maandag 30 november 2015

#Hashtags, Tweets and Posts in the format of TV programs


In the past years, the TV format industry has become a global trade worth billions of euros per year; formatted brands exist in all TV genres and reach almost every country in the world.[1] It’s not easy to put a clear definition on the concept of a ‘format’; whereas some define a format simply as ‘any show that anyone is willing to pay for’, others, like the Format Recognition and Protection Association (FRAPA), see it as a more complex concept and define it in this way: ‘In the making of a television program, in the ordering of the television elements such as that a distinctive narrative progression is created’.[2] In the article of Chalaby it is said that a format must have a distinctive narrative dimension. An example of such a distinctive dimension is the use of trigger moments, produced by unexpected twists or nomination nights.[3] Another example of a successful format element that is being used in many programs is voting, like in the program Super Star, in which the outcomes of the competition have been heavily linked to voting technology.[4]
Besides these examples, there are many more strategies that are being used in formatting in order to create a successful television program. In this essay, we want to focus on one particular element in television formats, namely the use of social media in live television programs. With social media, we mean ‘the collective of online communications channels dedicated to community-based input, interaction, content-sharing and collaboration’.[5] Examples of social media are Youtube, Twitter and Facebook.


 
Nowadays, networks and producers begin to further embed social media initiatives into their content and programming strategies.[6] Think for example of the popular tv show The Voice of Holland, in which the Red Room app gives the audience the opportunity to get more information about the candidates or listen to the The Voice of Holland music. Or Dancing With the Stars, where a Facebook page is included in the format, which gives the audience the opportunity to share their thoughts and vote online for their favourite candidate. Furthermore, a rising amount of programs use #hashtags - like #TVOH - so the audience can refer to the program when writing about it on social media. 
But why exactly do producers use social media in their television program formats? How might social media affect and change television programs, and the audience who watch it? Harrington et al.[7] state that ‘social media like Twitter does not necessarily replace existing media channels, but often complements them, providing its users with alternative opportunities to contribute more actively to the wider media sphere.’ Furthermore, recent market research suggests that viewers now use social media with considerable enthusiasm to engage with television programs, particularly where there are explicit on-screen prompts, such as dedicated hashtags.[8]
Used in the format of television programs, Harrington et al. argue that ‘Twitter and services alike, become a kind of virtual loungeroom, connecting the active audiences of specific TV shows at an unprecedented scale. For audiences with access to social media on a second screen, the experience of watching television thus becomes an even more communal one’.[9] This is for example the case in The Voice of Holland, in which tweets and posts of audiences online are screened and read out loud by the show hosts in the Red Room, which includes the audience on a whole new level. The voices of the audience are actually incorporated in the program and social media does not only function as a backchannel for the show, but becomes a part of the show itself. Furthermore, by looking at the comments made on social media, the program gets an ‘instant audience feedback’[10], originally intended for other viewers but also highly useful for program makers, in order to see what the audience thinks of the program and how it may be improved to meet the wishes of the audience better. In this way, social media can be a place of reflection for program makers.
    The increased use of social media alongside television - as a simple backchannel, or in more sophisticated, transmedia contexts - may add a new dimension to the experience of being ‘an audience’ for television.[11] In the current scientific debate, two roles for the audience are distinguished: the audience as an active viewer and the audience as an interactive viewer. The (inter)active audience is an audience that actively looks for the programs that fit their preferences and interact with the program, for example by voting on candidates via their telephone. With the integration of social media in television programs, however, the role of the audience can even go a step further, namely, in the direction of a ‘creating audience’. In her article, Plasman argues that the integration of new media in television programs can possibly create three new roles for the viewer, which all contain a ‘creating function’: the semi-creating viewer, the co-creating viewer and the creating viewer.[12] The semi-creating viewer is subject to a sort of ‘fake creation’: the viewer gets invited to actively shape the content of the program, but in fact the producers still have much influence, for example by only viewing positive social media tweets and posts in the program. The co-creating viewer gets a more objective and bigger influence role; the social media users are at the basis of all the program elements and the viewer proposes options for the makers to work with in the broadcast. An example of this is a pilot of a BNN show called Not So Lonely Planet, in which the social media user decides where show host Dennis Storm is about to travel and what his travel schedule will look like.[13] Third, the viewer can become the main creator of the program; the makers of the programs have less influence than the social media using audience; the viewer has nearly all the power over the content.[14] Anno 2015, the audience probably can be placed in the role of a semi or co-creating viewer.
    As we have seen, the integration of social media in the format of live television programs caused some noteworthy changes. First of all, the audience has become more involved and their role may change from an interactive one, to a creating one. If the audience will ever be full creators, however, is in our opinion rather doubtful. Is it likely that the producers will fully let go of their power over the content? In the example of Not So Lonely Planet, what if the viewer would send Dennis Storm to highly expensive places? Or boring places everyone knows already? How would that effect the program financially and what would it mean for the audience ratings? Probably, producers will always to some extent keep hold of the reins itself, but the fact that the audience gets more and more power is undeniable.
For program makers, the use of social media in their programming means that, by looking at the tweets and posts of the viewers, they can have a better picture of what the audience thinks of their programs and what their wishes are. Furthermore, it may more closely attach the audience to the program when they feel like they are being heard, which can influence the audience ratings for the better. According to Harrington et al.[15] the use of social media in live television programs ‘raise the potential of making television a more interactive, dialogical experience. However, the extent to which such interactivity might be incorporated into live television formats, has yet to be explored in full. Indeed, entirely new television formats may arise to leverage such interactivity more effectively.[16]

