As we see and understand more about the transitional moment we are living in, we are seeing technology made increasingly available across the grass roots – we are seeing teenagers from their bedrooms contributing significantly to cultural production. As Henry Jenkins explains below, we are seeing a convergence of media forms. Within this media convergence we see evidence of ‘collective intelligence’ or what has been called ‘the wisdom of a crowd’. In my own arts project WilliamStopha.com, I have tried to explore this idea through a ‘Really Huge Poetry Project’ where coherent collective poems have been imagined, re-imagined, created and re-created by unknown contributers from anywhere. It has been quite amazing to see word art take shape which has such radical diversity within it or indeed on rarer occasions surprising agreement.

However, I am increasingly bewildered by the lack of ability or even deliberate resistance within society’s mainstream institutions to recognise this transitional moment and to re-shape to better serve and resource such a change. In a previous blog entitled ‘the way our kids speak’, Lessig looks at the law as one such institution not adapting with common sense to this cultural transition.  I am sure education is also failing to accept and adapt to this common sense.  Instead, the victorian model of ‘Factory learning’ is defended and perpetuated because those of us at the helm are products of the factory and that is the world we know.  It is our default language and as educators we consciously and unconsciously re-produce it.  We require that our children learn this default language through an exam system testing fact based knowledge instead of being willing to learn their language of collaboration, ’mash up’ and ‘remix’.

Like Jenkins, I am  worried that Schools are in some ways locking out authentic learning.  We are limminting rational, common sense learning about the changed world our children inhabit, we are denying the necessary questions in a sad attempt to keep the world as we know it.  But the transition is.  And we are not preparing our children to function in a future world where we will be dependent on their leadership.  I hope to uncover more ideas as to how we reshape classrooms and curricula in the mainstream school system to build a sense of hope into our future and to bring change to our default settings so we better understand, facilitate and develop ‘how our kids speak’.

One such idea is blogged and open learning which is outlined a little in the post below but I would also like to develop some ideas around performing technologies.  For my last research study, I looked at performing technologies and digital collaboration within my context as a performer and multi-media artist.  I now wonder if such a project could be undertaken in the context of education and behind the often ’closed gates’ of school.  More to follow as I think it.

Here are 2 clips I’ve found helpful. I’m trying to draw together some of the ideas around technology inparticular media convergence and participatory culture and how these ideas connect to thinking about cultural production and learning.

this is nice…

This is nice too

While the World Wide Web has technically existed for twenty years, web 2.0 has really come of age in the last 5 to 10 years. Put simply, web 2.0 is the use of the Internet for sharing and collaboration – not simply download but also upload; not ‘read only’ but rather ‘read write’. Web 2.0 has in many ways become a crucial form of literacy. It is 2 way – the content consumer can also be the content producer. Sites like Wikipedia, flickr, MySpace and Youtube are but a tiny handful of the best known sites which only exist because they are facilitated by web 2.0 users who act as creators as well as consumers and writers as well as readers.

Open Learning and its implications

The effects of this cultural phenomenon are starting to evidence significant consequences for education. Indeed some are beginning to ask questions of not just reform but radical re-imagination of educational shapes and structures. For example, how necessary are teachers now, at least in large numbers? For that matter, how essential are schools? Could a whole cohort of students have their learning better facilitated by other professionals like mentors, teaching assistants and support workers who often have an excellent relational connection with students? Could this learning take place in different venues like homes, libraries, resource centres? A small and more dynamic team of teachers may well be necessary as subject specialists to upload content and moderate student contributed materials and to plan and resource a collaborative syllabus with the students, but the actual curriculum direction can truly be shared, with students acting as ‘participators’ and ‘collaborators’ with their own learning. This seems to really address the intentions of initiatives like ‘learning to learn’ and independent / personalised learning. It also allows schools to better position themselves as huge resource centres, able to better use their real estate, resources and technology to support and serve community learning.

In the current context, initiatives for change or improvement however well informed often become marginalised attempts at reform which can never really compete with the demands of assessment, data and Ofsted judgements. This is a worry because it leads to a perpetual state of reform – a new initiative every five years (or even every two). This climate is unhealthy as education professionals are increasingly and often rightly cynical towards such initiatives, seeing them as the latest fad which will never really embed or bring about any real reform long term. Therefore, we end up playing lip service to these well intentioned ideas while really, we just keep doing what we’ve always done. Not only does this keep education in a generally Victorian shape of ‘the learning factory’ but it means we maintain that shape whilst feeling negative and disempowered.

It’s Happening

So how might participatory learning help, and why isn’t it just another fad? Well, firstly, this is not a change that is top–down. This is not the result of a think tank initiative into educational reform. This is not contrived. This is happening. Education has become such a mammoth institution, it is hard to turn its head, but this really is grass roots, bottom–up sociological change in the way content is being created and shared in the very way meaning is being produced and culture is being shaped. New Scientist magazine conducted a huge study of over ten thousand and concluded that 35% of people now consider themselves ‘broadcasters of their own media content’! This is an extraordinary shift in culture production. This is happening. Participatory learning is not a fad because we are having to keep up with it. The changes needed are a response to shifts in culture. Tony Benn said in an interview about the health service that “systems need to change to fit the needs of the people, we should not seek to change people to fit them into a system”. It seems likely that this idea can be equally applied to education as a system. Much of the energy of teachers and educational professionals is invested in shaping our young people into the school system; teaching them the established canon of fact based subject knowledge and then testing this fact knowledge through hard assessment and examination. Instead, we could be allowing the change that is happening to also effect change in the education system, indeed it is anyway. If we resist, then the serious worry is that we separate education from learning. We drive a wedge between school as a system and all the organic learning that young people engage with on-goingly. This is not a fad; this is necessary realisation of how culture is changing.

Participatory practice and open learning presents us with a subtle but transformational mindset shift which we must make. The system as we have it will not serve our young people in their futures. As Sir Ken Robison says “the whole structure of education is shaking beneath our feet… we have mined our minds for a particular commodity and in the future, it will not serve us.” Students need to be a well prepared for a future that will require collaboration, participation and radically new ideas. Young people must learn from each other as much as their teachers. They must feel that they run their learning. They need to feel like they contribute the content, that they build their world, that they plan their journey. The job of the teacher is to serve this by equipping students with skills of “curiosity, courage, investigation, experimentation, imagination, reasoning, socialbility and reflection” (Claxton, G) and releasing these skills where students already have them. Maybe we need to model these skills first for ourselves to see their value, after all, we are also products of the system as it stands. Maybe we could start as educational professionals by modelling courage; the courage to try a new way of working and to not undermine such change at the first sight of a mediocre Ofsted judgement or a drop in exam results. Maybe we could model the curiosity and imagination needed to risk engaging with the bottom–up change that is happening instead of perpetuating this system that ‘will not serve us’.

What might a small step look like?

It is clear that we cannot just start again, the mammoth that is the educational system can barely turn its head let alone stand up and change direction (and certainly not without falling apart first), so what is a small step? Well this year my students and I moved away from paper. We did away with books and teacher led content, and every student opened a learning blog which is open online for all. Here they make their notes, publish their essays and productions. I also maintain 4 blogs where I publish teaching notes, materials and resources to facilitate virtual discussions. They read each others blogs and leave comments, encouragements and criticisms. They build on each others ideas. Some of the benefits so far include a clear breakdown between what is seen as school work and what is seen as general life learning. GCSE students have started to blog film reviews and recommendations from their own initiative. Students have embedded links to YouTube videos that they have made in their own time and I have then been able to engage with them in analysis and criticism around their own creative projects, which exist entirely outside of required curriculum study. Students are independently learning all the time, and this model of blog learning is seeing them reflect on this more ‘authentic’ style of independent learning in a more interconnected and explicit way. Essentially we are beginning to see the emergence of genuine Assessment for Learning and peer / self assessment, but not as a top–down project met with cynicism and resistance but as a real and organic form of sharing ideas and thoughts. I am also seeing more homework submitted and much clearer evidence of students taking personal responsibility for contributing to the whole learning experience.

I have encountered some road blocks; the amount of work it can require of me as a facilitator is significant, but only in setting up the structure and updating it with new resources and stimulus materials, once the students realise that this is not a gimmick but rather that I do really want them to own it and to contribute what they are naturally doing anyway to this learning process, they quickly run the thing almost entirely – including providing their own stimuli and text resources. I did also encounter some initial resistance to posting up ‘school work’ in a public / open way. Some of this is a fear of copying but mostly a fear of being seen to be wrong or stupid. However, after a few structured class discussions and a blog debate too, it was generally decided that this is a negative, learnt, default language, which is in my opinion a direct result of the factory learning mentality which privatises learning and demonises mistakes. We now have to actually educate our young people out of this mindset which we were educated into. When we as a class realised together that no one owns wisdom, that knowledge or facts are not necessarily learning and that mistakes are the goal, in that they make opportunities for reflection and origionality, the class warmed to the idea of open blog forums for shared learning.

The key is that blogging has opened up opportunity for explicit and rich dialogue with my students about what learning is and what it isn’t. It has permissioned students to see their life experiences and personal / social creativity as real, valid and vital learning. I am not necessarily suggesting that blogging is best practice and that everyone should do it, indeed such a move might make it more of a gimmick. It might be that blogging lends itself very well to my subject area (that of Arts and Humanities) and that this style may not work so well for all, but what I am saying is that my experience of blogging serves as a very useful case study of how small steps can be made against a dominant and deeply embedded school system which may be increasingly ineffective. I welcome all other models and experiences which learners (whether student or teacher or manager or parent) find to be a similar step out of the ‘learning factory’.

I am happy to engage in any further conversations about this paper either online or in person. Please feel free to have a look at the blogging network:

http://mediagcse.edublogs.org
http://mediaalevel.edublogs.org
http://activenotpassive.edublogs.org

References:
Claxton, G. What’s the Point of School?
Gauntlett, D. Participation Culture, Creativity and Social Change.
Robinson, K. Do Schools Kill Creativity?
Raymond, E. The Cathedral and the Bazaar
Lessig, L. Free Culture and How our Kids Speak.

‘A Spoonful of Poetry’

An interactive poetry performance and
multimedia dissertation exploring the
causes of ‘social virus’ and its antidote.

