Source:
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.
Excerpts:
Chapter Four: “Quentin Tarantino’s Star Wars: Grassroots creativity meets the media industry”
Chapter Five: “Why Heather can write: Media literacy and the Harry Potter wars”
Overview & Synthesis:
Chapter 4:
In chapter four, Jenkins explores new forms of cultural production, specifically those associated with the Star Wars franchise, to examine the shift in the visibility of fan culture and how convergence is cultivating the intersection of grassroots creativity and the mainstream media industry.
Initially, Jenkins compares convergence culture to folk culture to illustrate this intersection, drawing an analogy between grassroots convergence as the folk process accelerated and expanded for the digital age (Jenkins, 2006, p. 141). He points out how new technologies have allowed for the reemergence of grassroots creativity by enabling the public to archive, annotate, appropriate, and recirculate media content. However, these new transactions have created a conflict with media producers by representing a threat to the absolute control the industry has asserted over intellectual property rights. Unfortunately, this conflict is hard to solve given that there is no case law to determine what degree of fan creation is protected under fair-use law.
Throughout the chapter, Jenkins explores how new technologies and materials have helped facilitate amateur film culture and improved the overall quality of work emerging from it. Films that were once documentarian, technically flawed, and of marginal interest are now more easily edited and enhanced with special effects and various commercially available ancillary products and are also more easily distributed through the Web. Digital filmmaking has allowed fans to do something significant in the medium with a limited budget. While fan culture films do not generate revenue, creators are motivated by shared interests in the franchise, the possibility of being hired or promoted by mainstream media, or the chance to provide inspiration or push popular culture in new directions. Jenkins (2006) uses these points to illustrate how the Web represents a site of experimentation and innovation to test the waters, develop new practices and themes, and generate materials (p. 152); and also that new digital tools and networks of distribution have expanded the power of ordinary people to participate in their culture (p. 162).
Following this, Jenkins moves on to discuss how the media industry is trying to figure out its response to fan creativity. He illustrates two opposing sides of this dilemma, those that embrace or are tolerant of fan culture and those that react aggressively and attempt to suppress or control this creativity. He discusses problems of copyright and other legal issues in terms of fan empowerment and the power of fans’ collective moral authority.
Neither producers nor consumers are sure of how to handle their interactions and are currently locked in a power struggle. While fans’ interest is clear, producers also have an interest in enfranchising and empowering consumers as a means of building strong brand loyalties. Satisfying fans’ interests and respecting their creativity may be challenging but in the end necessary. Jenkins (2006) states, “media producers need fans just as much as fans need them” (p. 173). It is clear that they both need each other and must work together, but the question is how. Jenkins argues that ultimately, the prohibitionist position is not going to be effective and producers must respect the growing public consensus and allow them to participate in culture in a meaningful way, taking on more of a collaborationist approach. The solution to working with fans, he says, would include giving them stake in the survival of the franchise, making sure content reflects their interests, giving them space to make creative contributions, and recognizing quality work (Jenkins, 2006, p.173).
Chapter 5:
In chapter five, Jenkins uses the conflicts surrounding the Harry Potter series and media literacy to illustrate the struggle some groups are experiencing with the immersive nature and expansive quality of new entertainment franchises in the age of media convergence. The chapter examines how consumer investment and participation has surfaced as a problem, creating wars between those who want to allow consumers to construct their own culture and those who would rather maintain the use of traditional ‘gatekeepers,’ holding on to the control of cultural content. It also takes a look into how this interplay and tension is driving many of the changes occurring in today’s media landscape.
In the first part of the chapter, Jenkins looks at specific fan communities, such as The Daily Prophet, and how these help to foster literacy in children and promote other healthy aspects in their lives. He discusses how these communities can serve as an outlet where children can immerse themselves into an imaginary world but still feel a real sense of connection. This jointly produced fantasy, which lies somewhere between a role-playing game and fan fiction, helps participants to develop a richer understanding of themselves and the culture around them, providing important cultural competency. Here, participants can escape from or reaffirm aspects of their real lives, work through their feelings, expand their literacy, and acquire the skills needed to be full participants in culture. These skills include some of the things Jenkins mentions in previous chapters, such as: the ability to pool knowledge with others in a collaborative enterprise (chapter one), sharing and comparing value systems (chapter two), making connections across scattered pieces (chapter three), expressing interpretations and feelings (chapter four), and finally, circulating creations via the Internet (chapter five) (Jenkins, 2006, p. 185).
