This project seems to be bringing me straight to the zeitgeist of digital culture. Everywhere I look I can see a multitude of participants and 'users' all contributing to the web. But what is it that motivates individuals to engage in social media?
Is it for the 30 seconds of fame? Is it to make money? And how are people's motivations changing?
If we look at how our online habits have changed over the recent years, will we understand better where our online culture is going?
Tuesday 30 November 2010
The Network society
I would like to quote the beginning of Daren Barney's Network Society to illustrate some important factors in this project:
I have included the whole first page of this thesis as it so eloquently opens the various subjects of the book into a conversation. I have also highlighted the particular moments that strike a chord with me and my project.
Like moths to a flame, ambitious minds seek out the spirit of their age. The project that is now well under way is purely that; an ambitious attempt for me to understand and challenge the 'spirit' with which this age will be historically remembered. An attempt to do such a thing is worthy to anyone at any moment in time, as it is a journey of discovery in the present. However, the current climate in which I have the opportunity to explore is rich with fascinating challenges and new perspectives. What is more I will become a product of the spirit of this age. As I take my first steps from being a student of the past into a practitioner of the future, I will mark my age. So this is a rare chance for me to survey the landscape with which I hope to cultivate in the future.
Barney gives spirit a complex of meanings with which to understand it by. His use of Weber's understanding of the spirit of capitalism gives spirit a practical historic being. I am learning that this project, which started as an attempt to look at how digital technology can influence culture, and more specifically, how networked social technology may be implemented to innovate performance practice, is revealing much more about my practice as an individual and how my immediate surroundings are influential to it. I am spending this project looking at various combining and often contradictory sources of information to gage the social practices of now. It is almost saddening to know that historically this may all be boiled down into a stock representative, a character with which future generations can settle their consciences with. I could guess it may well be a converse-wearing, shabby-chic fashionista, with white ear-phones plugging them into an introspective, narcissistic window of the world as they want to see it. This is, at least, how I see the spiritless of industrial capitalism as a being.
The book then goes on to open discussion on the network society, a theory of how one may read the spirit of the age of now. He also gives context to other examples where attempts have been made at identifying the essence of our climate, including post-industrialism, information society, post-fordism, post-modernism and globalization. The network society encompasses elements of all of these into its idea. Barney emphasises that the network society thesis is not the successor to these eras, but "...one star among these others in a constellation of relatively recent attempts to understand and characterise an evolving range of interrelated social, political, economic and cultural forces."
What this book questions is whether we can consider ourselves amidst a 'digital revolution. Have new information and communication technologies given birth to a new form of society, or do they reinforce and extend existing patterns and relationships?'
This book has been a great tool in helping me look at the wider context my project can ring-fence. In a traditional thesis-style it gives a range of arguments that challenge and reinforce the case for the network society. However it concludes that it is too early to tell if this thesis is in fact substantial, and that only time will. Granted this book is considering global economics and industrial values, taking a distant look at society. This will no doubt help my perspective. But this project is the opposite. It must start with each individuals experience, giving an idea of the actual ground-climate is right now.
As this project and the research that must shape it leads me into new discoveries I am realising that simply looking at 'networks' or 'social media' is not an option. There is a broader conversation. I can look at how I see society engaging with social media tools and using computer-aided networks. I can then view how this is impacting the industries and cultural producers of the 20th century. I can then see some higher conversation that puts these observations into economic, or political significance. Above that there is a discourse of more global proportions.
Just as my research had to start close to my previous knowledge and understanding and gradually took wider steps to give me a clearer perspective, the project must start with a close relation to my own capacity and then, as I practically experience more, let it become something of larger scope and thus greater significance to my understanding.
Like moths to a flame, ambitious minds seek out the spirit of their age. The project that is now well under way is purely that; an ambitious attempt for me to understand and challenge the 'spirit' with which this age will be historically remembered. An attempt to do such a thing is worthy to anyone at any moment in time, as it is a journey of discovery in the present. However, the current climate in which I have the opportunity to explore is rich with fascinating challenges and new perspectives. What is more I will become a product of the spirit of this age. As I take my first steps from being a student of the past into a practitioner of the future, I will mark my age. So this is a rare chance for me to survey the landscape with which I hope to cultivate in the future.
