Andrejevic raises some good points in his introduction and first "real" chapter. Namely, that the information we input on the information about ourselves generates valuable data for marketing firms. We, however, cannot access this information, because it "belongs" to the websites on which it was inputed. He calls this the "Digital enclosure".
Adrejevic states that people seem to perceive interactivity of purchasing and online activity as some sort of Duex ex Machina, a solution to all sort of miscommunication between consumer and producer. However, this belief is flawed, and the false gods that we have come to worship are not looking out for our own well being.
Many of Andrejevic's initial points have been touched on by the other readings in class. Thus his arguments are a little predictable, albeit interesting. However, I had a problem with one of his arguments concerning "iCulture". On page 30, he states that with the advent of mashups, "music fans are no longer limited to being passive audiences that merely listen to the music created by their favorite artists". Um...what? Adrejevic acts as if there was some impenetrable iron curtain that surrounded music prior to the mashup phenomenon. Music has always been accessible, it just required leaving your computer seat and messing around on the guitar/piano/sitar or whatever you played. Now I know this is a minor point in the over all context of his book, but that small quote pissed me off, and I'm pretty sure that's what blogging is about: taking little things out of context, making a big deal out of them and being pissed off.
I love your last sentence.
ReplyDeleteAt first, I found myself becoming critical of your post, but then I started thinking about your point regarding the music. I was thinking that Andrejevic made the point about being able to sample and remix and in the context of a critique of those who see this ability as an indication of an entire new kind of participatory creativity. He is acknowledging this point in order to point out how it entraps people in a different set of power of relations from those involved in say, learning to play the guitar or marching in a kazoo band. The computer mediated interactions move our creativity into a digital enclosure, which lets us be monitored and which, weirdly, get us to participate in active marketing to ourselves.
But then I was thinking, clearly Martin knows this. And this made me think more about your example and the passage you cite. Which made me think: either media theorists believe(d) the hype more than anyone else or no one anymore believes the hype/rhetoric of interactive media.
But--this last can't be true: Obamamania, Facebook revolution, the rhetoric about the democratic power of participatory media is everywhere. Andrevich is making a specific argument about how it functions and how it gets us to participate in our submission (build our own prisons).