This paper is not intended to be a commentary or evaluation, but merely a brief explanation of why my dissertation will be best presented in the form of multimedia performance.
Theory and Practice put in Context

I am, amongst other things, a poet and writer and I have been experimenting with visual art and multimedia presentation for a number of years.  I began my MA research after hearing an interview with Adam Philips on the South Bank show in 2005 where he suggested that the ‘best thing’ about poetry is that it is ‘marginalised’.  He goes on to say that it is precisely because there is no money or fame to be found in the art that it offers us ‘hope’.

Wider studies revealed different theorists linked by this assertion that society was in some way sick or dysfunctional.  Philips, building on the work of RD Laing, asked questions of sanity and madness in the consumer credit society.  He suggested simply that mass consumerism and the increasingly commodified nature of culture was damaging, and that normality may not be health, but rather, compliance with the laws of a sick society.  Williams, in his collection of essays entitled ‘Resources for Hope’, also suggests that we live under a form of disempowerment.  He expresses concerns that we exist under limitations on freedom based on the laws of profitability.  Laurence Lessig develops this idea of profitability limiting freedom in his book ‘Free Culture’ where he explores the more concerning aspects of copyright law and the limitation exercised over free and shared forms of culture.  In ‘At the Edge of Art’, Blais and Ippolito further question the health of society in the age of nanotechnology, when they suggest that technology is a virus in our social body moving too fast to be questioned or analysed and that maybe, rather than technology being tools under our control, we are instead under its dominance.

My research, therefore, is fundamentally concerned with exploring the remedies to this sickness, to join Blais and Ippolito in their search for the ‘antibody’ to this ‘virus’ and to further wonder what Philips and Williams mean by resourcing ‘hope’.  This has led me to become increasingly fascinated by the ontology of performance, collaboration and the interactive nature of online publishing and sharing.  These three areas are linked in my studies by their hopeful antibiotic properties.

Dissertation as Performance

Given that my dissertation seeks to explore the values of performance, collaboration and online sharing, it seems appropriate to think creatively about the form and delivery of my dissertation.  Much of my reading, which can be identified in my previous assignments, particularly my research and development paper, points to the value of performance as a less ‘commodified’ form and that this ‘power’ to resist ‘the machinery of reproduction’ (Phelan) marks performance as a unique form of exchange, as ‘interpretation is worked out between artists and spectators… the complicity of the audience’ (Jones and Stephenson).  Meaning is made in the space between people, collaborators and participators.  In this respect, performance is a better vehicle of communication if the desired intention is, as David Gauntlett asserts, to facilitate an audience to make meaning rather than to simply watch, receive or consume.

Likewise, web 2.0 digital production and publishing encourages all consumers to perceive of themselves as potential creative producers.  The possibility and opportunity to make valid contributions is an empowered and active chance and again the audience is repositioned.  At the same time the ‘open’ publishing of what Williams has called ‘back street’ art, challenges the grip of copyright and ‘permission’ culture.

It is for this reason that I have decided not to deliver my dissertation as an academic text or extended essay, but instead to align the content of my research with the form of my publication.  To engage in practice aligned with theory.  My dissertation will therefore be presented as a performance of word art related to my research.  This multimedia performance will include music, short films and poetry.  The whole performance will be delivered alongside a digital art installation where a website will be performed live and in real time.  Performance will also be informed by, and with, the collaborative audience and our works will be published on line as it is created.  We, as participators, will create, publish and share during the performative dissertation thereby affirming the values of what Lessig terms ‘Free Culture.’

The dissertation is to be performed in the Digital Art Gallery at the London South Bank University on 11th June 2009.  The dissertation will be an authentic performance of word art, collaboration and multi-media surfing, production and publishing.  All the content and visual art installation will be linked to the theory which informs this work.

The first poem of the performance is entitled ‘Various Journeys Through Life Without Ever Actually Having to Get Up from the Office Chair’.  The poem explores the individualising dynamics of ‘man and monitor’.  Similarly, poems like ‘This World Made Me a Robot’ and ‘Give Me a Minute’ investigate the speed and relentlessness of technological development and some possible consequences.  A digital art installation will also be displayed around the gallery depicting algorithms programmed to replicate life cycles disrupted by viral anomalies.  Finally film clips will be used to add the voice of strangers to the performance; people stopped at random on the streets of London and asked to contribute thoughts will speak their poems into the show and stand as a representation of Jenkins’ idea that wisdom exists in a crowd.

While the performance will be structured around quotations and audio / video clips which explore the theoretical context informing the show, the intention is that the performance will not lecture an audience nor didactically explain an intended meaning, but rather invite spectators to become participators, firstly as interpreters and creators of meaning, and then also (if they so choose) as creative contributors to some poetic content we will collaboratively produce and publish.

Bibliography

Adorno, T (1991) The Culture Industry, London: Routledge.

Bansal, Keller, Lovink (Eds) (2006) In the Shade of the Commons, New Delhi: Impress.

Benjamin, W (1999) Illuminations, London: Pimlico.

Blais, J & Ippolito, J (2006) At the Edge of Art, London: Thames & Hudson.

Clarke, J & Hall, S & Jefferson, T & Roberts, B (1975) Subcultures, Cultures and Class in Hall, S & Jefferson, T (eds) Resistance through Rituals, Cambridge: Routledge.

Fiske, J (1989) Understanding Popular Culture, London and New York: Routledge.

Jones, A & Stephenson, A (1999) Performing the body/performing the text, London and New York: Routledge.

Lessig, L (2004) Free Culture, New York: The Penguin Press.

Phelan, P (1993) Unmarked, London and New York: Routledge.

Williams, R (1989) Resources of Hope, London and New York: Verso.

Willis, P (1990) Common Culture, Buckingham: Open University Press.

Internet Sources

Raymond, E (2000) The Cathedral and the Bazaar, Open Publication
License available for PDF download, Eric S. Raymond’s Home Page, 1/5/07, www.catb.org/~esr/writings.

Jenkins, H (2006) Collective Intelligence and the Wisdom of Crowds weblog, www.henryjenkings.org, 1/12/07).

Broadcasting: TV Programme

Philips, A (2205) The South Bank Show: Going Sane (6/3/2005, UK).

The Project

My research has been concerned with the function and role of art, specifically my art of poetry and spoken word performance, in the context of digital reproduction and new media technology. Much of my study has returned me to a simple premise; increased commodification and the ever over-whelming focus on art as reproducible and saleable product has devalued and undermined the vital contribution art has had, and could continue to have on culture and society.

The aims of my projects were to investigate this problematic through collaborative poetry, performance and multi-media art whilst resisting the “pressure to succumb to the laws of the reproductive economy” (Phelen 1993: 146). There were two dimensions to my project. Firstly, there was the performance of a collaboratively produced multi-media and performance poetry show, which included collaborative film projects and music productions and the interactions of a live audience. Secondly there was the design, launch and maintenance of a collaborative, interactive and open design poetry website. This website also facilitated the launch of ‘The Really Huge Poetry Project’, which was an entirely collaborative poetry writing initiative run through the website, SMS messaging and at the live shows.

The research and development paper produced previously serves as a literature review outlining the main theories and ideas that led me to create these projects. The projects were intended as enquiries into the effects and influences of digital media technologies, collaborative approaches to performance and the problems posed by commodification and the reproducibility of artistic content. The purpose of this evaluation, is to consider the relevance, success and further learning opportunities to be taken from my two projects.

Part One

Will Stopha is Feeling a Little Under the Weather
A Live Multimedia Poetry Show

‘Feeling a Little Under the Weather’ was a one-hour multi-media performance poetry show that played to audiences at the Edinburgh Fringe festival in August of 2008. The aim of the show was to explore the ever-fast nature of technological ‘progress’ and our interactions with it. The concept for the show was inspired by some key extracts from both academic and non-academic texts, which were read as part of my research into performance poetry art and the forces of digital reproduction and commodification; most notably, the work of Phillips (2005), Blais and Ippolito (2006) and Williams (1989). These theorists all suggest to varying degrees that commodification and the processes of technological innovation and obsoletion make us sick or make society in some way sick or dysfunctional. The concept of the performance was therefore to explore this idea of personal and sociological sickness in relation to technology, progress and commodification, indeed the show asked its audiences to consider if they too may be ‘feeling a little under the weather’.

The Compromise
Selling the Show and Targeting Audience

The show was part of the comedy and theatre section of the Edinburgh festival programme. As the content of the performance was about society and culture, it was appropriate that the shows audience be diverse. The real world context of the show and its place at the Edinburgh festival meant that the show had to be popular and accessible and to some extent this means that the show had to exist within the codes, conventions and therefore restrictions of genre and audience expectation. Already this presents some interesting issues for consideration as the show was written in the light of a particular audience, the style and content were both tailored to suit and appeal to audiences of stand-up comedy.

