InstitutionSome media theorists have unfortunately seen fit to muddy the previously clearish waters around the notion of institition. Basic media thinking is that the student never loses sight of the text as commercial product, as something made in order first and foremost to be sold. While consumption of media output is very broad, vast to the point of being global, ownership of the means of most media production is still concentrated in the hands of relatively few members of ruling political, capitalist and/or intellectual elites. There are some minor holes in these ideas (there are independent film and music producers, for instance) but although elsewhere there is the ever-prolific Indian Bombay-based film industry (Bollywood), Hollywood and the giant U.S. music companies still seem dominant global forces.
How the concept of ‘institution’ has been complicated is because the term has been extended to include text in the context of its audience. It can be argued that film or music only exist in the mind of their beholder, as it were, which makes audience consumption and all its variables absolutely crucial. While agreeing with this, I cannot see the need to include this in the concept of ‘institution’.
Grappling with ‘institution’ entails forming an understanding of economic practices such as monopolies, vertical and horizontal integration. The relationship between institution (in the simpler sense), text and consumer, the nature of particular institutions and how they operate are fundamental to media study and are especially important also to AS topic New Media Technologies.
AudienceThis term is something of a misnomer as ‘audience’ strictly-speaking refers to hearing (Latin-’audio’), but there seems no better term available. Also it can be argued that ‘audience’ is used too loosely and bandied about without precisecare. So problems beset this term even before embarking upon the still live issue of whether an audience needs the protection of censorship and certification.
What audience theory was formulated in the earlier part of the twentieth century seems to view texts as being highly-manipulative, audiences as being unquestioning in their consumption of whatever they viewed, instantly open to whatever political or economic messages came their way via the mass media. To illustrate this viewpoint, cultural theorists would cite propaganda films produced by the State in Communist USSR and Nazi Germany, or Orson Welles’ War Of The Worlds wireless broadcast. All of these are deemed to have had significant impact upon audiences. Moving into the 1960s sociologists and media theorists maintained the view of audiences as empty vessels susceptible to adult influences and the urgings of advertisers (I am thinking here of the so called Bobo doll experiment and Vance Packard’s anxieties about consumerism).
Then come the counter theories. The French ‘Cahier’ writers such as Truffaut and Godard had radically altered film theory, re-evaluating and redefining film, raising it to high cultural and artistic status rather than a generator of sleazy low social and sexual standards. Some commentators had even argued that TV watching produced a trance-like effect akin to taking drugs, now media theorists like Marie Davies conversely put forward that TV was an educating medium that stimulated sophisticated textual understanding. ‘Media literacy’ came to be used and is arguably still a contentious issue. Audiences were discussed as being complex, in need of detailed analysis and explanation. Rather than vacant consumers, audience members became active participants in forming meanings and it was recognised that individuals bring all sorts of knowledge and awareness to media products.
Hartley in 1982 listed a number of ’subjectivities’ that help to define an individual:
Self
Gender
Age group
Family
Class
Nation
Ethnicity
This list was added to by John Fiske thus:
Education
Religion
Political allegiance
Region
Urban v. rural background.
Members of an audience bring some or all of these to their consumption of a media text perhaps besides others such as experience and enjoyment of othermedia texts. This enables them to form their own responses to texts. Theory now focuses much more on how audiences use texts, often referred to as ‘uses and gratifications’. According to earlier thinking, audiences were considered too susceptible to ‘preferred’ readings, interpretations in line with the producers’ intentions. Now there is plenty of theoretical room for ‘negotiated’ readings when part only of an intended meaning is accepted and ‘oppositional’ readings when a counter-interpretation (sometimes called an ‘abberant’ reading) is formed.
It is advisable to see audience as a problematic and complex concept. We form audiences for different products. Any one group of people forming an audience is going to have a diverse mixture of media interests and consumption patterns. In a sense there is such potential for a wealth of different understandings (in the widest possible sense of the word) in a given audience for a product, so that a body of people may come away from viewing a film with markedly differing attitudes to what they have seen, that perhaps talk of audience as a unified body of consumers is far too simplistic. Because of this it is possible to argue that in a sense audience does not exist. However, producers of media texts will continue creating markets, i.e. audiences, for their products regardless of our theoretical uncertainty.
