> On Thu, January 22, 2009 6:08 pm, Philip Pilkington wrote:
>
> >> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/the-end-of-ownership-cu
> >> lture/?partner=rss&emc=rss
> >>
> > How would those producing these things be able to fund them? We've got
> > Hollywood, not MosFilm.
>
> Don't worry, Russia's developmental state is funding great films these
> days, via state-owned TV. And the hegemony of Hollywood is vastly
> overrated. Videogames and interactive media are taking over with amazing
> speed, and there are indeed information socialisms emerging all around us.
>
> Where I disagree with Wired's techno-utopianism is the notion that the
> digital commons frees us from politics, which is a crock. In fact, the
> commons is creating new and interesting kinds of politics, ways of
> mobilizing and ways of being mobilized, and new collective
> property-relations. Some leading videogame franchises are already being
> driven largely by fans, and not by advertisers or console manufacturers.
>
> -- DRR
>
Yeah, I know about the fan-interaction thing and I have to say its as ambiguous as any such phenomenon. It can just as easily produce Pop Idol as it can anything decent. The very idea of democratizing the production of culture has always been dubious. I'm most content when I'm playing/watching/listening to something different and when all is said and done this is most often the case when the product in question has been created by putting someone in charge of its development - the video game industry is a striking example here; its very democratic and also very repetitious.
Put it this way: have you ever been in a band? And if you have have you ever ensured the atmosphere was democratic? If you have you'll know the result: jam band or tribute band... I'm not saying fan-interaction isn't completely uninteresting, but fans don't know what they want, otherwise they'd make it themselves! Fans want "The Godfather part XX" not "Apocalypse Now!". Why? Because "Apocalypse Now!" doesn't exist yet!
As for the notion of the "technological commons" I don't buy into it. I can visit my local park as commons because their integration into the private commodity market is very loose. Cultural products, of whatever variety, are deeply integrated into this market. And if they're given away for free then the people that are going to have to make them are going to have to do so on a tiny budget and probably part-time. The result? They'll be completely mediocre. I remember a friend of mine desperately wanted to enter a certain short-story competition. Unfortunately he was, at the time, working in a government office typing up boring letters in order to get some cash together. The cause of the writer's block which made certain that he would be unable to enter the competition was material...