Contact Me
|
Monday, May 17, 2004
From Consumers to Users
Y. Benkler
Question:
What could be a risk of certain regulatory laws for the internet according to Benkler?
The thing Benkler fears is that regulation can lead to cyberspace having the same shortcoming as a traditional mass media model. This model is characterised by a relatively high number of users and a small number of producers. This leads to homogenisation because the producers tend to focus on capturing a large amount of users, ‘glossing over’ diversity within the group of users. The potential of Internet, however, is that it can be very user-focused and the possibilities for users to become producers are far greater then in the old system. Within cyberspace, the conversation between producer and user can be a dialogic in which all participants are peers. This is opposed to the mass media system, wherein there will always be a difference in power between the two. Governments have regulated mass-media in diverse ways, but the debate on regulating cyberspace is in full swing. Benkler stresses the importance for these new regulations to foster this peer to peer quality of cyberspace, because the danger is that when regulation gives one of the two more powers, especially the producers, and there have been cases in which this has happened, it will erase the equality and diversity of cyberspace. This could lead to the homogenisation in product, commercialisation of strategies and concentration of production facilities within a small group, much the same as traditional mass media.
Identities and industries
K. Negus
Question:
A strongly fragmented system, build along traditional lines of class, race and gender, is still present within the music industry in the United States. What are the pros and cons of such a structure?
The main problem of course of such structures, is that they perpetuate certain differences and hierarchies. Because the separation between the head office (male, high middle class, white) and a Latino branch with it’s own structure, it continue to be difficult for persons working in the latter, to climb a ladder to the top. It also influences the whole of communication within a company, and this can influence for instance the prioritisation of an artist. According to Negus it creates ‘highly distinct, identifiable and institutionalized boundaries’ for workers and musicians, but also for listeners. Because the company is boxed within certain specific audience-related subgroups, it also influences the creative and aesthetic discourses, wherein nobody wants to alienate their target audience, making the discourses highly conservative. But, Negus notes, the biggest pros for this system is that marginalized music does get released, whereas that is often not the case in a homogenous company. Secondly although it narrows the creative discourse, it does however preserve some authenticity of the specific music, because the people dealing with a certain kind of music and a certain type of artist do have profound knowledge and affinity with this specific culture.
Posted at 08:35 pm by Gijsvanwiechen
Monday, May 10, 2004
Here are the questions on the texts of week four.
Was not feeling too inspired (maybe it was me, maybe it were the texts, don't know), so these are rather simple questions and relatively short answers!
From Holloway to Hollywood
A. McRobbie
Question:
According to McRobbie there’s a growth in jobs that demand a highly creative, individual and flexible employee. What are some of the potential problems of this development?
While McRobbie herself doesn’t give a normative value to the new developments, the changing relations within the work-related and social sphere could be interpreted as problematic.
This development towards the need for a highly individualized and flexible workforce does not only demand employees to have a different sort of attitude, the risk this involves (periods of unemployment etc.) is often a risk for the employee. According to McRobbie it gives jobs a ‘permanently transitional’ quality, in which the employer isn’t responsible for what happens when a job disappears. Recent governments, at least New Labour in the UK tend to see these developments towards the individual worker as very positive, and are unwilling to relieve them of this risk. A second potential problem could arise from the fact that these new developments favour a relatively young workforce, forcing older people to change jobs. Thirdly the new developments blur but not erase social determinations such as gender, race and class and introduce ‘sharp sets of new inequalities’. This could be a problem when inequalities in older determinations continue but are overshadowed by these new inequalities. Finally McRobbie notes that the working environment overtakes or even replaces the social sphere, and by this tends to empty the latter of meaning. Potential problems could arise when social services, strongly tied to the social, is ‘relegated to the margin of contemporary life’.
Dimensions of Culture
M. de Mooij
Question:
What are high and low context societies and how does this correlate with the collectivist/individual divide of Hofstede?