Barney gives spirit a complex of meanings with which to understand it by. His use of Weber's understanding of the spirit of capitalism gives spirit a practical historic being. I am learning that this project, which started as an attempt to look at how digital technology can influence culture, and more specifically, how networked social technology may be implemented to innovate performance practice, is revealing much more about my practice as an individual and how my immediate surroundings are influential to it. I am spending this project looking at various combining and often contradictory sources of information to gage the social practices of now. It is almost saddening to know that historically this may all be boiled down into a stock representative, a character with which future generations can settle their consciences with. I could guess it may well be a converse-wearing, shabby-chic fashionista, with white ear-phones plugging them into an introspective, narcissistic window of the world as they want to see it. This is, at least, how I see the spiritless of industrial capitalism as a being.
The book then goes on to open discussion on the network society, a theory of how one may read the spirit of the age of now. He also gives context to other examples where attempts have been made at identifying the essence of our climate, including post-industrialism, information society, post-fordism, post-modernism and globalization. The network society encompasses elements of all of these into its idea. Barney emphasises that the network society thesis is not the successor to these eras, but "...one star among these others in a constellation of relatively recent attempts to understand and characterise an evolving range of interrelated social, political, economic and cultural forces."
What this book questions is whether we can consider ourselves amidst a 'digital revolution. Have new information and communication technologies given birth to a new form of society, or do they reinforce and extend existing patterns and relationships?'
This book has been a great tool in helping me look at the wider context my project can ring-fence. In a traditional thesis-style it gives a range of arguments that challenge and reinforce the case for the network society. However it concludes that it is too early to tell if this thesis is in fact substantial, and that only time will. Granted this book is considering global economics and industrial values, taking a distant look at society. This will no doubt help my perspective. But this project is the opposite. It must start with each individuals experience, giving an idea of the actual ground-climate is right now.
As this project and the research that must shape it leads me into new discoveries I am realising that simply looking at 'networks' or 'social media' is not an option. There is a broader conversation. I can look at how I see society engaging with social media tools and using computer-aided networks. I can then view how this is impacting the industries and cultural producers of the 20th century. I can then see some higher conversation that puts these observations into economic, or political significance. Above that there is a discourse of more global proportions.
Just as my research had to start close to my previous knowledge and understanding and gradually took wider steps to give me a clearer perspective, the project must start with a close relation to my own capacity and then, as I practically experience more, let it become something of larger scope and thus greater significance to my understanding.
Monday 29 November 2010
Guardian blog about theatre and technology
Maddy costa's blog in the Guardian about several pieces of theatre in progress that are engaging in new media and digital technology to help tell stories.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2010/nov/09/theatre-of-the-nerd
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2010/nov/09/theatre-of-the-nerd
What you need to know about viral video and the law
tech-in-the-arts has released a publication looking at the legal issues around online video footage. Specifically concerned with arts marketing. This article raises some important issues about authorship, the public domain and the new social media landscape. Understandably the format is similar to that of an educational pamphlet and uses a combination of scenarios and diagrams to expand on issues surrounding video, copyright and artists contracts. Although the paper has a forward facing stance, first chronicling the industry complications with radio, then the effect video had on the Hollywood film industry, it seems to elude any potential levelling of the strict laws of the 20th century. Towards the end of the document a diagram basically suggests all who work in arts marketing to get as up to date with intellectual property law as possible and to refer to unions if in doubt. There is no massive pointer to any attempt at re-writing these out-dated forms of copyright laws, only a recognition of the constant threat of lawsuits hanging over any arts organisation of marketer who uses video inappropriately.
There is, however, some salvageable good in the concluding paragraphs:
In the first 10 years of the 21st century, we’ve seen technology profoundly change the entertainment industry, notably the music industry. Although mainstream musical artists are able to thrive without the record companies, it is doubtful that the performing arts as we know them would be able to survive without arts organizations. Performing art forms like theater, opera, and ballet, by nature, have needs that can only be fulfilled by a company that can bring performers and designers together and can provide them with performance space, sets, costumes, props, lights, and, of course, an audience, as well as the means to obtain these necessities through fundraising and marketing.
It is short-sighted not to see the success of the performers and other creators as intrinsically tied to the success of the arts organization. Performers and organizations both strive for the same goal: to bring high-quality art to audiences. With changes in technology comes a change in the way our audiences think about their relationship to art and how they want to experience it. The question is, will the performing arts industry change with its audiences?
