The perspective that stood out to me most after reading this chapter was the one about networking and the notion of collaboration between multiple authors. Although the chapter focused more on "collaborative projects supported by corresponding tools, such as wiki servers" (51), the first connection I made with this segment was more related to our ongoing conversation project. For that assignment, there will be two authors per animation. Similarly, in the Flash piece I am researching for my independent research project, there are two authors credited, Serge Bouchardon and Vincent Volckaert.
Consequently, before reading "Conversations on Digital Aesthetics," I had already given some thought to the idea of animated works with multiple authors. Although I knew there must be many reasons authors would choose to collaborate in this way (for instance, I personally am doing it because it is what this class requires of me), one of the main benefits I came up with was that it could free someone with a creative vision but little to no technological know-how from having to learn a new program in order to create their work of art. That is, an artist or poet could collaborate with someone who could transfer their vision onto a computer screen. In the episystemological portion of this chapter, a similar concept is introduced – whether "it is necessary for users to develop new areas of competence" in order to understand art presented in this new digital medium (49). In my preliminary consideration of why multiple authorship may be used, artists would circumvent having to have any more than a basic knowledge of what the computer is capable of.
However, this chapter discusses networking and multiple authorship from a somewhat different perspective. It focuses primarily on web-based works that readers can edit, such as wikis. The chapter poses the question of whether this eliminates the assignment of such works "to one author or a known group of authors, [or] copyright, intellectual property, etc." (51). Ultimately, though, it is claimed that "authorship definitely still exists, albeit in multiple form: initiators who open up the project frame, programmers... open author groups without individual assignment of authorship, etc." (51). Still, dealing with copyright and intellectual property law regarding these "authorships" is tricky.
However, the chapter adds that in many cases people shy away from participating in online collaborations. For example, on Walter van der Cruijsen's ASCII Art Ensemble wiki, "no one really dares to take advantage of this new freedom" (53). This is a little depressing, especially if van der Cruijsen's intent was for his art to come alive through active viewer participation, and through lack of participation, the work ultimately fails. This reminds me a little of a work of art I once saw in a museum, which consisted of a stack of papers that museum attendees were encouraged to take a piece of paper from, thereby demonstrating how the stack of paper will shrink over time (I don't quite remember what the diminishing paper was meant to represent, unfortunately). I recall feeling hesitant to take one of the papers because I felt as if I wouldn't appreciate it enough and didn't want it or the slowly-shrinking stack of paper to "go to waste," even though I realize that was the piece's intent.
On the other hand, though, I found myself disagreeing with the statement that "no one really dares take advantage of this new freedom." I know with some wikis, especially Wikipedia, there has been so much collaboration that some pages have had to be temporarily shut down so they can be "fixed" after some group is prompted to edit it full of misinformation, often in response to a television or internet joke (e.g. The Colbert Report getting people to edit the page on elephants). Now in many cases, it seems to be more of an issue of keeping people from posting incorrect information on wikis (thereby making these sites fairly unreputable/not "reliable sources") rather than trying to garner reader participation. However, I understand that the situation is probably considerably different with smaller, art-based projects.
Ultimately, the quotation that most stood out to me was that "computers and the Internet differ from the 'traditional' mass media in that they can be used for individual and group use and communication on one hand, and as mass media, on the other" (55). When we work on our animations, we do it on our own computers, working alone or in a small group; it is not until we have posted them on our blogs that they become a form of "mass media" available to the rest of the world. In the past, I have tended to think of these two uses as being separate stages of a single process: I would create my work on a computer program designed for individual use, and then post it online to be viewed. After reading this article, as well as seeing such Flash animations as Serge Bouchardon's "Loss of Grasp" that require viewer participation, I am beginning to realize that the "creating my work" stage doesn't have to end when my work is published online. Just as my classmates can post contributions on my blog, the beauty of digital pieces is that they can continue growing and adapting after they have been published. Although, the more I think about it, I feel that the way a viewer perceives a work allows it to constantly keep evolving, even if it is printed statically on the page. A seemingly-unchanging thing can change simply in the way it means something to each individual viewer.
No comments:
Post a Comment