The chapter moves on to discuss these communities as informal learning cultures or “affinity spaces” where people are able to learn more, participate more actively, and engage more deeply with popular culture than they would be able to anywhere else (Jenkins, 2006, p. 186). Here adults and children coexist and collaborate, entire communities foster newbies, and participants receive help and experience they could not get anywhere else. These factors plus a deep emotional investment in the content make learning in these communities very different than learning in the classroom.
As in the previous chapter, again pops up the issue of intellectual properties, fair use, and legal battles over fan content and cultural participation. However, in this case, Jenkins points out the success certain groups in relation to the Harry Potter franchise have had in defending themselves. He again argues that the solution to this is more likely to occur through shifting the way studios think about fan communities rather than reshaping the law (Jenkins, 2006, p. 199).
Taking a slightly different approach to examining the Harry Potter wars, the chapter then takes a look at the opposition or promotion of the series by religious or civil liberties groups. For example, Jenkins mentions the strong opposition of conservative Christians and their struggle to police the culture in their community. He mentions that these conflicts have arisen due to these groups having lost their power to define cultural norms as the range of different media and communication channels have expanded (Jenkins, 2006, p. 208). Yet at the same time, other groups have embraced this change in media as a way for people to enhance their own values when they encounter popular culture, such as the discernment movement that advocates the agency of consumers to appropriate and transform media content.
It is obvious that there are a variety of conflicts and concerns involved in the Harry Potter wars. Some people might look at these Harry Potter wars and think that fighting over such books is silly. But this conflict is not just about the books. This chapter points out that it is also the culture around the series and what it promotes and influences in society. It doesn’t just help children learn better reading and writing skills, but also helps to foster their exploration into legal and political rights, civil discourse, social skills, and other areas of life. Jenkins (2006) argues that children are not passive victims but active participants in these new media landscapes, finding their own voices and asserting their rights in participation through fan communities (p. 216). Additionally, they are in turn aiding the consumer side of convergence issues by developing new strategies for negotiating globalization, intellectual property struggles, and media conglomeration (Jenkins, 2006, p. 216).
Questions & Reflections:
Chapter 4:
Where is the line between flattering and copying?
Obviously there is a point to these fan creations, however, is all of this effort and money with no revenue in return worth all of the hassle/battle that accompanies it?
The media industry needs the fans, so how do they make them happy and still keep them within their preferred boundaries? Where is and how does one achieve this optimal balance? Is this even possible? Today, just five years after the publication of this book, technologies have changed greatly. With these new technologies and those that are sure to come in the future, is it even possible to suppress fan culture and creation? Or will the fans overcome the power of the industry and no longer be threatened or directed by their interests?
If fans create by imitating, should this be property of the company who originated the basis of the story or the individual who created it (the fan)? How is this determined fairly? Who gets to decide this?
Is it possible to apply copyright laws to grassroots/folk culture productions? Can these copyright regimes of mass culture even be applied to this different kind of cultural production in a way that makes sense?
On similar terms, do intellectual property rights restrict or suppress participatory culture and the collective intelligence that associates it? Does this have bad implications for moving forward in the future?
How far can fans go with these new technologies? Will there ever come a point where the difference between fan creations and mainstream productions are so close that we cannot differentiate between them? Are we close to this now?
Jenkins (2006) defines a parody as being “appropriate and transform[ing] the original for the purposes of critical commentary’ (p. 160). However, how far can this be stretched for legal protection? It seems that this could vary greatly on a case-by-case basis. Who is this interpretation up to? Is this fair?
Chapter 5:
Who gets to determine who has the right to participate in culture and on what terms?
Jenkins (2006) mentions that in jointly produced fantasy, participants draw on each other’s personas and ideas to create their stories (p. 184). Is this building of information similar to the knowledge communities and collective intelligence he mentions earlier in the book, just in fantasy terms? How so?
Shouldn’t children have the right to imagination? Isn’t that normally what society encourages from them anyway? Is the creation of fantasy on the Internet just another method of fostering imagination and creativity?
Jenkins (2006) poses an excellent question, asking “What difference will it make, over time, if a growing percentage of young writers begin publishing and getting feedback on their work while they are still in high school?” (p. 187) How will the peer collaboration, mentoring, and beta readings of such communities help provide advantages to students in the long run? What implication does this have for the future of education? Is this good or bad?
Is it fair to deprive children of learning through these communities if some may cross certain legal boundaries but have good intentions?
Who is stronger, the fans or the corporations? Are they stronger in different respects, i.e. legal power, numbers, money, etc? Who has the greatest power to win? How do you foresee the struggle between consumers and producers playing out in the future?
Links to pictures:
No comments:
Post a Comment