What you need to know about viral video and the law
Wednesday 24 November 2010
Thursday 11 November 2010
Research methodology
I'm at the stage in the project where the ethics of my research methodology needs to be established. I have realised, due to the interdisciplinarity, or simply the use of mixed-media involved in this project, it is not a task of plainly picking one root of compiling knowledge. I have a series of approaches that seem to dictate certain ways to form an opinion. Each has their own standards and recognised ways for understanding more.
For instance, considering how blogging and social networking is effecting the news journalism industry, I could compare data on newspaper sales with the amount of blogs that are created daily, thus quantitively comparing results. Or I could interview focus groups and find a qualitative way of evaluating how people learn about current affairs and communicate with each other. Just this question could be approached from an economic, politics, media study, journalistic or cultural stance. I also have the option as an artist to become as close or as distant as I like to this question, or shaping an opinion through a variety of practices. Emotionality and flares of self identity may be a strong way of forming a project with an integral experience to offer.
Furthermore, I am asking about something that is in rapid motion. As huge cultural shifts take place, how can I get a grip on what is happening? I need to be aptly responsive to the social and political climate that develops in real time.
And so with a confusing array of options with which to form knowledge of this project, I sit down to my computer.
I open safari (my internet browser), and go to the top right google search box and type 'social media'.
Up come a series of results: the obligatory wikipedia page; a handful of marketing websites that "hold the secret to social media success"; a few blogs; some videos; some images and some journalistic news results. Each one asks a different approach to it's significance in the context of this project. It is worth noting, that by now (4 weeks into the project) I have become skilled in the art of trawling the isles of google. I have no doubt that every scholar and every professor, every notable scientists, art maker or politician utilises search engines, or rather the contents of the world wide web to form an opinion.
I give this project full access to as much of the diverse and varying virtual landscape of the internet I can explore. Whilst doing so I have found communities of specialists and little clusters of information. I use a combination of trusting google's algorithmic responses to my searches and my own sense of judgement to lead my inquiry.
The question is can the internet be reliable? I can hear the warnings of every secondary school teacher giving out homework; "Remember that anyone can write anything on the internet and it's not always true!" I remember one teacher banning wikipedia, as it was not accredited with any institutional stamp of approval. I could use a variety of research ethics to evaluate this perspective against arguments that stand for crowd-credibility. This however would need to consider how this teacher came to this decision. Was it advised by the school? Did he read a compelling article in the newspaper?
In the internet I can find continuous cycles of meta-research, both giving me first hand experience of all it's relatively new media, as well as links to evidence of others research and findings.
One of the ways I have been broadening my research is through a pattern of media-trawling. I call it this, because I cannot find a better way to describe this action. That is not to say however that I am simply putting the bare minimum effort into it. As I discussed in an earlier log entry, I have been having difficulty situating my research amongst a published literary field. Admittedly I am not the most familiar person with the library but from my attempts it is quite a challenge finding current texts relating to computer aided networks and technological effects on society. I am learning that there is an anxiety I feel from the pressures of academia I perceive that make this 'trawling' seem ilegitimised. I throw caution to the wind at this stage allowing influences from all directions to shape my research path. I will clearly outline my influences along the way, and possibly upon reflection I may find that some discoveries are less credible than others, but for now I see no other way but like this.
For instance, considering how blogging and social networking is effecting the news journalism industry, I could compare data on newspaper sales with the amount of blogs that are created daily, thus quantitively comparing results. Or I could interview focus groups and find a qualitative way of evaluating how people learn about current affairs and communicate with each other. Just this question could be approached from an economic, politics, media study, journalistic or cultural stance. I also have the option as an artist to become as close or as distant as I like to this question, or shaping an opinion through a variety of practices. Emotionality and flares of self identity may be a strong way of forming a project with an integral experience to offer.
Furthermore, I am asking about something that is in rapid motion. As huge cultural shifts take place, how can I get a grip on what is happening? I need to be aptly responsive to the social and political climate that develops in real time.
And so with a confusing array of options with which to form knowledge of this project, I sit down to my computer.
I open safari (my internet browser), and go to the top right google search box and type 'social media'.