“Once you relinquish the saleability of your art now, you’re then freer to have your own thoughts because in so far as you’re interested in marketing what you do, you have to be pre-occupied by a fantasy of what people want; it makes you compliant. It makes you servile to a market.” (Philips 2005: ITV)

This was concerning to me initially as my fringe show did have a clear ‘mode of address’; it was informal, light-hearted and satirical, designed to be both comical and thought provoking in order to convey the theoretical contents of my studies, whilst appealing to a comedy going audience. It is therefore important to wonder if the show had already succumbed to the machinery of commodification during the process of promotion, marketing and press release. The compromise here seemed necessary, indeed, Philips’ assertion that the ‘new sane artist’ may have to dispense with markets and saleability is possibly a utopian idealism. In order to ask questions of that very system of hostile competition, one must engage in the processes of packaging and commodifying a creative product. Blais and Ippolito (2006), in their study of new media and graphic art, talk about art as an anti body fighting the viruses in the social body that are caused by the rapid and reckless growth of technology. They discuss the need for art to come out of the safe ‘nursery’ and operate in genuinely risky and contagious environments, just as antibodies do, indeed this is where antibodies develop their infection fighting qualities. It seemed unavoidable that my show had to engage with the systems of marketing and promotion in order to secure a venue at the festival and inform audiences of the production. It was essential that the show needed to engage with the real environment of festival arts and leave the creative safety of the ‘nursery’. This meant that already there was a clear contradiction in my practice, an unavoidable contest; I had to make the show saleable in order to ensure the performance could go ahead but I was also conscious of resisting the need to serve a market. Williams (1989) talks further about this in his book ‘Resources for Hope’ where he discusses the ‘limitations’ on artistic freedom.
“Freedom in our kind of society amounts to the freedom to say anything you wish, providing you can say it profitably”. (Williams. 1989: 88).
The show had to play to an audience and this meant that a desire to completely resist the machinery of commodification was impossible to realise fully. There were some choices that could be made to at least emphasise an intention to resist the pressures of ‘the market’ but I had to content myself with these being more metaphorical than actual. To this end, the performance played as part of the Edinburgh ‘free fringe’ festival and it was on at 2.15pm. The free nature of the show meant that I did relinquish the saleability of the performance at least in terms of profitability. The show’s daytime slot, and the fact that it was free, ensured that my audiences were surprisingly diverse, from more elderly people, in Edinburgh for the military tattoo, to children and families, as well as my more expected audience. This audience diversity kept the show fresh and live, not one performance was the same as another and never was there an opportunity to pitch the show to a clear ‘target audience’ but rather base the performance almost entirely on the community of spectators that arrived on any one day. This was both pleasing and successful as the intension behind the live performative part of my project was to keep a sense of ‘now’ or what Benjamin (1999) called ‘aura’. Phelan (1993) also asserted the importance of live performance as being “in a strict ontological sense, non-reproductive” (Phelan 1993: 148). Although the prepared material was the same every day, it was always entirely different in reception and delivery, sometimes better, sometimes worse, sometimes awkward.

No Longer Just ‘Watching’
Community, Collaboration and Making Meaning

“Interpretation is worked out as a performance between artists and spectators (whether ‘professional’ or ‘non-specialist’)… the complicity of the audience.” (Jones & Stephenson, 1999, 14).

It is apparent that the form of live performance served well to resist processes of commodification and reproduction. It was all the more appropriate as the content of the show was asking questions of individualism and isolation in this age of technology revolution, indeed the opening poem entitled ‘My Various Journeys Through Life (without ever actually having to get up from my office chair)’ invited audiences to reflect on their relationship with the computer screen. The premise of this piece seemed highlighted by the social and communal environment in which it was received; the form match beautifully with the content and meaning. Indeed the show considered themes like depression, loneliness, isolation and paranoia all within the environment of a live audience community. This raised some ethical issues for ensuring that, as far as possible, the environment was facilitated to feel safe and open. To this end it was made clear to people at the very start that some level of involvement was encouraged. The ‘fringe’ audience were always fine with this and even appreciative.

In his recent lecture on the 18th birthday of the Internet, David Gauntlett talked of ‘a passive paralysis’ and a mass audience conditioned to ‘watch’. He went on to call for a shift from ‘watching’ to ‘action’ and a resurgence in ‘making’. Live performance offers a unique dynamic in this respect as it invites audiences into the active role of making meaning rather than the more passive job of ‘watching’, indeed collaborative poems and collective video poems formed an integral part of the show, recognising spectators not as ‘watchers’ but as meaning makers, interacters and poetic contributors. Several members of the shows participatory audience left reviews of the show on The Times Edinburgh Fringe website. Two are cited here:

“This show concentrates on technology and its impact on the human condition and Will Stopha brings it to life with a blend of visuals, music and poetry. The energy and warmth generated at a Will Stopha show is a guarantee, with audience participation and Will’s ability to both entertain and engage. If you want to both ponder upon cultural theory and the impact of media technology on community AND be uplifted with some beautiful poetry and laughter, this is a show not to miss.” (Audience member review taken from The Times Edinburgh Fringe website. www.edfringe.com August 2008).

“Stopha takes you on a journey that uncovers the darker, negative side of our fast paced society. He then flips it all upside down and leaves you, not ‘under the weather’ but feeling good about the world and normal in yourself. A feelgood show that challenges you to take a brighter view of the world. Go to see this show if, like me, you’re drained by city life. It’ll change your mind and leave you smiling and proud to be part of a community.” (Audience member review taken from The Times Edinburgh Fringe website. www.edfringe.com August 2008).

The ‘community’ or ‘participatory’ context, which these audience members describe, is an important part of the show’s success, as is the recognition of the current ‘now’ nature of the shows content as both of these points highlight the effectiveness and appropriacy of the form of performance. Its risky, live nature engages and involves audiences and resists the safety of reproductive and contrived formula.

Finding Wisdom in the Crowd
Collective poetry and ‘non-professional’ performance

The performance was collaboratively produced. The collaborative nature of the shows production is important both in terms of theory and practice as the inevitable compromise of collaboration undermines the individualisation and personal ownership of production; it also challenges the machineries of commodification as it requires that you behave more ‘copy left’ that copyright. A writer and music producer collaborated with me in the shows formation and production. Three short films also punctuated the performance. The inspiration for the films came from the work of Henry Jenkins and his study of convergence culture. Jenkins suggests that in an era of media convergence, audiences are no longer just consumers but complex users and producers. The collaborative video poems evidence this and also metaphorically investigate his assertion that there is ‘wisdom in a crowd’. Each willing collaborator offers poetic thoughts in response to topics or questions presented to them. Some of the collaborators are from various creative writing collectives, others are simply passers by on the street. What is interesting is that after a process of editing, the poems became cogent and cohesive poetic works; as audiences encountered them as part of the show, they were often moved, sometimes laughing, sometimes sympathetic. The collective poems seem to organically share a tone or mood and often address similar themes and ideas. Clearly there is a need to consider the processes of mediation that have been applied to the contributors. Music has been added in postproduction to give continuity and the editing process has decided an order of sequence but the contributions are entirely genuine and uninfluenced and a collective ‘word of wisdom’ has emerged. The other aspect of the collective poems, that was unexpected but exciting, was the way that different video contributors were favourites with different audiences. Some received rounds of applause and literally became the ‘star of the show’. This powerfully conveyed ideas of community, conversation and collaboration, which are important parts of the proposed remedies to isolation, competition and passive ‘watching’. These collective video poems also conveyed the ideas of Williams (1989) when he explained his dislike for the ‘way of talking about cultural production’ where one takes ‘a professional tone’ as they belittle the non-professional works of art produced by ‘non-artists’. Williams goes on to assert the irony that it is often from unrecognised or unappreciated sources that significant cultural works are likely to emerge.

Mixing Forms
Converging Media and the Interpretative Audience

Jenkins’ work on convergence culture is also very helpful when analysing and evaluating the multi-media productions that made up much of the shows form. After using an online mental health therapist to diagnose me as ‘paranoid’ or ‘delusional’, quotes were then read to the audience from large literary texts making reference to ‘old’ media forms. In one poem where I reflect upon my own mental health, I open an old medical dictionary and read the definition of paranoid disorder. As the poem begins, extracts from the book then appear as graphics on the screen behind me as though the audience have now entered the book. These graphics then become moving image and a film montage accompanies the poem, which is also set to a digitally produced audio sound track. This creative use of converging media technologies manifests the active and indeed interactive nature of new media technologies and takes an increasingly media literate and sophisticated audience on a more involved journey through the ideas and themes of the show, which they then add meaning to, interpret and respond.

In their book ‘At the Edge of Art’, Blais and Ippolito (2006) discuss the functions of antibodies in their interactions with viruses and then apply these qualities to Art in the way it interacts with technology. One of these important functions is the way that antibodies ‘mimic’ the virus in order to develop a strong defence. This theory can also be applied to the poetry show because, although the content of the performance was asking questions of technology and its unchecked power, the show still used new media technologies in the shows production, much as Blais and Ippolito suggest. This way the tone of the show is hopeful; at no point did I intend to convey a message of techno-phobia, but rather an active and creative approach to the use of technology and an alternative and interpretative approach to new media communications.

Part Two

WilliamStopha.com
An Interactive, Collaborative and ‘Open Design’ Website

www.williamstopha.com

In my research, I encountered two suggested strategies for resisting the processes of commodification and what Williams (1989) calls a ‘limitation on artistic freedom’. The first strategy was to oppose the trappings of reproducibility through live performance and collaboration and as outlined above. The other approach that became clear was to use free digital publishing and the interactive potential of web2.0.

In his inaugural lecture at the University of Westminster in November 2008, entitled ‘Participation Culture, Creativity, and Social Change’ David Gauntlett asserted that our ecological, political and economic futures require that society becomes increasingly active and interactive and that we overcome the ‘passive paralysis’ of being conditioned ‘watchers’. He spoke of being an optimist and suggested that web2.0 may embody this change from ‘watcher’ to ‘maker’. WilliamStopha.com is a poetry website designed to encourage interaction and participation. Whilst there is poetic content posted on the site that could just be ‘watched’, the whole website is entirely open and editable. And the interface and navigation is designed to encourage users to post their own creative work. Users have also ‘made’ and customised their own pages, edited and modified each other’s work and engaged in forum discussions and analysis. WilliamStopha.com has facilitated the sharing of poetic works, imaginings, ideas and feedback in line with the values of what Lessig (2004) terms ‘free culture’. The site resources the creation of poetic artwork that is not owned or controlled and operates outside of the structures of protectionism and copyright. Again, this means that the content and this cultural resource are more ‘free’ as it resists the ‘machinery of commodification and operates more according to the values of copyleft.

Open Mic and Feedback
Forming communities of creativity and shared opinion

The ‘Open Mic’ and ‘Feedback’ pages were the first pages designed and published. The idea was to create a space for poets, poetry enthusiasts and contributors to have a collaborative space to write, contribute and publish their creative imaginings. The intension was that contributors would work collaboratively but this did not occur naturally and required more direct facilitation. Instead, contributors just wrote their own work and left other people’s contributions untouched. This meant that the page became a shared sketchbook of poetry but each piece was a discreet work. The ‘Feedback’ page was intended to be a forum space where users engaged in discussion or posted responses, which has been successful to some extent although the dialogue has generally been one dimensional with just singular comments rather than any real developed dialogue. However even at the simplest level, this page illustrates the importance of listening; sharing ideas and response is also vital as this helps to resource and “express cultural continuity and identity”. (Mohammadi, & Sreberny-Mohammadi, 1994, 189).