Proposition
In the future, how probable do you think it is that the audience will eventually become a ‘creating viewer’, like Plasman writes about in her article? 

AvdB, VM, JP.


[1] Chalaby, 2011: 293.
[2] Chalaby, 2011: 294.
[3] Chalaby, 2011: 294.
[4] Meizel, 2010: 207.
[6] Harrington et al., 2013: 408.
[7] Harrington et al., 2013: 405.
[8] Harrington et al., 2013: 405.
[9] Harrington et al., 2013: 405.
[10] Harrington et al., 2013: 406.
[11] Harrington et al., 2013: 405.
[12] Plasman, 2011: 46.
[13] Plasman, 2011: 40.
[14] Plasman, 2011: 45.
[15] Harrington et al., 2013: 407.
[16] Harrington et al., 2013: 407.

References

Chalaby, J. (2011) ‘The making of an entertainment revolution: How the TV format trade became a global industry’, in: European Journal of Communication, 26 (4): 293-308.

Harrington, S., Highfield, T. & Bruns, A. (2013) ‘More than a backchannel: Twitter and television’, in: Journal of Audience and Reception Studies, 10 (1): 405-409.

Meizel, K. (2010) ‘The United Nations of Pop: Global Franchise and Geopolitics’, in: Idolized: Music, Media, and Identity in American Idol. Bloomington: Indiana University Press: 192-219.

Plasman, Y. (2011) ‘Creërende kijkers: Een onderzoek naar de veranderende rol van de kijker door de integratie van sociale media in televisieprogramma’s’. Faculty of Humanities: University of Utrecht.
Gepost door op Geen opmerkingen:

maandag 16 november 2015

Split localities
On the problematization and the possibilities of the audience
This week’s blogpost explores different modes of audience perception and audience participation, two activities that, due to globalization and digitalization, have become increasingly diffuse on account of growing audiences worldwide and the many platforms that come with it. Rather than focusing on one particular case study, we oscillate between different cultural examples and touch upon different questions such as ‘What is an audience?’ and ‘How much power does an audience have today?’, thereby illustrating our arguments with quotes from several texts on these topics by cultural scholars Fabienne Darling-Wolf, Shayla Thiel-Stern and Jack Z. Bratich (see bibliography).
Transnational communication research as a concept entails research that focuses on the local reception of global texts.[1] We might deem the Harry Potter series (both the books and the films) a global text in that it is of such a worldwide renown that practically every locality in the world recognizes it and can verbally contribute to it, from a grassroots level to an academic level. However, the way in which this series is received, differs from country to country, conceivably even from town to town. On a spatial level, the Harry Potter story itself doesn’t employ various or extremely different global communities, countries, cities et cetera (the bulk takes place in the UK: Hogwarts, London, the Dursley’s home). The reception of these texts in different localities and the focus on the diverse connections between these different spaces can bring to light ‘hitherto neglected local-to-local links’. In other words, if the reception of a text in London is more or less the same as in Manchester, the question why that is the case becomes interesting. This is what is called a translocal approach.[2]
But how, we might ask ourselves, does one make such distinctions in a world that has shifted from a local, sedentary sphere to a more mobile, digital (and thus more universal?) sphere? Does the internet flatten the diversity of audiences or does the locality of one’s specific social sphere still plays a significant role in being part of an audience? The notion of an audience isn’t a unilateral one either. Conceptualizing an audience is deemed a product of ‘problematization’, a notion which is defined by Foucault as: ‘not the representation of a pre-existing object, nor the creation by discourse of an object that does not exist. It is the totality of discursive and non-discursive practices that introduces something into the play of true and false and constitutes it as an object for thought’.[3] Different types of audiences then are described by Bratich as masses, publics, consumers, recipients, spectators, social identities, active decoders and fans.[4] We can see the difficulty of describing an audience in a concise or universal way, something that has become even more difficult with the prevalence of social media, whereby the audience itself has acquired an audience (someone who uses Facebook is both a performer and a spectator at the same time). The audience/producer line blurs. While in a former, more analogue sphere the audience would watch something in the dark, the audience today is very much aware of the fact that they are, in the interactive social media environment, continuously being watched as well.[5]
A classic analogue audience
So, with the notion that a singular concept of an audience is difficult (and the semantic boundaries of such a concept can be interminably stretched) in the back of our heads, it becomes interesting to analyze whether or not an audience that has transgressed certain spatial boundaries, by virtue of the democratization of the digital sphere, still encounters difficulties that can’t be transgressed through this digital sphere. According to Gillmor, the increasing interactive online media possibilities have led to a grassroots uprising of such magnitude that he dares to state that ‘for the first time in modern history, the user is truly in charge, as a consumer and as a producer’.[6] We wonder if this is truly the case. Nowadays people find it easy to say that to make music you only need a computer, or if you want to make a movie, you can do it on your iPhone. There may be some truth to that, but there is also an optimistic undertone in that assertion that, we feel, violates the truth. They (and by ‘they’ we mean the general masses and consumers) can make a film on their iPhones, but it is unlikely that it will have the technical expertise that is prevalent on a professional level, nor can they indulge in the same amount of possibilities. They can’t easily access the spaces that are open to the professional. They can’t shoot in a bank, in a police station, in a hospital, and they can’t rent a train to drive it of the tracks into a ravine. They might try of course, but the chances are improbable, for they lack the money, the tools, the wherewithal, the support of official commissions, granted permits et cetera. You can shoot a film on your iPhone, but then you have to settle for places that are accessible to everyone who wants to shoot a film guerilla style: cabs, streets, one or two houses for example, as Sean Baker did with Tangerine (2015), which was shot on an iPhone 5s.[7]
Shooting Tangerine on the iPhone 5s
We think that for a large part the audience remains in the hands of what Bratich denotes as ‘uncertainty, experimentation and unpredictability’, because the space of the internet may be completely open to them, but they can’t at will transcend the borders of the physical space.[8] Hence the consecration of the ‘interregnum’, a transitional space in between two epochs. In between the still very tangible remnants of an analogue age and a full-blown digital age wherein the audience perhaps can access the same possibilities the professional performers have now, they have to lie in wait. The audience has to make do with what Bratich calls ‘mutations’: new hybridizations that hold a ‘terrible ambiguity’ towards their possibilities.’[9] That ambiguity, as mentioned before, lies in the fact that the audience stands with one leg in an analogue sphere, and with the other in a not yet full-blown digital one.
In conclusion, one might state that the concept of the audience may widen, but the possibilities of the audience do not evolve in a parallel way. We want to stress however, that  although we chose for a more pessimistic or realistic nuance in the idea that the audience today virtually has the same instruments at hand as the professional performer, there are undoubtedly spheres in which the specific lack of a certain accessibility precisely inspires new types of creativity, but that is perhaps something to be discussed on another platform.
Proposition: The possibilities of the audience are still very much limited, despite the endless stretching of the concept.
A. vd B., V. M., J. P.  
Bibliography
Fabienne Darling-Wolf (2013), ‘Nomadic Scholarship: Translocal Approaches to Audience Studies’, in: Radhika Parameswaran (ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Media Studies, Volume IV: Audience and Interpretation. Malden & Chichester: Whiley-Blackwell.
Shayla Thiel-Stern (2013), ‘Beyond the active audience: Exploring new media audiences and the limits of cultural production’, in: Radhika Parameswaran (ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Media Studies, Volume IV: Audience and Interpretation. Malden & Chichester: Whiley-Blackwell, pp. 389-405.
Jack Z. Bratich (2013), ‘From Audiences to Media Subjectivities: Mutants in the Interregnum’, in: Kelly Gates (ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Media Studies, Volume VI: Media Studies Futures. Malden & Chichester: Whiley-Blackwell.
Joe Marine (2015) ‘How the Filmmakers Behind Sundance Hit 'Tangerine' Shot on an iPhone & Got Cinematic Results’, nofilmschool.com

