The effects of autonomy: easy actualization or a struggle against “individuality”?

Before the account got deleted off youtube, a 7 part video project between me and some friends had received between 4,000 and 8,000 viewings (depending on the part, some proving to be more popular then others.) The fact we decided to remake Todd Browning’s “Freaks” was not the reason the account got yanked, but might serve to explain some of the attention it received. However, none the less, our project (appropriately) entitled “Freaks Remake” does exemplify some of the potential for D.I.Yers to get their work seen by a larger audience online, as well as exhibits the greater potential for autonomy through the internet. The ability to self govern is increasing and it has it pros, and perhaps some cons, in respects to things which require a sacrifice of individual actualization.

Getting the project together and organized was a lot easier with the help of the internet. A Google search quickly provided the script and the enormous cast was easily filled through social blogging sites. If there was something everyone needed to know, a blog post quickly informed all those involved. Had we spent more time researching “continuity style editing” online, a lot of aesthetic short comings could have been negotiated as well. However, perhaps failing to meet with Hollywood’s standard was part of our statement. The project was a blatant mimicry of the mainstream, and for everyone that took part; poorly reproducing a big budget movie was a lot of fun, as well as a exercise in the potential of digital technology to facilitate autonomy.

Browning’s “Freaks” exemplifies the limitations of the past: film production is expensive. Its high costs limited those who could participate in it, perhaps, also serving to explain why a movie which (extensively) exploits people with physical deformities could ever be made. With increasingly easier access to digital technology and information, greater opportunities for people to become informed, capable of participating, and less likely to be exploited are made (Benkler,130.) For “Freaks Remake”, technology like digital cameras and the internet lifted some of the restraints typically put on people producing movies. Our ability to come together and actualize ourselves autonomously enabled the project to happen, but ultimately, could also be seen as a factor in the project’s status as “incomplete” as well.

The bulk of the cast was committed to the project, but the not everyone’s independent choices lead back to the group. Last minute cancellations and failures to show up to set (for reasons such as “partying too hard” the night before) eventually brought things to a halt. The freedom from external restraints which made the production possible could also (abstractly) be viewed as what ended it. Of course, the limitations of autonomy are not directly a product of tools like digital technology and the internet. However, one cannot help but wonder the full implications living with tools which promote self determination. As people become increasing capable self governing, what types of culture will be produced? How will one’s sense of autonomy affect one’s sense of duty to something “outside” of their themselves? Is there an answer to this question which isn’t wrapped up in subjectivity?

How will we deal with decentralization? (I don’t know, my desktop just died.)

I’ll take part of the blame; its my fault i didn’t back up all my midterm projects immediately after finishing them, but what can i say? I don’t own an external hard drive, mainly because i believe things can wait a week or two, and i’ll have the chance to back everything up on disc then. I certainly don’t expect my boot AND hard drive to crap-out on me over night and take all my work with them. Maybe i’ve been naive in this respect, but none the less: my experiences over the last week have definitely tainted my outlook on the “empowering” potential of technology. Benkler’s introduction to his book “The Wealth of Networks” entitled “A moment of Opportunity and Challenge” resonates differently with me then it did before. At first i saw the opportunities, but now i’m understanding the challenges. The internet may revolutionize, but the limits of the computer technology used to access it should be taken into heavy consideration as well.

In the book, Benkler talks about how technology has the ability to enable society to create culture that is more democratic, self reflective and participatory, but whether or not it will is dependent on what people end up doing with this technology (18.) However, what people end up doing with technology will be determined by the parameters the technology places on the individuals, as well as how easy it is to use (17.) After having my hard-drive die on me this final point was not taken lightly. The wording “easy to use” should be extended beyond user interfaces, and be used to describe the how easily it can be financially obtained as well. I mean, the internet isn’t free. Yes, limited access is offered through community centers and libraries, but for an “at home” set up there are costs. Once you’ve paid for the hardware (and software, if you’re not an e-pirate) you still have to pay for the monthly access. Once you’ve paid for the month access- beware: your computer still has an expiry date, which varies depending on your usage. Either way, this adds up. When Benkler talks of the web having the potential to create decentralize culture and media, its worth considering the limitations of changes when they come with a dollar sign attached.

