Thoughts on the Immediacy of Online Participatory Media
Mobile phones, personal production and the need to have a voice

Half way through the first year of my undergraduate education at Tisch School of the Arts, the department I entered changed its name; I began majoring in photography and finished my first year majoring in photography and imaging. The irony of the change was initially lost on most incoming students that year, as it was predominantly the case that most of us were too preoccupied with trying to figure out why we were there in the first place. But given the fact that it was 1997, I don’t think any of us could’ve predicted that a change of a name would provoke such impassioned debate over the coming three years. At an art school traditionally focused on the production of the photograph using film, it seemed that many were of the opinion that the use of digital photography would exponentially increase the production and storage of irrelevant, uninspired content by those who would become too lazy to properly invest time and education in the correct use of form, light, space and framing. It was as if the opponents of the digital photograph believed that the widespread access to means of cheaply and quickly producing and editing imagery would create work made simply because it could be rather then with attention to why it should be. And that widespread use of the photographic image in this vain would seriously infect and change the very ability of the photograph to represent both an actual piece of recorded factual history and a representation of the ‘real world’.

As someone who spent most of my time attempting to prove that the photograph was not a means by which actual time and place were immortalized but rather more akin to a portion of memory space where spatial constructions and time constraints were broken through and obliterated, I still found myself initially ascribing to the idea that access to the medium through what I then considered to be broken channels would some how create an atmosphere of problematic confusion. The piece of film was real while the pixels recorded by a digital camera were somehow a fake representation of what could be. Complicating the argument, there was also a deep divide as to what constituted an acceptable use of the photograph, was it “art”. Art was something made in the darkroom with careful considerations, while ‘snapshots’ were taken to keep memories of friends and family, with no significant relationship between the two formally ascribed. This ridiculous identification obviously ignored the social context within which photography had been used since its invention. But it also demeaned the importance of the photograph as one of the most readily available means to produce documented media content at the time, besides the written word, thus completely ignoring any notions of the culture structure within which imagery is identified, defined and emotionally categorized

As with any misinformed theory, my ideas concerning the subject were completely changed in the year 2000 when I had the privilege of being at the opening of what I still consider to be one of the most important photographic exhibits of its time., ‘Collected Visions’ by Lori Novak, current chair of the Photography and Imaging Department at Tisch. The piece was actually something of a video slideshow using found family photographs, although to call it such is undermining its importance. Instead of being rendered in Final Cut, Premiere or a similar software program, it used a piece of software written specifically for its production by a member of the NYU computer science faculty. The piece was hypnotic and intoxicating and incredibly beautiful. But more importantly, it was the beginning of my realization that the content one uses to define a piece of media does not necessarily have to be produced in expensive, time consuming and traditional ways, that the use of found media and the use of video production tools for something other then mimicking film, when united, had the ability to produce something, not only unexpected, but, in my limited opinion, quite culturally significant.

As a photographer stepping into the field of video art and production with little knowledge and relatively no experience, I had the distinct advantage of noticing almost immediately that most of the people doing interesting and relevant work were not traditionally trained filmmakers. Not that there still wasn’t a certain kind of learning curve, but it seemed that when one was able to approach the idea of using video in a interesting way from a perspective outside of the Hollywood movie framework things began to happen. This realization made me think more conclusively about the possibilities surrounding the immediate production of low-end media. I had always conceptualized relevant production of content, be it art or anything else, as coming from a defined source of expertise in a particular field. But what if this was completely wrong? What if it was completely possible, if not preferable, to throw the cumbersome production process out the window and work within a framework of what was available to anyone?

The reason I digress to explain my own frame of reference concerning the production of media is not simply to point out that the debate over the correct use of a new tool for self expression and information transmission, regardless of what it ultimately conveys, is not a new one. But also because it seems remarkably relevant that thinking about participatory and interactive media production and consumption in a an even more connected, networked and technologically advanced future holds the same concerns over access, content, production uses, storage vs. memory and education over proper methods of manipulation, that were relevant argument points in the past. In a time when new advances in technology are accelerating past the speed at which cultural, social and education theories can keep up, it is seems even more urgent to find a complete understanding, not simply as to how people are using and consuming media in different ways, but how relevant the current model is and whether it is heading towards its actual potential and creating different spaces of social importance or simply mimicking what we have already seen. It seems that in the early stages of any new form of media, what begins as new also begins wanting to be what came before it; photography wanted to be painting, video wanted to be film. It was only when the divergence between the different genres occurred on a large scale that the real relevance of the newer form of media became apparent.

