Christian Fuchs (2010). European Journal of Social Theory, 13, 173-192 .DOI: 10.1177/1368431010362294
Fuchs critically examines Habermas's public sphere in that it addresses only bourgeois communication sphere and proposes alternative media as critical media. His approach is described as:
Herbert Marcuse (1978) argues that art can only be a societal factor as autonomous art. Art would be a part of society, but one that transcends capitalist society by constituting an autonomous sphere of aesthetical forms that transcend capitalism. The beauty of art is not a portrayal of society as it is, but a metaphor for society as it could be. The notion of the autonomy and functionless character of art that Adorno and Marcuse described can be generalized not just for art, but for all alternative media products (including also expression in the area of popular culture, not just the high arts). Alternative media at the form level of the products have a radical potential if they transcend their societal context and have the potential to subvert experience. In the case of critical forms, the subversion of the experience of capitalism is an indirect one, in the case of critical content it is a more direct one. (p. 188)
Marcuse, Herbert. (1978) The Aesthetic Dimension. Boston: Beacon Press.
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century
Jenkins, Henry. (2009). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Executive summary (xi-xv)
Observing a growing tendency of the youth's engagement in media production and sharing their created products over the web, Jenkins defined a participatory culture: "A participatory culture is a a culture with relatively low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement, strong support for creating and sharing creations, and some type of informal mentorship whereby experienced participants pass along knowledge to novices" (xi) Further, he described that members of a participatory culture believe the importance of their contribution to the culture and fee certain social connection with one another. Despite the potential benefits from such participatory cultures, Jenkins argued for policy and pedagogical interventions for three concerns: participation gap, transparency problem, and ethics challenge. For that matter, Jenkins stated:
"Educators must work together to ensure that all young Americans have access to the skills and experiences needed to become full participants, can articulate their understanding of how media shapes perceptions, and are socialized into the emerging ethical standards that should shape their practices as media makers and participants in online communities." (xiii)
He wrote, "Inter-activity is a property of the technology, while participation is a property of culture." (p. 8). Thus, interactivity does not necessarily increase participation. Yet, he shows technology-deterministic approach, by writing subsequently, "Participatory culture is emerging as the culture absorbs and responds to the explosion of new media technologies that make it possible for average consumers to archive, annotate, appropriate, and recirculate media content in powerful new ways." (p. 8)
Executive summary (xi-xv)
Observing a growing tendency of the youth's engagement in media production and sharing their created products over the web, Jenkins defined a participatory culture: "A participatory culture is a a culture with relatively low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement, strong support for creating and sharing creations, and some type of informal mentorship whereby experienced participants pass along knowledge to novices" (xi) Further, he described that members of a participatory culture believe the importance of their contribution to the culture and fee certain social connection with one another. Despite the potential benefits from such participatory cultures, Jenkins argued for policy and pedagogical interventions for three concerns: participation gap, transparency problem, and ethics challenge. For that matter, Jenkins stated:
"Educators must work together to ensure that all young Americans have access to the skills and experiences needed to become full participants, can articulate their understanding of how media shapes perceptions, and are socialized into the emerging ethical standards that should shape their practices as media makers and participants in online communities." (xiii)
He wrote, "Inter-activity is a property of the technology, while participation is a property of culture." (p. 8). Thus, interactivity does not necessarily increase participation. Yet, he shows technology-deterministic approach, by writing subsequently, "Participatory culture is emerging as the culture absorbs and responds to the explosion of new media technologies that make it possible for average consumers to archive, annotate, appropriate, and recirculate media content in powerful new ways." (p. 8)
Participation Is Not Enough : The Conditions of Possibility of Mediated Participatory Practices
Nico Carpentier (2009) European Journal of Communication 2009 24: 407-420, doi: 10.1177/0267323109345682
Participation became (at least partially) an object of celebration, trapped in a reductionist discourse of novelty, detached from the reception of its audiences and decontextualized from its political-ideological, communicativecultural and communicative-structural contexts. (p. 408)
[P]articipatory practices are not unconditionally appreciated by audience members, but are subject to specific conditions of possibility that are still embedded within the mass communication paradigm. Albeit in different degrees, these case studies show the importance of two ‘old’ key concepts – professional quality and social relevance – for these audiences’ evaluation of participatory practices. (p. 408)
The authors sharply criticized the contentions brought by the advent of new media and the participatory media theory: (1) privileging new media over old media in terms of the potential for participation and (2) interactivity is considered participation. Their argument is supported by Colin Sparks (2007, Globalization, Development and the Mass Media. London: Sage): In his analysis of participatory development theory, he wrote, "the dominant paradigm passed in theory, but retained a very extensive appeal in practice; the participatory paradigm, on the other hand, triumphed in development theory, but has failed to command any substantial
support in practice" (p. 59)
The authors also argued that participatory media theory emphasizes active use of media, leaving out those who are not involved in the participatory process. They also pointed out the underlying assumption that participation is beneficial and all involved would appreciate it decontextualizes the participatory practices, obscuring such important topics as democracy, empowerment, and so forth.