[1] Darling-Wolf 2013: 2.
[2] Darling-Wolf 2013: 2.
[3] Bratich 2013: 2.
[4] Bratich 2013: 6-19.
[5] Thiel-Stern 2013: 7.
[6] Thiel-Stern 2013: 7.
[8] Thiel-Stern 2013: 1.
[9] Bratich 2013: 1.

Gepost door op Geen opmerkingen:

maandag 9 november 2015

Humanity washed ashore

Early September we got reminded of the tragical refugee crisis. On the 2nd of september, at least twelve Syrian refugees who attempted to cross the ocean from Turkey to Greece drowned. One of them was the three year old boy who became well known through the iconic photograph that was taken of him after he washed ashore. Before the picture of the boy, lying with his face down on the beach, got published by traditional Western news media, it had to go viral on the internet. The picture, first published by Turkish newspapers, got shared on Twitter by influential people working as correspondents or for human rights associations.[1] In this blogpost we will illustrate how a powerful image of such a tragic event can function as an agenda setting agent for politicians, and the how traditional news media interact with citizens when it comes to violent images. In order to do so we will focus on the circulation of the photo both on- and offline.


After the photograph of the boy named Aylan Kurdi was published in Turkish news papers, influential people started sharing the picture on the same day via Twitter. It didn't took long before the photo went viral with the Turkish hashtag #KiyiyaVuranInsanlik, or Humanity Washed Up Ashore.[2] After discussions inside newsrooms about whether or not to publish these images, the picture appeared on many front pages worldwide on the 3th of September.[3]


