to be normalized.

Jenkin’s whole purpose for his article was to suggest that this is the way things should be.  He doesn’t see content as making society dumber, it’s how we handle the content.  What we do with it in the end has more meaning than the content itself.  So why take away that opportunity to respond?  According to Jenkis the world is more diverse through participatory means.  And I agree.  The reason we have expanded out ideas at light speed is because of sharing.  We share and build and grow.  Not only have the tools to share media become easier and cheaper, the tools to produce what we see at the movies or on TV is also dropping in cost.

This leads me to one of my framing questions for the week: At the end of the article, Jenkins asks what we can expect for the future of digital cinema.  Do amateur filmmakers have a chance at becoming the majority and will big movie producers go by the wayside? Although it seems hard to believe amateur individuals can step up to the big guys in any field, I wouldn’t want to say this couldn’t happen in the future of media.  Media has become collaborative and it has pulled talented people into the mix that may not have normally had the financial means to join in.  Personal computers are becoming people’s at-home-studios.  Most things that used to require a crew and special equipment can all be accounted for simply through a digital program.  One person can orchestrate the production of a film using tools sold at the consumer level.  I think we are well on our way to seeing more amateur films.  Because the internet has made it easy to share ideas and content and costs have come down in regards to production equipment, the next big producer could be Joe Shmoe working out of his one room apartment on his laptop.

“One good thing about music—when it hits, you feel no pain.”

Bob Marley said it, and it’s true.  Music defines moments in our lives and gets us through the good and bad.  It’s everywhere, and there are more genres than we can count.  The question is, though, in today’s technology-obsessed society, do people still produce ORIGINAL sound?

Jaron Lanier doesn’t seem to think so.  In his book, “You Are Not A Gadget,” Lanier claims that nothing original has been created in music since the 90’s.  He says that all we do now is steal sounds and songs from previous artists.

A lot of the weight behind Lanier’s claim comes from amateurization in music, or the opportunity for anyone with the right equipment to create and share songs.  He argues that, because of today’s techno-savvy population, new artists come out and steal the work of others.  The music industry is so saturated now that it’s easy to overlook the original producer, and someone who has “borrowed” a sound may get discovered before the creator.

This DOES happen from time to time. It’s most commonly seen in hip-hop, where artists often sample hooks and chord progressions from songs that have already been produced.  We also see it when artists cover other artists.  And, sadly, true theft of sound occurs sometimes too.

Now, none of this means that there are no longer any new forms of music being created!  I’d argue that, if anything, new music is INFLUENCED by past music, not stolen from it.  Different outliers pave the way for genres, like The Beatles for rock and roll and Marvin Gaye for R&B, but even those guys were influenced by people and musicians before their time.

My opinion is that new music is created all the time, and that amateurization is HELPING with these new sounds.  Yes, it saturates the market, but it also widens the spectrum of material being created.  Of course there’s shit, but there’s also GOLD.  Giving the Average Joe a chance to make music opens a whole new WORLD of possibility for the overall sound.  The industry will adapt to these new artists, and as always, for everyone one new musician discovered, thousands will be left behind, but with new technology, millions more will get the chance to follow their dreams and change the music world.

So Lanier is right to the degree that old sounds are used for new music, but it’s more of an influence thing.  Amateurization opens up new possibilities for sound, and gives EVERYONE a chance to make something new.

After reading the Jenkins reading, I began thinking about the implications of the empowerment of the media’s “amateur” content producers. The first question that came to mind was with the rise of decentralized circulation, and anonymous attributions of this content, how will this impact our ability to filter through the massive amounts of information we encounter? It’s easy to label information on a site like the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal as credible sources, but what about the anonymously submitted stories or videos? Do we write them off as “junk” since we don’t know their origin, or do we judge based on the legitimacy of the content?

Stemming off the idea of amateur content, in what ways will amateurization ultimately lead to a more creative pop culture? Published content is no longer limited to those with a professional background. It seems like those that previously experienced limitations to presenting content are now able to easily and economically produce and share this content with the masses.

