I will try to briefly summarise my impressions and thoughts after the Society for Cinema and Media Studies (SCMS) 2013 conference in Chicago, which ended last Sunday.
I have not attended a SCMS conference since Philadelphia in 2006, so my first impression is that something has happened. The quality of the presentations I listened to was higher and the research questions seemed more relevant in relation to the contemporary media ecology. This may of course be a result of a more deliberate choice of panels to attend and some luck. Due to KLM’s aircraft problems my arrival was delayed one day…so I only attended about a dozen panels out of approximately 450! Since I was not presenting I could be more focused on other scholars’ presentation.
Another contributing factor may be my focus on game studies (as well as some of the few transmedia oriented papers I found). As new in the field I took the opportunity to get an overview how game studies looks like in a cinema studies, that is humanities, context. I do not know the rationales to rename The Society of Cinema Studies into The Society of Cinema and Media Studies I am most delighted that “Media” here is not what “Media” is for Social Science-oriented Media and Communication studies or Cultural Studies. With the exceptions for some digital humanities and audience research panels I encountered few traces of quantitative research or policy studies. On the contrary, I noticed a strong emphasis on aesthetical, technological, and cultural perspectives.
Among many fascinating and well-researched papers and well-composed panels, what struck me the most was the need for further development in historical and political analysis of games. Again, two fields fit for humanities media research.
The two-panel “Debugging the History of Game Terminology” (parts of what seems to be a most promising book project) gave many examples of longer historical perspectives as well as the importance of looking at other sources than the existing, often anecdotal, accounts of game history. My first reaction to the second panel was the need for something equivalent to the early cinema studies of the 1980s and 1990s in game history. We see some of this happening within platform studies, but, what was also the results of early cinema research was redefinitions of the objects of study, discovering unexpected uses of media technologies, and probably most importantly, unveiling surprising relations to other cultural, technological, economical, political etc. contexts. Since early cinema research was not only a remarkable archival enterprise, but often a theoretically advanced and creative field as well, it was great to encounter theorisations somewhere between the highly philosophical tendencies of media archaeology and the less theoretical traditions of computer science.
Given the long tradition within cinema studies to focus on questions of identity, political analyses come easy to hand even in studies of games. It was thus not surprising to find excellent analyses of representation of race, gender and class in games. But, as was frequently discussed, race, gender and class is not only a question of representation. It may even be, as Jennifer Malkowski remarked, that games has an advantage in the fact that if a character is made with too much prejudices no one will find it interesting to play. (That the marketing and discourses around games often becomes misogynist and racist is another thing; but of course even more important to analyse and counter). Here Edmond Chang‘s concept of technonormativity may be of use, in adopting queer and trans-/(and/or post-?) humanist theories, either for analyses of individual games or perhaps even for platform studies?
A key concept may be one that showed up en passant during the discussion following the “Gaming the Landscape” panel late Saturday afternoon: game engine politics. The importance of performing political analysis of game engines, or at least of the gaming consequences of game engines, had arisen already during the panel (together with Debugging…II) I regarded the most interesting, “Playing the Past, Playing the Future: Time in Contemporary Video Games with TreaAndrea Russworm, Edmond Chang, Jennifer Malkowski (also chair) and Alenda Y. Chang. It is, or should be, rather obvious that what the person playing the game can do and is prevented from doing could also be a political question. Perhaps even more political than the questions of representation, given the interactivity of video and computer games. Game engine politics thus involves and has to include everything from platform to gamer and back again.
Adding to this I was happy to hear references (by Peter Krapp) to Claus Pias‘ great German-language writings on games, as well as uses of Giorgio Agamben’s philosophical works in an analysis of transmedia productions (Marc Steinberg).
I will return both to methodologies of game history and game engine politics later on.