After reflecting on the sites success, I was dissatisfied with the limits and restrictions for users and identified some contradictions between theory and practice. In his paper ‘The Cathedral and the Bazaar’, Raymond (2000) considered changes in the approach to how content is designed and shared. WilliamStopha.com was intended to be an exercise in the ‘bazaar’ style of construction where a plurality of contributors collectively shape its development rather that a central contrived ‘truth’. My concern was that while the poetic content being posted was original and plural, the structures and format, even the very metaphor of graffiti being used as a continuity design theme were fixed so the contributors were not able to exercise free creativity, in fact while their poems were their own, they were sharing them inside my cathedral! This was changed and the site now fulfils its objective much more successfully. The code was developed to allow greater design control. Now contributors could choose colour, font and text size. As well as uploading images, sound files and Mpegs, contributors could now upload backgrounds and make new pages. Each poem can be clicked and dragged around the page, or even laid over the others, to form different collaborative compositions. Contributors also have complete control over each other’s work. While no one has the authoring rites to delete people’s contributions, they could add to or extend any of the contributions made.

One user called Komic created his own page, which he customised and adapted creating his own themes and metaphors. Soon five others followed suit and then posted links on the ‘Open Mic’ page connecting to their own dedicated poetry page. This has made more problems in terms of limiting destructive hacks to the site but the outcomes have been very pleasing. The site is now a much more legitimate expression of ‘free culture’ and a ‘bazaar’ style of web design and content production. The site is truly collaborative and open; The webmaster rarely needs to deal with destructive hacks or clean up dumped files on the server or occasionally fix glitches, beyond that the design, maintenance, structure, growth, map and content provision for the site is managed by its users. This means that developments have occurred that very well may not have been possible if sole responsibility for the site’s progress had been managed by one or two rather than the community of site users and producers. In this respect the ‘bazaar’ model has already benefited the site’s progress and the ‘wisdom of a crowd’ has contributed directly to making meaning and change. WilliamStopha.com is succeeding in promoting and facilitating interactive communities and meaning makers. In so doing, the site is effectively undermining the machineries of reproduction and market saleability at least in terms of the value it affords both expert and non-specialist contributors, whilst resisting the laws of copyright and intellectual ownership and instead applying the values of free culture and creative sharing.

The Really Huge Poetry Project
Participatory Cultures and Creative Collective Meaning.

‘The Really Huge Poetry Project’ was launched in January 2008. The aim was to try and get visitors to the site to contribute to the same piece of work to build a ‘crowd poem’. I created a new dedicated page and suggested some topics for reflection. I then emailed contacts, sent out messages and advertised the project at all live shows and poetry venues. The subjects I chose were linked to my research into the unmanageable growth and development of technology and consumer culture and the ‘infection’ this causes in the social body but some contributors did create new topics. People were invited to contribute on-line, or at a live show, or via text messages to the ‘Mobile Poetry Phone’. In most cases, the ‘crowd poems’ were haphazard and random, as the bazaar model would presume. Interestingly, the poem around the theme of technology was put into an order by a contributor or visitor to the site.

The poem is made of seven separate contributions. At some point the poem became ordered as above. What is fascinating is that the poem seems to work as a single piece with narrative flow. An analysis of the poem reveals clear themes, recurring imagery and a coherent tone. An ironic humour is evident throughout as is a clear tone of warning and a bleak outlook on the future. Tomorrow the order may be different, and a different tone may develop crating a new concise work out of the collective contributions of strangers.

Conclusions

As I have undertaken these two projects, I have become increasingly convinced that a collaborative approach towards creative arts production is truly worthwhile. The processes of collaboration, artistic compromise and sacrifice are most often frustrating, only partially achievable but ultimately beneficial. The learning curve stays steep and the plural and heterogeneous context of idea sharing, selection and production serve to resist the alternative drivers of recognition, profitability and power. Both the live performance and the open web design invited me to relinquish sole control and to give away a sense of self or insisted gain. This is not to say that there are not inherent contradictions throughout my work, the ‘laws of the reproductive economy’ (Phelan 1993) are entirely impossible to ignore and there is no doubt that I had to conform to market demands in order to even secure a run for the show. This means that some of my work is only metaphorical and therefore flawed as evidence of my theories. It is also important to note that while I have become a strong believer in active interpretation and the merits of a plurality of contributions, collaborative creativity is painfully hard work and most often slow. Exciting outcomes have been observed and appreciated, but at large expense to time and stress levels. The organisation and facilitation of collaborative art is not as shared as the ultimate production or outcome and smaller, more homogenous partnerships with clear vision are fundamental if the collaborative outcome is to be realised.

It is probably fair to say that the original intentions of the projects, those being to foster active participation and resist the pressures of commodification and reproducibility were generally realised to some extent. The performance evidenced a clear commitment to ‘now’, which Phelan asserts is by definition anti-reproduction and within the restrictions of the Edinburgh Fringe market, the show sought to resist the need to be saleable. With the website, limitations were more satisfyingly overcome and a mind set shift is evident; now recognising ‘audiences’ as potential ‘contributors’ and ‘interpreters’. This does offer challenge to the pressures of saleability and profit return, as audiences are no longer merely consumers, or worse still customers, but rather needed and valid interacters and users.

My gratitude and acknowledgements extend to all those who contributed to these projects; to the collective video poets, the performance interpreters, the show’s collaborators and all those people who have contributed to or made meaning from the open design website and the ‘Really Huge Poetry Project’.

Bibliography

Adorno, T (1991) The Culture Industry, London: Routledge.

Bansal, Keller, Lovink (Eds) (2006) In the Shade of the Commons, New Delhi: Impress.

Benjamin, W (1999) Illuminations, London: Pimlico.

Blais, J & Ippolito, J (2006) At the Edge of Art, London: Thames & Hudson.

Clarke, J & Hall, S & Jefferson, T & Roberts, B (1975) Subcultures, Cultures and Class in Hall, S & Jefferson, T (eds) Resistance through Rituals, Cambridge: Routledge.

Fiske, J (1989) Understanding Popular Culture, London and New York: Routledge.

Jones, A & Stephenson, A (1999) Performing the body/performing the text, London and New York: Routledge.

Lessig, L (2004) Free Culture, New York: The Penguin Press.

Mohammadi, A & Sreberny-Mohammadi, A (1994) Small Media, Big Revolution, Minneapolis: Minnesota.

Phelan, P (1993) Unmarked, London and New York: Routledge.

Williams, R (1989) Resources of Hope, London and New York: Verso.

Willis, P (1990) Common Culture, Buckingham: Open University Press.

Internet Sources

Raymond, E (2000) The Cathedral and the Bazaar, Open Publication
License available for PDF download, Eric S. Raymond’s Home Page, 1/5/07, www.catb.org/~esr/writings.

Jenkins, H (2006) Collective Intelligence and the Wisdom of Crowds weblog, www.henryjenkings.org, 1/12/07).

Broadcasting: TV Programme

Philips, A (2205) The South Bank Show: Going Sane (6/3/2005, UK).

The Premise

My research has been concerned with the function and role of art, specifically my art of poetry and spoken word performance, in the context of digital reproduction and new media technology. Much of my study has returned me to a simple premise; increased commodification and the ever over-whelming focus on art as saleable product has devalued and invalidated the invaluable contribution art has had, and should continue to have on culture and society. I aim to investigate this problematic through my project which seeks to create artistic comment through poetry and performance which resists this “pressure to succumb to the laws of the reproductive economy” (Phelen, P). There are two dimensions to my project, the performance – an interactive, live poetry show and the design, launch and maintenance of a collaborative, interactive and open design website.

Feeling a Little Under the Weather?

It was important that my project resisted the issues of reproducibility and commodification. Easy reproducibility is a feature of a mass-produced culture of commodification and it is especially easy, rampant in fact, in the context of Internet communication, digital copying and peer-to-peer file sharing. Walter Benjamin (1999) identifies that there is something unique about live performance; it has an aura, which is lost in the repeated reproduction of a ‘live’ art experience where the audience are repositioned, no longer as components of the moment, they instead become critics and removed observers. Phelan also affirms this radical component of performance when she recognises that “performance in a strict ontological sense is non-reproductive”. It is for this reason that I have produced a live performance poetry show entitled ‘Feeling a Little Under the Weather?’ The show is written and produced collaboratively. This is important to note, as collaboration is essential in non-reproducible performance where a hierarchy of ideas can be resisted. This is not to say that everybody is an artist, or that all contributions are of equal quality, but rather to recognise that meaning is found in exchange. Communication involves contribution, listening and interpretation.
“Interpretation is worked out as a performance between artists and spectators (whether ‘professional’ or ‘non-specialist’)… the complicity of the audience.” (Jones & Stephenson, 1999, 14).
In this case, the show was written by ‘strangers’. In addition to two writers and three producers, ‘strangers’ were asked to contribute topics for the show to address. Members of the public, and audiences who attended the shows were also invited to offer lines or words of poetry, which were then collated together to form ‘collective poems’. These ‘collective poems’ were filmed and edited together and then screened as part of the show and developed ongoingly throughout the show’s run. This means that this show is an outworking of collaboration and audience interpretation, interaction and feedback. The show is previewing in early August as part of the ‘Camden Fringe Festival’ before featuring at the ‘Edinburgh Festival’ throughout August. Further evidence, analysis and reflection on this component of the project will be submitted in August 2008.

The show’s form and content investigate the concerns researched around consumerist culture and its ill effect on community and society. The themes of the collective poems and much of the inspiration behind my work is taken from the work of Blais and Ippolito, who investigate the effect of fast moving and ever developing technology on culture and society. Their metaphors of technology, obsolescence and consumerism as a virus in culture and art as a vital antibody fighting infection in society are important influences in the content and form of the performance. Indeed, the show’s title is in itself an extension of the metaphor for a viral illness. A further example is the final poem entitled ‘Give me a Minute’ the poet expresses his desperate need for a break in ‘progress’; a pause in ‘development’, which might allow him the opportunity to question the ethics of such fast technological growth.
“Unlike microprocessor speeds, the human capacity to foresee the ethical consequences of technology does not double every eighteen months”. (Blais & Ippolito Blais, 9, 2006).
At the end of the piece, which is also the end of the show, the poet implores the audience to stop and give him just one more minute, at the same time he unplugs the power from the mains causing black out, muting the microphones and switching off all projection. The final lines of the show then take place in the comparative darkness and with no amplification.