The context mentioned in de Mooij’s article refers to the collective knowledge necessary for meaningful communication. To function in a high context society thus means that the people functioning in this society need to have a profound knowledge of codes, conventions and symbols, because a lot of the communication is implicit. Messages do not have to be explicitly mentioned and a lot of communication is indirect. Low context societies on the other hand, have need for far more direct communication. The message has to be delivered in a very explicit manner, usually through words. These cultures tend to put a lot more emphasis on words and rhetoric. This correlates with Hofstede’s difference between collectivistic and individualistic cultures. When a culture functions in a collective mode, the participants have an intensive and continuing relation with each other. Because of this common ground, they can rely on far more implicit communications, relying on the other person’s knowledge of their mutual context.
What is Organisation Culture?
L. Kung-Shanklemann
Question:
Schein distinguishes three levels of culture, Kung-Shanklemann uses these to analyze the facets of corporate culture. What are these elements and how do they relate to each other?
To analyze culture, whether within a corporation or a much broader scale, is often a difficult process, mainly because culture is a term that is hard to grasp. To create more structure in analyses of culture Schein introduces three elements that in relation to each other form the fundamentals of ‘culture’. Within an organisation these can be described as the artefacts, the espoused values and the basic assumptions. The first, the artefacts, is by far the most visual of the three, and mainly comprises out of the final product an organisation produces. To analyze this in terms of culture of its producers is difficult, because an interpretation can be very unempirical. Two levels precede and construct this final artefact. Within ‘the espoused values’, the organisation culture becomes more clear, but it is still very much mediated in a specific way. The espoused values consist mainly out of the image an organisation wants to project to world. It includes the main goals, the official working method and strategies and global philosophy. This is, as the artefacts, often quite visual, because many of these aspects are worked out on paper in mission statements. But an organisation, as in every collective, also has a basic and unmediated culture. Schein sees this as the most relevant culture and the main focus for a serious analysis. These consist mainly of the basic assumptions, the ‘unconscious, taken-for-granted beliefs’ that are the foundation of an organisation. Seeing as they aren’t explicit or worked out in a structural way, these assumptions exist in many ways and all contribute to the fact that this can be recognized (by employees as well as outsiders) as one specific organisation.
Advertising and Commercial Culture
S. Nixon
Question:
Nixon states that “the most striking value (…) of the social and cultural historical works on consumer culture (…) is its direct challenge to the narrow contemporary focus of the sociological accounts that I have been discussing” (14). Explain what is meant with the narrow contemporary focus and how the social and cultural historical works undermine it.
Nixon gives in this introductory chapter an in-depth critique of some sociological and more social and cultural historical accounts dealing with consumer culture and consumer economy. Starting of with the sociological approach, he encounters some fundamental problems dealing with their focus. Main problem is that they more or less approach their subject in a very narrow way and analyze them from a strong contemporary point of view. They tend to see culture as a determined and standalone category with specific characteristics and try to formulate theories dealing with these characteristics. When tracing the development of these characteristics and theories they tend to oversimplify the process, and are unwilling to base them on extensive historical and empirical research. So for instance Lash and Urry’s theory of reflexive modernity leans heavily on a dualistic view of social change, with some notion of a before and after, that doesn’t allow any diversity and is hard to prove through empirical data. The lack of variation can be seen models they provide. The range of occupations and historical development they can place within these models stays very limited. The social and cultural historical approach does, as the name suggest, much more to contextualise their accounts on culture. By focussing more on historical developments and cultural context they allow the flexibility sociologist lack. Consumer culture becomes a far more complex term and can more easily deal with diversity, for instance different uses of consumer objects. They can also, through a historical focus, build theories based on empirical evidence or provide simple proof that other theories are insufficient. So a specific historical account of McKendrik et al proves that some of the aspects mentioned by Lash and Urry as being typical for reflexive modernity were already apparent before this period of modernity should have started.
