Post Industrial Media 2.0
20
post industrial media, web 2.0 and media studies 2.0 aka alphabet soup in a post-literate age Strathvea December 2010 Adrian Miles Wednesday, 15 December 2010
description
Slides that provided discussion points for an internal discussion about web 2.0, media studies 2.0 and post industrial media.
Transcript of Post Industrial Media 2.0
post industrial media, web 2.0 and media
studies 2.0aka alphabet soup in a post-literate age
Strathvea December 2010Adrian Miles
Wednesday, 15 December 2010
heritage
clear distinction between professional and non professional practice
capital expenses extremely high
•entry
•distribution
•hardware
access (to making and seeing) highly constrained
Wednesday, 15 December 2010
heritage
so premium placed on ‘professional’ values
•production
•performance
•technical
(though the majority of these all revolve around a pretty simple realism)
Wednesday, 15 December 2010
heritage
variety of what are recognised as industrial and capitalist models developed
complex relationships between audiences, advertising, and time — what we are willing to pay for consumption where ‘blocks of time’ (or blocks of attention) become the product
this would be one explanation for why linear (and serialised) forms dominate
Wednesday, 15 December 2010
post industrial media
distinction between professional and non professional no longer as distinct
capital expenses approach zero
•entry
•distribution
•hardware
access to the tools, resources and knowledge now distributed and open
Wednesday, 15 December 2010
post industrial media
for some, premium placed on ‘professional’ values
•but these now located outside of the professional class
for others, it is about audience in terms of scale and reach
•YouTube stars out of their bedrooms, viral clips
(sometimes both align, eg “Old Spice”)
from the pov of heritage media it is
• first nothing (as not ‘professional’ or ‘institutional’ media)
•then possible audience
•beginning to be understood as community
•a risk and a threat
Wednesday, 15 December 2010
post industrial media
professional values (those attributes any professional class uses to define itself and to which you must be acculturated to to be a member of that class) only matter to that class
when only the professional class could ‘do’ the task this is easy and does not need to be considered
when access is open the professional class, by insisting on its own (self granted) privilege, risks decline
is also explanation for why professional elites get toey when either ‘professional’ or ‘elite’ starts to soften
Wednesday, 15 December 2010
web 2.0
not the same as social media but is the architecture that enables social media
•web is now a platform (we use it to do stuff on, not just publish to and read) - and also heralds the decline of applications, and they provide rich experiences (flickr)
• it harnesses the collective (the link, Google, amazon.com, wikipedia) and so users add value - and must be trusted to do so
•data is what matters (actually allowing relations to be created within the data is what matters) and it is public, and the long tail matters as it is narrow niches that matter
•no more release cycles (shift from artefacts to services), it is continuous and ongoing, things are always in beta, incremental change
• lightweight models (in programming terms near enough is good enough - RSS, googlemaps), allows for remix, syndication, NOT coordination, intellectual property regimes need to reflect this, don’t make monoliths but services that cooperate
•software not about a single device (iTunes, an app, an appliance, retail, browser), not about applications but ecologies and infrastructure
Wednesday, 15 December 2010
web 2.0
authority is determined in situ and through practice and not institutional/professional identity
leads to the development of what are known as ‘trust networks’
blogs remain an exemplar for web 2.0
many of the models of ‘industrial’ computing and software are gone or disappearing
Wednesday, 15 December 2010
so what web 2.0 is doing to computers is similar to what is happening in media industries and practice, which has been used to think about media studies and so leads us to media studies 2.0
Wednesday, 15 December 2010
media studies 2.0
media studies 1.0 (Gauntlett)
•emphasis on experts to read popular culture
•a traditional (top down) canon of works and key texts (cultural and academic)
•celebration of works which challenge
•students to be taught how to ‘read’ in an appropriate critical manner
•emphasis on traditional media forms (TV, radio, music, film, press)
•conventional research methods, audiences are ‘receivers’ makers are ‘producers’
Wednesday, 15 December 2010
media studies 2.0
media studies 2.0 (Gauntlett)
•everyday meanings produced by everyday users/readers with use of new qualitative research methods
•canonical works complemented by DIY and long tail, independent projects
•western replaced by recognition of globalisation and cultural diversity/specificity
• internet not marginal but changed how we experience/use all media
•recognise students/audiences already highly capable readers and users, so thinking about their use of media, rather than the media’s use of them
•new research methods that recognise individual’s creativity and shift ideas about elite producers and mute audiences
•relation of media to audience and the autonomy/power of media as networks of power over passive populations shifted.
