Monday 18 March 2013

Like all cultural developments, transmedia affords us a paradox

Over the past several months I have continuously sited a lack of economic motivation to produce online content. Without appropriate remuneration for their efforts an average individual should not participate in a productive capacity - online or otherwise. Admittedly,  I looked at the issue of production versus consumption in a strictly economic sense, ignoring social aspects in the process. Not everyone behaves with opportunity costs and marginal benefits in mind. Many people simply enjoy participating in online communities and developing online presences.

Despite my usually calculated, economic thinking, I have sincerely enjoyed developing and nurturing skills using a variety of online platforms over the past several months. In developing a sandbox wiki, utilizing the components of Popcorn, speaking freely on Audacity, to writing on this very blog I have experienced many facets of online ability that I otherwise would not have pursued. This course has offered me the opportunity to consume the assigned readings and subsequently produce my own iterations and opinions - things that I will never get tired of doing. Therefore, perhaps there is a possibility you might see me producing online content - for free - in the future. Is such a philosophy the norm? Should it be?

The readings for this module were the most comprehensive and engaging yet (perhaps that is appropriate considering this is the final module). They all fully showcase the potential upsides and downsides to transmedia producing and consuming.

L.A. Lievrouw's article puts forth several interesting perspectives on the topic. One particular point made that seemed important to recognize for the sake of the purpose of this very course. Lievrouw points out the need for network literacies and pedagogies in order to properly educate effective participants in transmedia. Similarly, Rheingold dictates the necessity of literacy development for proper community (network) building. This course has offered us that exact opportunity; because of this, we are better able to contribute in all facets of online - and maybe even face-to-face as a result - communication. For those of us who eventually choose whether or not to produce online content we now have many of the requisite skills outlined by Lievrouw.

S.E. Bird puts forth the thought that the future of content generation lies in the hands of the consumers mass producing communicative interactions. If this is the path of the future for transmedia, the revenue models of the past, consisting of large, cost-intensive media infrastructures will be derailed by a more democratic voice in opinion and news platforms. While I think such a concept may be a little extreme and unlikely, there is no doubt the large multi-media organizations actively encourage participation and production in their business models. This form of encouragement affords consumers the opportunity to have a say in the type of content they consume.

Peter Lunenfeld follows a similar discussion on the malleability of business models in the age of transmedia. By juxtaposing download-based media against upload-based media Lunenfeld purports that without the continued development and sustenance of Web 2.0 society will begin to slip back into an age of "cultural diabetes". I think that this is one of the most clever and important lessons that I have learned throughout this entire course. If we do not encourage content production outside of the usual, big-media producers we will fail to continually develop and shape our species. With the advent of the television set decades ago came increased indolence, indifference, and ignorance. There may not always be an economic incentive to produce online content but there is nearly always an intellectual one.

The question of the age becomes: what indications of intellectual deprival begin to show midst the era of concurrent online production and consumption?

Along a similar argument as Lunenfeld, Jonathan Sterne purports a lack of development in the realm of critical thinking in the face on online interconnectivity  He puts forth a concept that many of us had probably thought of before (albeit in a much more articulate way). He showcases a worry for passivity in transmedia that has existed in prior realms of media; television, movie-going among others. Without constant critical thought about the development of transmedia culture we are depriving ourselves of intellectual, spiritual, and special development.

While I ardently agree with Sterne's utilitarian intimation, I believe there are other worries we must explore. Passive consumption is an obvious, decades-long problem, yet the advent of transmedia has introduced greater intimations of deprival.

Concurrently producing and consuming encourages the development of many helpful and culturally prominent online communities but it can also deprive users of natural, human connection. We often read stories that tell of individuals who get lost in the worlds of seemingly endless online communities. With the propagation of transmedia content and encouragement of participation in the production of additional content, individuals may be further susceptible to a deprived social life (in the physically tangible sense). In an era of increased isolationism and social anxiety the continued development of certain transmedia communities can be harmful to individuals, families, and society as a whole.

First photo courtesy of freedigitalphotos.net user: Stuart Miles
Second photo courtesy of freedigitalphotos.net user: pixbox77

2 comments:

  1. Once again a great post, Mike. I’ve really enjoyed reading your stuff these last many months. The particular piece of this entry that really captured my attention was: “If we do not encourage content production outside of the usual, big-media producers we will fail to continually develop and shape our species. With the advent of the television set decades ago came increased indolence, indifference, and ignorance. There may not always be an economic incentive to produce online content but there is nearly always an intellectual one.” Extremely well written point. It brought to mind something else that I read recently by Yann Martel, the author of Life of Pi. In his author’s note for that book he wrote: “If we, citizens, do not support our artists then we sacrifice our imagination on the altar of crude reality and we end up believing in nothing and having worthless dreams”.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Mike - really well written post again! I have very much enjoyed your writing over the course of the semester. I share your sentiments regarding the opportunities for learning and for produsing that this course has offered all of us, and I agree that the articles this session were thought provoking and somewhat provocative in content and direction.

    Your point regarding the loss of F2F human interaction is very well taken. As I write this comment, my husband and I are sitting side by side with laptops engaged and fingers typing. This quote resonated "In an era of increased isolationism and social anxiety the continued development of certain transmedia communities can be harmful to individuals, families, and society as a whole."

    Your intimation of deprival related to isolationism is right on target in my opinion, and it is well worth remembering as we delve deeper into Web 2.0.

    Best,
    Ann

    ReplyDelete