Posted at 09:12 pm by Gijsvanwiechen
Saturday, May 08, 2004
Hi all,
Seeing I decided today to focus on the Bittorent-community and 'this scene' is indirectly affiliated with the big cracker/releasegroups, that have been targeted by the RIAA in an international operation called Fastlink I'd like to share this statement that I found on one of the bittorrent sites. Let me make clear from the start that these crackergroups aren't the sole users of bittorent and that a large portion of the available torrents are released by unaffiliated individuals. CReleasegroups supply their releases through numerous channels (besides Bittorent it uses Edonkey/Overnet, IRC channels among others)
Second thing is that I'm not in any way affiliated with this form of organised cracking/hacking of copyrighted products (I'm mainly stating this seeing that more than one person (SvdG) is likely to read this site). This statement is interesting because of my subject (filesharing) and the recent 'attacks' on numerous student dorms in, among them, Utrecht and Twente. The main target was an old and infamous crackergroup named FairLight. It was supposedly shutdown, but the vigour and persistence of these groups (this particular group exists for about 18 years) is made clear by this statement. This statement was originaly in the form of an .nfo file, a file used in every big cracker release providing information about which program it is, who cracked it (group and nickname of the individual crackers), what the tech. specs are, how to install it and a way to contact them (never directly of course). Pay close attention to the respect for the succeses achieved by the Authority, the emphasis on credibility (in this case not Streedcred, but Netcred, I guess): this statement illustrates how the challenge to crack a new program and the respect that comes from it are far more important than 'not willing to pay for it'. Enjoy!
ÚÄÄÄÄ In Their 18th Year Of Glory, FairLight Released ÄÄÄÄ¿
ÚÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿
ÚÙ FairLight - Home of the REAL Crackers ÚÙ
ÀÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÙÙ
: Supplied by: FAiRLiGHT : : Release Date: 05/15/04 :
³ Cracked by: FAiRLiGHT ³ ³ Game Type: Nfo ³
³ Packaged by: FAiRLiGHT ³ ³ Image Format: ³
ÃÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ-----ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ´ ÃÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ´
³ CDS: 0 ³ ³ Protection: ³
³ ³ ³ ³
³ ³ ³ Thx to Turtle our old Friend ³
³ ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÙ ÀÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ³
³ System Requirements: A Computer ³
ÀÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÙ
Game information:
=================
Legends never die!
You all read the news - Operation Fastlink struck hard to the heart of the
scene and hit the FairLight ISO section, but mind that the demo activities
on the PC and C64 are still naturally untouched, as there is nothing to
complain about from a legal point of view on what they are doing.
So, let me underline it for you again: FairLight's ISO section is lethally
wounded, but the group as such is still alive and kicking!
FairLight is built stronger to last longer.
FairLight is bigger than one and even all of the sections.
FairLight is and you can rely on the fact that FairLight will continue to be!
Respects to the Fastlink people for finding the core of the scene, which is
not an easy thing to do.
They are doing their job and we're not whining! In war, people take bullets
- we are aware of this!
If you can't stand the sight of body bags, then stand back and let the
real men do the work for you.
We attack, adapt, improvise and survive!
We are FairLight and will continue to be FairLight.
FairLight IS the delight of ETERNAL might!
/Bacchus on Behalf of the FairLight council
PS:
Reading up on the izonews.com is very distressing.
People tend to think that there will always be another cracker and that
getting the games early is star quality here. It's not!
Protections of today are ones that *very* few can penetrate and those who do,
should be worthy the respect. Downloading them fast is just a matter of a
fast line in combination to access to a site.
Skills stay, whereas the access can be revokes instantly!
So admire the striker of the ruling football team and don't not feel proud
about being the beer bellied lardass, who managed to get a ticket to watch
unless you don't stand amongst the supporters, singing praise.
You have no idea of what it's like to play and what it takes to excel!
We do it for the thrill, joy and the fans, but don't take us for granted
without showing justified respect.
More On FairLight
FairLight as a group enjoyed it's 17th birthday in April 2004 and is amongst
the oldest on the scene, and possibly the only one this old having a unbroken
line of reign on several platforms since it's birth.