The Language of Collaboration – the ‘Collective Poem’

The ‘collective poems’ were inspired by studies I encountered during the research for the project. Sreberny Mohammadi’s work on the difference between ‘big’ and ‘small’ media showed that a broadcast medium with a clear ideological message often serves to limit the corporate imagination, to reproduce culture according to the dominant hegemony. She identifies the potential of ‘small’ media to slowly and subtly subvert this dominance from the margins. She suggests that there may be immense political power in ‘small’ media to “develop public spaces in contexts where none seems possible”. (Mohammadi & Sreberny-Mohammadi, 1994, 189). She notes that ‘big’ media does not “pay sufficient attention to indigenous channels of communication that often express cultural continuity and identity.” To this end, I decided that the live performance show must include the opinions and contributions of ‘ordinary’ people; the production of this show must use ‘small’ media to source content from the ‘bottom-up’ rather than the ‘top-down’.
“Small Media can be effective in undermining a strong regime with mass media reach.” (Mohammadi & Sreberny-Mohammadi, 1994, 189).
I took my digital video camera to several destinations across London. I explained the shows concept to people I met and invited them to share their thoughts. With each person who was willing, I played a game of verbal consequences with them on camera. The game simply requires them to respond to a word I suggest with a word of interest to them, which they feel is connected. For example, in one case, I offered the word ‘technology’. After a moments thought, my partner in this particular game responded with the word ‘phobic’. On another occasion the ‘stranger’ chose to say ‘robot’. Robot was later used as the starting word and another player responded with ‘wars’. When linked together a poem began to emerge in response to the subject of technology, which began: ‘Phobic robot wars fast virus’. Through the process of video editing, I then formed a poetic montage of words linked by the public’s responses to the same subject area. More of these contributions will be filmed and included during the shows run at each of the festivals so that the ‘collective poems’ develop and change as the show progresses.

In the filming of these pieces, I asked each willing ‘stranger’ to look directly into the camera and not at me. The reasoning for this was to avoid a documentary style interview and instead encourage a performative presentation. In the edit too this created a changing background to the poem further asserting the diversity and unconnected nature of each contribution, while the eye-line match of the ‘stranger’ meant that the contributions felt very much as one piece. Out of the random difference of the ‘bazaar’ comes a collective message; a strange attractor forms out of chaos.

These ‘collective poems’ along with the interaction of the audience at any given event mean that this project is not produced or structured according to a general individualised formula, where each member of an audience has their own individual experience according to a hierarchy of artist to spectator. The show is clearly not just the opinions of one artist ‘preached’ to an inactive consumer. In this instance, the audience’s collaborative contributions to the arts project, their interpretation and interaction with each other and the artist is crucial to the show’s meaning and purpose.

In ‘The Cathedral and The Bazaar’, Eric Raymond describes how the Internet age has seen the structure and shape of idea communication changed from the ‘Cathedral’ to the ‘Bazaar’. The ‘collective poems’ as well as the collaborative way in which the show was written and produced are intended to demonstrate the creative and empowered way in which the bazaar model can develop and create meaning; creating content outside of a clear ‘broadcast’ structure does not necessarily mean you are left with nonsensical rantings or poor quality art. On the contrary, as Jenkings further identifies, such collective techniques of content creation can expose intelligent imaginings and contributions of real wisdom. This more ‘bazaar’ shaped strategy also requires and resources greater active skills of interpretation in the decoding of meaning. The collective poems stand for the values of listening and active interpretation; the right questions and ideas are found in the spaces between us in the exchange.

WilliamStopha.com

The other component of my project is an interactive, collaborative and ‘open design’ website. In my research, I uncovered primarily two suggested strategies for resisting the processes of commodification and what Williams calls a ‘limitation on artistic freedom’. One such strategy was to oppose the trappings of reproducibility through live performance, as outlined above. The other approach that became clear was collaborative poetry art and free digital publishing.

Lawrence Lessig identifies that culture is ‘made’ as product for sale and that such ‘big’ media businesses have sought to protect themselves by financially out muscling forms of indigenous culture and using the law to protect themselves from ‘free’ forms of cultural production. Such ‘free’ culture was shared in the telling of stories, sharing music, making tapes conversing around ideas and creative imaginings. He asserts “that for the first time in our tradition, the ordinary ways in which individuals create and share culture fall within the reach of the regulation of the law… The consequence is that we are less and less a free culture and more and more a permission culture.”
The aim of WilliamStopha.com is to facilitate the sharing of stories, imaginings, ideas and feedback in line with the values of what Lessig terms ‘free culture’; to utilise digital technology and the anarchic potential of file sharing and digital publishing to resource community communication and welcome a plurality of thought, language and style. The site hopes to resource the creation of poetic artwork that is not owned or controlled and operates outside of the structures of protectionism and copyright.

WilliamStopha.com is a collaborative production from the outset. Consultation with other artists and poets along the way has informed the site’s development. Poets who have contributed to the site have also requested new pages and structural changes. Many suggestions have been incorporated into the sites design and appreciated.

The site is a fully editable space where anyone can add layers of text, images, sound or movie files. The site is also open design so any visitor to the site can also create new pages, add backgrounds, change themes and re-order the pages content. The site is an attempt to use the model of the bazaar to facilitate free cultural communication, creativity and interpretation. A feedback page means listening; sharing ideas and response is also vital as this helps to resource ‘cultural continuity and identity’.

Digital Graffiti – Open Design and Content Contribution

The metaphor used in the development of the web space was urban graffiti. A random rotation of walled surfaces forms the background of the web pages. Visitors to the site can double click on an empty piece of wall space anywhere on a page. This opens up a dialogue box where the visitor can write any material they choose. They can also upload images, sound files and video clips. They can create new pages and in doing so actually design the website’s map.

The code design was built upon the work of Walter Zorn. My collaborative partner responsible for building the site then developed the Ajax needed to link it to continually to a database. All the code will be made open source. While there is a consistent theme throughout the website, primarily for the purpose of simplified navigation, the site is entirely open in terms of content production but also in terms of design. For example, let us look at the ‘open mic’ page, which has now had over forty poems posted onto the wall.

In addition to individual pieces of poetry that appear on the page, five poets have created their own pages. Different visitors to the site have selected various colours, fonts and font sizes. Each poem can be clicked and dragged around the page, or even laid over the others, to form different collaborative compositions. Contributors also have complete control over each other’s work. While no one has the authoring rites to delete people’s contributions, they could add to or extend any of the contributions made.

After the site had been published for a few months, one poet who goes by the name ‘Hyped Man’ had posted so many pieces that he wrote a comment on the ‘feedback’ page, which said “Fink I mite need my own page. Wot dya rekon? Lol.” I took this comment seriously and my web designer and I discussed how we could develop the code to allow for contributors to create and design their own pages.

While the theme and navigation systems have stayed consistent, Both Komik and Hyped Man were able to exercise design control over their pages. They chose their own metaphors in terms of back ground image and personalised their space with pictures and tags. Clearly this gives a voice and publishing opportunity to these artists and facilitates a collaborative culture whereby the shape, content and structure of the website is subject to the ‘Bazaar’ model. In this instance opportunities arose for ideas and developments that may not have occurred if sole responsibility for the site’s progress had been managed by one or two rather than the community of site users and producers. In this respect the wisdom of a crowd has already benefited the site’s growth and flexible change and it is my expectation that it will continue to do so.

The Really Huge Poetry Project

Beyond an online publishing space for various poetic artists, the design and ethos of WilliamStopha.com is to encourage the collaboration of those artists and the interactive interpretation of the site’s users and producers. To this end, WilliamStopha.com launched ‘The Really Huge Poetry Project in January 2008. The project’s aim is to initiate the sharing of ideas and creative content – to create a ‘crowd poem’.
Nobody knows everything, everyone knows something, and what any given member knows is accessible to any other member upon request”. (Jenkins, November 27, 2006).
I suggested topics for reflection. Obviously anyone viewing the site can add more topics. The subjects I chose were linked to my research into the unmanageable growth and development of technology and consumer culture and the ‘infection’ this causes in the social body. The premise is simple; helpful ideas lie in the spaces between people and we find them through conversation and collaboration. People were invited to contribute on-line, or at a live show, or via text messages to the ‘Mobile Poetry Phone’. In most cases, the ‘crowd poems’ were haphazard and random, as the bazaar model would presume. Interestingly, the poem around the theme of technology was put into an order by a contributor or visitor to the site.

The poem is made of seven separate contributions. At some point the poem became ordered as above. What is fascinating is that the poem seems to work as a single piece with narrative flow. An analysis of the poem reveals clear themes, recurring imagery and a coherent tone. An ironic humour is evident throughout as is a clear tone of warning and a bleak outlook on the future. Tomorrow the order may be completely different but at this moment a clear ideology is evident and a concise work has been developed.

Communities, Identities, Feedback and Links

The feedbacks page was set up to allow poets and poetry lovers to comment on the work posted to the site and to share ideas, raise suggestions, interpretations and comments. The beginnings of a community are forming around the sharing of new material and feeding back on each other’s contributions. Poets have advertised up coming gigs on the site and other site users have been to see them read or perform their poetry in a real time space context.

While much of the poetry submitted to the site is anonymous, many poets have established identities for themselves and their work. They have posted links to their own websites or MySpace accounts and more links to other artists they recommend. The development of a community of artistic producers and appreciators is in early stages but some evidence has emerged and is pleasing.

Bibliography

Bansal, Keller, Lovink (Eds) (2006) In the Shade of the Commons, New Delhi: Impress.

Benjamin, W (1999) Illuminations, London: Pimlico.

Blais, J & Ippolito, J (2006) At the Edge of Art, London: Thames & Hudson.

Jones, A & Stephenson, A (1999) Performing the body/performing the text, London and New York: Routledge.

Lessig, L (2004) Free Culture, New York: The Penguin Press.

Mohammadi, A & Sreberny-Mohammadi, A (1994) Small Media, Big Revolution, Minneapolis: Minnesota.