The last few days the Swedish independent filmmakers union (www.off.se) are promoting their new film Bergmans kuk [Bergman’s Cock], a film about “democracy and film policy”. In the poster, they argue that it is “undemocratic” that state funding only will go to producers, and not to directors. (Obviously according to OFF the Director is the only creative agent involved in filmmaking.) They also counter a creative industries kind of argument that the Swedish film industry should be twice as large as today, by the statement: “Size does not matter”.
Obviously 30 years of critique of auteurism is not enough here, but logically speaking isn’t it strange to say that complete power to the director is a democratic move?
Seriously, the independent filmmakers union and their friends have for some time rallied against producers. To put art against commerce is of course an old, but still efficient strategy. But is that really what it is about today, here in Sweden?
Here some fast thoughts.
1. Experimental vs. blockbuster film is not a relevant argument. Even if blockbusters often are receiving public support they are less and less dependent upon state support. So even if “industrial” support to blockbusters would go away, it would only marginally change that part of the market. One possible result might be that producers would have to look more at foreign markets than the broad domestic audience, which would be good for European co-productions and potential US remakes, but bad for the not-so-good-but-with-popular-comedians kind of domestic comedies. And, of course, it does not affect foreign films’ app. 80 % share of the market. But it affects the structure of the cinema-going public.
2. Cinema going is a culturally important social practice. Blockbusters and experimental films share one characteristic: they have quite homogenous audiences (teenagers and university educated urban white middle-class respectively). The present state support system has become a corrective to that. According to Nordicom statistics the major change during the last 20 years is that in the age group 45-65 twice as many went to the cinemas in 2011 as in 1991. (And in the group 65-79 the increase is even bigger). In the 15-24 group there is a small decrease while the 25-44 is constant. The relation between the 25-44 and 45-64 group may indicate that more 50 year olds continue their cinema going habits from before or that a new middle-age audience appear, that is, people who did not regularly go to the cinemas ten or twenty years earlier. Either alternative, the small box office figures for experimental films cannot explain these large-scale figures.
Adding to this, there is a small difference between the figures for men and women: the increase among women was slightly larger than among men in 2011 than in 1991.
More interesting is Mediebarometern’s categorization according to education. I don’t know how they define their three levels (low, medium, high), but I suppose they use the official statistics agency’s definition (only pre-high school, high school, or post-high school education). In the group “low” there are frequent changes, but no significant, large-scale change between 1991 and 2011. In the group “high” it’s a significant reduction since 1991 (it seems though that this group had a peak in 1990-91 with another peak around 2000). But generally there is a small reduction in this group since the late 1990s. In the group “middle” there are some smaller peaks than in the “high” group but about the same figures seen from the late 1980s to 2011. These are figures that are relative to the population. During this period only the “middle” group is the same (about 45 % of the population). The group “low” has gone from being about one third of the population in 1990 to 14 % in 2010. Consequently the group “high” has increased from 23 % in 1990 to 38 % in 2010. So even if there are so many more people with high education in 2011 as large share of them are going to cinemas. And the same for the people with “low education”. Even considering that teenagers hardly fit into this categorization, in real numbers more people with high education are attending cinemas in 2011 than in 1991! Given the popular image of cinema as an entertainment for young people, the Swedish support system obviously has been doing something right the last two decades in increasing the (age and education) diversity among the cinema going public.
3. The public service argument: There is no film culture without the “middle” audience and the “middle” films. Here size does matter. If there are any precursors to the successes of the US cable quality television (HBO) it is hardly to be found in the marginal US public broadcasting, PBS, but in the large BBC. The recent Danish successes in the US are also based on the outcomes of a strong and large public service broadcaster, DR, Danish Radio. Defences of the public funding of public service broadcasting is partly based on size, if it becomes too small the public interest in paying for it buy licenses or by tax will decrease. But equally important for public service is its potential for change, whether it is the change of the public, or politicians, or the media industries. And, again, a large public service affects the commercial industry more than a small one (if not we would not have had the European regulations of public service’s impact on commercial matters).