Up come a series of results: the obligatory wikipedia page; a handful of marketing websites that "hold the secret to social media success"; a few blogs; some videos; some images and some journalistic news results. Each one asks a different approach to it's significance in the context of this project. It is worth noting, that by now (4 weeks into the project) I have become skilled in the art of trawling the isles of google. I have no doubt that every scholar and every professor, every notable scientists, art maker or politician utilises search engines, or rather the contents of the world wide web to form an opinion.
I give this project full access to as much of the diverse and varying virtual landscape of the internet I can explore. Whilst doing so I have found communities of specialists and little clusters of information. I use a combination of trusting google's algorithmic responses to my searches and my own sense of judgement to lead my inquiry.
The question is can the internet be reliable? I can hear the warnings of every secondary school teacher giving out homework; "Remember that anyone can write anything on the internet and it's not always true!" I remember one teacher banning wikipedia, as it was not accredited with any institutional stamp of approval. I could use a variety of research ethics to evaluate this perspective against arguments that stand for crowd-credibility. This however would need to consider how this teacher came to this decision. Was it advised by the school? Did he read a compelling article in the newspaper?
In the internet I can find continuous cycles of meta-research, both giving me first hand experience of all it's relatively new media, as well as links to evidence of others research and findings.
One of the ways I have been broadening my research is through a pattern of media-trawling. I call it this, because I cannot find a better way to describe this action. That is not to say however that I am simply putting the bare minimum effort into it. As I discussed in an earlier log entry, I have been having difficulty situating my research amongst a published literary field. Admittedly I am not the most familiar person with the library but from my attempts it is quite a challenge finding current texts relating to computer aided networks and technological effects on society. I am learning that there is an anxiety I feel from the pressures of academia I perceive that make this 'trawling' seem ilegitimised. I throw caution to the wind at this stage allowing influences from all directions to shape my research path. I will clearly outline my influences along the way, and possibly upon reflection I may find that some discoveries are less credible than others, but for now I see no other way but like this.
Monday 8 November 2010
Book update
I initially found it very hard finding adequate books to help with my research. Primarily the problem was that I am researching such a rapidly developing subject that it is hard to get my hands on up to date literature that explores our current situation of social media. Clay shirky made a point on a blog he co-authors:
"One of the great frustrations of writing a book as opposed to blogging is seeing a new story that would have been a perfect illustration, or deepened an argument, and not being able to add it."
In a simillar way, I am struggling to find books that are up to date enough that can give me a real-time idea of where social media is.
I looked at Jurgens Habermas' "The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere" as a starting point. This work is a founding block of media studies and has continued to challenge and energize our perception of society. I found this book extremely hard as a first-step and so resorted to more accessible literature.
Manuel Castells' field of social study is wide ranging but focusses on the information society and communications research. I read Daren Barney's "The Network Society", which included arguments that support and criticise Castells' and Habermas' theories, as well as giving a more modern framework to consider them in. However, I still felt like a partial tourist in a strange landscape, as it wasn't the most accessible read.
It wasn't until I picked up "The Wealth of Networks" by Yochai Benkler that the frameworks that I was struggling with began to solidify into a logical picture. This book is a composite of theories, case studies and debates that all feed into a vision of where our information economy is. It gives detailed accounts of how our networked society is now capable of sharing and creating information like never before. Benkler brings to light a new framework of collaboration that is no-market based and non hierarchic. Through the readily available devices and softwares around us, we are capable of revolutionising the production and dissemination of information, knowledge and culture, which in turn, he believes will create a more equal and responsible society.
One thing in particular that has inspired me is the debate around intellectual property. This book made me question for the first time the idea of copy-right and why we have such a thing. Benkler has published his book under creative commons allowing anyone to read, download or edit the book. The only condition is that if any new editions are made, it also be released under creative commons.
I am still making my way through the book, but am becoming more inspired by every page that I have the tools, the network and the imagination to create a project that pursues a non-propriatary, non-industrial way of being an artist.
"One of the great frustrations of writing a book as opposed to blogging is seeing a new story that would have been a perfect illustration, or deepened an argument, and not being able to add it."
In a simillar way, I am struggling to find books that are up to date enough that can give me a real-time idea of where social media is.
I looked at Jurgens Habermas' "The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere" as a starting point. This work is a founding block of media studies and has continued to challenge and energize our perception of society. I found this book extremely hard as a first-step and so resorted to more accessible literature.