The authors show their research result of viewers' responses to participatory media products aired on Belgium. In their summary, the viewers seemed to understand the theoretical perspectives of participatory media theory in that ordinary people create their own media, but they criticized either poor quality or social relevance of such products. [The content is very much personal video letter style]. The authors wrote:
"The participatory nature of the production process (and its outcomes) may be theoretically applauded in the focus groups, but the actual materializations are met with fierce critiques or with indifference." (p. 418)
Thus, after long writing, the authors concluded that participation is not enough, stating:
"Both case studies show that the respondents perceive a strong need for media to use (aesthetic, narrative and technical) languages that are exceptional, and to narrate stories which are socially relevant. Just showing everyday life, or just organizing participation, is simply not enough. The images they want to see, still have to be magical as well." (p. 418)
[Participation as a form does not convey social relevance. It can be only self-indulgence. Therefore, sought connection to democracy and social power is important. Hereby participatory video should be distinct from traditional people's access to media.]
Participation became (at least partially) an object of celebration, trapped in a reductionist discourse of novelty, detached from the reception of its audiences and decontextualized from its political-ideological, communicativecultural and communicative-structural contexts. (p. 408)
[P]articipatory practices are not unconditionally appreciated by audience members, but are subject to specific conditions of possibility that are still embedded within the mass communication paradigm. Albeit in different degrees, these case studies show the importance of two ‘old’ key concepts – professional quality and social relevance – for these audiences’ evaluation of participatory practices. (p. 408)
The authors sharply criticized the contentions brought by the advent of new media and the participatory media theory: (1) privileging new media over old media in terms of the potential for participation and (2) interactivity is considered participation. Their argument is supported by Colin Sparks (2007, Globalization, Development and the Mass Media. London: Sage): In his analysis of participatory development theory, he wrote, "the dominant paradigm passed in theory, but retained a very extensive appeal in practice; the participatory paradigm, on the other hand, triumphed in development theory, but has failed to command any substantial
support in practice" (p. 59)
The authors also argued that participatory media theory emphasizes active use of media, leaving out those who are not involved in the participatory process. They also pointed out the underlying assumption that participation is beneficial and all involved would appreciate it decontextualizes the participatory practices, obscuring such important topics as democracy, empowerment, and so forth.
The authors show their research result of viewers' responses to participatory media products aired on Belgium. In their summary, the viewers seemed to understand the theoretical perspectives of participatory media theory in that ordinary people create their own media, but they criticized either poor quality or social relevance of such products. [The content is very much personal video letter style]. The authors wrote:
"The participatory nature of the production process (and its outcomes) may be theoretically applauded in the focus groups, but the actual materializations are met with fierce critiques or with indifference." (p. 418)
Thus, after long writing, the authors concluded that participation is not enough, stating:
"Both case studies show that the respondents perceive a strong need for media to use (aesthetic, narrative and technical) languages that are exceptional, and to narrate stories which are socially relevant. Just showing everyday life, or just organizing participation, is simply not enough. The images they want to see, still have to be magical as well." (p. 418)
[Participation as a form does not convey social relevance. It can be only self-indulgence. Therefore, sought connection to democracy and social power is important. Hereby participatory video should be distinct from traditional people's access to media.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