In most small countries film production have always been dominated by reasonably successful, reasonably artistic films. Not as popular as Hollywood’s, not as artistic as the avant-garde’s. Or, as Edgar Morin wrote in 1961:
The super-production and the independent film tend to wipe out the zone of the standard mid-level film the movie industry was built on. (Communications, 1, 1961)
The Swedish system has thus contributed to a more diversified cinema going public both at the multiplexes (not only kids) and the art house cinemas (not only the avant-garde), despite a cinema market dominated by two major cinema-owning companies. And, it is neither blockbusters nor experimental films that have dome this, but the “mid-level” films: those on number 3 or 4 to 10 at the box office lists during the last decade:
– Films that are too expensive to bear their own costs and not popular enough to break even without subsidies.
-Films that for hundreds of thousands of people have created an entertaining and probably thoughtful experience. For many of those, perhaps the only films they see in a cinema.
That is the kind of films the independent filmmakers union want to stop.
Does this mean that cinema is a bourgeois medium made by a bourgeois industry for a bourgeois audience? YES! And that is what makes cinema such a wonderful medium, such a wonderful business, such a wonderful art.
With writing, therefore, comes logical analysis and specialism, but also militarism and bureaucracy. (McLuhan, “Culture Without Literacy”, 1953)
An analysis of the ongoing literarization of the arts, and arts education, following its incorporation into, or subordination of, such a highly bureaucratic and militaristic organization as the modern university, can benefit from a reading of McLuhan.
The division between visual and literary languages is a fact which also set a great abyss between science and the humanities. Thinking as we do of culture in book terms, we are unable to read the language of technological forms.
The academization of the arts, with its focus on the written text, will therefore make it difficult for the arts to deal with not only ‘technological form’ but everything in the world outside human beings. So if the poets no longer explain the world, we have to rely upon the fish.
Consequently we must unlearn literacy. Unfortunately we can not write about how…
In the introductory chapter of his book The Democracy of Objects Levi Bryant writes
[…] that the condition for the intelligibility of experimental activity is the existence of objects that are intransitive or independent of mind and perception. For if objects were dependent on mind, perception, or culture, then there would be nothing to discover in the closed systems produced in the experimental setting. [note]
This argument is based on philosopher of science Roy Bhaskar and his question ‘what must the world be like for science to be possible’ [Bryant, ch. 1; Roy Bhaskar, A Realist Theory of Science (New York: Routledge, 1998), p. 23].
With risk of a circular argument, I will try to use this thinking for an analysis of transmedia storyworlds. Most theorists (most prominently Christy Dena and Henry Jenkins) of transmedia storytelling mention the existence of common ‘world’ or ‘universe’ as typical for transmedia projects. In my view, Bhaskar’s question and Bryant’s analysis provide a good start for a discussion of what a transmedia world must be like in order for transmedia products to be possible. The reason for this is a hypothesis that through such an analysis we will also be able to discuss the conditions for good transmedia projects.
It may sound strange in a discussion of something made by human being as transmedia products to talk about intransitive objects, that is, things that exists independent of our minds. These intransitive objects, according to Bhaskar and Bryant, are often ‘out of phase’ with events and experiences. There are always things that we can not experience, or that we not yet have experienced, or do not know how to experience.
Bryant uses Bhaskar’s diagram to distinguish between
– ‘the domain of the empirical’ – where events are reduced to experiences and mechanisms are excluded,
– ‘the domain of the actual’ – where some event may be possible to experience, while other events are not yet experienced or impossible to experience, and
– ‘the domain of the real’ – where mechanism, events and experiences may or may not occur together. [note]
If I have understood Bryant’s analysis, in order to understand conditions for experimental science Bhaskar distinguish between closed system, where mechanism and events goes together (for example a laboratory experiment) and open systems, where events are not possible to relate to a specific mechanism (most everyday situations).
My conclusion of such an argument is that for us to answer the question of what a transmedia storyworld must be like for transmedia products to be possible, we have to develop a way to create a version of Bhaskar’s closed systems. Either as an empirical analysis of existing storyworlds and their parts, or a speculative analysis including both conceptualizations and analyses of these conceptualizations.
