In Mark Deuze's article "Convergence Culture in the Creative Industries" the author gives several case studies of what he considers "convergence" technologies. These are systems that stand the traditional dichotomy between "consumer" and "product" on its head. He gives the examples of citizen journalism, video games in which players can create their own games, and viral marketing campaigns where consumers become the advertisers, as case studies where this type of convergence is used.
Deuze made me think about how this "convergence" technology can also be used to get everyday, law-abiding citizens to take pleasure in committing crimes. I'm talking about the GraffitiWriter Robot.
You probably haven't heard of the GraffitiWriter or the Institute for Applied Autonomy, but I would suggest that everyone check out a video of their project:
http://www.appliedautonomy.com/gw.html
Graffiti is a type of global media we haven't discussed in class, but I don't see why it shouldn't deserve the same treatment as more serious media, like Ugly Betty. The Institute for Applied Autonomy, an anarchist group that works with robots, has come up with an invention that changes the relation between spectator and tagger when it comes to graffiti.
The group made a machine that "inverts the traditional relationship between robots and authoritarian power structures," according to their video. They found that, by attaching spray paint cans to a cute remote-controlled robot, you could entice people walking by, many of whom would never consciously commit a crime, to spray paint graffiti on the sidewalk. When people are given an active role in using the technology, they no longer think of it as a "crime."
This shows the way in which people can become empowered when they stop becoming passive consumers of media and start taking an active role in its co-creation. Girl Scouts, city workers, and even police were lured into creating graffiti by the robot. The little robot is redefining the definition of what "public" space is and what an "artist" is. And he's really cute.
Oooh... Robots are one of the few things, along with vampires and Sigourney Weaver, that both turn me on and scare me. This post turns me on for two reasons:
ReplyDeleteFirst, because I love the way you've brought a very nontraditional form of media, graffiti, into the discussion. Of course it's media! Whether it's for artistic, subversive or informative purposes, or just to advertise PBR like it is in my hometown, graffiti is a medium of expression, and I think we really do ourselves a disservice by narrowing our studies to the obvious choices. Two chugs to you for helping us think outside the box.
Second, because I love "cute remote-controlled robots."
However, this post also scares me—a lot. It scares me because there's something very sinister hidden here; something you seemed to gloss over completely: the fact that, simply by adding a cute robot intermediary, IAA was able to entice people who "would never consciously commit a crime" to begin their tagging careers. The whole idea brings back bad memories of Stats class and Stanley Milgram's obedience experiment. If all you've got to do to get people to break the law is separate them from the act by one degree with a piece of technology, what are the implications for our tech-obsessed society? Will walking around with my earbuds practically glued in make me more likely to push the next person on the escalator who stands on the "walk" side to their death, "Showgirls"-style? (Okay, she didn't die, but it did screw up her career as a showgirl.) And don't even get me started on the way drones dehumanize warfare.
What I'm saying is, maybe we need to reconsider the way we think of "information and communication technologies." What if they're just helping us exchange information, and not helping us to truly "communicate" at all?