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 definition you gave from Google about originality really got me thinking with you about what today really is original. Is anything really even original anymore? Not to sound somber but I honestly do not think that anything we have is a truly original creation from someone. I am in an Art History class currently this semester and have noticed that the architecture we are currently looking at from 1850s- 1920s is all mostly inspired by architectural techniques from the past, such as arches, classical style statues in homes, and the pagoda style rooftops. They were not unique creations which were developed by the recent architects but the style was taken from the past, made to look more modern, and considered to be an original, which is actually not the case. Anyways, I believe that we live in a culture today that is not entirely original, everything we have today in every aspect of life, from art to technology, is a recreation or add on from the past.
You touched on a very controversial and a long-debated point. What is originality? What is the true essence of a creation based on a predetermined subject? Is it copy-right infringement? Would you defend it the same way if someone took your creation and ripped it apart, only to add their input? Would you be flattered? I’m sure everyone has their opinion on this complicated subject, but one thing remains true: Copyright laws must adapt to this new age of digital media.
When someone, either a fan or not, alters and reworks a piece of media, what happens to the original, what is essentially taken away, and what is added?
Convergence Culture talks about how all types of fans alike can essentially create their own versions of their favorite story. But people are starting to take advantage of this whole movement. Crowd-sourcing is something that is changing the face of what impact a fan can have. Paul Verhoeven, the director of “Starship Troopers”, has invited the public “to write the rest of what is being billed as the world’s first ever UserGenerated Movie.” The story can be found at :http://www.crowdsourcing.org/document/film-director-invites-the-public-to-make-movie/6697.
We are seeing a major shift in how films are being created now that we, the fans, have more of a voice thanks to social networking and new media.
Also, another link on how crowsourcing is working together with films is in the movie “A Swarm of Angels” – http://www.zdnet.com/blog/social/a-swarm-of-angels-crowdsourcing-film-production/118
And on the subject of how social media allowed people to connect and making them lazy, crowd-sourcing is on the same track: http://dannybrown.me/2011/01/23/social-media-crowdsourcing/
You say a lot of interesting things about convergence, culture, original art, inspiration, and growing technology, among many other topics. I completely agree about “a copy is a copy of a copy…” I believe there can be original art, but our world goes in cycles, keeping and preserving historic pieces of art such as Star Wars or any other long lasting art form that has survived through the ages among different cultures. People will always be looking to invent new things, but today inspiration and innovation go hand in hand. Many people have tried to come up with new technology, art, or other inventions, only to find themselves way ahead of their time. I see this in a similar art form in films such as Avatar. Things that are happening today with growing technology would have never been possible fifty years ago, but I don’t think that means the ideas were not there. People work within the measures they are given, often times venturing out of the box, but sometimes limited with resources. On one hand, it becomes easier to use technology to do research and adapt to the current culture, and on the other, people continue to discover new things. The key is moving at the right speed with increasing culture innovation. I also agree that with growing social media and other forms of interacting online, people are encouraged to interact and converge with each other and different cultures more often. We are not necessarily running out of ideas, yet expanding and creating new things such as interaction online. I do agree this is a new art form in and of itself, and it has opened up a large stage to a growing online audience. It is easier to spread ideas, communicate with each other, and interact with people around the world. As previously stated, our world goes in cycles, from war to disease and new innovation, people make the same breakthroughs as well as mistakes. We will always try to preserve things from the past, but it is also a challenge to recreate a work of art with the resources you would have today, often improving something. We will not forget the past, yet use it as a tool to move forward, learning as well as mimicking past practices.