Before the picture of the boy was shared online, twelve refugees dying on their way to Europe however wasn't that frontpage worthy. Through mainstream news media we know that there is a refugee crisis going on and we know that there are people dying. However, with the death of the Turkish boy, all of a sudden the refugee crisis was on all front pages. The newspaper The Independent declared that they took the decision to publish these shocking images because, 'among the often glib words about the "ongoing migrant crisis", it is all too easy to forget the reality of the desperate situation facing many refugees.'[4]
Especially the fact that they name remembrance as an important motivation to publish the picture is interesting. According to The Independent, placing a shocking picture seemed an effective way to remember the audience of the desperate situation of many refugees that we otherwise tend to forget. As David Trend in his article But We Can Understand it: Beyond Polemics in the Media Violence Debate puts it:
Media Violence helps us remember the terrible things people can do. This is very important at a time when the immediacy and enormous quantity of information people receive tends to drown anything but the present moment.[5]
He also states that 'memory is an important weapon in guarding against the repetition of human failure'.[6] We would like to state that we needed a picture of an innocent child, victimized by a world he didn't choose to live in, in order to come in action.
While news media are sometimes being accused by wanting to increase their sales by publishing violent pictures, the newspaper The Independent accompanied the story with a petition in order to put the refugee crisis on the political agenda which you can still sign here.[7] Besides the fact that powerful, violent images circulated through various media can be a way of speeding up a negotiation between disagreeing political parties, this example shows that news media themselves even started to actively engage in politics.[8]
David Trend argues that 'images of suffering can turn into objects separated from the thing itself. People look at the images without seeing the actual pain.'[9] We however think that the picture of the boy shows the exact opposite. Let’s make this clear by using the following quote:
Roland Barthes believed that shocking images of human suffering send us the message that horror has already happened and is over. The pictures offer evidence of something the viewer will not experience. “Such images do not compel us to action, but to acceptance. The action has already been taken, and we are not implicated”.[10]
First of all we think that the horror is not over. The death of the boy has taken place, but by seeing this picture we are remembered of the possibility that many refugees will follow if we don't do anything soon. The fact the horror isn't over and that we can and must do something to help these people, in our opinion turns this violent picture in a shocking one. And only after the shocked reactions of citizens regarding the picture, politicians had to follow. On the third of september Dutch prime minister Rutte proclaimed in this interview with broadcasting agency RTL that the migration policy has to be changed.
In the article Representing Death in the Online Age Folker Hanusch writes about the dynamics between citizens and mainstream media when it comes to remembering death. He elaborates on the potential of the participation in news messages by citizens on the internet and calls this ‘Citizen journalism’. He states that Citizen journalism has, especially during war times, the potential to undermine propaganda efforts by governments.[11] As a consequence of the recent arrival of new media, journalism in that way is democratized; As Hanusch states 'In this way, the Internet may provide a space through which the ‘public sphere’ (Habermas, 1989) can be reclaimed from what are deemed all-powerful media corporations.'[12]
Hanusch states that citizen journalism can serve as a tool for crisis communication since people that are on the spot are able to construct images directly.[13] While Hanusch here focusses on the way in which local news content is produced for mainstream media, we would like to argue that this also works the other way around; by sharing the picture of the boy published by Turkish newspapers on social media, people from all around the world show that they are actively engaged with the crisis going on elsewhere. Citizen journalism is not only a powerful tool for critically engaging in mainstream journalism; through citizen journalism, mainstream news media also know what the demand of the public is. 'These so-called citizen journalists are not only challenging the dominance of media organizations, they are also being co-opted by news media to help in the newsgathering process.'[14]
We would like to argue that through sharing the picture of the washed ashore toddler on social media, people from all over the world showed what mattered to them. The picture of the boy shows that shocking images can release a chain reaction from citizen journalists to the news media, and politics. We needed the picture to be reminded again of the refugee crisis in order to come in action. Until the picture will slowly shift to the background of our memories and continue our self-centered lives. Do we then really need another picture to be shocked again?
Proposition: Politicians are more likely to put issues on their political agenda's when citizen journalism plays a big role in the way the news reaches us.
Note for the lecturer: We were having personal troubles in writing about this issue. In a way it felt like misusing the situation by writing about the media industries. Therefore we have decided to leave the text of Lynn Comella out. We however felt like this was an important issue to address, since analyzing it in a media industries perspective allows us to look at the underlying processes of the role of news circulation in politics in this case by both mainstream media and citizens.
Notes:
[1] Mackey, 2015.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Withnall, 2015.
[5] Trend, 2007: 121.
[6] Trend, 2007: 122.
[7] Mackey, 2015.
[8] Trend, 2007: 121.
[9] Trend, 2007: 118.
[10] Trend, 2007: 118.
[11] Hanusch, 2010: 152.
[12] Hanusch, 2010: 147.
[13] Hanusch, 2010: 148.
[14] Hanusch, 2010: 148.
References:

A. vd. B., V. M., J. P.
Gepost door op 5 opmerkingen:

maandag 2 november 2015

The Performance Art of Marina Abramovic in the Culture Industries of a Post-industrial Age

One of the most influential artists in the performance arts is Marina Abramovic (Belgrade, 1946). Since she began her performance career about forty years ago, she has become an icon for her use of her own body as the subject, the object and the medium in her performances. More often than not, those performances test her physical and mental endurance, while also emphasizing audience interaction.[1] Back in 1974, she shocked the art world with her performance Rhythm 0. During this performance, seventy-two objects were laid out on a table, including a rose, a feather, perfume, scissors, a scalpel, a metal bar and even a gun loaded with one bullet. The audience was given instructions to use the objects on Abramovic as they wish. The purpose of the piece, she said, was to find out how far the public would go: ‘What is the public about and what are they going to do in this kind of situation?’ Subsequently, the audience acted in a violent, sadistic and perhaps even an animalistic way.[2] She was stabbed, cut and her clothes were ripped off. When a loaded gun was thrust to Abramovic's head and her own finger was being worked around the trigger, a fight broke out between different members of the audience.[3] Today, Abramovic is still performing. In 2010, she exhibited one of her other famous works at The Museum of Modern Art in New York; The Artist Is Present. Visitors were encouraged to sit silently across from her for a duration of their choosing, thereby becoming participants in the artwork.[4]            
As a case study, we want to analyze the work of this much-discussed performance artist. In his article, cultural scholar Rodríguez-Ferrándiz states that:

‘... the concept of creative industries not only encompasses the cultural products of mass reproduction, but also the arts field and the performing arts, which is frequently excluded from studies of culture industries for being non-reproducible by nature and, for that reason, not industrial.’[5]

As a reaction to this, we find it interesting to focus on this often ‘left-out’ arts field and analyze its cultural products more in-depth. How does the performance arts fit in the culture industries of the post-industrial age Rodriguez-Ferrándiz writes about? And how can concepts like ‘audience interaction’ and ‘prosumerism’, popular within cultural production research, be applied to the work of Abramovic?
Rodríguez-Ferrándiz states that in the post-industrial age, ‘the product itself has become communicative. This means that industry, regardless of its activity, should anticipate and furnish a communicable product’.[6] This very much applies to The Artist is Present (2010) as described earlier. Abramovic becomes the product herself and invites the public to communicate and interact with her and therefore with the artwork. Like Rodríguez-Ferrándiz states, in our current times the user of cultural products:

‘develops an active, not only contemplative role. Intervention is not permitted: it is required, even to the extent of finishing the product to their liking. The user must be capable of intervening in, manipulating and finishing the product. It is therefore not a matter of merely acquiring the product, rather, it is a question of doing something with it: from a cultural experience to a (postcultural?) experiment.’[7]