Phelan, P (1993) Unmarked, London and New York: Routledge.

Williams, R (1989) Resources of Hope, London and New York: Verso.

Internet Sources

Raymond, E (2000) The Cathedral and the Bazaar, Open Publication
License available for PDF download, Eric S. Raymond’s Home Page, 1/5/07, www.catb.org/~esr/writings.

Jenkins, H (2006) Collective Intelligence and the Wisdom of Crowds weblog, www.henryjenkings.org, 1/12/07).

Broadcasting: TV Programme

Philips, A (2205) The South Bank Show: Going Sane (6/3/2005, UK).

Feeling A Little Under The Weather?

Introducing the project.

The aims and rationale of this project have developed to become clearer and more succinct, but they have not fundamentally changed.  The driving questions, which my project seeks to address, have not altered; my research is ultimately concerned with the function and role of art, specifically my art of poetry and spoken word performance, in the context of digital reproduction and new media technology.

Much of this research raises serious reservations about how our current social, economic and political context imposes change upon the creation and communication of culture.  Sreberny Mohammadi points out that Big Media fails to “pay sufficient attention to indigenous channels of communication that often express cultural continuity and identity.” (Mohammadi & Sreberny-Mohammadi, 1994, 189).  Lessig develops this idea further when he suggests that big media and commercial business who ‘make’ culture as product for sale have sought to protect themselves by financially out muscling forms of indigenous culture and using the law to protect themselves from ‘free’ forms of cultural production.  “The consequence is that we are less and less a free culture and more and more a permission culture.” (Lessig, 2004, 8).  Williams (1989) also identifies the importance of a plurality of creative contributions to a healthy society and identifies the commercial intention to commodify culture as a ‘limitation’ on real freedom.  Blais and Ippolito (2006) identify technology in our current ‘new media’ context as a virus attacking the social body; technology causes increased isolation and mutates at a speed beyond humanity’s ability to foresee the ethical implications of this apparent ‘progress’.  They suggest that the job of art in such a moment is to provide the essential antibodies to fight such an infection.

‘Feeling A Little Under The Weather?’ is a poetic arts project designed to explore these concerns about culture and society at such a time as now.  Is our society and mainstream culture, as suggested by Blais, Ippolito, Williams and Phillips infected and ill?  Are we as a sociological body of cultural consumers and creators ‘feeling a little under the weather?’  This project intends to ask these questions and in doing so, facilitate part of what could be a collaborative remedy.  Inspired primarily by the work of Blais and Ippolito in their theory of art as antibody, this project seeks to use performance and digital Internet sharing and publishing to resist the infections of isolation and commodification.

There are two aspects to the project:  The first is performative.  As Walter Benjamin (1999) identifies, there is something unique about live performance; it has an aura, which is lost in the repeated reproduction of a ‘live’ art experience where the audience are repositioned, no longer as components of the moment, they instead become critics and removed observers.  Phelan also affirms this radical component of performance when she recognises that “performance in a strict ontological sense is non-reproductive”.   For this reason, the first part of the project will be a live performance show.    Both the form and the content of the show will investigate the concerns researched around consumerist culture and its ill effect on community and society.  The content will be poetic material inspired by Blais and Ippolito’s six stages of art as antibody: perversion, arrest, revelation, execution, recognition and perseverance.  This theory will inform both the form and the content of the show.  The form will be live performances made up of poetic contributions from the participatory audience, wider communities of artists, art appreciators and interpreters.  These contributions will be sourced not only at the show but also through networking and collaborative projects in the months preceding the show.

The second aspect of the project will utilise digital technology to resource community communication and shared stories, to utilise technology to share ideas and cultural content in line with the values of what Lessig terms ‘free culture’.   This other dimension to the project is not unconnected and will function with the show but it also seeks to use the anarchic potential of file sharing and digital publishing to welcome a plurality of thought, language and style, to create a poetic artwork that is not owned or controlled.  In doing so, this part of the project mimics common uses of digital technology (one of the functions of antibody) but crucially it functions outside of the structures of protectionism and copyright.
“This is not a protectionism to protect artists. It is instead a protectionism to protect certain forms of business. Corporations threatened by the potential of the Internet to change the way both commercial and noncommercial culture are made and shared have united to induce lawmakers to use the law to protect them.”  (Lessig, 2004, 9).
The Pilots

The ‘War On Worry’
The first pilot was a live poetry spoken word performance.  The show was performed everyday for three weeks as part of the Edinburgh Fringe Arts Festival from 3rd to 25th August 2007.  The show was titled ‘War on Worry’.  The premise of the show was to ironically subvert the dominant idea of fear in the age of a ‘War on Terror’ and instead take a light hearted look at the things we all worry about and the pain, exhaustion and often futility of anxiety.  As part of the show, a diverse selection of people were invited to appear on camera and share their anxieties and concerns and to share their thoughts on worry generally.  The collaborators were strangers and there was no form of criteria for their inclusion in the project, other than their willingness to be on camera.  These video clips were then edited and included in the live show to punctuate the live material.  Extracts of the show and the video clips can be seen at www.williamstopha.com.

The ‘Really Huge Poetry Project’
The second pilot was a collaborative poem for online production.  Various subjects were suggested across many communication channels including live performances, SMS messaging, networking platforms, instant messaging, community websites and chat environments.  Collaborators were invited to contribute to ‘The Really Huge Poetry Project’ in a number of ways; they could email or reply to the message posts and bulletins, send a text message to the ‘Mobile Poetry Phone’ or go directly to the website and add text, image, video or sound direct to the poetry page.  It is impossible to alter someone else’s contribution but the order can be changed, the size, font and colour can all be changed at will and there is no order of who posted first or last.  An example of a collaborative poem as part of this project can be seen at www.williamstopha.com.

Critical Reflection

The outcomes of the pilots have presented both challenge and satisfaction, provided interesting insights and obviously raised further issues for consideration.  On his research Weblog, Henry Jenkins considers issues of collective intelligence and, what Surowiecki terms, the wisdom of crowds.  In the context of gaming, blogging and fandom, Jenkins considers the insights of diverse cultures in tackling problems and questions in real world contexts.  “Nobody knows everything, everyone knows something, and what any given member knows is accessible to any other member upon request.”  (Jenkins, November 27, 2006).  In the case of the ‘War on Worry’ pilot show, the content and structure of the show’s form were directly based around the contributions of an unknown collective.   The huge strength of collective intelligence as a standpoint, and recognising a crowd as a pluralism of potentially wise insights, is that “the collective choices of 100,000 may very well be better than the choices of 1,000 experts”. (Edery cited in Jenkins 2006).  It was very pleasing creatively to base the content and form of the show upon the contributions of the crowd.

In ‘The Cathedral and The Bazaar’, Eric Raymond describes how the Internet and particularly the open source and Linux movements have forever changed how information is shared and understood.  The structure and shape of idea communication has changed from the Cathedral to The bazaar.  This was also evident in the pilots as the entirely random nature of contributions built up to form a cohesive narrative.  The show aimed to focus on issues of anxiety and worry but the light hearted contributions of our random public interviews meant that issues of terrorism, immigration and global warming were discussed alongside alien invasion and the apparently aggressive nature of swans!

However, while the pilots did go some way towards engaging the collective intelligence of audiences and collaborators, the live show contributions went through a clear process of mediation.  The contributions were edited together and cut into under two-minute sections.  The clips were then screened to an audience in a broadcast style.  The context of much of the theory is in an unmediated, pluralist and narrowcast context, which could mean that the contributions retain a sense of ‘aura’ and greater validity because they have not been subjected to post production processes.  It could be argued that while the participation and involvement of collaborators was a random exchange, the finished film clips were mediated, constructed and therefore ultimately controlled; a project that began as a study of the bazaar may have ended up more in the cathedral than planned.

The second pilot, ‘The Really Huge Poetry Project’ went some way toward tackling this issue of construction and mediation.  In this pilot, there was no interference beyond the proposed subject for contributions.  The participators posted their story or poetic item in any order and in whatever language or style they chose.  A visitor to the sight can read the collective poem in whatever order they choose.  In this context, the artist is working more as a catalyst; they are responsible for the creative premise and the facilitation of the responses but the artwork itself “is worked out as performance between the artist and the spectators (whether ‘professional’ or non-specialist).” (Jones & Stephenson, 1999, 14).

The disappointing aspect of this second pilot was the lack of diverse involvement.  In order for the theories of ‘collective intelligence’ and the ‘wisdom of crowds’ to be fully applicable, a greater number and diversity of contributions are required.  This has raised issues of promotion and communication, another function of the ‘catalytic’ and ‘facilitatory’ artist.  In the preparation of the project itself, the collaborative aspects will need to be more widely circulated into more diverse cultural areas.  Blais and Ippolito talk of the safe environments and ‘nurseries’ in which antibodies are cultivated but assert that for antibodies to ‘target invaders’ they must be exposed to hostile environments.  Similarly “art has its own nursery: the schools, studios and galleries where it has been traditionally cultivated and appreciated… art cannot protect the social body if confined to the nursery, art is most effective when it pervades the whole circulatory system.” (Blais & Ippolito, 11, 2006).  If this project is to engage with these theoretical concepts more directly, then a larger field of participators, collaborators and interactive spectators needs to be accessed, so that the wisdoms of the crowd are better received and the function of art as antibody is more directly exposed.
Conclusion and Recommendations for the Final Project

Overall the pilots were both pleasing, rewarding and generally successful in their aim; they directly engaged with the questions and issues central to this creative research project and they also clearly related to and were inspired by the body of critical theory surrounding this topic area.  Whilst the challenges raised require new creative responses, it was good that both the content for the collective poem and the contributions in the live show were taken from the ‘bazaar’ model of cultural communication.  It was also good to realise that the live performance pilot was so different and dependent on the assembled audience from day to day.  The ‘Really Huge Poetry Project’ was especially exciting as its form and content embodies the values of ‘free culture’ so clearly.