CensorshipCensorship in one form or another has long existed in relation to art and writing. Look closely enough and you’ll find sex and violence in ancient myths and legends from Homer to the Bible which then transfer into artistic depictions created in Renaissance times that led at least one Pope to confiscate paintings and imprison artists. All those muscular thighs, exposed virginal bosoms, naked infants encouraging voyeuristic tendencies in holy places, not to mention close encounters with Michelangelo’s works in marble! Protestants, not to be left out, of course prohibited dramatic representation.
Democratisation in art (as in politics) resulted in secular subject matter, ordinary people with ordinary bodies having ordinary experiences. Then along came film, a massively popular medium that the Establishment (the State, the Church, etc.) soon felt needed controlling. Along came the Hays Code in the USA which would seem thoroughly ludicrous to us were it not that there are still allegations (all unproven) about the risks of film disturbing, corrupting, stimulating audiences to maim, rape and kill. This means that there remains much pressure to protect audiences from supposed cinema excess.
We live at a time when many leading commentators find a differentiation between the highbrow and lowbrow in our culture harder to define (as proof, note the increasingly radical and risqué modern interpretations of well-known and established operas as directors strive to appear modern alongside progressive artistic developments elsewhere).
Since the 1950s, film has achieved artistic respectability, although possibly the technical cleverness of modern film, especially CGI, and the over-emphasis on realism could lead film to be accused of latterly going down the road of gimmickry at the cost of deeper filmic engagement and audience satisfaction. If no longer striving to be properly affective, does film still require heavy chaperoning? If all that film can luridly depict and more is available through the Internet in one way or another, is there any point at all any more in its censorship?
RepresentationPut simply, this is the study of the characters in a text, their actions/behaviour and the settings they are placed in. For example, what sort of man is Jerry Maguire presented as being, what kind of world does he inhabit? The world and characters created in a media text are often complex and dynamic. Representational meanings may be created on a number of levels and they react and develop within the narrative.
An actor plays a character in a film through his appearance and voice, gestures, facial and body language, and articulation of the script. The character is created out of these signifiers as well as others such as camera shots and editing. This is how representation is built up. As a concept, representation is perhaps the most fundamental of all media concepts as it encompasses everything to do with visual, auditory, technical and structural meanings that we may or may not find reflect the meanings we attribute to the world we are part of.
We do not so much seek out media representations for reinforcement of our own perceptions of our reality as allow the media to form and shape those perceptions. The process of media representation is complex. Our relationship with such representation text by text is also complex and dynamic, in line with audience theories about preferred, negotiated and oppositional readings. The relationship of mediated reality/realities to the reality we experience around us first-hand is similarly complex and should not be assumed.
Representation cuts across visual, print and music media. Textual producers create a world, a setting and then ‘people’ it with characters, encoding visual and verbal meanings. Fictionalising is of the essence, even with social realist and documentary texts. The producer is responsible for representations created. It is the task of the student to detect and articulate the layers of meaning a text may seem to contain, consider and discuss their artistic, filmic and cultural significances.
What does convergence mean?If you look up the dictionary definition of ‘converge’ you will find something like ‘to move towards or meet at one point’. ‘Convergence’ is the process of moving towards the same point, a coming together, often to create something new.
Convergence isn’t a concept new to Media Studies. Think about the development of cinema: Photographs were first, then a series of linked photographs giving the illusion of movement (film), and then sound was added. Although now taken for granted, the basic technology behind cinema was once considered ‘new technology’. The convergence of the various technologies allowed for a new whole.
Convergence and digital televisionIn terms of your exam, convergence is most usefully observed in digital television. Think about the recently separate technologies that are now important features of many television systems: Television pictures and sound; CD quality, surround sound; interactive, computer-style menus; an Internet connection. This is a very basic outline but as you can see these ‘ingredients’ lead to a much-enhanced experience. Instead of choosing one of five channels, you can now select from hundreds. Instead of watching a football match from the angle the channel selects, you can choose your own. You can even play along to some TV games shows. The expansion of choice doesn’t end there. What about shopping, or banking? Or buying the music you’ve just been listening to? Convergence has benefits for the audience and the television provider.