My first case will be Fritz Lang’s and Thea von Harbou’s ‘world’ of Dr. Mabuse.
Following Christy Dena‘s great 2009 dissertation and Henry Jenkin’s seven principles of transmedia storytelling (and his many older and more recent texts on transmedia) nothing is more important for transmedia fiction than the creation and development of fictional worlds.
A world is larger than a story, it involves things that not neccessarily are included in any story. If a world is something else than a story our regular tools for analyzing stories can not be used for analyzing the world. If we still try to analyze the world as a story we will not be able to understand those aspects of the world that are not part of the stories. We will thus reduce the world into a story.
On the other hand we can only use sociological or anthropological methods as long as those include tools for distinguishing between a world and mediated world. Transmedia worlds are not neccessarily man-made (I will return to that) but still, our main access to them are mediated (media understood as an extension of any object). So, we still need tools for understanding those extensions. More important, we also need tools for analyzing these worlds and their parts. Not only because the transmedia world, to be interesting, has to be larger than its stories, but because even its parts are hiding things, or aspects of themselves, from the whole and its stories.
My point here is that the parts that build up the whole of the transmedia world is not its distributed stories. We have to distinguish between the parts of the world and the parts of its stories. Next section will deal with the analysis of the parts, the withdrawn objects, of the transmedia world in order to develop a way to analyze the relations between these parts and the distributed stories.
On Monday I start a course on transmedia criticism as part of the undergraduate education in film studies at the University of Gothenburg. Geoffrey Long’s ‘How to Ride a Lion: A Call for a Higher Transmedia Criticism’, recently re-blogged by Henry Jenkins is a good starting point. There are so many empty promotional, consultant-speak-filled calls for transmedia. But so few really good motivations for why we should care about transmedia fictions.
I will during April and May use my blog to document how my students will help develop better critical approaches to transmedia phenomena.
My overall impression of the first Media Days in Gothenburg (MEG) is that it was a most welcome event, complete with interesting and fruitful discussions and presentations. Now, a few days after the event, some comments have emerged on blogs and in newspapers. Most of these comments are descriptive and mostly approving. Perhaps it is too early to see really critical discussions, but I am, on the other hand, not sure they will really appear, at all. Judging from the Twitter feed during the event, media people are not openly critical towards each other. Consequently, the amount of ‘criticism’ passed around in terms of analytical discussion of what was said and how, remained very limited during MEG, at least publicly.
Thomas Mattsson, editor-in-chief of Swedish newspaper Expressen, in his blog soon after the event, called for, among other things, a wider presence of commercial media, deeper discussions, more focus on business issues, discussions on failures, and presentations of metrics for different media. I fully agree with him. There was a lot of sales talk, but little with regard to business issues. Following often-repeated phrases on the need for new business models, there were surprisingly few deep business discussions, although the music industry panel was a welcome exception. Generally there were few genuine discussions on stage, people seemed to be talking at each other, rather than to each other.
During one of the last panels Tomas Brunegård, CEO of Swedish media conglomerate Stampen, called for collaborations in the research and innovation areas, both regionally and internationally. Even if the media industry is preoccupied with innovations, there are much more to do, particularly on a larger scale, but also at a more detailed level. It is of course always problematic to discuss possible collaborations between competitors, but still, there are many issues where collaborations might gain everyone (just think of the standardization in micro payment for the success of iTunes or Spotify.) And, there is much more to do in terms of industry-university collaboration in the areas of research and innovation.
There were also ubiquitous references to user generated content and social media, that is, the creativity of audiences and readers. The social media ‘gurus’ presented their sales talks, some interesting cases were displayed, and some research was presented, but not much more. Here the distance between MEG and other industry-academy collaborative conferences was profound, and somewhat embarrassing.
