3P18 - Audience Blog #4
Nov. 11, 2015
Hello again!
This week I will be discussing media fandom - a spectrum that ranges from content ('content', as in 'pleased with') consumers of popular culture, all the way to obsessive 'super-fans' of of subcultures that might be too strange and upsetting to mention.
People often refer to themselves as fans of certain things, or they refer to others too, as fans. If you live within 100km of Toronto, chances are you're a 'fan' of these guys (sometimes, in a heartbreaking, bitter-sweet kind of way):
If you're someone with moral values who knows even the slightest bit about recent history, you're probably not a 'fan' of this guy - to put it very lightly:
But what is a 'fan'? These above examples would suggest that to be a fan of something, one must appreciate its nature and standing, and one must feel that whatever it may be deserves idolization - to any extent - and is a worthy representation of the individual fan's own values and virtues. This is often accompanied by emotional and intellectual involvement. We 'like' the Toronto Maple Leafs because they are one of the oldest teams in the franchise, and because their home is the biggest city in Canada (Toronto - Population: ~2.7 million). We are 'fans' of the Leafs; some recontexualize and display their involvement as such:
On the other hand, we very much dislike or (deservedly so) even hate Adolf Hitler because he represents the most repugnant level of elitism and intolerance that humanity has ever devolved to, and is personally responsible for the Holocaust (which new findings show may have claimed the lives of up to 20 million people, or ~7x more than the population of Toronto). To mock this Oedipal infant, certain people have altered historical images:
This is very obviously about as extreme an example that can be offered, but it serves to prove an important point. People seek things (other people, objects, franchises, etc.) to be fans of, because these things most often represent an ideal for not only the individual fan in relation to their own self image, but for the society or world which they would prefer to live in. In other words, there will always be things to avoid, or look down upon, or hate, but 'fans' usually become fans of the more promising and virtuous things.
I am a huge fan of Cinema, possibly even a 'super-fan' (I am loyal to cinema, I have acquired a large movie collection, I am sure to have an answer to most cinema-related trivia, and I even make movies - it's what I want to do for a living -, though I remain a "petty-producer"). That being said, if my level of fandom - high as it is, relatively - were to be compared to a movie ticket, then Quentin Tarantino's level of fandom would encapsulate the entire theatre and everyone in it, and probably more. Here is a featurette on the lengths Tarantino has pushed to honour the legacy that is epic cinema:
In a sense, Tarantino 'crowd funded' this 70mm projection. Not among general audiences, but by offering passioned and inspired argument to his producers, who eventually succumbed. He did this by creating a spimatic conception of the product - a 'master idea', existing immaterially through communication, which convinced the producers to green light the idea. Now, the 70mm projection exists only as a spime to general audiences - a promise of select theatres projecting the film in 70mm that is being hyped through advertising.
Nov. 18, 2015
Hello,
The internet, and all of the seemingly endless possibilities attributed to it, is something which seems to have a place in almost any modern discussion - as it should. Anyone with access to an online computer will invariably be reminded perpetually that they have more power than just about any civilian in history.
Here is an example. In a world were the months November through January are politically now referred to as the "Holidays" (to be inclusive of any and all ceremonious religious affiliations that may take place during this time), these YouTube stars have chosen to create a specifically "Christmas"-themed music video...
... Which is great, because while it is wholly important to be inclusive and accepting of everyone's disposition in this glorious multicultural country, it is also very important to remain loyal to those elements of your own culture and tradition that are unique and representative of something inside the assimilated whole - and as much of a 'mosaic' Canada is, there is no arguing that the condensing of all cultural traditions under the banner is assimilationist and immature. Each respective tradition that takes place in the coming months deserves equal attention.
Imagine living in this exact moment, but in a reality where the general population is unable to produce anything on the internet. It is very possible that 'holiday' material would be homogenized and bland - end of discussion, zero external expression. That is what past audience participation was like. Nowadays, because we do have participatory access to the internet, people can produce and share just about anything they please. Because it's digital, it can efficiently and instantaneously be shared repeatedly to anyone with an internet connection. But this doesn't mean that this ability is something inherent and ascribed. It is a privilege, and one that can potentially be taken away.
The internet operates according to a hierarchy, where the internet mainframe itself sits at the very topmost position. If it crashes, then nothing else attributed to it online will function. Below this, despite net neutrality existing, lies powerful governmental organizations (or powerful civilian units like Anonymous) which have prophesied their own responsibility for intervention in dramatic circumstances. Unfortunately, despite the superlative responses to Anonymous, recent intel shows that their advances against ISIS are much less effective than originally purported:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/anonymous-rickrolls-isis-on-twitter-after-losing-cyber-war-1.3331934
Beyond this, on the hierarchy of power-holding of the internet, lay the major website platforms themselves (YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) These corporations function by audience participation, yet content uploading is strictly monitored and ultimately rests under the priorities of the platforms. These corporations have even fostered a type of 'panoptic environment' where every single person who participates is monitored in terms of their online activity. In essence, people are providing free labor - their use of social media sites, for example, is prime real estate for advertisers - in exchange for their participation.
In the end, even though we feel very much in charge of our online functions, they are nothing more than the allowance of limited and strategically formulated participation which demands certain trade-offs, like personal information for advertising tracking. Our online presence can be revoked, and in my case, those iMDB "Greatest Movies" lists created in my first year at Brock could cease to exist - and then no one that I don't know would ever be able to argue with me that "The Dark Knight Rises" is better than "The Dark Knight"... I could lose that precious and valuable discourse, and worse, my identity as a unique and precious snowflake. A cynical, disappointed snowflake that would leave a bitter taste on one's tongue.
I'm done.
Peace.
Signed,
D-Money.
