Proactive Producers

A problem with those producers in artistic and creative industries is the lack of effort put forth into defining the intentions of their work for a distributive and socio-economic context.  Tensions don’t lie so much in legislative policy as much as ideologies of the place art and creativity hold and have held in society, particularly in the Western World.  On one hand, there is the idea of the “bohemian,” antiestablishment” lifestyle that many in artistic circles subscribe to, on the other is the desire to live for and off of one’s art works in a capitalist society. The past 50 years or so has experienced huge growth in University programs geared specifically at arts, design and music training programs.  What we now have is surplus of so-called “creatives” in the job market with nowhere to perform, because of the decline of traditional arts and culture organizations like theatre and opera houses.  Those in design must rise above the massive litany of designers to be noticed and hired by active design firms around the world.  Finally, visual artists remain closest to their original stereotype of being “starved” of viable opportunities to make a living of their respective discipline without the right connections.  Only recently has that expanded to include tangential “disciplines” such as new media, arts and cultural administration and management, as well as an increased interest in studies in advertising, communications and popular culture.   For this reason I am fascinated by the perspective put for by Toby Miller in his article, “A View from a Fossil: The New Economy, Creativity and Consumption – Two or Three Things I Don’t Believe in” (2004).  He contrasts the alleged functionalities of the consumer economy with the overlooked matter of the exploitative labour practices exhibited by its participants (Miller, 2004 p. 62). Miller makes relevant observations of the idealistic undertones of media convergence, however I personally, see the issues of labour exploitation as inherent to bureaucratic power structures. So while this is certainly connected to the emergence of new creative economies, the context existed well before new media did. People can very quickly shift from exploitation to empowered, and new media has provided what is perhaps the most malleable forum for this process to begin with the greatest impact.

Still, as "producer-consumers" who are new media literate must protect themselves against misuse by acknowledge the inevitable structures that arise of the human need for survival and meaning, and find way adjust their social-economic practices accordingly. Henry Jenkins outlines nine sites of negotiation between producers and consumers (Jenkins, 2004, p. 38-41,).  These sites are forums through which the consumer addresses power as opposed to exercising it through consumption. Simultaneously, it is in these spaces that producers must take a more pragmatic approach in defining the parameters in which their content is distributed. I will identify the four I argue as most crucial to creating or maintaining a flourishing cultural commons. First redesigning the digital economy (Jenkins, 2004 p. 39) means first becoming acquainted with the place in economy as "producer-consumers".  Point seven “Renegotiating relations between producers and consumers” (Jenkins, 2004, p. 39) directly relates since producers are also consumers, but consumers aren’t necessarily producers. Therefore, producers’ restrictions on consumers are effectively self-restrictions.  Part of the economy of producing is defining the intentions behind distributing content.  If this is clearly, and realistically stated, it becomes easier to spot and counter exploitive practices. Then copyright laws are actually useful to maintaining the integrity of the culture.

Now, I said this must be stated clearly, and realistically. Meaning suing someone for sharing work might be considered contradictory to any hope of public exposure.  I think as long as credit is given according to the previously outlined parameters, there should be nothing wrong with sharing content.  (For example, the idea of stealing music is seriously flawed. I think musicians should be paid through live performance and other production related activities like music licensing and copyrights. If you put it out, it’s gone. Say goodbye and move on. But I digress.)

Finally, I think Jenkins’ fifth and ninth sites of negotiation, “Rethinking media aesthetics” and “Re-engaging citizens” address the central component of keeping culture accessible.  We needn’t fear formulas in cultural works if they facilitate creativity.  We must ever be aware of the distinctions between inspiration, appropriation and copying.  All have their functions within the creative framework. As number nine suggests the goal is engage citizens. For better or for worse artistically, “transmedia storytelling” (Jenkins, 2004, p. 40) relies on formula for perpetuation.  The hope is that their release aides in deconstructing the class frameworks, which lend to the exploitation, that Miller sees.  By taking a more proactive approach to their social-economical function, producer-consumers can absolutely create an accessible cultural commons.

References:

Miller, T. (2004) A view from a fossil. International Journal Of Cultural Studies, 7(1), 55-65.

Jenkins, H. (2004) The Cultural Logic of Media Convergence  International Journal of Cultural Studies March 2004 7: 33-43