Our council has a common scene experience exceeding 50 years.
We've proven the group on the Commodore 64, the Amiga, Super Nintendo and
the PC, with a modular approach to forming the group.
Current vivid activities still includes demo production on the PC and
one the Commodore 64.
/Team FairLight
ÄÄÄÄÄ-ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ-
Greetings to our friends in groups such as:
--------------------------------------------
THE ONCE THAT ARE WOUNDED
ÚÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿
ÚÙ +-+ QUALITY, TRADITION AND PRIDE +-+ ÚÙ
ÀÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÙÙ
Posted at 12:22 am by Gijsvanwiechen
Monday, May 03, 2004
The Communicative Affordances of Technological Artefacts
I. Hutchby
Question:
Hutchby establishes at some length the shortcomings of technological determinism, and introduces some theorist to support this. He, however also acknowledges that his new theory of ‘affordances’ could be mistaken for this determinism. In what way does his theory relate to technological determinism and what are his arguments that this is absolutely not the case?
In this essay Hutchby is trying explain the way technologies and social context relate to each other. To map this discourse he first focuses on technological determinism; a way of thinking that has been dismissed in recent times, but has been highly influential in the ‘social studies of science and technology’. The main point technological determinists want to make is that a technology has a certain use inherent to it and thereby instigates new forms of social communication. For instance, because a telephone allows us to communicate without physical contact and geographically separated from each other, determinist argue that this technology is thus the cause of a new form of contact. Determinism has been denounced because there is so much evidence of technologies that have been created for a certain cause, but because it functions in a social context they get a total different function and/or meaning. For instance the internet was created solely for specific information transfer, but has become a worldwide social sphere with total new phenomena as massive multiplayer games. These theorists argue that there is an interaction between the technology and their social context. Radical interactionists even go so far as seeing technology as a text, which meaning has been solely created by its social interpretation and has no qualities of its own. Hutchby’s theory on the other hand argues that although the meaning, value and use of technology is for a large part socially determined, a technology still has strong aspects, what he calls affordances, that restrict the interpretation and use of technology. These affordances can be numerous and overlapping, but still are somehow inherent to the object. As we have seen this is also one of the most fundamental claims of determinism and it renounces the idea of technology as purely a social text. This is why Hutchby’s theory is easily mistaken for determinism. However according to Hutchby the fact that a technology has affordances, some things it can or cannot do, does not mean that technology dictates it’s use and it’s place in a social context. These factors are still a purely social interpretation that analyses all the affordances and uses a combination that could be useful, it dismisses the affordances that are not interesting. Because of this, Hutchby’s vision is easier to relate to interactionists than determinists.
Mapping Cyberspace
M. Dodge and R. Kitchin
Question:
Although the internet claims to be free for all, there are more than one hierarchies or what Dodge and Kitchin call geographies of power. Define the difference between hierarchies within specific user groups and within the more general geography of cyberspace.