*Off note: Here is my podcast, inspired by a back spasm…

(The Relationship Between Stress & Our Shoulders)

Tarzan Economics & Letting Go of The Ideological Vine of “The Artist”

When using the Wikinomics principals of “openness, peering, sharing and acting globally” in relation to cultural production, one of the biggest obstacle to overcome will be how “being an artist” is thought about.  Although the romanticized notion of “The Artist” as a type of “impermeable, self-contained creator” has decreased in popularity since the days of Jackson Pollock, some components of this stereotype still remain, and hinder the transition into this new business model.

As we slowly move into a collaborative economy, the ideology of closed capitalism may be more difficult to leave behind.  Notions of “individuality” and “individual ownership” still underpin many mainstream conceptions of cultural production.  Authorship (or “A name”) is still prized in relation to artistic works.  It remains an alluring image to pursue for many artistic practitioners, and potentially, a component of capitalism which will discourages the full switch to Wikinomics.

While engaging in a collective production and sacrificing the ego for a greater good might have its appeal, the monolithic relationship of “the artist” to “their work” is still popular and often sought after.  However, this much is understandable.  Tapscott and Williams describe this reluctance to actively participate in the principals of Wikinomics as being a part of “Tarzan Economics”, where one must continue to hold onto the “old vine” (or business model) until the new one is fully grasped (271.)  This theory is reinforced when taking a Marxist approach to the matter as well.

If the economy informs the superstructure, then how cultural work is produced, distributed and consumed must first change, to facilitate people thinking differently about the system and their roles within it.  The marriage of “individuality” to cultural production may slow down the transition to Wikinomics, as people cling to old models.  However, if being open, peering, sharing and acting globally is rewarded and encouraged, the already out-dated model of “The Artist” may completely disappear from art.

Second Life: Not Just For “Sex”

It’s easy to imagine Second Life (SL) as a enclosed, virtual medium which ramifications on “real life” can only be found through examples of online romance or love affairs (such as shown in the BBC documentary “Wonderful: Virtual Adultery and Cyberspace Love.”)  For many, including myself, SL just seems like an R-Rated version of The Sims, where people go to have awkward virtual sex with one another. However, after my friend told me about her usage of the game, i realized SL goes far beyond being a place to play interpersonal fantasies. It has its own economy (which has currency in “real life” itself) and is fueled by a community of Prosumers, who sometimes exhibit great acts of generosity.

The status of SL as a Prosumer Community has allowed it to flourish as a virtual world. It is a place for creation and not just consumption where users can not only upload new content, but also engage in the game’s own e-commerce (as explained in “Wikinomics”, P.127.) However, what makes SL’s economy interesting is its “virtual” currency, the “Linden”, which has value outside of the game itself. By creating and selling virtual items (such as clothing and houses), Prosumers of this world can acquire Lindens, which can then be exchanged for other currencies, such as the Dollar. By allowing the Linden to be transferred outside of the game, the possibilities for how this “virtual” money is used becomes as diverse as the intentions of the people within the game.

Not everyone creates new SL content just to “make money”.  For my friend, Megan, creating new clothing and throwing virtual fashion shows (complete with auctions) has become a vehicle for charity. She designs new outfits, finds users willing to model them, organizes details (such as music and show announcements), advertises for the event, and then puts the items up for auction- all for charity. Generous users can attend these shows, and bid on the items knowing exactly where their money is going. The combination of her time and other user’s money has made these charity fashion shows a great success, raising thousands of dollars for “The American Cancer Society” and “MSF/Doctors Without Borders.” Incredible, at one event, a dress sold for over 1000USD.

Although not all SL Prosumers are as charitable as Megan and her patrons, her story still exemplifies the enormous possibilities within this Prosumer Communities. Not only does she use and consume the product, but also contributes to it (through her clothing designs) and even shapes the culture of the game through her generosity. Her story changed the way I think about the game, and shows that Second Life is a place for consumption, creation and whatever else its users feel it may need.