As I listen to a podcast on my ipod it feels to me like recorded radio. Not that I am any less interested in consuming such content, but in the sense that it contributes something new to the conversation, I feel that it has perhaps fallen way behind the hype. I feel quite similar when I watch something like Rocket Boom. While, I can respect the mission of creating a different kind of content with low-cost production methods and outside the scope of powerful media giants, it still feels to me like indie films or public access TV. I feel similarly about audio mashups, which remind me of the mix tape culture that became wide spread in the 80’s. This does not necessarily make media produced in this way less relevant as subject matter, but it does make it much less of a step forward and more like treading water. Which makes the real question, how do we avoid reproducing a mass media model and what kind of new media model is appropriate for content publishing online, while still being mindful of the concern that not everything that will be stored and disseminated should be?

Its seems relevant, in the first place, to define the purpose in using a new tool or new model of media production and identify what strengths that tool brings to the equation that were not present before. When it comes to the internet, it seems that its greatest strengths are the ability to mass publish any form of content made by anyone, share that content within networks of people with a unique and very specific kind of immediacy and cause those people to search for and interact with each other in relation to the media they are consuming. When thinking about my own background, specifically in video production, this concept of creation immediacy has always been the most interesting because it makes it possible to capture content, even at the lowest end of the quality spectrum, such as on your cell phone, and make it available for comment or consumption within seconds. The next step, however, which I have struggled with significantly, is to define why this kind of immediacy is interesting. Is it reasonable to believe that the best way to use this technology is to document one’s life in the form of journal style video diaries, which again are more like emails and video chat then new forms of conversation? Privately and within a social network of friends this may be somewhat relevant, but on a larger scale I feel that what is still missing is the context. For instance, old family photos that are unidentifiable to a particular person would probably prove to be rather irrelevant, yet when organized in a particular framework, as they were in ‘Collected Visions’, they become something other then what they are while still existing on that plane because of their particular frame of reference. Simply because I publish a camera phone video, or any video for that matter, does not mean I have done something substantial or interesting. But perhaps in relation to a larger concept of what that video represents I have contributed something to the conversation that changes its pattern.

The next and most relevant question is, do people really want to interact and participate or are they simply happy to sit back and passively accept the media that comes to them. I don’t think its enough to say that because people search out content online means that they are willing to become active participants in creating it. But I do feel that the popularity of blogging and the extraordinary success of social networking sites like myspace prove that a lot of people, regardless of their knowledge of exactly what they are doing, want to have a public voice and face. The fact many people are still misusing these forms of online culture is more because of the lag between education and technology then because they don’t understand the relevance. But I feel that the relevance extends beyond the desire to form an online concept of yourself. The narcissistic tendency to reflect one’s own image rather then look outward to the other is a common fact of discovery; most photographers I’ve known started with self portraits. It is only when we become less fascinated by and more accustomed to creating our own media dialogs that the mass of people creating content will make things that speak to a larger audience rather then to themselves only or those in their extended network of friends. This is exactly what is currently going on for the most part with video blogs. While I can understand the reasons why people feel the need to define the scope of video blogging outside the reference of traditional video uses like art, film and news production, watching someone’s personal video conversations to another person or watching them speak about a specific topic of interest seems very awkward to me and at times painfully so. But I feel that this is not solely due to the personal content but rather because the conversation ends there. Besides the voyeuristic appeal, what would I be able to say about someone’s personal life experience with another person? And more importantly, would I want to become part of this kind of conversation?

Probably the most relevant and overlooked issue, however, which many people seem to think will eventually become an obsolete topic of conversation, although I am far from convinced, is the issue of access and education. The digital divide is a commonly accepted fact, but I think what is not fully understood yet is how dangerous its boundaries within race, economic standing and educational background are if we are to model the new concept of media on the basis that everyone has the ability to have a voice. The major problem with the old media model, obviously, is that it put the power of information and creation in the hands of a select few who most often have hidden agendas of a political or cultural nature. But I would argue that progressing in the way that it has, forums of online media are following that model in shocking ways. Some say that as more young people are made aware of the resources and tools available online and as access to the internet becomes more of a widely recognized advantage in certain cultural groups and more easily obtainable this will change. But I am not convinced that simply providing someone with access and explaining what is available is enough. The manifestation of this problem is extremely significant because many of those who are currently out of the equation are the one’s whose stories, life experiences and opinions are the most ignored and therefore potentially the most interesting when trying to form an accurate view of what has thus far been left out of the dialog.