First of all Dodge and Kitchin establish that a user isn’t totally free to interact within every single sphere within cyberspace. Not only has to abide the rules the specific platform uses, but he can also feel reluctant to join in a conversion. To begin with the latter, seeing that internet is based on knowledge, interests and information, a person or group of persons that know more take up a higher stance in the hierarchy of users. They often have considerable power, and can easily use this power to correct, judge or even chuck out ‘newbie’ members. That this (social) pressure also exists in cyberspace can for instance be seen in the high amount of what are called ‘lurkers’. Lurkers are the name for those members of a forum or community that only sporadically join the discussions or do not at all. They could for instance only shop for the information never to return, but a possibly a quite large amount are reluctant to join the discussion because he for instance fears that he’s going to be judged or ridiculed. On the other hand however a far more global cyberspace hierarchy can be found in custom-defined laws users ought to abide when joining a specific online space, such as a community. This rule is most often established by the people who manage the forum, the moderators. They aren’t only the legislative branch, but also have an executive and judiciary function. They aren’t only the legislative branch, but also have an executive and judiciary function. This is why according to Dodge and Kitchin, these informal laws ‘favours owners not users’ (59).Although the emphasis of internet lies on freedom of use, the user still has to rely on the goodwill of the owner, and could be easily be the target of censorship, without him having a right to appeal. Posted at 09:15 pm by Gijsvanwiechen
For those who are interested in music-related communities in combination with the whole legal rights/p2p/musicindustry:
I was browsing in search for some music and came across this forum http://www.mktrading.org/
It's about Mike Keneally, a guitarist/singer who played with the infamous Frank Zappa for sometime. He has an interesting policy that people are free to bootleg and trade recordings of his gigs. The site is unofficial, but he supports it. Here are his tape tradingrules. I actually found a track from a gig I went to at NSJ2002. I know that some other bands also allow this, not sure which ones
Another interesting bootleg-related site is http://www.primuslive.com/ where you can officialy buy every live recording of this peculiour band to download for $9,95 (buy three get one free, :p ).
Finally http://www.cdbaby.com/ promotes and sells independent music solely through internet. Of all the cds they sell, the artist gets quite a large percentage
Thing is that all these sites are different and new ways to make contact with the fans, and, at least IMO it helps creating a much more intimate relationship, changing the way consumers relate to this product! Anyhow check it out! Posted at 02:18 pm by Gijsvanwiechen
Thursday, April 29, 2004
I promised to continue my Jay&Silent Bob argument, in terms of the content of the film "Jay and Silent Bob strike back".
Let me be clear from the start: everything I'm talking about happens within the films of Kevin Smith
The real funny thing (and I know it's sorta like an inside joke) is that Smith lets the 'realworld' Jay and Silent Bob clash with their representations in a comic . As I mentioned these two comic sidekicks are ever present in Smith's films and got used as role model for a new heroic partnership, with a name that says it all: Bluntman and Chronic (I think it was in the film Chasing Amy). In case you've forgotten it: Jay and Bob are notorious potsmokers. To make even more complicated, the alterego's in the comic, are also named Jay and Silent Bob.
Well as you might expect: in Jay and Silent Bob strike back, these characters all become messed up. Lot of this has to do with property right (who ones what part of an cultural object: What are your rights as model for an object that has been created in your likeness, who is responsible when a person gets damaged because he has been representated in a particular way, and important in our respect how do these rules apply in the digital world etc.): all not unlike the discussion about imitating the royal family in programs like KOPSPIJKERS for instance. Smith uses these problems as generator for the plot and a lot of comic segments.
First of all, Jay and Bob got payed likeness rights for their ' role' in a comic book (!). All goes well untill they hear (we're now at the start of Jay and Silent Bob strike back) that a movie is being made of the comic Bluntman and Chronic ( in the best tradition of Spiderman, Daredevil and Batman). They however do not get payed for this, and haven't been asked for permission. The original artist has sold the rights to the comicbook to a friend, who has then sold it to (of course) Miramax studios.
More important, at least for Jay and Silent Bob, is that they discover this phenomenon called 'the internet'. They have fundamental problems with the fact that people who are 'bitching' about movies on moviesites (in this case moviepoopshoot.com) are totally demolishing a movie about Bluntman and Chronic. They ridicule "Jay and Silent Bob" (the comic ones of course) and arguing that they are the least realistic persons ever to have been created in a comic book. The real Jay&Bob, not the two brightest people on god's green earth, become so pissed at the fact that their so-called reputation gets damaged, that they decide to go to Hollywood and stop the movie from being made. This evolves into this roadtrip, and finally they end up in Miramax studios, were they actually become Bluntman and Chronic when they put on the moviecostumes. They decide not to stop the movie but at the end of the film going to visit every single one of the internet insulters (including priests, kids and business men) and are kicking the hell out of them. The procedure is simple verify their nickname and start pounding. This detail however is interesting, because different identities (online vs. real world) colide at this point and seemingly innocent people get punished.
