My thoughts, conclusions and reactions to my final artefact are as follows:
- Does the author have a responsibility to be truthful? Or does that responsibility lie with the user (to distinguish the truth).
- A ‘change in contract’ between reader and author.
- The information displayed here, no matter what subject, is still the product of different limitations (technical and cultural) found within a pre-created system.
- Different styles of the piece (bad spelling and grammer entries assumed fake) showcases an increased importance of branding (as now anybody can become on some basic level an ‘author’) more pressure is placed upon publishers to hire more proficient editors and writing staff. Brings us back to expectations.
- Content infrastructures become brands. People expect certain things from youtube, they know to be wary of useless content, just as they do from paid institutions like CNN and other reputable news sites.
For my final artefact I again wanted to create a somewhat ’stand alone’ piece that communicated, demonstrated and encouraged thought about practices that in today’s content sharing cuure are being taken for granted. The artefact is located at wiki.stuffbytom.com/1
I have set up the latest version of Media Wiki on my server. I chose this particular wiki as it was the same base that Wikipedia used. As Wikipedia is the most popular site of its type I felt using this similar interface for my artefact would give it a greater contemporary relevance. I then posted 5 articles of varying styles an invited a group of users to comment on which articles they believe to be true and their reasons for said beliefs. The aim was to stimulate thought and exploration about the authority of authorship. Are we supposed to believe everything we read? It was also a practical look at how wiki systems work and the way users interact with them. Finally this is a piece about how people read and filter information. I will post my thoughts, feelings and conclusions tomorrow.
As previously mentioned, the aim of this artefact was not to produce scientific findings but to act as a piece of art. The purpose of which was to provoke questioning, thoughts and a greater understanding of the idea that we are only given the illusion of being authors within the confines of a rigid hierarchical creative system that we (the user) cannot change.
Here are some of the thoughts and questions that arose from the creation of this artefact:
- When restrictions are in place the author rarely questions them.
- When the audience are also aware of these restrictions their expectations of the author shift.
- A comment on the the solidarity (and increased importance) of branded content, not just ANYONE can post something and have this name placed upon it.
- Is the user the author? or are they merely using a system authored by someone else?
- Potentially 3 different authors here, me (creating the system and re-utilizing content) CNN (the content provider) and you, the user (remixing content)
- Do we ‘own’ this content? Or are we simply giving it to the system? Again ‘contributing’.
As a response to one of my thoughts whilst concluding my previous artefact. That of ‘perceived’ authorship. I decided to create an artefact that wasn’t necessarily designed to allow me to form solid conclusions, but to provoke thought and serious discussion and exploration.
My artefact is online at cnn.stuffbytom.com consists of a saved version of the CNN homepage as it appeared on the 21st of May 2009. The difference is there is a bar at the top inviting the user to begin editing the site itself, it suggests deleting items, adding additional text and even rewording headlines for purposes of humour. When the user clicks ‘Click to start rewriting!’ a line of javascript is run that makes the page editable on a basic level within a web browser. What the user is unaware of as they gleefully re-edit and rewrite is that the page will ‘refresh’ after an interval of 3 minutes causing all user-made edits to disappear.
With this artefact I wanted to communicate the kinds of restrictions and lack of authorship apparent in serveral big ‘Web 2.0′ authoring systems. I wanted to spark debate and encourage the exploration of ideas and concepts. In my next post I will discuss my own thoughts and explorations after utilizing this artefact.
My artefact is complete and is now located at twitter.stuffbytom.com.
After struggling with randomizing content with Jwitter (see the previous post) I decided instead to use the script to search twitter for tweets involving terms like ‘authorship’ ‘ownership’ ‘liability’ but this did not turn out the way I had expected. Normally, tweets shown using this script have these words in them (and they are displayed in bold to make this clear) but in this case these words are barely ever mentioned in the tweets. Meaning I am not entirely siure how the tweets themselves are being sorted.