In sum, for me, the interesting perspectives and questions came from participants from the commercial sector of the media industry, although, the superficiality of some of their presentations would have been helped by more genuinely collaborative ambitions. This is partly a result of what for me looks like a mutual disrespect for the others’ knowledge production between media researchers, media executives and users/audiences/customers alike. Let me elaborate on this.
It is already well-known and true that metrics is the currency of the media industry. Therefore we need figures telling and showing sales, market shares, revenues etc. The problem is, which economists have known for a very long time, that even if counting money is often important, it tells us only about ‘what’ and ‘how’, but it tells us little about ‘why’. In times of change no question is as important as ‘why’. Starting to measure new things may solve some of the problem. The risk is then that we end up as Scrooge McDuck counting not only coins, but bills too. So, how do we design investigations that help us answer the why-questions?
Thomas Mattsson gave one lead, Tomas Brunegård, another. As every scientifically trained person know, it is often not only more relevant to falsify than to verify things, but it is also the only possible way to gain new knowledge. Success stories are of course important, but more as encouragement than as ideals. It is difficult to analyze a success. Not only for how to deal with luck and outer causes, but psychologically it is difficult to publicly try and tear down the successful colleague, or competitor. It is easier for otherwise successful people to talk about their failures. It is also more likely that an analysis of a failure will lead to structural and more fundamental aspects of change since it is something that is often already terminated and something with which we more easily can look at from some distance. To see the result of some external researchers working with those who were responsible for the failure will teach us more, than the ordinary success stories.
Collaboration is easier to talk about, than to to perform in real life! Still we need to both perform and talk about it. It should not be all that difficult to strengthen the link between industry-academy research and innovation. Still it seems to be difficult. The industry perspective is easy to understand and easy to defend: commercial organizations pay for research which can be of practical use on an everyday basis. On the one hand they decide which questions to ask and then they own the answers. On the other hand they may not know which questions to ask – that’s why they work with researchers in the first place – and they may not understand the answers. This give researchers too much power but without any responsibility. Research in media in commercial contexts therefore has to be oriented towards consultancy rather than traditional research work. Collaborative work in research and innovation therefore has to include other researchers (ok, I am not without bias here…) than traditional media researchers, at least for the ‘consultancy’ part. But, knowledge production is too important to be left one-sidedly to either the industry or the academy.
Collective intelligence and wisdom of the crowd may have been overly used buzzwords for almost a decade, but there is still much to do ‘in the open’. Ethnographers’ idea of ‘vernacular theory’, that is, theorizations among practitioners and fans, is not only something to exploit for commercial purposes, it is also a source for knowledge and understanding. Likewise, user generated content of course is a way to get new material, subject matter, but also a material which can say a lot about user preferences and their understanding of different content and different platforms.
To sum up, if MEG was more proactive in generating knowledge, not only disseminating and discussing it, it would both open up for more fruitful academy-industry-user collaborations, but also, as a place and an event, be more innovative.
Those were my arguments for ‘why’ and ‘what’, what about ‘how’?
A crucial ingredient in that particular discussion was Thomas Mattsson’s call for more time for each panelist during the MEG-event. Or, in other words, time for people to talk to each other, instead of at one another. My impression was that industry people were better at talking to each other than researchers were. On the other hand, it is necessary to always include someone who is at least socially from the outside. Someone who doesn’t have a personal interest in the particular issue. As I said before, the problem was a lack of both business issues and a serious open-minded critique.
Most importantly, the MEG-workshops should not focus on what has already been done, but on what should be done, and how, and by whom. After that each participant alone or in constellations can continue in open or closed discussions or negotiations.
This requires mutual respect for different practices, methods and theories. This respect is limited today, but it is vital for an innovative media ecology. And there is no reason to talk about multidisciplinarity (or any similar empty buzzword) before we have reached a level of acceptable mutual respect. This is crucial considering the different conditions for innovation that apply in different sectors of the media industry. During MEG, and in the public discussion on media, it seems like everyone relies on small enterprises, ‘the creatives’, the cool gang. At the same time, some research studies argues for the opposite.