The audiencePeople may complain about new technology that is too complicated and out of date quickly, but convergence generally means that the audience has more choice, or an enhanced experience, or both. Games consoles illustrate this point. You can have a machine that plays games. Or you can have a machine that plays games, CDs, shows DVD movies, allows you to edit your home video footage and put it on the internet for others to see, record your favourite television programme, connect you with others so you can play against them, and use the Internet. Or at least, in theory you can have a machine that does all this and more. Why? Largely because computer technology has seeped into almost every aspect of our lives. And the future? It won’t be too long before your home has a wireless network delivering high quality digital media around your home with a high-speed Internet connection. Through this system you will be able to download and access music, films and information from any room in your house. If you think this sounds fanciful look up ‘freestyle’ or ‘mira’ on Microsoft’s website. These technologies will make this sort of integration possible, at the same time as significantly altering media consumption habits. Microsoft views the PC as the centre of this technology, whereas others, such as Moxi Digital, see the set top box as the answer. Whichever system becomes the accepted standard, the principal behind it is perhaps the ultimate example of convergence, with computer technology at the heart of the delivery and distribution of all your media consumption.
The institutions
Media institutions have grasped new technologies and the concept of convergence for the benefit of audiences, right? Wrong. One thing drives these institutions: money.
Sony is good example. In offering Playstation 3 it is doing more than selling a games console. It is selling a Sony Blu-Ray DVD player, a Sony stereo system and a Sony system capable of connecting with other Sony products, like a digital camera or a camcorder. If you have a Playstation 3, you can play music by artists signed to the Sony record label, possibly bought over the internet using the Playstation itself. Sony is seeking market dominance and brand loyalty, made easier through convergence. Just like the three letters in the corner of the screen when you watch a certain music channel, Sony products say ‘Sony’ on them so that you know who made it, as does everyone else. Convergence allows a widening of the range of products a company can sell. Who makes a television that works well with a Sony Playstation? In your exam mentioning Sony in any great detail may not be a good idea as everyone else may do the same. However, the principle is easy to see.
Convergence also allows media companies to enter new areas in which they may not have had a strong position. The internet concerns media institutions for a number of reasons. It isn’t regulated, other people are making lots of money using it, and it provides entertainment in a way they don’t usually operate. This list could be longer. Some companies have attempted to solve this problem through convergence, Sky for example. In some ways the internet takes custom from Sky in that people can be entertained in other ways. But what if you are using the Internet through your Sky Digital connection? Sky not only enters the Internet arena, it also finds out where you go, what you like to see and presumably then uses this information to modify its existing output. You pay Sky and it gets free market research. And not just that. News Corp., ultimate owner of Sky now owns MySpace. Not only is the technology convergent but so is the business model.
SummaryConvergence is important because it is a principle that allows the enhancement of many aspects of our lives. It is also important because in many ways it is the future of media studies. How can we consider a film without considering the computer technology used to create part or all of it? Or not look at the newspaper website in conjunction with the newspaper itself? Media companies are also investing heavily in convergent technology. Windows Vista looks likely to extend the reach of the home computer still further into the living rooms of the world. There’s also the PlayStation 3 to consider, as well as mobile phones that can do more than ever, including take photographs, browse the internet, edit videos, and even make voice calls.As the technologies converge (move to one point) so the possibilities become wider.
YouTube is a popular free video sharing Web site which lets users upload, view, and share video clips. Founded in February 2005 by three employees of PayPal, the San Bruno-based service utilizes Adobe Flash technology to display video. The wide variety of site content includes movie and TV clips and music videos, as well as amateur content such as video blogging. Currently staffed by 67 employees, the company was named TIME magazine's "Invention of the Year" for 2006. In October 2006, Google, Inc., announced that it had reached a deal to acquire the company for $1.65 billion USD in Google's stock, the deal closed on 13 November 2006.
