User:Jasper van Loenen/RWRM/draft 1

In short:

It seems that with technologies such as the Web 2.0 services the user went from just a receiver to a creator and sender. But is this actually true?

In long:

In Feedback (2007), David Joselit writes about how the Black Panthers in 1972 called for more African American culture on-screen, more ownership of media and a larger role in its regulation - such as though the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). They did so by saying: "From the beginning, those who enslaved and colored us understood that by controlling communications they could control our minds" (Feedback, p.88). By becoming part of the group behind the cameras and the regulation of information, they would be able to have more control over the contents of the broadcasts and such over what the American audience would see on their devices. Access to television, or media in general, could play a large role in their larger political strategy.

A few years later during Ant Farm's "Media Burn" performance - or the "Ultimate Media Event" as the Ant Farm group called themselves - an actor dressed as John F. Kennedy addresses the same issue but in a broader sense and aimed at the American audience as a whole.

"What has gone wrong with America is not a random visitation of fate. It is the result of forces that have assumed control of the American system... These forces are militarism, monopoly, and the mass media... Mass media monopolies control people by their control of information... And who can deny that we are nation addicted to television and the constant flow of media? And not a few of us are frustrated by this addiction. Now I ask you, my fellow Americans: haven't you ever wanted to put your foot through your television screen?"

Ant Farm, Media Burn video report, 13:27

In Guerrilla Television (1971) Michael Shamberg describes a system of alternative networks - as opposed to centralized television networks - which use CCTV to create and connect communities. These networks would enable passive consumers to become video producers themselves and to engage in dialog with their peers. With inventions such as the Portapak - a then small portable video recording system - the tools to do so became available. And even though these systems never reached their full potential

And even though these examples are from the seventies, this craving to be a creator and to share and connect with a community is still as strong. With the rise of the internet and the new tools that came with it - especially with web 2.0 in the early 2000s - it is easier than ever to create, publish and share user generated content. The Portapak has been replaced by a huge range of smaller and better cameras, and websites such as YouTube and Vimeo let you upload your videos and share them over a network with a spread far beyond that of any CCTV network.

So did we finally break free from the corporate networks? We wanted to create our own images, and now we can. We wanted to share our thoughts within a community of peers and respond to theirs, and now we can. Did we actually reach our goal?

According to Richard Serras, “Television delivers people” (Television Delivers People, 1973). When watching television you feel you are being served: you are presented with all the entertainment you can dream of - there is a channel for every topic imaginable - and the broadcast goes on 24/7. But in fact “You are the product of TV.”

“In commercial broadcasting the viewer pays for the privilege of having himself sold.
:It is the consumer who is consumed.
:You are the product of TV.
:You are deliverd to the advertiser who is the customer.
:He consumes you.”

Excerpt from Television Delivers People, 1973

So if we really are the ones in charge now, we shouldn’t be the ones being sold anymore. We should be able to create and share on our own terms.

We get Flickr so we share our photos, we get YouTube so we share our videos and we get Facebook so we share our lives. All of these services allow us to do so - seemingly - for free. Though Facebook, for example, is rumored to go public in the first quarter of 2012 (Facebook IPO Valuation Could Top $100 Billion: Sources, 2011).

We are in control of what we are sharing. You can choose to keep an online diary (blog), tell people what you are doing (tweet) or share interesting things in your life (status update). But we are doing so within a strict framework imposed by parties such as Facebook.

Instead of binding us to the screen to see our favorite film characters drive the cars we might want to own and drink the sodas we might want to taste, we are broadcasting what we already like. Instead of becoming producers, we have become a good that is easier to sell than ever before, this time with a label.

• Joselit, D., 2007. Feedback. Mit Press
• Ant Farm. Media Burn (video report). 1975.
• Wendy Hui Kyong Chun. 2005. Control and freedom
• Richard Serra, Television Delivers People, 1973
• Kate Kelly, 2011, Facebook IPO Valuation Could Top $100 Billion: Sources, cnbc.com/id/43378490