I know I shouldn’t really write this here – I suspect a few sci-fi fans on this course – but I’m struggling to bring myself to view – let alone write about – some of the more sci-fi-ish films.

On an abstract level, I totally get the idea that genre fiction can do “big themes”. For example, I’m halfway through and totally loving Sarah Water’s The Little Stranger where the ‘ghost story’ genre is used to explore the pain of (prewar) bereavement, wartime trauma and postwar social upheaval.

On the level of personal preferences I just can’t get to grips with sci-fi though – although I get it’s often about human/social relationships with the technological -  and may have to watch discussion of The Matrix etc. from afar.

Second thoughts on Worldbuilder – actually a very depressing film about male desire.

Here’s the narrative, such as it is: man creates cyber world for girlfriend/would-be girlfriend; girlfriend/would-be girlfriend gambols delightedly though idealised cyber dreamworld, observed, without her knowing it, by her admirer/lover, until called back to the reality of the intensive care ward.

The flower has significance in this story: initially it’s just a kitsch detail of the world creator caressing cyber objects into life (think Michelangelo’s detail of God’s finger infusing Adam with life) but returns as a real flower inserted into a vase by the side of his unconscious girlfriend/would-be girlfriend. Yes, I wrote ‘inserted’.

It’s a troubling short: more about male inability to connect with the female ‘other’ except through fantasy and idealisation. This is why I think it’s about porn – although in porn idealisation (of the body: toned, tanned, pert, erect and ever-prepared) mixes with debasement (woman as object or ’slut’ constantly available).

What’s my take on the ‘message’ of this film? Real world or ‘meatspace’ is messy and complicated; cyberspace clean and uncomplicated. Guys, get yourself a girlfriend if you must – preferably a comatose one – and a fast broadband connection.

I enjoyed Nicola’s recent blog post (http://digitalculture-ed.net/nicolao/2009/09/28/film-festival-and-twittorial-reflections-dystopia/), particularly the discussion of The Gathering Storm ad in the context of debates about the risks of user-generated content being removed if deemed in breach of the service agreements.

It made me think of some of the arguments Henry Jenkins (2006) has made around the “hybrid media ecology that has emerged as groups with  different motives and goals interact through shared media portals” (290).

He writes that:

The advent of new production tools and distribution channels have  lowered barriers of entry into the marketplace of ideas. These shifts  place resources for activism and social commentary into the hands of everyday citizens, resources which were once the exclusive domain of the candidates, the parties, and the mass media. These citizens have increasingly turned towards parody as a rhetorical practice which allows them to express their scepticism towards “politics as usual”, to break out of the exclusionary language through which many discussions of public policy are conducted, and to find a shared language of borrowed images that mobilize what they know as consumers to reflect on the political process.  (Jenkins 2006: 293)

One of the interesting things about The Gathering Storm example was that the spoof ad seemed to have as much, if not more, resource behind it (in the form of recognisable actors and scriptwriting talent) than the source ad it parodied. So, a pro-gay marriage group with money and creatives to work with used the culture jamming tactics of much less well-resourced groups. Really fascinating stuff – like a Hollywood star doing fringe.

BTW, the posting, removal, reposting and removal of video content reminds me of earlier struggles – e.g. the suffragettes’ tactic of hunger strikes which the government responded to with legislation (the “Cat and Mouse Act”) imposing force-feeding, which led to public revulsion which, in turn, led to the government modifying its strategy to one of releasing prisoners who, it was assumed, would resume eating once free and spare government embarrassment. Although it looked like the government came out top, their treatment of the suffragettes lost them public support.

I can see how user-generated content – e.g. a video on YouTube – can be removed if there are objections to it but can also see that ‘containing’ such media presents tremendous difficulties too. Once posted, it can be copied and reposted somewhere else, sent around as an email attachment or MMS. It’s really hard to put that particular genie back in the bottle as Nicola’s example shows

References

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence Culture. where old and new media collide. New York & London: New York University Press.

Arthur writes:

Our films show how much more reflection can be prompted through visual media rather than words. Words close – pictures open! (http://twitter.com/hyperscoped/status/4414697665)

Yes, I’d broadly agree although with the caveat that it depends on the picture and depends on the words. Polysemy – words or signs having multiple meanings – is not a property exclusive to the image.

Take this Banky image:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/amyeee/2307554918/

It’s hard not to read it as a snappy take on consumerism and the homogenisation of the UK High street and our out-of-town shopping centres. One nation under a non-biodegradable shopping bag – an interpretation anchored by the titles Banksy fans have given the work (Tesco Generation, In Tesco We Trust). Banksy’s use of Tesco is obvious (it’s the UK’s very own Walmart in terms of its brutal business practices and market influence) and the shopping bag an icon of ecologically irresponsible shopaholism. It’s a witty visual one-liner but it looks pretty closed to me in terms of the meanings that I – or others – might make of it.