Why then this whole story of Jay and Bob and Kevin Smith? I'm not sure ;0) , but I think it came to mind because it deals ith a lot of problems/phenomenon we have encountered already in class. Whether it is fandom, textual poaching, virtual communities, property rights, peoples responsibility when they are online, the marketing through subcultures/internet/word of mouth.
I will continue thinking about it and i'll reread and rewrite this piece probably numerous times, but in the mean time voice your opinions!
But anyway: Happy Queensnight and day!
Posted at 05:58 pm by Gijsvanwiechen
Monday, April 26, 2004
Unfortunately only three questions
Hi S,
Probably all hell is going to break loose now, but I've decided not to come up with a question and answer for Vogel's piece. First reason is, to be honest, bad planning: it's 21.40 now and I still have to read a large part of this piece, which as dry as a Mariakaakje!! Because of this I'm sure I'll file in some half-arsed question with a bad answer, and that is not my style.
In my defense: I've come up with 3 quite interesting questions, if I say so myself. I already have written ca. 1500 words, and, believe me, have more things to think about then is possible in a week.
As ever I'll take every punishment necessary, but I did my best!!
A very tired Gijs is signing off for tonight
PS. You've gotta love a blog don't you :0p Posted at 09:39 pm by Gijsvanwiechen
On Virtual Economies
Edward Castronova
Question:
There seems to be a paradox between Castronova’s analysis of virtual worlds as more or less self-supporting economies and the political fact that ‘game owners are dictators’. Explain this paradox.
Multiplayer games consist of an active interaction between the two main players: The people who own and control the game (the game designer, the software company, the web moderators etc.) and the consumers, who play and in the games Castronova mentions also in an important way shape the gaming experience. The fact that the (multi)player is basically the foundation of the game, introduces important problems of governance and economics. This is less so in more linear and/or predetermined gaming strategies as for instance the first-person shooter, as for instance Unreal tournament. This because the consumer is almost solely a player not a creator. Castronova’s essay is based on the fact that worldly economics (free-trade and question/demand for instance) tend to blend in with the game. People spend much time and have spend their money on the game, but also create a character (a so called Avatar). In order to fully enjoy the game and try to evolve their character, they have to actively participate in the economy within the game. Because these factors of time, effort and money are put into the game, it becomes not only an economy in itself but also a part of world economics of increasing importance. The fact that it is in a virtual world isn’t of any importance anymore. The paradox herein is that while players actively build their character as much as they define their real-world selves and they are part of a world-like economic system, they are very much subjected to the arbitrariness of the owners of the virtual world. The latter still see the game as their product, and try to make the highest profit while never giving up to much of their authority. So while the game obliges the player to actively participate in the virtual world and is given the freedom to deploy a wide range of tactics, the game-owner can always decide to ban him or alter the game in such a way that all effort of the player is lost. These multiplayer games thus mimic the real world in their economics and the freedom they provide to the player (freedom of choice), but are weary to give the player an active right to voice their opinion. While the in-game economics are best on the utopian model of free-trade and capitalism, a system that seems to work much better in virtual worlds, real democracy seems absent, although it is usually considered to be one of basics of honest economics. To sidestep this problem, Castronova introduces some fundamental different approaches to the world of virtual economics, based on this problem of ownership and governance amongst others. He fails, however to provide an elaborate answer just who this dictatorship of the owners influences the virtual economies and more importantly how it influences the place of this economy in the much broader context of (real) world economy and politics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Symbolic Economies
John Allen
In: P. Du Gaye and J. Pryke, Cultural economies
Question:
In the second half of this essay Allen introduces the cultural theorist Ernst Cassirer to complement the ideas of far more recent theorist. What does he contribute to the discussion, according to Allen?