Manuel Castells' field of social study is wide ranging but focusses on the information society and communications research. I read Daren Barney's "The Network Society", which included arguments that support and criticise Castells' and Habermas' theories, as well as giving a more modern framework to consider them in. However, I still felt like a partial tourist in a strange landscape, as it wasn't the most accessible read.
It wasn't until I picked up "The Wealth of Networks" by Yochai Benkler that the frameworks that I was struggling with began to solidify into a logical picture. This book is a composite of theories, case studies and debates that all feed into a vision of where our information economy is. It gives detailed accounts of how our networked society is now capable of sharing and creating information like never before. Benkler brings to light a new framework of collaboration that is no-market based and non hierarchic. Through the readily available devices and softwares around us, we are capable of revolutionising the production and dissemination of information, knowledge and culture, which in turn, he believes will create a more equal and responsible society.
 |
| Read the book here |
One thing in particular that has inspired me is the debate around intellectual property. This book made me question for the first time the idea of copy-right and why we have such a thing. Benkler has published his book under creative commons allowing anyone to read, download or edit the book. The only condition is that if any new editions are made, it also be released under creative commons.
I am still making my way through the book, but am becoming more inspired by every page that I have the tools, the network and the imagination to create a project that pursues a non-propriatary, non-industrial way of being an artist.
Research approach
It's becoming apparent that spending the last ... years very practically engaged in my education isn't the best preparation to a lot of research. Whilst at university anyway, I have grown familiar to a strong vocational emphasis on learning.
Fully intending to follow a praxis model of working I am left wondering how that works when studying social media.
Keys to understanding my research model
Firstly, let me elaborate on the emphasis on this project. After first-hand experience in web-design and marketing I wanted to find deeper context to this (now uniformly fashioned) sector of the creative industries. A possible venture could have been to apply for internships and creative apprenticeships in, lets say, a theatres marketing department, giving me a practical experience of the protocols and infrastructure they use. I could possibly scrutinise a wide variety of approaches to marketing, how media is created to generate interest and attention and evaluate each approach. However, that would form my understanding of the surface of the issue. I have experience of successes and failures when working on the festival, and subsequently feel the need to probe deeper into the theory and context of these operations.
I am also confronted with an additional dilemma. I realised that a successful way of encouraging audience involvement and generating interest was through our website. Previously the festival was heavily reliant on flyering, posters and word of mouth. There were email lists and facebook groups, but this area was in need of updating. I endeavoured to utilise social media as much as possible, believing it was a cheap way of attracting attention to our project. I encouraged every member of the team to blog, opening up our process. I cross-linked to other blogs and companies hoping to situate ourselves into the wider e-culture community. This seemed like a successful way of bringing the festival to a wider audience and although it is difficult to tell if that strategy worked, it was a worthy venture.
But blogging and social networking sites only provide a glimpse of the whole picture of social media right now. Charged with the promises of Web 2.0, I am in search of contextualising the rapid adoption of social medias.
For this research to be the grounding of a practical experiment, I am taking a wide and inclusive approach to modes of research and stimulus. This will include:
Fully intending to follow a praxis model of working I am left wondering how that works when studying social media.
Keys to understanding my research model
Firstly, let me elaborate on the emphasis on this project. After first-hand experience in web-design and marketing I wanted to find deeper context to this (now uniformly fashioned) sector of the creative industries. A possible venture could have been to apply for internships and creative apprenticeships in, lets say, a theatres marketing department, giving me a practical experience of the protocols and infrastructure they use. I could possibly scrutinise a wide variety of approaches to marketing, how media is created to generate interest and attention and evaluate each approach. However, that would form my understanding of the surface of the issue. I have experience of successes and failures when working on the festival, and subsequently feel the need to probe deeper into the theory and context of these operations.
I am also confronted with an additional dilemma. I realised that a successful way of encouraging audience involvement and generating interest was through our website. Previously the festival was heavily reliant on flyering, posters and word of mouth. There were email lists and facebook groups, but this area was in need of updating. I endeavoured to utilise social media as much as possible, believing it was a cheap way of attracting attention to our project. I encouraged every member of the team to blog, opening up our process. I cross-linked to other blogs and companies hoping to situate ourselves into the wider e-culture community. This seemed like a successful way of bringing the festival to a wider audience and although it is difficult to tell if that strategy worked, it was a worthy venture.
