Introduction <ul><li>This research will be derived from as many sources as possible most notably key texts on the subject of new media and participatory culture. My reasons for conducting such research are as follows. </li></ul><ul><li>To further understand what is meant by participatory culture and its implementation in social film. </li></ul><ul><li>A desire to broaden my subject knowledge in the hope that it will allow me to critically evaluate the Inside Experience as a social film. </li></ul>
Personal Connections in the Digital Age By Nancy K. Baym <ul><li>Baym(2010, p.75) considers the term “ ‘community’ to have provided a resonant handle for developers, analysts and even critics as they’ve tried to understand online groups.” She then goes on to identify “… five qualities found in both online groups and many definitions of community that make the term resonate for online contexts. ” These qualities being “space, shared practice, shared resources and support, shared identities, and interpersonal relationships.” </li></ul>
Personal Connections in the Digital Age By Nancy K. Baym continued <ul><li>These selected quotes help me to understand why users participate in projects like the Inside Experience and KillCam: live. Particularly the five qualities Baym suggests are integral for the formation of an online community. Baym(2010,p.74) also asserts a cynical view of businesses' exploitation of online communities stating that “… These technological definitions of ‘community’ appeal to developers and also to marketers… who can create a site, call it a ‘community,’ and hope to reap the benefits of the term’s warm connotations without having to deal with questions of what actually happens on-site.” </li></ul><ul><li>The previous quote makes me question Intel and Toshiba’s intentions in producing the Inside Experience, perhaps to exploit there future community? Although, in there pre-release information there is no mention of a pre-existent community. </li></ul>
Here Comes Everybody By Clay Shirky <ul><li>On the subject of collaborative production, an integral part of ‘social film’, Shirky(2008,p.109) defines it as “ Collaborative production, where people have to coordinate with one another to get anything done, is considerably harder than simple sharing, but the results can be more profound. New tools allow large groups to collaborate, by taking advantage of nonfinancial motivations and by allowing for wildly differing levels of contributions. </li></ul><ul><li>This quote proves to be excellent when considering collaborative production such as the Inside experience or KillCam: live, suggesting that producing media content in this fashion is far more difficult than simply delivering the product to the audience. This is palpable in projects such as KillCam: live where complete immersion in the experience is required to gain maximum satisfaction. However, Shirky goes on to infer that content produced collaboratively is far more profound than merely uploading the product for viewers to passively watch. </li></ul>
Reservoir Hill and Audiences for Online Interactive Drama By Hardy ET AL <ul><li>On the subject of ‘interactivity’ Kiousis (2002, p. 379) as cited by Hardy ET AL(2011, p622), suggests that “ Interactivity can be defined as the degree to which a communication technology can create a mediated environment in which participants can communicate (one-to-one, one-to-many, and many-to-many) both synchronously and asynchronously and participate in reciprocal message exchanges (third-order dependency). With regard to human users, it additionally refers to the ability of users to perceive the experience to be a simulation of interpersonal communication and increase their awareness of telepresence.” In the context of social film this claims that a project’s interactivity depends on it’s success to imitate and reproduce interpersonal communication and the opportunities it provides to participate in a collaborative production. </li></ul>
Reservoir Hill and Audiences for Online Interactive Drama By Hardy ET AL continued <ul><li>Green, Brock and Kaufman (2004, p.323), as cited by Hardy ET AL(2011, p630), propose that “Interactive media may be particularly transporting, and thus particularly enjoyable, forms of entertainment because they allow users to easily leave their physical and psychological realities behind and become fully immersed as an active participant in the narrative of an alternative, ‘virtual’ reality.” </li></ul><ul><li>Within this quote Green, Brock and Kaufman describe the appeal of ‘social film’, suggesting that by allowing users to become “active participants in the narrative of an alternative, ‘virtual’ reality” they force the user to become fully immersed in the text and thus gain a greater enjoyment from the project. </li></ul><ul><li>This quote also highlights the similarity between ‘social film’ and ARG’s (alternate reality games), or suggests that ‘social film’ itself often resembles an alternate reality game. </li></ul>
New Media: A Critical Introduction By Lister ET AL <ul><li>When considering whether the Inside Experience and KillCam: live is ‘social film’ or just ‘web drama’, Lister ET AL(2009, p,230) opinions prove indispensable. “The Web Drama is typical – short regular narrative based episodes that emulate or remediate TV drama forms but also address the particular possibilities of the web by creating communities of fans who can spend time online interacting with one another and within the story world” </li></ul><ul><li>Both the Inside Experience and KillCam: live conform to this description of Web Drama. However, the Inside Experience’s production, that each episode was pre-recorded months before its eventual release, disqualifies it somewhat from being described as Web Drama. In contrast, KillCam live’s constant streaming model of production leads it to define itself as Web Drama, with participants interacting with the victim in real time. </li></ul>
New Media: A Critical Introduction By Lister ET AL continued <ul><li>The previous quote has led me to question ‘social film’ as a concept. Fundamentally it presents itself as almost identical to what Lister ET Al describe as Web Drama. Although, to consider ‘social film’ as an entirely new concept would be naïve. It is in fact an amalgamation of pre-existing new media technologies such as ARG’s and Web Drama, meaning that participants are already familiar with the components of ‘social film’ and are simply required to consider it a new means of film production. </li></ul>
Conclusion <ul><li>The research I have undertaken has proven extremely helpful in aiding my understanding of ‘social film’, interactivity and participatory culture as abstract concepts. </li></ul><ul><li>In completing this research I find myself with a deeper subject knowledge and the confidence to think critically about the minor assignment. In addition, the research will assist me in drawing astute and perceptive conclusions on what is ‘social film’. </li></ul>
References <ul><li>BAYM, N. K. (2010) Personal Connections in the Digital Age . Cambridge: Polity. </li></ul><ul><li>HARDY, A., HIGHT, C. and MICHELLE, C. (2011) Reservoir Hill and Audiences for Online Interactive Drama . Participations , 8 (2) , pp.616-643. </li></ul><ul><li>KIUOSIS, S. ‘Interactivity: a concept explication’, New Media & Society , 2002, 4:3, pp 355-383 </li></ul><ul><li>LISTER, M. (et al.) (2009) New Media: A Critical Introduction (2 nd Edition) .London and New York: Routledge. </li></ul><ul><li>SHIRKY, C. (2008) Here Comes Everybody . London: Allen Lane. </li></ul><ul><li>. </li></ul>
References continued <ul><li>GREEN,M., BROCK,T. and KAUFMAN,G.(2004) ‘Understanding media enjoyment: The role of transportation into narrative worlds’. Communication Theory , 14:4, pp. 311-327 </li></ul>
A particular slide catching your eye?
Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.