One of the main problems that Allen wants to address is that a lot of theorists cannot deal sufficiently with the divide between the symbolic (or aesthetic) and the cognitive (or materialistic), when discussing the production of knowledge in economics. They either tend to separate the two and treat them in their own terms, or they try to translate the symbolic into cognitive codes and schemata’s. The main problem he has with this is that what he calls the expressive or the affective isn’t a sufficient part of their theories. Strangely enough Allen doesn’t introduce a thorough definition of the expressive until he mentions Cassirer. Allen does however mention the problems of treating expressiveness by cognitive means. When this happens, the expressive becomes merely a representation of some cognitive and scientific structure that is easier to grasp. So, for instance, by treating a cultural object in terms of property rights, it is far easier to grasp this in relation to economics, but it sidesteps many important factors of the object and merely reduces it to a law term. Cassirer is not mainly occupied with economics, but does try to link cultural theory with natural scientific knowledge. This has more than one similarity with the problem mentioned above, because economics tend to have a very ‘scientific’ approach. The main reason why Allen introduces this theorist, whose ideas were published over sixty years ago, is because this theory finds a place for expressiveness as an integral part of knowledge production. Cassirer sees three functions of symbolic forms and creation of knowledge: the expressive, the representational and signification. When looking at the first function we finally see what Allen means with symbolic, those immediate experiences that do not have a representational aspect to them. Something moves us not because we can explain why it moves us by contextualising. When this object moves beyond immediate interpretation and gets connected with a larger body or idea, it gets a strong representational function. Whereas a cognitive approach cannot describe the first function, it is an important part of this second function. The final aspect signification comes into play when objects and their meanings can be intentionally connected to a larger idea. These three functions are, however very much entangled, and thus provide a connection between a cognitive and aesthetic approach.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capturing Markets from the Economists
Don Slater
In: P. Du Gaye and J. Pryke, Cultural Economies
Question:
The concept of ‘markets’ seems to be one of the most important terms in economics. Even people with limited knowledge on economic subjects still now the importance of this concept. Slater however explains that there is a profound difference in the way different disciplines explain and utilize the concept of ‘markets’. Why must we according to Slater re-evaluate the definition and what is Slater’s vision on this concept?
There seems to be a fundamental discrepancy about the concept of markets between the economic theory and the ‘real-life’ environment of international economics. This classical economic theory doesn’t seem to take into account the fact that markets are just as much or maybe even more a thing in people’s minds and something they experience as a deterministic process of supply and demand on different but clear-cut consumer products. Slater illustrates this by analysing the advertisement industry, an industry only marginally a subject of economic study. Slater argues, quite rightly, that the advertisement industry must be considered as one of the most important middlemen in the contemporary economic market. His short analysis shows that advertisers just as much create markets as that they use them. Slater makes thus a strong point in showing that the marketing of product is all but dependent of the original and inherent user quality of a product, something which is still is a founding argument in economic theory. Slater argues thus that culture surrounding a product also has an important part in the final usage and placement in the economic world of producer and consumer. This leads him on the path of cultural studies, but in their vision he also sees some fundamental problems. He explains that cultural theorist define the relationship between product and consumer from a largely semiotic viewpoint. While they look at the way the viewer interprets an object and the culture surrounding them, they however do not take into account factors such as the implementation of meaning through for instance advertisement. In short, they are missing almost the same factors as economists ignore. Slater thus sees it has duty to not inject a version of economic studies into cultural analysis but to combine the foundation in such a way that they fill in the blanks. Not surprisingly he uses the advertisement industry as a means for this new concept. He starts of with the object in a classic economical way (a product with defining physical and materialistic characteristics) but combines it with a symbolic meaning in a cultural context. The consumer is part of this cultural context but the relationship between product and consumer (is it a luxury item or necessary?) is defined by the narrower context of a social sphere. According to Slater an even narrower context is that of a particular social group, or how does one personally relate to the different cultural contexts. Of course stresses Slater that these contexts are in a very dynamic relation to each other and do not necessarily exclude one another. In this way he tries to map out the cultural and social factors of the product/consumer relationship, without solely thinking about it’s meaning (what does it signify?) or it’s use as a purely materialistic consumer product.