In fact this is absolutely perfect for the purpose of my artefact: the examination of data without the context of author. This quirk in the script has allowed me to view truly random data (as even if I were to input a string for ‘random data’ the information displayed would still belong to a certain level of classification) here I know not if the information is random or belonging to a certain filter.
The result is a piece presenting an information flow devoid of authorial context. The logical containers (excluding of course the ‘Twitter’ container for all these posts) mentioned in my essay have been removed. On personal reflection, whilst looking to garner sense from the ramblings it is clear to me how important authorship still is within certain content systems, the nature of Twitter is to provide short and personal ’snapshots’ of information normally pertaining to the person who posted it.
Another thing to note is that this content is practically useless without mention of the author. Users rely on the Twitter system to display their username, image and profile when displaying their tweets, this is something the system ALLOWS them to do, people can only lay ‘claim’ to said content because Twitter says they can.
Something tht flips this concept on its head is secret tweet, a site’s primary selling point is displaying content without any means of identifying the author (not even by IP). I believe this shows just how easily authorship can be given and taken away when it is within the confines of a pre-set system. My next artefact will examine this.
I have been experimenting with Twitter scripts to try and create my random feed but have so far not had much look.
The most promising at this stage seem to be Juitter a jQuery plug-in. However i have searched the internet high and low and have not yet found a way to search fro random Tweets. I believe at this point that is not something that can currently be accomplished in the current Twitter API.
To compromise I tried displaying the twitter live feed. (twitter.com/public_timeline) but again I encountered problems here. I have been forced to use juitter with some random search terms. I have also removed the user information and image to provide the illusion of a random flow of pure content. I will have to take a hypothetical approach when forming my conclusions.
You can see the the Artefact here (I was tempted to spend time styling with css but this would not contribute to my investigation):
twitter.stuffbytom.com
I am more than aware of the eclectic nature of my artefacts. I feel that to sufficiently investigate modern authorship it is important to encompass a wide number of mediums in my research.
The aim of my first artefact was to make the author explicit in a collaborative effort. In the second I diluted the ‘collaborative’ aspect, making users unwaware of the identitys of the other contributers allowing them to position themselves as an ‘author’ of the finished piece. For my third artefact I positioned myself as a potential author. Now, after making the author explicit I intend to remove the author by displaying a Twitter feed of random, non-contextualised posts. I have chose twitter because of its meteoric rise in popularity recently and because it is one of the simplist methods of creating basic content online. Also the ‘author’ seems more important here, as Twitter posts are smaller and more personal, normally about the user who posted them.
Fellow student William Barton (@wbarton) told me today about Andrew Keen’s book Cult of the Amateur. Quite an interesting sounding piece this. I am not sure if I wholeheartedly agree with the message here (not ALL amateur content is bad people, like this blog for example!) but Andrew Keen’s warnings, represent an underdiscussed and importunate aspect of the web authorship zeitgeist. Publisher description below:
Amateur hour has arrived, and the audience is running the show
In a hard-hitting and provocative polemic, Silicon Valley insider and pundit Andrew Keen exposes the grave consequences of today’s new participatory Web 2.0 and reveals how it threatens our values, economy, and ultimately the very innovation and creativity that forms the fabric of American achievement.
Our most valued cultural institutions, Keen warns—our professional newspapers, magazines, music, and movies—are being overtaken by an avalanche of amateur, user-generated free content. Advertising revenue is being siphoned off by free classified ads on sites like Craigslist; television networks are under attack from free user-generated programming on YouTube and the like; file-sharing and digital piracy have devastated the multibillion-dollar music business and threaten to undermine our movie industry. Worse, Keen claims, our “cut-and-paste” online culture—in which intellectual property is freely swapped, downloaded, remashed, and aggregated—threatens over 200 years of copyright protection and intellectual property rights, robbing artists, authors, journalists, musicians, editors, and producers of the fruits of their creative labors.
