Comments on: Crowds, Words, and the Futures of Entertainment Conference

By: Scott Ellington

Scott Ellington — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 20:00:36 +0000

Yup!

By: Scott Ellington

Scott Ellington — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 19:57:42 +0000

“This even led to Jonathan Taplin, film producer and USC prof, opening a later panel about journalism with the pronunciation that he’d never seen good art created by a crowd.”

The crowd may not have produced the U.S. Constitution, which may not be good art, but as powers and platforms converge, I wonder whether the windows of opportunity to influence the future[s] of anything are actually open or illusory.

By: Sam Ford

Sam Ford — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 19:50:00 +0000

I think Hollywood’s awfully misguided about what is in its own best interests…

By: Sam Ford

Sam Ford — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 19:49:30 +0000

I don’t know that the Writer’s Strike resolved much of anything in the grand scheme, but we at least live in an era where all of us have a bit more voice to make our opinions heard. The power imbalance is still vast, though….and there’s no glossing over that, just as that truth can’t deny that I’m blessed to live in a world where I can read what Jonathan Gray, Scott Ellington, and Tim Anderson thinks without the strong editorial, dictatorial hand of a news conglomerate. (Doesn’t mean, though, that you guys have the same affordances to get your message across as Rachel Maddow or Sean Hannity…)

By: Scott Ellington

Scott Ellington — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 19:41:27 +0000

and:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/post/sopas-ugly-message-to-the-world-about-america-and-internet-innovation/2010/12/20/gIQATlhEYN_blog.html

By: Scott Ellington

Scott Ellington — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 19:30:59 +0000

Complete agreement! Except with the belief that we’re leveler than we were, before, during or after the Writers’ Strike:

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/21/its_time_to_occupy_hollywood/

By: Sam Ford

Sam Ford — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 19:26:12 +0000

Well, if we were to go with “leveler” as a point of comparison, I’d say we’re “level-er” than we were. But “level-er” and level are far from the same, and now we have new power embalances and new models (“Web 2.0” for instance) that help gloss over the major questions of power, of privacy, of agendas, etc. that will be necessary to address to have that world in which you are striving to see…

By: Sam Ford

Sam Ford — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 19:24:04 +0000

That’s a great point, Tim. As you know, academics are as guilty as the press, as consultants, and many, many others of trying to shoehorn examples into the models they most want to use, glossing over the “inconvenient” details of a story in order to make it the perfect illustration of the thing they’re talking about…

By: Scott Ellington

Scott Ellington — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 18:49:55 +0000

Thank you, Sam.
I was hoping for the evolution of a leveler playing field in which the contribution of the “consumer” of media is integrated into a more-sustainable metaphors for culture than these bones of etymological contention. So it goes.

By: Tim Anderson

Tim Anderson — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 18:40:00 +0000

No, I get that. The principles may be key, but I guess the way that I like to think about them is not as abstractions but as, as you say, principles. However, what is most interesting is the manner in which the application of the principle may differ from place to place, person to person, etc. I really look froward to reading about the variety of applications where specificity of application is key. Here’s one example: both Amanda Palmer and Ok Go are trying to leverage social networks to promote their concerts an music. However, the two acts do it in completely different was. Ok Go are not extravagant bloggers, but Palmer has used that forum to great effect. Palmer, in fact, has relied on blogging about her video experiences, as had Ok Go. In fact, both have left labels because of video disputes and issues of restriction. But Ok Go left over disputes about embeddability and Palmer demanded to be dropped over what she felt was her labels A&R efforts to censor her body. The details are really key here since both point specific sets of institutional concerns. To me, lumping them into examples of “social networking” ignores the specifics that speak to digital media. I go on and on about this in a manuscript I am developing, so I can bore you there later. But what I am most concerned with is that the details are left intact and not paved over with so many neologisms. In fact the neologisms make us, more often than not, unable to speak and listen to media producers.

Can’t wait for the book , Sam. Thanks for listening and all of work!