Take another image, Paula Rego’s The Policeman’s Daughter:

http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/artists/artpages/rego_paula_policemans_daughter.htm

I’ve no idea how to read this picture. Is it an image of a daughter’s complicity with the violence of her father? I imagine him to be one of Salazar’s state thugs and she’s cleaning off protesters’ blood after he’s given them a good kicking at a demo. The dutiful daughter serving her beloved papa? Or is there a suggestion of sexual violence in the family home (Rego recently commented that the “she’s fist fucking the boot”) – her gesture expressing violent revenge and an inversion of the power relationship between them?

So, some pictures open and others close.

Thanks to Sian for her helpful post on Hand’s arguments about the double-edged nature of technology: both democratizing/empowering, and on the other, the de-democratizing/disempowering.

Press: do not swallow

It made me think about the G20 demonstrations in London earlier this year and the death of Ian Tomlinson due to an assault by a police officer. The initial mainstream media reporting that followed Ian Tomlinson’s death uncritically adopted the line fed them by the Metropolitan Police, including the lie that demonstrators has prevented ambulances from attending to him swiftly.

It took media outlets like The Guardian who picked up on user-generated content – especially that captured on video -  to call into question official accounts. Without this crowd-sourced digital content captured using inexpensive hand-held devices it’s unlikely the Met’s cover-up of an assault would have ever been brought to public attention.

I guess I’m more a cautious techno-utopian; I believe, to use a distinction Michel de Certeau makes, that for every technology-enhanced  ’strategy’ for surveillance and control, there are innumerable technology-enhanced ‘tactics’ that will seek to undermine or outwit it (e.g. Twitter in Iran was a fantastic game of techno cat and mouse).

For my third post I shall be Pauline Kael and I/she will be reviewing Internet is for Porn.

The internet=porn riff has been done to death (a bit of a cliché masquerading as aperçu) I’m afraid.

Searching for ‘The internet is for porn’ on YouTube, I found lots of versions,  including ones that used the Avenue Q song on a scene lifted from a Harry Potter film, another from a Disney cartoon, one from Spongebob Squarepants and another from Ben 10. I’m tempted to do one myself – shall I use the Tweenies or Thomas the Tank Engine?

Technically/culturally though, it’s more interesting. It’s an example of machinema, an instance of the technologies of multi-user virtual worlds like World of Warcraft, Halo and Second Life enabling users to create multiple, personalisable characters and settings that can be manipulated to create short animations.

I’m not that familiar with machinema but see it to be a growing part of fan culture as it displays itself on media sharing sites like YouTube. Here’s another example of machinema using The Sims to create a video to an Amy Winehouse song:

Machinema is a manifestation of a culture of DIY, remix and of consumption as production, using tools and materials at hand to craft something new.

Why do it? In part, it’s about creating something your friends – and others will find funny and/or cool – and the social capital that will accrue as a result. I made this; I am therefore this kind of person. Love me, admire me, find me cool and funny. But some of it is about the complex nature of fandom – creating something that expresses your love of a particular artist.

Machinema as homage as well as pastiche.

Is the Internet is for Porn utopian or dystopian? Hmmm … depends how you cut it but my guess is that many commentators on this type of DIY cultural production – e.g.Henry Jenkins – would see it as a Good Thing, a Brave New World of user-generated content/produsage etc..

We could also read it literally: the internet really is for porn which is sort of true. I’ve no stats to hand about the size of the ‘adult’ entertainment industry’s turnover but I seem to remember it’s bigger than Hollywood and the web’s a key platform. A dystopian world of commodified cybersex.

I’ve not read a thing yet – I’ll have more time Wednesday and Thursday – but already the choice of technology used on the course is provoking reflection.

I like Sian and colleagues’ brave experiments in getting us to rethink learning technology by not just talking the talk but walking the walk (on a tightrobe with no safety net as sezpayne2 noted).  So, no WebCT Panopticon and instead we have a combination of:

• centralising technologies like the course team’s module blog (the mothership?) providing us with course readings, structure and instructions (most academics use the VLE as a content repository – why don’t they use a blog instead?)
• dispersed technologies like the course participants’ sites – their WordPress blogs and Twitter accounts for personal reflections

Thoughts on a metaphor about some technologies being centripetal (pulling learners together) and others centrifugal (pulling them away). Has it been done? Does it make sense?

Anyway, will course participants comment on one another’s posts  or reply to them in posts on their  own blogs? Will we have conversations in Twitter or broken monologic fragments? Will we use old skool discussion boards? In short, will Sian and Jen pull it off or will it end in tears?

This is my first post for E-learning and Digital Cultures.

I’ve posted to the Wallwisher icebreaking wall this image from Flickr.

My short note went:

What does this Flickr image ’say’ about digital culture? The private made public? Analogue behaviours replicated online? SNS identity performance as defacement?
http://wallwisher.com/wall/cultures