Finally, with the emergence of the participatory culture, which uses technological developments to transcend the barriers of the industry’s commercial sector, will traditional corporations eventually become obsolete? Will the media eventually morph into a mass collection of content fueled by the low-cost grassroots model of this participatory culture? Jenkins’ essay places a great deal of emphasis on the strengths of the participatory culture, which could directly impact the media’s future business model.

Week 5: Amateurization

You Are Not A Gadget
– Jaron Lanier

1. Lanier introduces his book by referring to “open culture.”  He explains that web 2.0 promotes freedoms people have never experienced through technology until the twenty-first century.  But who is this freedom benefiting most?  Humans or machines?

2.  According to “You are not a Gadget,” the most important thing about a technology is how it changes people and society.  It seems that every 5 years we are learning to use new technologies that we never knew we needed or would make such a large difference in our lives.  But is all this new technology being developed too quickly and negatively changing people?  Is the pace causing these new gadgets to hurt us in the end?

3.  Of all our outlets, advertising has been able to hold strong during the digital transition.  What type of power will advertising hold in the digital future?

4.  We have become accustomed to free access for most Internet information.  Lanier asks if it’s too late to go back and write new rules.  Once society knows they are at an advantage they will not accept change that seems like a step back.  Did we goof up during the development of the web by allowing free access or is this exactly what the web is designed to do (otherwise we would be going against the logical model)?

Quentin Tarantino’s Star Wars
– Henry Jenkins

1. As I was skimming the article, I began to wonder if some of the media listed (books, cable, film, magazines, etc) would eventually be completely wiped out.  Do you think society will come to a point in the future when everything will be digital?  Radio, newspapers, television have all had to settle into new niches over time as new mediums became available.  Would it be easier to scrap all the old and promote one platform that includes everything?

2. At the end of the article, Jenkins asks what we can expect for the future of digital cinema.  Do amateur filmmakers have a chance at becoming the majority and will big movie producers go by the wayside?

My week 3 framing questions focused on a chapter of Here Comes Everybody, which we haven’t yet discussed in class. Still, upon reading further in the book, I think I can begin to respond to my initial questions with a little more insight. I questioned the concept of amateurization that is now prevalent in the world of online journalism. I questioned Shirky’s negative opinion, as I originally saw it, of the massive amounts of “junk” that we can find online and the importance of learning to filter through it in an educated way.

After reading the following chapter on personal motivations and collaboration, I better understand that Shirky doesn’t consider all user-generated content to be junk. In fact, he uses the example of Wikipedia which often gets a reputation for producing mass amounts of inaccurate or insignificant information on its pages. But rather than undermine the collaborative efforts of amateurs to produce the content, he recognizes the surprising success of the site. He does admit that the site revolves around the very idea of publishing before filtering. Still, he concludes that “Wikipedia articles get better, on average, over time.”

Shirky even goes as far as to credit the freedom of these amateur contributors, arguing that the very reason the site functions so well (and remains relatively valid) is because of the personal motivations that wouldn’t necessarily exist in a professional environment. Psychologically speaking, people like to see their own work published, especially when writing about a subject they care about, which encourages them to put forth their best work, free of financial ties. In this sense, pages like Wikipedia are essentially user-generated content at their core, but it doesn’t necessarily undermine their validity, due to the personal motivations of group collaboration. This isn’t to say that 100% of amateurization is legitimate. This is where our filtering skills must come in- a topic that I still hope to learn more about later in the week.

Chapter 4 of Here Comes Everybody, “Publish, Then Filter,” really struck a cord with me because the topic of amateurization is one that is constantly debated among journalists. Shirky even poses the question: “Surely it is as bad to gorge as it is to starve?” He seems to paint user-generated content in a negative light. Granted, it is important to learn how to filter through the “junk,” but aren’t those hidden treasures among the user-generated content the very things that we celebrate about Web 2.0? Without the concept of audience participation, wouldn’t we lose vital pseudo-journalistic content? (I’m thinking of photos that are instantly Tweeted from the scene of breaking news, where perhaps journalists and other news media have not yet arrived, etc. This content is certainly published before it’s filtered, but isn’t the sense of timeliness and contribution for the sake of conversation the whole point?) On a similar note, how can the average Internet user learn to become efficient filters of the mounds of conversation found in communications media?