But blogging and social networking sites only provide a glimpse of the whole picture of social media right now. Charged with the promises of Web 2.0, I am in search of contextualising the rapid adoption of social medias.
For this research to be the grounding of a practical experiment, I am taking a wide and inclusive approach to modes of research and stimulus. This will include:
- Traditional bookish research and referencing
- Industrial media, i.e: Newspaper, journal, Radio, Television program
- Social media, i.e: Blog, vlog, podcast, forum
- Documentary and Video footage
- Wikipedia
- Other online resources
In using a combination approach to research I hope to give my research a praxis emphasis, both learning about the context of social media and my experience with it.
What is social media?
For the purposes of this project it is also important to attempt to identify what social media is (even a hard task for Wikipedia). For this I will be looking at several fields:
- The history of the internet, from it's birth to right now
- Social studies that correspond to mass use of the internet
- The rise of mass-media
- Globalisation
- Open-source movement
- Economics, specifically market and non-market motivations
- Mindset 2.0
I will be combining this research with references of artists who have explored this field with particular focus on net-artists, intermedia artists and interdisciplinary artists.
Friday 5 November 2010
The project
Since the beginning of October I have been working on a praxis based project titled The Democratisation of Art in the Attention Age. As I have only just created this blog, you have missed 3 weeks of research and development that has led me to this point. I will try and condense this period of work into as fewer words as possible, whilst retaining some sense of the journey I have been on.
The beginning: an end as a start
Flash back to the last week of May, which brought The Accidental Festival 2010 to the BAC. I was one of the producers and was responsible for running our web-page and marketing the event. The Festival is a right of passage for any student on the Performance Arts strand of BA Theatre Practice at Central and anyone who has sailed it's seas will tell you it can get very rough out there. Admittedly we gave ourselves a big task; I think in the end we programmed almost 60 artists to perform over three days. But we did everything, from building the website, designing the flyers, finding the artists, attracting attention to our campaign, liaising with venues, getting licences, recruiting technicians, baking cakes and food for artists....need I go on.
By the end the whole team were exhausted. I mean producing a festival is hard, harder still when you have little to no experience, not much money, 15 or so passionate voices all being asked to be heard and several contradictory influences from above. Problem after problem was faced by a core team of collaborators with an attitude that we can only do as much as we can.
I was left with an experience that gave me a definite problem. "Why was that so painful?" I have since found a number of problems with the project and with how I worked in it.
Firstly, the structure of the production team was over-designed. Following a typical ladder formation we had a few executives who over-saw a large group of co-ordinators, facilitators and liaisons. The titles we delegated to one another ended up becoming a huge problem. For instance if a problem arose, that no one person felt it was within their role to help solve, then it would usually fall to the executives to resolve. This meant the people designed to over-sea the project ended up doing most of the leg work also. As a result, about 80%of the work was done by about 20% of the team.
Second to point out, was the shear madness I experienced of bureaucracy gone wild. I may well have a bias against files of administrative paper work as I have always rejected regimented patterns of 'office' like behaviour, but it was shocking to me to see a group of people, once so practically engaged, so experimental and daring, suddenly become consumed with emails, licenses, application forms, more emails. I mean, we had realised the efficiency of having e-applications and facebook groups, but it was so un co-ordinated. I am a strong believer in the creative power of collaborations and group problem-solving, but often the poor communication left us working against each other.
The biggest problem for me was this idea that the festival needed to 'SELL'. A huge amount of energy went on calculating ticket prices, designing posters and marketing ourselves as "exciting, new, risk-taking". But what else could we do? We had no previous experience, no reputation to help us and no help whatsoever. We were expected to use a tiny budget to create the best festival we could, so that we raised enough ticket money to at least break even. This may work for some festivals, but there are so many problems with this model as an educational practice.
The festival came and went, and there is a lot of good to be found in the resulting event and the experiences from creating it. However, I still have issues with so many facets of the experience.
I wanted to find a different way of collaborating in a production; Why is there such a need for roles, titles, institutions? Is there not a more creative, even democratic way of curating and producing art? Surely being more honest with your market makes a more ethical piece of art? So now I am in search for it. I don't want to create another festival, however I do want to take a deeper enquiring look into the creative industries. Why do these models show to be prevalent? Must we climb the same ladders that arts institutions dictate? As well as looking at the arts and where it is now (need I mention recession and funding cuts), I also want to study the wider context of the technological landscape. Can I learn anything from the technological advancements of the late 20th century? Is there in fact a need to completely rethink our creative industries in the context of web 2.0?