Posted at 11:04 am by Gijsvanwiechen
Saturday, April 24, 2004
EDIT: I also added some bittorrent related links, since it was mentioned in the first class. The Southpark link brings you to Mrtwig.net my main supply of new South Park episodes. SP is interesting because the makers (the illustrious duo Matt and Trey) and the network (Comedy Central) tolerate online trading, instead of for instance Fox networks, who are furiously fighting a war against illegal trading of Simpsons episodes!
Have been reading the Marshall and Jenkins articles and something interesting came to mind, it might be even worth studying in one way or another. I'll share it with you, and be free to voice your opinions!
When thinking about intertextuality within film, fandom, intellectual poaching and the different ways to combine different media to create 'an event'. I couldn't help thinking about a film of Kevin Smith called 'Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. The themes in the film as well as Kevin Smiths' 'mode of production' are very much related to all these subjects. I'll try to explain this rather short and most certainly incomplete on the basis of the mode of production and the theme's within the film.
MoP: Although Kevin Smith isn't always considered as a great and technical director in his visuals, his use of (stereo)types, recurring characters, dialogue and themes (he's also the writer of most if not all of his films) have made him one of the most unique people in the American Independent cinema of recent years. Kevin Smith created in his films Clerks, Mallrats, Chasing Amy, Dogma and 'Jay and Silent Bob Strike back' a virtual part of New Jersey with a 7/11 a mall, a comic book store etc. But more important are the characters: although it's not clear that they all know each other personally, it is clear that they hover in the same social sphere. In the last film of this series (Jay and Silent Bob) most of these characters return, some in short cameo's, others with more elaborate roles, in the surroundings of Jay and Silent Bob. These two characters have been a minor but everimportant part of Smith's films since Clerks. Until 'Strike Back' they had a sidekickish role as two guys smoking pot and hanging around the 7/11, but their roles were becoming more important. Smith was perfectly aware from the beginning that these characters had an enormous appeal. The credits of Clerks end with the announcement Jay and Bob will return in Dogma (they actually returned in Mallrats!). But to give Jay and Silent Bob their own movie was as much a celebration (and an 'ending', Smith doesn't have plans to make a new movie about this community) of this virtual community as a gift to the Smith's cult-following that saw Jay and Bob as their Icons.
Smith is if anything a huge fan of film and comics: his films are stuffed with quotes, visual references and cameo's. His characters work in comic bookstores, are comic fans, themselves models of comic-book heroes (Jay and Bob become Bluntman and Chronic), are cartoonists. They 'bitch' about movies, work in videostores etc. Often they engage in typical 'fan' talk' as mentioned in Jenkins article: in Clerks for instance, they have this hilarious dialogue about the constructionworkers still working on the unfinished Death Star when it is destroyed in Star Wars Return of the Jedi. The main question is are the construction workers innocent victims or is their choice to work for the evil empire an ideological one and is their demise thus a risk they knowingly took (sic).
Smith is very much part of this world and his films then become this soort of grassroots product by a fan for a fan, with an outmost respect for the fan. Kevin Smith has streetcred, so you might say. This approach resulted in Smith's appeal but also in a tv-series, numerous websites, toys comics etcetera. Because of all the above these products seem much less of a commercial sell-out then a continuing of this virtual community. I'll stop for now let's go on to the themes in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back.
Since this post had a pretty improvisational start (it's now 9.44 am on a Saturday for god's sake) I'll take a break to drink some coffee and will continue it sometime this weekend!
Jay and Silent Bob discover 'the internet'
Posted at 12:48 am by Gijsvanwiechen
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
The start of something new
Well, there it goes: the first post of my weblog, an interesting new experience. expect to see here some interesting question on some of the articles discussed in the course Participatory Culture on the UU!
Posted at 06:19 am by Gijsvanwiechen
|
|
|
