Monday, April 18, 2016

Core Post 5: It's their world -- we're just buying into it

Capitalism is very sneaky. It worms its way into popular culture texts, imbuing each static image that is utilized in the creation of the moving image with particular inscriptions of images that either uphold the dominant paradigm or subvert it. More often than not, our mass-marketed, industry created, popularly received media feeds us not only societal norms, but also informs us how and what we should purchase. Choice acts as a double edged sword in this ever changing, expanding/expansionless space/non-space. As every new form of technology that creates more opportunities for “choice” for the viewer also comes with the caveat that Lisa Parks outlines in her essay that we read on page 134. In it she states that with the emergence of further choice that the Internet brings the typical television viewer it also “allows programmers to determine more accurately where and when viewers are in the media landscape. In a sense, personal television makes every PC a Nielsen Household.” In saying this, there is more of a reason for Industry creators to put their content on the Internet, and to disseminate it in this way to understand the specifics of their audience to a scale that they had not had before to determine how many, where they were tuning in from, and even potentially the demographics of their background (class, gender, race, etc) which would in turn help them to better market their products to people that they would feel would be more inclined to purchase them. While Parks goes on to talk about the “mobile privatization” of Williams, and the further idea of “privatized mobility” that Lynn Spigel brings to the table, what I wondered about was the ways in which users were subverting these digital signatures to gain access to content without leaving digital foot prints through mobilizing their bodies, technology, and agency through the physical space of Reality versus the projected non-space of the Digital.

usb wallpont des arts paris dead dropIf the medium of television is, as Parks claims, on the path where the public will be able to see it whenever and wherever they want (can we say we’ve reached this point in 2016? I would argue yes but would love to hear some other opinions) it is interesting to consider the ways in which some viewers, consumers, and makers are subverting the system that wants to commodify their existences through the media that they consume. Speaking specifically of the existence of dead drops, of USB's with media content left in the world for individuals to find, upload and download content without the use of the Internet, I wonder if we'll see more rebellion against the status quo of data-mining that happens often unchecked. To end on a string of questions regarding audiences: What do we make of the subversion of typical media viewership when the audience takes matters into their own hands and disseminates the product through downloads? How do we negotiate this secluded, private space that they have reclaimed? I'd be interested in bringing back the topic of the surveillance of individuals more prominently through their technology - thinking back again to the xBox 1 Kinect fiasco, where the device would be able to read facial expressions to better tailor their ads to the consumer, how do we negotiate this as humans? How deep does the rabbit hole go? Can choice be created without a monetary reasoning behind the shift for dominant corporate created industry typical media? I wonder how the emergence of the pirate/subversive audience will check Industry practices of curtailing their content towards an individual that is understood through a categorization of social markers created and based out of the comparison to, to quote Sylvia Wynter, a particular referent-we that emerged after the Enlightenment to purport white masculinity as the ideal to strive for. I wonder how audiences are refusing categorization through their subversive acts as a political one, and how does the digital break down nation-states and foster the creation of particular popular texts as ways to understand ourselves? 

7 comments:

  1. Really great questions, Amalia. Speaking as a cinephile, I am often put in a position of extreme qualification anytime someone claims "anyone can watch anything" on the web now; I constantly read about or seek content that is not available through corporate channels (streaming, DVD/Blu-ray, VOD, etc.). As much as a lot of content is now available for our perusal, it is still being curated and advertised to me via algorithms that often fail to predict my tastes. I wasn't familiar with dead drops, which sound like a fine idea, but frankly, I'm a heavy user of peer-to-peer file sharing when it comes to my own curated exploration of, say, world cinema. Hulu might have the Criterion Collection, and that might seem like an "unlimited" catalog for some, but it is only the tip of the iceberg for others. I've never owned a cable subscription, and subsist on a media diet largely predicated on word-of-mouth, my own research, independent and specialty venues (such as L.A.'s many brick-and-mortar art houses), festivals, multiregion media, and unofficial sources. All with their own curatorial issues, to be sure, but still far more aesthetically, ideologically, and historically diverse than any corporate media provider.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Amalia, Great post! I never heard of this Dead drop before, ( lol i made a death drop joke in my head...#yasss) Lol Okay, back to topic. So is the content available on these drives programs made for television or are they specially made content only made available through finding one? I think many questions arise through the use of this method. While they are avoiding online dissemination, it is still interesting to see that the action is still heavily relying on digital technology to transfer content. While people are not the victims of data mining, instead they are in a sense mining for data in the physical world, which I think is fascinating. Modes of piracy, although detrimental to the industry, I feel is worth a discussion in its own to consider the ways users are, as you mentioned, acting subversively in the current media landscape. One can almost say it is a race to see who can exploit who first? Anyway, enjoyed reading your post!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I should also point out that my peer-to-peer activity is not in any way for commercial profit, and I don't believe I have ever torrented a commercially available film; what I torrent are films that distributors in the U.S. have not made or no longer make available. I also regularly purchased DVDs from overseas (in 2004, I actually co-founded a DVD label in the UK, www.mastersofcinema.com). So I have always been careful to purchase multiregion DVD players, or easily hackable ones. I think it's absurd that companies want to carve up the world into separate markets. If I legally purchase a DVD from France I should be able to watch it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Really good post, Amalia. Thanks! I think from Parks' article we came to the same questions of whether audiences will keep purchasing content, or finding alternative ways to access them. I'd say (and I hope) that the more the industry makes us pay for television, the more viewers will try to find ways to get around. On the other hand, I think there will always be people willing to pay for those services, as long as they offer some sort of convenience. I'm not quite sure, but to me there is a risk that this individualization of media might turn out as (another) comfortable zone that isolates the high/middle classes from the capability to criticize capitalism.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Choice acts as a double edged sword in this ever changing, expanding/expansionless space/non-space."
    I really like this statement. It perfectly describes the way in which viewers are given the agency to choose what they want, but simultaneously and inevitably fall prey to the media producers/advertisers waiting to capitalize on their personal tastes/preferences. Reminds me of what Prof. McPherson mentions in her piece when she talks about the illusory nature of the Web and it being central to our incorporation into capital interests. In regards to subverting the system, I am really not sure how to besides illegal downloading/torrenting, but like Doug I use P2P applications often times when I can't find something on corporate sites like Hulu/Netflix. I also don't have extra income and try my best not to pay for things (lol), and like many others, economic status can become political, even radical, and inspires subversive tendencies.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Amalia, this was a really interesting post and a really great reading of Parks' analysis. We talked extensively about fan cultures in previous weeks, but I think there is a really significant overlap between the questions fan cultures can provide us with in rethinking the "dominant discourses" of mass media and the way Parks talks about the intersection of feminism and capitalism in an era of personalized television. I wonder whether the appropriation of media for fan videos, which so often relies on streamed or torrented content (but in turn, fuels fandom for a show and can ostensibly result in higher rates of overall viewership) is a way for us to understand the more utopian possibilities Parks lays out in her consideration of possible feminist or anti-capitalist spaces within the already strictly regulated spaces of the Web.

    ReplyDelete