Fan Cultures
After living in Korea for 3 years and then working for an Asian media company for 2, I’ve come to find fans, fan cultures, cults, etc. a bit scary.
I’m not sure whether or not fans are more intense in Korea or I just never noticed them in the United States, but Korean fan culture is extremely intense and competitive. For example, Korea holds a collaborative concert for various artists to perform, Dream Concert.Well in 2008, there was an e-war between the fans of Girls’ Generation (fans are named Soshi) and the fans of the male groups, DBSK / TVXQ (Cassiopeia) and Super Junior (SuJus). This war eventually broke out when the fans of the male groups turned off their glow sticks and boo-ed the Girls’ Generation group as they performed.
The Soshis retaliated by tearing up posters and walking out during performances. There were rumors claiming that a Soshi fan was walking around threatening to stab people although it has not been confirmed.
This type of fanship is pretty common in Korea especially as fans are avid “netizens” (online citizens). I think most of the intensity is contributed to Korea’s entertainment market, more particularly their music industry, is quite small. There are 3 major entertainment companies: JYP Entertainment, S.M. Entertainment and YG Entertainment. No surprised, each of these companies have fans and sometimes the music groups produced from each company support other groups the company produces (I hope that made sense). I found that interesting because I never paid attention myself to the companies unless it was a celebrity company like Sean Combs’ (P. Diddy) Bad Boys Entertainment.
Reading Matt Hills’ fan cultures reenforced my idea of fan cultures although I was quote bias to begin with. On the other hand, it did make fanships more interesting to me. I didn’t realize how common and obsessive we can become to anything. It’s like an addiction and it’s difficult to see where we draw the line. I personally don’t have anything I’m completely obsessed with but maybe I just don’t see it as being overboard?
“The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” by Walter Benjamin
Oh how perfect that my next post is about originality.
On my last post, I briefly touched on the theory of originality. I stated that it is “a product/art piece/work/etc that is created with unique style or substance that is not copied or based on another’s work.” Keeping this definition in mind, it is a fair assumption to say that there are little to no original pieces of art in our time. We derive much of our “inspiration” from existing works – replication. According to Benjamin, all works of art can be replicated but the copies do not duplicate the original aura – the presence of time and space.
The aura is what gives us understanding of the “moment” of the art piece. Aura often implies authenticity (originality); however, we can’t have authenticity without replications. When art is mechanically reproduced, each replication is a decay of the aura. This begs the question, how important is aura? While we can photograph a mountain but not fully grasp the moment it is taken, does that make it any less beautiful? Should it be less appreciated because it is a replication rather than an “original?” Were all works of art appreciated because they weren’t mechanically reproduced? I think not.
Much of our current “art” is due to the evolution of technology. As such, our idea of art is changing alongside with our perceptions. We find ourselves redefining many areas of our lives but rarely ever come to a concrete definition. For example, gaming. Roger Ebert argued that games are not a form of art but many would argue otherwise. If anything, it is a unique form of art – interactive storytelling or advanced performance art. Although in consideration to Benjamin, is it a replication of a story/event/etc or is it original? Does it have an aura?
Despite Ebert and Benjamin, art has always been a subjective term as it is an interpretation of life. While it is agreeable that we lose the initial interpretation with replication (mechanical or not), the replications are artworks in itself and thus takes on the interpretation of the creator. This is consideration to modern forms of art such as mash ups and photo manipulations. While they are mechanical forms, it speaks to a different audience than that of Ebert and Benjamin – something that is often overlooked.
Convergence Culture
Technology has changed the way we share and listen thus this new world (mainly the freaks and geeks) is brought to light – otherwise known as 4Chan (I kid, sorta). This brings out what Jenkins calls interactivity, the intended form of interaction, and participation, the new form of interaction created by the audience(s). As such, using Star Wars was a great example of “convergence culture.” George Lucas gave us this amazing story and now it’s legacy still lives on 34 years after the first original movie (1977) thanks to technology. The number of remakes, remixes, etc are abundant and contributes to this participatory culture that I personally find rewarding and refreshing.
The internet is based on this participatory culture and is what makes it interesting and worthwhile. Social media was created specifically to connect people together so that they could share their lives together – the lazy way. Or in other terms, it’s easier to stalk people now (if you want to be cynical about it). Take Jonathan Harris’ projects for example, they are based on people sharing their lives. “Everyone has a story.” (Johnathan Harris).
Unfortunately, it’s not all rainbows and butterflies. This participatory culture has lead to the clash of the creator and the re-creator. Copyright is nothing new and a fierce debate even now despite Creative Commons‘ efforts to manage it. So I ask, “what’s originality?“
Google has lead me to believe that originality is defined as a product/art piece/work/etc that is created with unique style or substance that is not copied or based on another’s work. By that definition, originality is rare and seemingly non-existent. Many works of art that exist today can be related back to previous works. The second part of the definition is a little vague and ambiguous. I find that culture, other art, society, politics, etc all inspire artists. Especially now that we have remixing, parodies, etc as a medium (and yes I do consider it a medium), the definition of originality become debatable.