Both pilots were also very helpful in terms of the problems they encountered.  In the case of the ‘War on Worry’ live performance, issues of how the tension is negotiated between the facilitation of creative contributions and the control or manipulation of ideas needs to be further worked through in the writing and planning stages of the actual project.  The online publication of the collective poems clearly needs to be better promoted and communicated to potential collaborators.  Arts collectives and networking sites such as ‘Critical Network’, ‘Art Rabbit’ and ‘Rhyzome’ will be used more effectively to build larger cultural bases for collaboration but ultimately the project will have to function increasingly outside of the safer nurseries of artistic creation and appreciation, and this also requires more creative thought.

The pilots were immensely helpful and the lessons learned will now inform the planning and preparation in the build up to the implementation of the final project.  The best news however, as Jenkins asserts, is that no one person has the answer but a plethora of possible solutions may well present themselves within the collaboration of a wise crowd.

Rationale, Aims and Objectives.
As a performance poet, my cultural context has been in hip-hop MC-ing, and the urban music subculture. My poetry is often rhythmic, electronically produced and arranged over looped samples. My artistic intention is to ask questions, to question the dominant ideologies presented to us through the mass-produced culture industry. Our current context of cultural production is inescapably tied to the goal of ‘market saturation’. Homogenous product for sale stifles the plurality of creative voices and we are left with the self-serving dominant myth that commercial viability is the only measure of success. Alternative values, and indeed alternative artists and thinkers, those Philips (2005) refers to as marginalised, are all too invisible in mainstream, mass culture where they are financially out muscled within the industrial system of a reproductive economy.
“The need for many voices is a condition of the cultural health of any complex society, and so the creation of conditions for the freedom of the artist is in that sense the duty of society.” (Williams, 1989, 89)
Rather than having a desire to see the individuals who make up the multitudes of mass society awoken from some kind of a passive slumber, I have instead an angry hope to see the machinery of mass and homogenous production challenged by the undeniable artistic presence of a subversive and creative voice communicated in fresh and original ways.

In ‘At the Edge of Art’, Blais and Ippolito (2006) take the idea of an unhealthy society further; they liken the role of Art to that of Antibodies in the human immune system. In the same way as Antibodies fight infection in the biological body of an individual, art fights the infections in the social body. Blais and Ippolito (2006) assert that these infections can be seen as excessive commerce and technological proliferation.

My aim is to produce a collective enquiry into the social function of performance art as a resistance to the process of commodification and the invalidation of culture that is not commercially viable. Formulaic, mainstream reproduction hegemonically disempowers alternative ideology and grass roots community and this enquiry will investigate ways in which this hegemony may be challenged through performance and the free dissemination of digital community art. This project will take the form of a live show, which both makes space for my own poetic social commentary whilst also facilitating the contributions of the interactive and interpretative audience. The show will feature performances from a community of grass roots artists and performers and will be based around the same themes and questions. Rather than financial, through ticket purchase, the audience’s contribution will be creative. The venue will be arranged like an art gallery but all the canvases will be blank. The audience will be invited to contribute anything they wish in creative response to the theme of the show, which will be a set of questions about world-view. These questions are directly linked to Blais and Ippolito’s (2206) concept of the way in which art can operate as an antibody in the face of society’s infections. A video booth will also be set up providing opportunities for verbal and performative responses. The audience will have ample opportunity to respond between the pre-arranged performances. There will also be visual artists and VJs working as part of the show and the contribution of the audience will be incorporated into the visual projections in real time allowing the audience to also be the artists and directly influence the content of the installation and the ideological direction of the show. The completed artwork, including the contributions of the audience will then be shaped into a collective documentary poem for free digital distribution online through an interactive ‘open mic’ web page.

Considering the Theoretical Context.

Adam Phillips (2005) asserts that Art is against suicide, that art is about ‘renewal’ and ‘hope’. Simply put, “It is one of art’s jobs to make us feel that more life is worth having.” (Phillips A, 2005, ITV). Raymond Williams (1989) further identifies art as serving an important political function. He recognises art as a ‘resource for hope’. In his essay ‘Art: Freedom as Duty’ Williams points to the capacity of art to challenge the ‘limitations on freedom’. These limitations may be in the form of a political oppression through state interference, censorship or administrative and legal control. However, In Western, capitalist contexts, this ‘limitation on freedom’ manifests as a pressure for ‘commercial viability’.
“Freedom in our kind of society amounts to the freedom to say anything you wish, providing you can say it profitably… There is a deep correlation with profit, and this does impose constraints… The duty to serve the state or serve the cause, the duty to entertain which usually means something that fits somebody’s marketing prediction.” (Williams 1989: 88).
In our sociological context, the pursuit of profit and the commodification of art can therefore be seen as a limitation on freedom and a constraint against the hope inducing and renewing qualities of art. This commercial pressure exerted on creativity is even more sinister in the context of ideological art, where creative expression seeks to ask questions of the dominant culture and engage politically in conveying real freedom. Williams (1989) points out that, whist a kind of freedom is encouraged – the freedom to pursue capital gain at near any cost – the freedom to question that very value is muted. Indeed, hegemonic, dominant values normalise subversive and alternative thought by consuming it within a system of homogenous, popular reproduction. The process of commodification invalidates and disempowers alternative political comment because it makes it a beneficiary of the system it opposes. Our Western culture of capitalist consumerism has created an impressively efficient defence against potentially revolutionary ideology through its enticing ability to turn revolution into a product for sale and a commodity for capital gain. Despite the political artists who have called for the revolution to ‘not be televised’, the messages of alternative performers and creatives have found themselves submitting to the power of a commodity driven consumer culture.

Williams (1989) further suggests that the function of hegemony attempts to trick us. He clearly states his dislike for the ‘way of talking about cultural production’ where one takes ‘a professional tone’ as they belittle the non-professional works of art produced by unknown, or indeed commercially unsuccessful, artists. It is in fact within creative communities free from the pressure to please an audience or to commercially succeed that truly significant works are likely to emerge. Indeed, Philips asks that we look to poetry at this time precisely because it is so marginalised. “There’s no money in it and very little glamour” (Phillips, 2005, ITV). The fact that poetry is an art form currently excluded from popular audience appeal is exactly why it is so well suited to the resistance of ‘commercial viability’ and the challenge against such ‘limitations on freedom’.
My research and project outcome are to investigate the best ways in which to display, perform and communicate my art, that of performance poetry, in such a way that the pressures of ‘commercial viability’ are resisted, and the contribution of the non-professional artist or interactive interpreter are encouraged and resourced.

Performance can be seen as the first strategy in the resistance of these limitations on artistic freedom.
“Performance in a strict ontological sense is non-reproductive. It is this quality which makes performance the runt of the litter of contemporary art. Performance clogs the smooth machinery of reproductive representation necessary to the circulation of capital.” (Phelan, 1993, 148).
The ontology of performance is naturally set against the hegemonic tendency to undermine and normalise radical and alternative artistic statement. Walter Benjamin (1999) also refers to the ‘authenticity of the original’ and the ‘essence’ of a performance. “The presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity.” (Benjamin, 1999, 214). He explains that an original work of art has an ‘authority’; it’s authority is linked to its performance or existence in a specific time, place context.
“Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be… that which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the work of art.” (Benjamin, 1999, 214).
Phelan also asserts the importance “the ’now’ to which performance addresses its deepest questions” (Phelan, 1993, 146). The focus on ‘now’ is, by definition, anti-reproduction. Phelan (1993) refers to reproductions as ‘memorabilia’; Benjamin (1999) also talks of ‘remembrance’. Clearly they both suggest that reproduction changes the ontology of artistic performance and makes it something else, something with less aura, something which “succumbs to the laws of the reproductive economy”. (Phelan, 1993, 146).
Reproduction conveys information but performance allows impartation. Performance art is personal and relational; it is experienced and enjoyed rather than critiqued. A consequence of reproducing a performance is that the audience lose engagement with the ‘aura’; they lose the impact of the art’s ‘magic’.
“The camera that presents the performance to the public need not respect the performance as an integral whole. Guided by the cameraman, the camera continually changes its position with respect to the performance… This permits the audience to take the position of a critic… The audience’s identification with the actor is really an identification with the camera.” (Benjamin, 1999, 222).
In a way, the process of reproduction sterilises art or, to use Phelan’s metaphor, it places the piece under “house arrest” (Phelan, 1993, 147). The function of art as an experience or interaction shared within a community in a specific time and place is lost. The audience is positioned as spectator rather than empowered as a creative interpreter and contributor to the performance and context.
“Interpretation is worked out as performance between artists and spectators (whether ‘professional’ or non-specialist)… the ‘complicity of the audience’.” (Jones & Stephenson, 1999, 14). Interpretation should be seen as a creative process, which evidences the cultural competence of audiences and their important role in contextualizing art as a social function. The role of poetry as an art form has its historical identity in traditions of oral history and ritualistic story telling, from Beowulf to modern folk poetry traditions. Benjamin (1999) identifies this principal when he writes of the two planes on which poetic works are received; he recognises that art can carry a ‘cult value’ or an ‘exhibition value’. Whereas ‘cult value’ serves a social function, ‘exhibition value’ is about a communication with a mass audience and therefore serves a political function; reproduction adjusts reality for the masses. It is interesting to note therefore that an original performance has authority and a value for community and corporate identity whereas reproduced prints or copies serve a ‘power’, which aims to exert a mass influence and reap an economic gain. Could it be the function of the latter that destroys the ‘aura’ of the former?