Wednesday, 15 December 2010
media studies 2.0
pedagogy remains unquestioned in this
the intellectual shift reflects a disciplinary effort/reaction to the shift from a broadcast to a networked model of making, distribution, and reception
it is not about the death of old media (though a decline)
the intellectual shift reflects the problematisation of the concept of ‘audience’ which has been fundamental to media studies’ self definition
Wednesday, 15 December 2010
media studies 2.0
William Merrin:
Instead of massaging our media world to fit into our established frameworks we need to reconsider the basic classification, content, categories and concepts of broadcast-era media studies, dispensing with aspects that fetter our understanding and radicalising our ideas and arguments to capture the processes that actually form our present. The post-broadcast era gives us the chance to rewrite these models and find entirely new frameworks of analysis; to explore older, deeper, non-linear histories and to realise the inter-disciplinary potential of media studies. The latter is media studies’ great strength. Instead of the limited, conservative, controlled and patrolled zone found in mainstream textbooks and approaches we need to synthesise a more radical, exciting, innovative and forward-looking discipline.
Wednesday, 15 December 2010
media studies 2.0
... and William Merrin again...
But new media don’t just impact upon our discipline and knowledge they also have the potential to transform how we teach and transmit it. Perhaps one of the most important ways they can do this is by transforming academic publishing and the dissemination of our ideas. Universities are products of literate modernity, stamped with literate values and academics internalise these, subscribing to a hierarchy of academic publishing that privileges books and journals above other forms of expression. This academic publishing follows a scarcity-led broadcast model in which a publisher broadcasts academic output to a national or international audience, with limitations on the number of titles each publisher can produce and the page count of each text together with the need to make each book economically successful necessitating careful editorial decisions and the employment of readers and referees to assess submissions and monitor content. Academics may complain in private at this model and its processes, but they depend upon it for publication.
Wednesday, 15 December 2010
coupla questions
students come thinking that what they need to learn are still heritage practices
(most of the rest of the university thinks about us like this too)
but if you don’t need to come to RMIT to:
•get access to a camera
•editing system/tools
•show your work
•or even possibly courseware/expertise
then why? And what is the pedagogy that would enable this?
how do we realise media studies 2.0 in form and not just content?
Wednesday, 15 December 2010
teaching in the 21st century
from Rhoten, et al
self directed, interest driven, peer based, practice focused, mastery orientated.
•affinity and utility
•professionals and amateurs
•content creation not content delivery
•distributed and integrated
• integration and linking of physical and virtual (blended)
•embedded and authentic assessment
Wednesday, 15 December 2010
learning outcomes for 21st
“mastery of subject matter and complex language through interaction and
application in a real‐world context;
processes of critical thinking and systems thinking, collective practice and complex problem solving;
development of multistructural, relational, and extended abstract thinking;
abilities to communicate and collaborate, evaluate and generate knowledge and artifacts;
information, visual, and computational literacies (e.g., Photoshop is a virtual tutorial on the human visual system, and in combination with design work
involves high‐level literacies and technical skills); and,
intellectual entrepreneurialism to design and engineer, transfer and execute
learning on‐demand and over a lifecourse, and;
dispositions and identities to engage with a broader public and to contribute to the public good within community.”
from Rhoten, et al:
Wednesday, 15 December 2010
references
Gauntlett, David, ‘Media Studies 2.0 – Article on Future of Media Studies by David Gauntlett at Theory.org.uk’, Theory.org.uk: Media/Identity/Resources and Projects, 2007 <http://www.theory.org.uk/mediastudies2.htm>.
Merrin, William, ‘Media Studies 2.0 Forum: Media Studies 2.0 - My Thoughts...’, Media Studies 2.0 Forum, 2008 <http://twopointzeroforum.blogspot.com/2008/01/media-studies-20-my-thoughts.html> .
Merrin, William, ‘Media Studies 2.0: Digital Media News: April 2009’, Media Studies 2.0, 2009 <http://mediastudies2point0.blogspot.com/2009/05/digital-media-news-april-2009.html> .
Merrin, William, ‘Media Studies 2.0: Studying Me-Dia: The Problem of Method in a Post-Broadcast Age’, Media Studies 2.0, 2010 <http://mediastudies2point0.blogspot.com/2010/03/studying-me-dia-problem-of-method-in.html>.
Merrin, William, ‘Media Studies 2.0: UNDERSTANDING ME-DIA: THE SECOND REFORMATION’, Media Studies 2.0, 2010 <http://mediastudies2point0.blogspot.com/2010/03/understanding-me-dia-second-reformation.html>.
O'Reilly, Tim, ‘What Is Web 2.0 - O'Reilly Media’, O'Reilly, 2005 <http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html>.
Rhoten, Diana, Laurie Racine, and Phoenix Wang, Designing for Learning in the 21st Century - Working Paper - Draft (Startl, 2010) <http://startl.org/about/the-future-of-learning/>.
Wednesday, 15 December 2010
