Creativity and the social
drnic April 18th, 2009
This image was taken from CSU Web Services.
How well does this graphic communicate the social, participatory advantages of online connectivity?
The name of our site privileges the role of the visual and how it relates to the social world – this in fact is one of the main reasons that we got together in the first place. So, we are asking what is the link between creativity and what is visually represented, and how does this relate to the social?
Is creativity to be understood in the sense of ascribing to the standardised Western language of art? If so, does this construct work that is about art itself, i.e., art framed by ideologies and institutions, or about the social world? Is it creativity in the design sense, which arguably also fits within a predetermined ideological framework? Should these differing visual languages be considered as distinct, or rather, what if the social was the central premise for creativity, how can art and design work together productively?
David Gauntlett asks what is the role of creativity and the social in his inaugural lecture, “Participation Culture, Creativity, and Social Change,” from November 2008.
Some of the findings he raises are worth considering as they arguably shift the user from being a passive recipient of information to having an active role in the dissemination of content:
69% of US adults and teens consume citizen media content.
54% of US adults and teens edit their music videos and photos.
32% of people see themselves as broadcasters.
So given these stats, and the amount of time we spend online, on google, wikipedia, social networking sites etc., how can the Figures site construct a space for participation through visual means? Can the visual participation that happens online be made manifest in the physical realm? Maybe the concerns raised in the “Virtual Maps” posting, regarding locative media is one such option.
April 19th, 2009 at 1:11 am
There seem to me to be few words in that ‘cloud’ image that come close to ’social’ or ‘participatory’. Perhaps, ‘Sharing’, ‘Joy of use’ and ‘Accessibility’ have connotations regarding real engagement by human beings. The rest of the cloud seems populated by web-speak; language for e-commerce types looking to make money through the web. Not that there’s anything wrong with that >;-D. In short, it fits very comfortably within a ‘predetermined ideological framework’, as you describe, albeit a recently fabricated one. Your post raises an interesting point then, that part of Figures job might be to help navigate the rather pointy-headed space of the web so that the blog, and its participants, don’t run aground on elite or specialist points of interest that help noone towards a better understanding of important public information.
April 19th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
I’m very interested in the broadcasting side. How people reuse their own and others content and how that develops its own network of creativity. I think this is the early stages in a shift towards a more creative spaces, virtual and physical.
There are so many positives from the existing tools in online media. To me ownership plays a part, when something is placed on the web its for everyone. Google image search may give me a link to the original poster or perhaps owner of the image but I don’t consider them to have ownership. http://faund.net/ a magazine is trying raise value and awareness of found images, and credits the finders not the owners. Perhaps we need to become finders in the physical word and not become so precious of our own work.
April 21st, 2009 at 12:47 am
Stuart as you say, I think it is essential that there are sites that illuminate rather than cloud the issues within specialist jargon. This can be a difficult task given current laws that are attempting to censor information. The key problem is who is making decisions on what is acceptable for public consumption and what is not. Have a look at http://www.efa.org.au/2009/04/20/piratebay/
and the ways censorship is being enacted, how might this impact on the information on Figures?
Uriah’s post is interesting in relation to the discussions on the Faceless Watch post, regarding authenticity and ethics. How far is appropriation acceptable?