The importance of ‘cult value’ and the problems posed by ‘exhibition value’ are also evident in the work of Ali Mohammadi and Anabelle Sreberny Mohammadi (1994). In their book ‘Small Media, Big Revolution’, they further investigate the tension between social and political functioning. In their study of media communication during the Iranian revolution, they identify the conflicting agendas of ‘big media’, which serves the oppressive agenda of the dominant political system and ‘small media’ which seeks to challenge the dominant ideology and “express continuity and cultural identity.” (Mohammadi, & Sreberny-Mohammadi, 1994, 189). It could be argued that in our current context where, as previously discussed with reference to Williams, limitations are still acting upon artistic freedoms, all be it more subtly, the digital, ‘new media’ may be able to function in a ‘small media’ capacity – that is to say in a ‘grass roots’ and subversive opposition to the broadcast mainstream of ‘big media’ communication.
“Small media can be effective in undermining a strong regime with universal mass media reach. It can mobilise massive popular movement… It has immense political potential in developing public spaces where none seems possible.” (Mohammadi & Sreberny-Mohammadi, 1994, 189)
If performance is the primary means by which the pressures of commodification can be resisted, could the role of new, small media communication be the second? Whilst the ontology of performance seems naturally incompatible with commercial reproduction, the ontology of digital new media seems to be entirely suited to limitless copies. Stallman, a software freedom activist, highlights this dynamic of digital production and reproduction with his concept of ‘copyleft’, which is simply the practice of using copyright law to remove restrictions on distributing copies or modified versions of digital production – namely computer software, documents, music, and art. It is interesting that while the obvious play on words is to invert the idea of ‘copyright’, it is clear that the ‘copyleft’ principal is also ‘left’ in its political implications. While the reproduction of performance poetry in a real world context seems to create a product without ‘aura’ for success as a commodity, the completely free and uncontrolled availability in the digital world seems to further undermine the powers of the ‘reproductive economy’.
“The technology of digital ‘capturing and sharing’ promises a world of extraordinarily diverse creativity that can be easily and broadly shared. And as that creativity is applied to democracy, it will enable a broad range of citizens to use technology to express and criticize and contribute to the culture all around.” (Lessig, 2004, 184).
These two strategic positions can be drawn together by recognising that both the ontology of performance and the fundamental nature of new digital media are allied in their opposition to the commodification of artistic product in the ‘reproductive economy’. They both have their strength in interactive dialogue and interpretation and both serve to define and facilitate communities of cultural competence. It is interesting to note also that both performance and digital sharing have acted, and continue to act, as a resource for sub-cultural identity and resistance.

It is for this reason that the intended project outlined in this proposal will exist firstly as a performance in actual time and space, it is also why the audience will be invited to contribute as a creative and active interpreter. Furthermore, it is why this performance will not be reproduced; its aura will remain in tact and its authenticity undisturbed. Instead, it will bring forth a collective work, a shared poem and visual piece, which will be distributed digitally within the public domain according to the values of ‘copyleft’ and the creative commons licence.

Skills and Resources.

I already have proficient knowledge of digital music production and accompanying visual montage. I am an increasingly experienced and accomplished performer and I own or have access to all the necessary equipment for my own performance. For the contributions of an interactive and interpretive audience, I need to develop knowledge of live, real time film projection and I will need to hire or purchase the necessary projectors and screens. I am already in collaborative relationships with two VJ / visual artists who can help me with both the know-how and the information for what technology I need to acquire.

Further relationships with other unsigned and ‘grass-roots’ artists will also need to be developed, as it is my intension to deliberately make space for other struggling or unknown artists, the kinds of artist that Williams (1989) insists should be recognised. I am already in collaborative relationships with a number of such artists and have established channels for finding more. I will need to design a brief that explains my aims and objectives in an accessible format.

Further work is required on my ‘freestyle’ skills, as it is my intention to directly interact with the contributions of the creative audience. I can and have performed freestyle but tend to get rather scared of it, however this possible embarrassment is part of the ‘unprofessional’ dynamic I desire and part of the ontology of performance, which makes it so potentially radical and unique to a precise, unreproducible time and space context.

A venue for the show and exhibition will need to be selected. Depending on the venue, I will need to consider the necessary PA equipment for the various performances. I may also need to arrange some form of staff to facilitate venue entry.

Ethical and Legal Considerations.

The latter part of my project is to edit together the contributions of the audience into a documentary style poem, with the comments of interactive members of the audience spliced together as ‘talking heads’ as they complete each others’ lines of one collective poem. This will require the informed consent of each contributor, so they will need to be made aware of the intended outcome.

The nature of my work will mean that I am forever engaging with issues of copyright and intellectual property ownership as I work with loops and samples. Indeed, I will further be engaging with this issue as I decide how my own artwork will be distributed and licensed, or indeed made deliberately free for distribution and creative adaptation.

Bibliography and References.

Adorno, T (1991) The Culture Industry, London: Routledge.

Benjamin, W (1999) Illuminations, London: Pimlico.

Blais, J & Ippolito, J (2006) At the Edge of Art, London: Thames & Hudson.

Clarke, J & Hall, S & Jefferson, T & Roberts, B (1975) Subcultures, Cultures and Class in Hall, S & Jefferson, T (eds) Resistance through Rituals, Cambridge: Routledge.

Fiske, J (1989) Understanding Popular Culture, London and New York: Routledge.

Jones, A & Stephenson, A (1999) Performing the body/performing the text, London and New York: Routledge.

Lessig, L (2004) Free Culture, New York: The Penguin Press.

Mohammadi, A & Sreberny-Mohammadi, A (1994) Small Media, Big Revolution, Minneapolis: Minnesota.

Phelan, P (1993) Unmarked, London and New York: Routledge.

Williams, R (1989) Resources of Hope, London and New York: Verso.

Willis, P (1990) Common Culture, Buckingham: Open University Press.

Internet Sources.

Raymond, E (2000) The Cathedral and the Bazaar, Open Publication
License available for PDF download, Eric S. Raymond’s Home Page, 1/5/07, www.catb.org/~esr/writings.

Broadcasting: TV Programme

Philips, A (2205) The South Bank Show: Going Sane (6/3/2005, UK).

Drawing some points together…
Art that doesn’t compete.

So if we have a sociological context that is unjust and unhealthy, and if “one of Art’s jobs is to make us feel that more life is worth having”, then performance art, and particularly in my context performance poetry, must signpost an alternative; it can hopefully offer ‘new’ or ‘real sanity’. In the space between the performer and the contributing spectator, the creative process of interpretation can release renewal, hope and a sense of identity.
“Mainstream, big media does not pay sufficient attention to… indigenous channels of communication that often express continuity and cultural identity.” [Mohammadi]
This identity is important as mainstream homogenous art product creates consumers whose identity is often individualistic and based in the commodities of their consumption.

The question therefore is – how does ‘real’ / ‘sane’ art perform its important sociological function of empowering people without becoming a commodity? How can it resist the ‘for sale’ culture and the pressures to compete and blame?

Ali Mohammadi and Anabelle Sreberny Mohammadi investigate how forms of ‘small’ media can resist the homogenous and hegemonic influences of ‘Big’ media. They talk of “the immense political potential of new ‘small’ media in developing public spaces in contexts where none seems possible.” I am confident that some of their research into the cultural effects of ‘small’ media and how it “can mobilise popular movement” can be mapped onto the current context of how forms of ‘new’ and narrowcast media could offer a resistance against a broad-cast and broadly formulaic communications industry. Can these forms of new, grass roots, media mediate renewing and hopeful art substance from outside of the ‘Big’ consumerist media machines?
“Small media can be effective in undermining a regime with universal mass media reach.”

‘The Rat Race’ – ‘Dog Eat Dog’ – ‘Swimming With Sharks’ – ‘The Pecking Order’.
‘A Sick Society’ and the problem with consumerism.

The apparent problem posed by consumer culture is evident both in art and critical art analysis. The paradox of art as a force for enlightened interpretation and hope whilst being a cultural product, often subject to commodification, is a well-documented tension.

Michael Josza is an artist who made ‘pokemon’ style trading cards that displayed images of viruses. He made them colourful and child friendly, mirroring the mode of address used by the manufacturers of children’s’ trading cards.
“They look like any other trading cards. The back of the colourful cards could easily be mistaken for Pokemon… But when you flip over the trading card, you see an image of a virus that could potentially kill you.”
Josza was attempting to liken consumerism to a virus particularly one that targets the often-undeveloped immune system of children.
“A virus is a nonliving entity unless it has a host, in the same way that a consumer product is basically non existent unless it has a buyer… The idea is that humans can take steps to avoid becoming the host.”

R D Lang claimed that our consumer culture is ‘sick’ and it make us sick. The people we should fear and fear for are those who work to succeed and conform in a sick society, where life is competitive and individualist. Within the study of clinical psychology, the systemic approach asks further questions of the ‘medical model’ and its understanding of mental illness. The position of ‘social constructionism’ questions the validity of diagnosing people as mentally ill when they have stepped outside of the boundaries of perceived social normality. Consumerism plays a significant role in the establishment of these boundaries and norms as it encourages mass production, mass ownership and therefore homogeneity. Perception of someone as ‘abnormal’ further alienates and excludes them and contextualises their social role as being of less value, which is of further risk to mental health.

Fry, in his documentary – ‘The secret life of the Manic Depressive’, points to consumer culture again as an escape from depression and a playground for the manic. It is almost portrayed as a drug, an addictive behaviour where a temporary illusion of happiness can be found. Marxist writers have also identified the escapist nature of consumerism. Chomsky, for example, damns mass consumerism as ‘diversion’; a distraction from the unfair, exploitative and controlling nature of capitalist consumerism.

‘The rat race’, ‘Dog eat dog’, ‘swimming with sharks’ and ‘the pecking order’… we are all too familiar with these animal metaphors for competitivity. Succeeding, to the detriment of your fellow woman/man breeds isolation and individualism – possibly the most harmful contributor to poor mental health. This individualism and the distinct lack of successful models for corporate ownership can be further linked to a society where blame is placed on individuals rather than also on systems and corporate behaviours. Blame, then leading to guilt, hopelessness, depression, low self-esteem and suicide.

Another major contributing factor to these conditions is personal debt a clear component of an excessively consuming society where success is identified and displayed through ownership and perceived success rather than personal fulfilment. Debt is a significant factor in depression and suicide especially among young men, now the most at risk of suicide according to the Samaritans.

“I’d do anything just to say ‘I got it’. Damn those new loafers hurt my pocket.” [Kanye West]

Finally, Consumerism as a worldview and cultural system, due to its emphasis on competitivity and ownership creates a social context of jealousy, criticism and hostility.

“Oh, yeah, freedom’s what it’s all about, all right. But talkin’ about it and bein’ it, that’s two different things. I mean it’s real hard to be free when you are bought and sold in the marketplace. Of course, don’t ever tell anybody that they’re not free, ’cause then they’re gonna get real busy killin’ and maimin’ to prove to you that they are. Oh, yeah, they’re gonna talk to you, and talk to you, and talk to you about individual freedom. But they see a free individual, it’s gonna scare ‘em… it makes ‘em dangerous.”
(Easy Rider, Hopper, 1969, Columbia Pictures, USA)