Project shape
Working on the website of the festival opened my perspective to include a wider array of media that shapes my understanding of the culture and society I live in. We explored several different social medias to help draw attention to the festival. But now I want a much deeper investigation into the web. I see the project as having three main parts.
The beginning: an end as a start
Flash back to the last week of May, which brought The Accidental Festival 2010 to the BAC. I was one of the producers and was responsible for running our web-page and marketing the event. The Festival is a right of passage for any student on the Performance Arts strand of BA Theatre Practice at Central and anyone who has sailed it's seas will tell you it can get very rough out there. Admittedly we gave ourselves a big task; I think in the end we programmed almost 60 artists to perform over three days. But we did everything, from building the website, designing the flyers, finding the artists, attracting attention to our campaign, liaising with venues, getting licences, recruiting technicians, baking cakes and food for artists....need I go on.
By the end the whole team were exhausted. I mean producing a festival is hard, harder still when you have little to no experience, not much money, 15 or so passionate voices all being asked to be heard and several contradictory influences from above. Problem after problem was faced by a core team of collaborators with an attitude that we can only do as much as we can.
I was left with an experience that gave me a definite problem. "Why was that so painful?" I have since found a number of problems with the project and with how I worked in it.
Firstly, the structure of the production team was over-designed. Following a typical ladder formation we had a few executives who over-saw a large group of co-ordinators, facilitators and liaisons. The titles we delegated to one another ended up becoming a huge problem. For instance if a problem arose, that no one person felt it was within their role to help solve, then it would usually fall to the executives to resolve. This meant the people designed to over-sea the project ended up doing most of the leg work also. As a result, about 80%of the work was done by about 20% of the team.
Second to point out, was the shear madness I experienced of bureaucracy gone wild. I may well have a bias against files of administrative paper work as I have always rejected regimented patterns of 'office' like behaviour, but it was shocking to me to see a group of people, once so practically engaged, so experimental and daring, suddenly become consumed with emails, licenses, application forms, more emails. I mean, we had realised the efficiency of having e-applications and facebook groups, but it was so un co-ordinated. I am a strong believer in the creative power of collaborations and group problem-solving, but often the poor communication left us working against each other.
The biggest problem for me was this idea that the festival needed to 'SELL'. A huge amount of energy went on calculating ticket prices, designing posters and marketing ourselves as "exciting, new, risk-taking". But what else could we do? We had no previous experience, no reputation to help us and no help whatsoever. We were expected to use a tiny budget to create the best festival we could, so that we raised enough ticket money to at least break even. This may work for some festivals, but there are so many problems with this model as an educational practice.
The festival came and went, and there is a lot of good to be found in the resulting event and the experiences from creating it. However, I still have issues with so many facets of the experience.
I wanted to find a different way of collaborating in a production; Why is there such a need for roles, titles, institutions? Is there not a more creative, even democratic way of curating and producing art? Surely being more honest with your market makes a more ethical piece of art? So now I am in search for it. I don't want to create another festival, however I do want to take a deeper enquiring look into the creative industries. Why do these models show to be prevalent? Must we climb the same ladders that arts institutions dictate? As well as looking at the arts and where it is now (need I mention recession and funding cuts), I also want to study the wider context of the technological landscape. Can I learn anything from the technological advancements of the late 20th century? Is there in fact a need to completely rethink our creative industries in the context of web 2.0?
Project shape
Working on the website of the festival opened my perspective to include a wider array of media that shapes my understanding of the culture and society I live in. We explored several different social medias to help draw attention to the festival. But now I want a much deeper investigation into the web. I see the project as having three main parts.
- Look at social media now
- Look at art that explores the boundaries of social media
- Find an exciting exchange/ a new model between social media and art.
Up to now I am still in the first phase of research and will use some more space on the blog documenting the research I have undertaken and the things I am finding about social media.
Tuesday 2 November 2010
The start
This is the first blog post. In this blog I will keep a record of things I find that shape the project. I will be using it to remember and access other content I find online. I also want to engage with other bloggers and social media users/makers here as the project develops. That will be all for now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)