In today’s self-broadcasting culture, where amateurism is celebrated and anyone with an opinion, however ill-informed, can publish a blog, post a video on YouTube, or change an entry on Wikipedia, the distinction between trained expert and uninformed amateur becomes dangerously blurred. When anonymous bloggers and videographers, unconstrained by professional standards or editorial filters, can alter the public debate and manipulate public opinion, truth becomes a commodity to be bought, sold, packaged, and reinvented.
The very anonymity that the Web 2.0 offers calls into question the reliability of the information we receive and creates an environment in which sexual predators and identity thieves can roam free. While no Luddite—Keen pioneered several Internet startups himself—he urges us to consider the consequences of blindly supporting a culture that endorses plagiarism and piracy and that fundamentally weakens traditional media and creative institutions.
Offering concrete solutions on how we can rein in the free-wheeling, narcissistic atmosphere that pervades the Web, THE CULT OF THE AMATEUR is a wake-up call to each and every one of us.
For my third artifact I have created a personal response to the question of the relevence of authorship in the face of the user generated ‘barrage’ of content by recreating the popular level ‘Facing Worlds’ from Unreal Tournament using Halo 3 Forge. I used the upper level of the ‘Sandbox’ map (recently released) as a base. I will post tomorrow about the experieces of content creation within a limiting environment. I also wanted to explore the relevencee of UGC in large-scale media releases (specifically in games). I also wanted to look at LittleBigPlanet but the Multimedia department wasn’t keen to stump up the 300 English pounds required for a PS3!
Below you will see the original Unreal Tournament and the completed Halo 3 version. I ran out of memory which limited design somewhat. Special thanks to Ste Bagshaw, aka Raven1657 for helping with some of the building. Halo 3 Forge allows up to 8 players to assist (or interfere) with contruction. The level building is simplistic but integrated within the game engine so you can ‘test’ your map as you build it, with players still able to kill each other Forge explores the fine line between building and experiencing content.
I have added the completed map to my Fileshare, which is available on my Bungie.net profile. Bungie Net is a site which automatically populates itself with content based on Halo 2 and 3 player data, both from playing the game itself and site comments and discussion. People logged in with their Xbox Live account can can select my level and add it to their Xbox download queue. Screenshots taken in Halo 3 Theatre mode (along with other bits of content) can be downloaded in HD resolutions from the site.
Without further adieu, the images (click to enlarge, don’t be shy!)
CTF-Face Original Map
Facing Worlds Halo 3 Forge Map. How the map functioned was more important than aesthetic likeness to the original (thank god)
Some aspects were tweaked for a better Halo experience. In UT Snipers risked falling to their death due to the limited space at the top. As there is no fall damage in Halo explosive barrels make the spot less reliable and prevent camping.
Coloured lighting was used to clearly define the opposing team 'bases'
More screenshots are available in my Bungie NET image gallery.
For goodness sake I need to clear this up.
My research paper title:
“The investigation that the Authorship post-enlightenment theory has been redefined and possibly made redundant due to the widespread availability of broadband internet acess and new content sharing technologies.”
The purpose of my Artefacts were/are to investigate:
- How individuals would react working on a visual collaborative piece and their thought process doing so (in the form of a questionnairre).
- Paired with the previous artefact. How individuals creative agendas were affected when social elements were removed from the design process (seeing the changes so far, knowing who did them etc)
- Issues of content ownership in the online domain? The slow uptake of UGC in publishing? Interview people with regard to their work in previous Artefacts how would they want it to be used? Do people trust UGC? (perhaps show people the same story in different forms, official looking placve and a blatant ugc version, see who believes it or not?) Focus more on the technology? (creation of a UGC website, see how quickly one can be placed on the web? options available?)
I will talk to Simon tomorrow and establish a more concrete line of investigation for my next 2 Artefacts. I’m really struggling to find a substantial topic I can actually physically investigate here.
Recent Comments