I don’t think there is a specific answer as to what direction the current model can progress that will address all or even some of these issues, but I think something worth serious consideration is getting people off their computers. By posting content that is derived from some form of sedentary act, editing audio or video or typing blog entries, we are still perpetuating the old forms of media production and, as aforementioned, restricting the access to this production. It is for this reason that I think the future lies in becoming mobile, in creating content on the fly, improvising and remote posting. If we accept that the power of online new media lays its ability to be produced by anyone, at anytime, anywhere with little attention to the restrictions of cost, editing and passing through multiple hands with vested interests, then it seems that what we should be doing is making the way we create and post this media fit this model. I feel that the future lies somewhere in the capability of mobile phones, not simply because of how fast their technological capabilities are progressing or because they allow us to make content immediately out in the world, but because they free us from the need to be concerned about any form of restriction. Content produced by a phone embodies the kind of immediacy that is unique to communication across networks. Mobile phones are also so ubiquitous that they may be the answer to some of the issues surrounding access. I actually know several people who do not own computers in their homes, or even have email addresses, but who upload camera phone pictures to flickr on a regular basis. This is so incredibly significant, because as aforementioned, it is often those outside the sphere of expertise in a particular medium who, because of their nativity or lack of concern for production protocol, are able to push the envelop. It allows those who would otherwise not be able to have a recognizable voice develop one with little need for technical consideration. But more importantly, it takes the power out of the hands of the mass media by allowing anyone at no cost to record a significant event and make it public immediately. A mentor of mine, Phillip Perkis wrote in his book Teaching Photography that,” the hardest thing to do sometimes is to see what something looks like…not what it might mean later, not socially, not politically, not psychology, not sexually, not to name, label, evaluate, like or hate, no memory or desire. Just to see.” Perhaps in being able to remove oneself from the contemplation of meaningful production by making what is there available without it falling through any dirtied hands, even our own conscious ones, it is possible to really improvise and actually see.

This is not to say, however, that there should be no discussion of what something means in a larger context politically or socially. Or that education about what making your content live in a public sphere means is not necessary. I have read too many stories about teenagers whose questionable comments and photographs on places like myspace and friendster have gotten them into serious trouble. And one search through the myriad of blogs online will prove the level and extent of the unnecessary babble. But perhaps this is just an unfortunate result that can be, if not overlooked, at least diminished in importance, if we realize and understand the need to create a system of tagging and searching media content that works. Some say over documentation is not a bad thing, but perhaps it could be when I can no longer find what I’m looking for or no longer trust that the content I’m receiving is accurate. Especially when it comes to video content, it seems that there is a serious need to develop a means to categorize what is available and whether what is available is relevant. After experimenting with some ways to create time-coded video tags and comments using Flash, it became evident to me that it is possible to create a system that search engines and aggregators of this kind of content can understand. But it also seems that these aggregators themselves need to become more far more advanced. Although I no longer subscribe to the idea that the more people making content diminishes its ultimate effectiveness, I do feel that as with anything, it is inevitable that with the increase in interesting and relevant forms of expression, there will be loads more garbage, regardless of how much time and effort is spent in educating people as too what is relevant. Sifting through it in an effective manner has already and will continue to be, the largest challenge when it comes to finding what you want to consume, especially when you yourself are not even sure exactly what you are looking for.

Ultimately, I feel that the production of media outside more traditional channels is something that most people will only accept and ascribe to completely when they understand it and are able to participate in it with little of no learning curve. The large majority of the public is still used to getting their information and entertainment from newspapers, TV and Hollywood. I don’t think its enough to assume that, once more people are made aware that a different kind of content is available online or that as the aggregators of copyrighted content are slowly shut down and the ability to find mass produced material becomes more difficult, people will replace such commonplace media with more original forms. It seems that there needs to be more forums where people can contribute relevant information on the fly, rather then simply writing a personal blog, uploading pictures to a website or forming social networks on myspace. These things are relevant, as stated previously, because they establish that there is the desire for people to form networks of conversation and media consumption. But instead of pushing forward what could be an amazing opportunity to circumvent the current media establishment, I feel they are serving as less of a significant replacement and more of a some-what interesting alternative. It is only when you feel as though you’re part of the larger conversation that the conversation becomes a relevant experience instead of a passive exercise. I think I believe that if given the opportunity people do want to interact in a pertinent manner, but the opportunities to do so have to be something we have not seen before; mobile, accessible, searchable and stored in a manner that is less chaotic. It has to provoke interest and argument to the point where simply wanting to consume will not be enough.