In the line of Tomas Brunegård’s argument, large-scale research and innovation projects are vital, and the big companies are obviously major players in such a scenario, but so are the smaller, the academy, and the users. With more well prepared, carefully composed proactive workshops and seminars MEG has the potential to be the best place for innovation and critique in the media field in Scandinavia.
Addendum for readers interested in theory
We need a more speculative approach within the area of media studies, which combine hard facts of what we know with preparations for what we don’t know. Already in 1996 Dutch media theorist Geert Lovink talked about a ‘speculative media theory’ which he defined as ‘the wish to overcome the actual object of our studies and passions”. The current wave of ‘speculative realism’ may be another way to approach this field. In any case, it has to be collaborative and open, critical and business-minded. I shall be coming back to this issue.
Sitter hon framför teven kl 20.59 i kväll?
Har hon spelat något på sin Wii den här veckan?
Äger hon en en klänning från Odd Molly?
Lyssnade hon på Cocteau Twins’ Heaven or Las Vegas vintern 1990-91?
Har hon en dotter som spelar fotboll?
Tyckte hon att Saga Norén var en spännande rollfigur redan i första avsnittet av Bron?
Var hennes dotter aktiv på Andra Avenyns websidor?
Om hon skulle ringa och rösta i Melodifestivalfinalen på lördag, skulle hon rösta på samma låt som sin dotter?
Äger hon ett par Converse-skor
Lyssnar hon på radio när hon har skjutsat barnen?
Skaffade hon ett Facebook konto innan hennes bästa väninna gjorde det?
Vet hon hur det gick för Pippa Middleton i Vasaloppet?
Arbetar framför teven på kvällen?
Tittar hon på Sveriges Mästerkock på TV4 Play?
Lyssnade hon aktivt på ABBA före Mamma Mia!-filmen?
Har hon sett en ‘vuxenfilm’ på biograf de senaste fem åren?
Färgade hon håret för första gången innan hon gick ut skolan?
Skulle du känna igen henne om hon står bakom dig?
Allt vi gör gör vi utifrån:
vem vi är
vem vi tror vi är
vem vi vill att andra skall tro att vi är .
Vi är den vi är utifrån:
vad vi har gjort
vad vi tror att vi har gjort
vad vi vill att andra skall tro att vi har gjort
Allt är viktigt att ta reda på, men allt är ändå inte lika viktigt!
Och, vi vet inte på förhand vad som är viktigt.
Hur kan vi då veta vad Meg har gjort och vem hon är?
Sök relevant statist, relevanta etnografiska studier, relevant teori och…
The first seminar I attended was a Nordicom seminar on youth and Internet. It is interesting to listen to such a presentation of, for me, ‘exotic’ research. According to the author, Olle Findahl (and Nordicom?), Internet was invented during the 1990s, television was initially not for children or youth, ‘Internet’ as category can be separated from ‘listening’, ‘viewing’, and ‘reading’, gaming is not counted for, etc. Terms as ‘modernist’, ‘traditionalist’, ‘advanced’ users were left unexplained.
Commentators Göran Bolin, professor in media and communication, and Martin Danielsson, doctoral student in media and communication, struggled hard to historicize and contextualize the results, and problematize categorizations (such as gender, class, education – life!) that were not considered by Findahl. (To present such a report March 8 is certainly a statement by Nordicom).
Olle Findahl and Nordicom director Ulla Carlsson showed an amazing ignorance of cultural analysis, theory, and history, of media. Still Carlsson talked about the value of interdisciplinarity. But how is that possible, when this kind of work is their default input. As a comparison the recent report on Iranian Internet censorship by the Digital Methods people at University of Amsterdam work on a completely different level.
The following keynote lecture by curator Maria Lind on art institutions and art as critique, sadly attended only by approx. 20 people, brought back focus on ‘media’, as that thing that extends other things, and by that say particular things that matter!