" Convergence represents a paradigm shift" (p254)

​

One of the difficulties of discussing convergence culture, as described here, is that it feels too old to be cutting edge, but too young to be seen as an historical development of media and the digital world. Jenkins talks about the media industry seeing the changes as within the individuals actions. Jenkins however sees the change within the consumption community and being driven by these communities. For Jenkins it is our interaction that has changed. With a computer we can interact in communities of interest. Jenkins source of reference is the fandom communities who respond to mass culture, often film and television narrative, called by Jenkins 'mass culture content'. This interaction, Jenkins hopes will enable empowerment although he readily admits that others, notably Noam Chomsky, are what he describes as critical pessimists. These pessimists suggest that the media industry is so large and dominant that they will set up obstacle to the world of greater democracy and empowerment. Although he  acknowledges this media concentration, Jenkins feels it is only part of a whole media system that could be changed towards a more participatory system. However, this demand and excitement that Jenkins sees in a participatory culture of media, is seen by others as a frightening world where liberation can only be achieved  by the absence of all media. As Jenkins says:

​

 "Is ideological and aesthetic purity really more valuable than transforming our culture?"​

​

Jenkins draws a distinction between interactivity and participation which seems to be relevant to the  work I am doing. For Jenkins interactivity is the way technology responds to the consumer. Participation, he sees as more in the control of the consumer.

​

​

Martha Buskirk in “The Contingent Object of Contemporary Art” is seeking to define authorship within contemporary art. Unlike Jenkins, where it is the influence or originality of the authorship that is questioned, Buskirk discusses the creation of work where the artist “brosh” has been replaced by “manufactured components or techniques of industrial fabrication.” As she says “no work of art is immune to the circumstances of its presentation.” Thus has the work I have created outside the computer become changed and altered once it is presented on a website? Both these authors are viewing a world altered by contemporary technology where the term “creation” and “creativity” are being questioned. Some sort of validity is being sought for the work produced. This search for validity is reproduced in the gallery, through the art schools and down to the assessment criteria of grading college artwork. These are questions I will need to explore further as I move from the literature to the creative phase of my research.

 

 

In ‘The Emancipated Spectator” by Jacques Ranciere the view is changed from the maker/ creator to the viewer/spectator. Ranciere sets his stage forward with the statement, “there is no theatre without a spectator.” But how do we define this spectator, is it a passive act of spectacle? Ranciere seeks to make his spectators active participants. These active participants must in some way allow the spectator to take part in events. Again, as with Jenkins and Buskirk, now roles and rules are being created for the creator of their own (journey am I removing the “author who is also creator” from this event. “In Emancipation the Spectator”, who will claim ownership of the concluding event? Although this is not the central core of my research it is perhaps the result that occurs once “art” is transferred to the “digital”. Is there also a fear that once the author/artist places work on the digital authorship is compromised and this is exasperated once the spectator becomes an active participant in the final “creation”. In the book “Understanding Comics- The Invisible Art” by Scott McCloud he says “creator and Reader are partners in the invisible, creating something out of nothing. 

​

​

​