My brother once told me that
“Everything is a copy of a copy of a copy.”
I do agree with him that we definitely are inspired and take into consideration of what already exists; however, does that mean that no one has original ideas? On the other hand, is everyone an innovator/visionary/etc? I’m not saying that everyone that takes someone else’s work of art and revamps it is an artist but there is a blur between what is and isn’t original.
The Ring
I watched the American version because 1. I’ve already seen it so I knew when to close my eyes and 2. I have a habit of never sleeping after watching horror films. Yes, I’ve only slept a couple hours the past few days.
So re-watching the movie again opened my eyes – it can be related back to viruses!
“Computers do not have lives of their own; People create viruses, and the problem is thus a human-social phenomenon.” – Digital Contagion, Jussi Parikka (pg 142)
The entire premise (or at least to me) of the movie “The Ring” is to share the video with another person. Coincidentally, the act of sharing is how viruses of any nature survive whether on purpose or not. They thrive on the continuous spread and would fail to exist if they didn’t. The lead antagonist, Samara, needed that attention (like most little kids) and if she didn’t get it, her existence would cease to exist. Unfortunately, nobody is willing to be the last then again who would want to be. I found it funny that simply not sharing the video (or any type of virus) would help stop the spread/death/etc.
“Viruses a chaotic element within a system based on security and order.” – Digital Contagion, Jussi Parikka (pg 34)
Even for those unaware of the curse, the symptoms were soon clear and often threw the victim into complete…well chaos. Their lives were turned upside down by this video leaving them only with eerie clues to the cure. Of course this is a Hollywood film and much of it is over-exaggerated. Anyways, Samara depended on people’s curiosity and self preservation. I couldn’t believe that Rachel was so careless with the tape that her son ended up watching it! This just continues to supply Samara’s need to survive and it continues on even throughout the movie and in the poor, unfortunate sequel.
“Viruses also touch the theme of the body, but as we know now, viruses and worms are not restricted to biological bodies…” – Digital Contagion, Jussi Parikka (pg 121)
Despite being dead, Samara managed to continue living through this film – her extra body. It was her version of a horcrux (yes, I’m quite nerdy!). Some of her being even existed outside the film through the various clues and her former life. She couldn’t quite become physical until the end of the “cycle” but she was able to interact with the living regardless. Similar to viral media, it didn’t just stop with the original. It continued on through various channels through curiosity, sharing and other recreations of the original. Each of these factors give life to the original viruses and allow them to continuously exist. Without one of the elements, they’re nothing.
Random thought: I wonder if she would continue to kill everyone if they shared it on Youtube. Then again Samara basically created the original Youtube. Talk about standard object…
Digital Contagions
I was relieved to find that I wasn’t the only one that thought this book was difficult. The introduction served as a summary of the book (from my understanding) which required a lot of effort outside of the book (research). Jussi Parikka does well though to tie it all together in the end. As I got into chapter one, the ideas started to round out a little better. Overall I came to understand is that like most of our readings thus far, it’s embraced chaos as a necessary evil.
Similar to “The Ghost Map” by Steven Johnson, “Digital Contagions” by Jussi Parikka shows readers the positive nature behind viruses despite their negative connotation. In fact, Parikka somewhat reinvents the term and disproves the idea that all viruses are evil. While viruses can cause difficulties for a lack of better words, we adapt to the chaos it leaves behind and evolve thus creating a (vicious) cycle. This isn’t a new theory/method at all though (consider Darwinism). In fact if you view the history/ecology/ethnography, you’ll find that most discoveries are born out of some sort of chaos/virus/etc. Parikka uses the term “noise” and explains that it is a constant that is always necessary.
I do not mean to that you should infect your computers with viruses, worms, trojans, etc; that doesn’t do anything but leave you S.O.L. Although depending on your anti-virus program, you may just be helping your manufacture but know that no system is perfect.
Moving forward, all the terms revolving around viruses – mutation, infection, etc – generally are viewed as negative which reminds me of X-Men First Class (just watched it over the weekend). – SPOILERS – Throughout the movie, Mystique is highly sensitive to her appearance and what people think of her. In general, the war on mutants is about humans fighting against change; however, what they’ve failed to embrace is the idea that this mutants are evolutionary. This is what makes Xavier all the more B.A.M.F. He was one of the few that enjoyed everyone’s unique qualities and showed them how to utilize it. It was no longer a curse but a gift. Granted, we’d probably have to recreate our entire way of being but who doesn’t want super powers? I digress…