As a consequence of the (inter)active role of the audience, the ‘author-function’, a concept that according to cultural scholars Kember and Zylinska entails a certain dominance of the author, gets pushed to the back. For Deleuze, the key issue is to actually do that; to push the author to the back, to move beyond the constraints of the individual, by intersecting with different things, by crossing lines that one usually doesn’t cross, for instance by giving the audience the direct power to destroy you, as Abramovic did in Rhythm 0.[8] The dissolution of the author-function can then be considered a form of convergence in this specific case: that of the medium, which is performance-art, the author, and the audience. Like Hay and Coundry state, ‘the focus on the issue of ‘convergence culture’ or ‘transmedia’ perhaps underestimates the many other types of ‘converging’ and it also raises the question whether or not something can still be called performance-art when it can have such serious consequences for the body.[9]
As mentioned earlier, Rodríguez-Ferrándiz states that ‘the user must be capable of intervening in, manipulating and finishing the product.’ Looking at the work of Abramovic, it is striking that the audience does not only interact with the artwork, but to a large extent also creates and finishes it. Would The Artist is Present still be an artwork without the audience participation? Rhythm 0 would have been more like a still life of the artist and the 72 objects if the audience wouldn’t have free access to these objects. In this way, the audience operates as so called ‘prosumers’; the audience does not only consume the cultural product, but produces it as well. Like Rodríguez-Ferrándiz states, prosumerism is ‘the agency of media consumers as amateur producers.’[10] The concept of prosumerism is much used in research on new media nowadays, but can just as well be applied to the more traditional media, like performance arts. In an interview about Rhythm 0, Abramovic says that she realizes that ‘the public can kill you’ when you give them the power.[11] Although Abramovic meant it literally, it can also be a good metaphor for the consequences prosumerism can have on cultural products in a ‘postindustrial age’. Like Rodriguez-Ferrandiz states, although the empowerment of the recipient leads to post-productive (recreational and even creative) cultural practices, it also ignores the traditional experts.[12] When the audience becomes too controlling, will there still be ‘cultural gatekeepers’[13], in Bourdieu’s words, or will the audience eventually control, both implicitly and explicitly, all the cultural production? Although we will not go further into this topic now, this could be an interesting subject for further research on the influence of the audience, both within traditional and new media.
In the work of Abramovic, the use of new media is often absent. Instead of using different kinds of media in her work, she puts herself as the primary medium and object of the performance. Despite this, there is definitely some overlap with the products that are being produced in the traditional, performing arts media and new media, on which the focus often lies in cultural and creative industries research in the post-industrial age. In the work of Abramovic, a clear convergence between the ‘medium’ and the audience can be seen. Furthermore, the audience acts as interactive prosumers and have the power over the cultural product, something we also see happening in new media nowadays. By focussing on the performance arts, which is so often left out in contemporary cultural industries studies, we wanted to show how concepts often used in - post-industrial - culture studies can be used in the more traditional arts. 

A. vd. B., V. M., J. P.

Proposition
How does the performance art of Marina Abramovic fit in the culture industries of the postindustrial age?

marina1
The Artist is Present, 2010

marina2
Rhythm 0, 1974



[3] Frazer, 2012: 125.
[5] Rodríguez-Ferrándiz, 2014: 337.
[6] Rodríguez-Ferrándiz, 2014: 330.
[7] Rodríguez-Ferrándiz, 2014: 333.
[8] Kember & Zylinska, 2012: 178.
[9] Hay and Coundry in Rodríguez-Ferrándiz, 2014: 335.
[10] Rodríguez-Ferrándiz, 2014: 335.
[11] O'Hagan, 2010: x.
[12] Rodríguez-Ferrándiz, 2014: 328.
[13] Rodríguez-Ferrándiz, 2014: 336.


References

Frazer, W. (2012), No Innocent Bystanders: Performance Art and Audience. University Press of New England: New Hampshire.

Kember, S. & Zylinska, J. (2012) ‘Remediating Creativity: Performance, Invention, Critique’, in: Life After New Media: Mediation as a Vital Process. Cambridge: The MIT Press: 173-200.

Rodríguez-Ferrándiz, R. (2014) ‘Culture Industries in a Postindustrial Age: Entertainment, Leisure, Creativity, Design‘, in: Critical Studies in Media Communication, 31, nr. 4: 327 - 341.

O'Hagan, S. (2010). ‘Interview: Marina Abramovic.’ Retrieved at 02-11-2015, from:  http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2010/oct/03/interview-marina-abramovic-performance-artist  

Picture 1

Picture 2












Gepost door op 1 opmerking:
Abonneren op: Posts (Atom)